Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . (1) Surender Kumar Kaushik on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT): CBI01: CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CC No.: 02/2012
CNR No.: DLCT010008452012
Registration No.: 532304/2016
CBI Vs. (1) Surender Kumar Kaushik
S/o Late Laxmi Chand
R/o D183, Karampura,
New Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Smt. Santosh Kaushik
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik
R/o D183, Karampura,
New Delhi
(Convicted)
RC No.: 24(A)/ 2010
Police Station: CBI/ ACB/ EW/ New Delhi
Under Sections: Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with
Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Date of Institution: 21.06.2012
Judgment Reserved on: 11.04.2018
Judgment Delivered on: 21.04.2018
JUDGMENT:
(1) The accused Surender Kumar Kaushik, the then Junior Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and his wife Smt. Santosh CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 1 of 364 Kaushik were sent up to face trial for the offences under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 since they and their family members were found in possession of the assets to the tune of Rs.84,37,204.03p which is about 51.36% disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which he cannot satisfactorily account.
Brief Facts/ Case of the prosecution:
(2) The present case was registered on 31.05.2010 on the basis of source information to the effect that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik who had joined service in Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 19.02.1986 amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.43,12,405/ from his known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for. The accused Surender Kumar Kaushik was born on 20.01.1961 comes from a moderate background and his father Sh. Laxmi Chand was working as Supervisor in Folding Department in Swatantra Bharat Mill (sister concern of DC) and took VRS in the year 1990. Sh. Laxmi Chand had expired on 13.03.1996 and his wife Smt. Raj Kishori (mother of accused Surender Kumar Kaushik) had expired on 14.02.2008. The accused has one brother namely Sh. Ravi Kaushik and one sister namely Promila Sharma who are having their own independent sources of income. The accused married Smt. Santosh Kaushik D/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 2 of 364 in the year 1986 and the couple has two sons i.e. Pulkit Kaushik and Hardik Kaushik and one daughter Divya Kaushik. At the time of filing of the charge sheet, Sh. Pulkit Kaushik had completed the bachelor of Engineering from Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Faridabad;
Hardik Kaushik was studying in Hansraj Model School and Divya Kaushik was doing B.E. in Surajmal Institute of Technology, Janakpuri, Delhi. During investigations, the accused revealed that his father Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik was running parallel business of property dealer and his wife Smt. Santosh Kaushik was having separate incomes from the properties. The accused also revealed that his father in law Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma had retired from the post of Superintendent in Education Department, Delhi and his brother in law Sh. Lalit Narayan is having separate business of property dealer. Investigations also revealed that Smt. Raj Kishori was dependent upon the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik.
(3) As per the allegations, the check period has been taken as 19.02.1986 (date of joining) to 01.06.2010 (i.e. the date of conducting search). It has been alleged that the assets of the accused at the beginning of the check period i.e. on or before 19.02.1986 was Rs.45,600/; the total moveable/ immovable assets acquired by the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik in his name, in the name of his wife Smt. Santosh Kaushik and in the name of his sons Pulkit Kaushik, Hardik Kaushik and Divya Kaushik during the check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010, were worth Rs.1,33,37,440/; the assets acquired during the check period comes to Rs.1,32,91,840/; the total CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 3 of 364 income of the accused and his family members was found to be Rs.1,64,24,435.63p; the expenditure incurred by the accused and his family members was Rs.1,15,69,799.66p and the likely savings of the accused was found to be Rs.48,54,635.97p. As per the allegations, the investigations revealed that the evidences collected confirmed that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik while working as Junior Engineer in the MCD during 1986 to 2010 was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.84,37,204.03p in his name and in the name of his family members which was disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account for. The investigations further revealed that most of the immovable properties acquired during the period 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010 were in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik W/o S.K. Kaushik who was actively helping him in all the financial transaction and there is no satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate assets acquired by her husband in her name. According to the prosecution, the evidence and the documents collected during investigations established that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) has amassed assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for and has committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and his wife Smt. Santosh Kaushik has abetted and facilitated her husband to commit offence of criminal misconduct defined under Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 4 of 364 (2) of the said Act and hence she has committed the offence under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the sanction for prosecution in respect of the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik has been obtained.
CHARGES:
(4) Order on charge was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 16.07.2014 pursuant to which charges under Sections 13(e) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was settled against the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) whereas charges under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (e) and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were settled against the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2). (5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the list of documents admitted by the accused, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the defence and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses examined by the prosecution and defence:
Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 1. PW1 Ms. Kiran Dabral Official Witness Additional Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation. 2 PW2 Ms. Sudha Kapoor Official Witness Officer, Punjab National Bank, Fire Station, Rajender Nagar Branch, New Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 5 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 3 PW3 Sh. HariKisan Gupta Official Witness Company Secretary, Oswal Chemical and Fertilizers Limited 4 PW4 Sh. Neeraj Bali Public Witness who had sold the properties bearing Plot No. A83 & A84, Sector07, Palam Extension, New Delhi to the accused 5 PW5 Sh. Vinod Kumar Official Witness Clerk in Record Section, Sharma MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 6 PW6 Sh. Salil Kumar Official Witness Assistant Manager, Delhi Stock Exchange, 7 PW7 Smt. Anjana Rastogi Official Witness Asstt. Manager at Najafgarh Road Branch of State Bank of India, New Delhi
8. PW8 Sh. Narender S. Bedi Official Witness Coordinated in Hans Hyundai at 691A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
9. PW9 Sh. H.C. Doria Official Witness Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi 10 PW10 Sh. Dinesh Sharma Official Witness Head Clerk, MCD (Engineering Department), Town Hall, Delhi 11 PW11 Sh. Neeraj Pant Official Witness LDC, MCD (Building Department), (West Zone), Rajouri Garden, Delhi 12 PW12 Sh. Dharmender Official Witness Tax Assistant in the office Kumar of Commissioner of IncomeTax, Delhi5, at C.R. Building, ITO, New Delhi 13 PW13 Sh. T.A. Menon Official Witness UDC in the office of Sub RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 14 PW14 Sh. Sunil Kumar Official Witness UDC in the office of Sub RegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 15 PW5 Sh. B.K. Puri Official Witness Assistant Labour Commissioner, District West, Labour Department 16 PW16 Ms. Payal Sethi Official Witness Commercial Officer, Office of DGM, BSES, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 6 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 17 PW17 Sh. Rajender Singh Official Witness Inspector, Income Tax, Ward25, DBlock, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 18 PW18 Sh. Bhupender Singh Official Witness Income Tax Officer, Ward 41, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi 19 PW19 Sh. Hemraj Official Witness Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, GNCTD, South West District, Palam Zone, Janakpuri, New Delhi 20 PW20 Sh. S.R. Singhal Official Witness MLO, North Zone, Mall Road, Transport Department, Delhi. 21 PW21 Sh. P.N. Arora Official Witness Chief Corporate Officer of Akash Institute, I.I.T.J.E.E., at plot No. 4, Sector11, Akash Tower, Dwarka, New Delhi 22 PW22 Sh. K.M. Ved Official Witness U.T.I. Assets Management Company Limited, as Vice President, Vigilance Cell, at Mumbai 23 PW23 Sh. Naveen Kumar Official Witness Businessman into manufacturing of 'Bindi' at J21, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, New Delhi 24 PW24 Sh. Manish Nayyar Official Witness Businessman Contractor having Office at 1646, Subash Nagar, New Delhi 25 PW25 Sh. Rajeev Malhotra Public Witness Property Dealer, at Fun Cinema, Moti Nagar, New Delhi 26 PW26 Sh. Surender Kumar Public Witness Subbroker of M/s. Adinath Narang Capital Services Ltd., having office at 10, Paschim Enclave, Near Peeragarhi Chowk, Delhi 27 PW27 Sh. Tarif Singh Public Witness Businessman Bricks Supplier, in the name of Vishal Bhatta at Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar Road, Village Dabodha 28 PW28 Sh. S.R. Aggarwal Official Witness Agent for Post Office Agency Work 29 PW29 Sh. Arjun Kumar Official Witness Director, L.R. Builders Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 7 of 364
Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description
No. No.
30 PW30 Ms. Kanupriya Official Witness Relationship Manager in
Aggarwal ING Vysya Bank in the Wealth Management
Division
31 PW31 Ms. Dhiraj Chhabra Official Witness Administrative Officer in
Branch 129, Moti Nagar, LIC, New Delhi 32 PW32 Sh. Naveen Kumar Official Witness Employee at 5E, Rani Sharma Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 33 PW33 Sh. Jhaggar Singh Official Witness Public Relation Officer at GPO, New Delhi 34 PW34 Sh. Bhagmal Singh Official Witness Account Officer, MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 35 PW35 Sh. Surender Singh Official Witness Office Assistant in Narwal Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, C4, Janakpuri, Delhi 36 PW36 Sh. Sanjay Sharma Official Witness Manager, Legal Cell, ICICI Bank, NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi 37 PW37 Sh. Arun Sharma Official Witness Branch Manager at Satellite Branch of LIC, at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi 38 PW38 Sh. Lalit Narain Public Witness - Brother of the accused Sharma Santosh Kaushik and Property Dealer at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi.
39 PW39 Sh. Hansraj Arora Public Witness Owner of Hotel Vaishnav Raj Hotel at Gali Mochia, Paharganj, New Delhi 40 PW40 Sh. Arun Kumar Official Witness Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Jindal Board 41 PW41 Sh. Manuj Chadha Official Witness Assistant Administrative Officer in Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Sector43, Arawali Hills, Faridabad 42 PW42 Sh. Rajesh Jain Public Witness Owner of Jewellery showroom at Karol Bagh, New Delhi, under the name and style of New Kusal Jewellers CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 8 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 43 PW43 Sh. Brij Mohan Official Witness Secretarial Officer, Oswal Paliwal Greentech Limited (erstwhile Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Limited), at 7th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi 44 PW44 Sh. Amrender Kumar Official Witness GradeII Labour Inspector Singh in the office of Labour Commissioner, 5 Shamnath Marg, Delhi 45 PW45 Sh. Shailender Official Witness General Manager in Kumar Dewan Motors, having its head office at Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi 46 PW46 Sh. Ved Prakash Official Witness Sub Registrar Punjabi Bagh Sub District, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Nangloi Delhi41 47 PW47 Sh. Krishan Kumar Official Witness LDC, Record Keeper, in the office of SubRegistrarII, Janak Puri, New Delhi 48 PW48 Sh. Mahesh Dhar Official Witness SubRegistrar DehradunII Dwivedi 49 PW49 Sh. Jai Malhotra Official Witness Computer Operator, Hans Raj Model School, Road No. 73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 50 PW50 Sh. Sri Ram Official Witness Zonal Inspector, Property Tax Department, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi 51 PW51 Sh. Ravi Kaushik Official Witness - Brother of accused S.K. Kaushik / Manager, Grand Celebration Banquet Hall, at Pitampura, New Delhi 52 PW52 Inspector Anil Bisht Official Witness Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi 53 PW53 Inspector Brij Mohan Official Witness Inspector in ACB, CBI, Meena New Delhi 54 PW54 Sh. V. Krithivasan Official Witness Branch Operation and Services Head in ING Vysaya Bank, at Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi 55 PW55 Sh. Pawan Singh Official Witness Nodal Officer CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 9 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 56 PW56 Sh. N. K. Mahajan Official Witness Assistant Engineer (Civil), in PWD, in the office of M132 Division, Tihar Jail, New Delhi 57 PW57 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Official Witness SubRegistrar1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 58 PW58 Sh. Praveen Kumar Official Witness - Record Keeper Office of Rana Sub Registrar - 1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 59 PW59 Sh. Suneet Sharma Official Witness Dy. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Noida, Sector18 Branch 60 PW60 Sh. Daulat Ram Official Witness Record Keeper, Sub Kashyap Registrar OfficeIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 61 PW61 Sh. Himanshu Official Witness Surveyor who conducted Survey of Colony, DBlock, Karampura, Delhi, carried out w.e.f. 03.06.2005 to 11.06.2005 62 PW62 Sh. D. C. Sharma Official Witness Assistant Director (Admn.), GPO, New Delhi 63 PW63 Sh. Hemant Official Witness Brought the summoned record of vehicle bearing registration No. DL2CV 0049 64 PW64 Sh. Bhim Singh Official Witness Branch Manager, Bank of Singal Baroda, Karampura Branch, New Delhi 65 PW65 Sh. R.M. Sati Official Witness Sr. Branch Manager, in Bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, New Delhi 66 PW66 Ms. Surekha Official Witness Assistant Post Master, Bhardwaj GPO, New Delhi 67 PW67 Sh. Roop Chand Official Witness Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, Head Post Office from February 2012 to June 2014 68 PW68 Sh. Mohan Lal Official Witness Sub Post Master at Paschim Vihar, Delhi from 31.01.2011 to 31.01.2014 69 PW69 Sh. A.K. Mahajan Official Witness Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 10 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 70 PW70 Sh. M.R.V. Official Witness General Manager in Karvy Subrahmanyam Computershare Private Ltd. 71 PW71 Sh. P.N. Kaushik Official Witness Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (3), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 72 PW72 Sh. Lalit Kumar Official Witness Chief Manager, State Bank Gupta of India, Nagajgarh Road Branch, New Delhi 73 PW73 Sh. Sunil Bhatia Official Witness Company Secretary at Delhi Stock Exchange 74 PW74 Mrs. Geeta Batra Official Witness Assistant Chief Accountant, GPF Section, Third Floor, Dr. S.P. M., Civic Center, New Delhi 75 PW75 Sh. Sameer Vats Official Witness Data Entry Operator, Sub Registrar Office VIA, Pitampura, Delhi 76 PW76 Sh. Sachinder Official Witness Assistant Electoral Chaudhary Registration Officer, AC27, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 77 PW77 Sh. Vivek Yadav Official Witness LDC office of the Sub RegistrarII, Basai Darapur, Delhi 78 PW78 Sh. Surender Singh Official Witness Sub RegistrarII, Janakpuri 79 PW79 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Official Witness Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC Branch No. 129, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, Delhi 80 PW80 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Official Witness Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC Branch No. 11E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 81 PW81 Ms. Shalini Official Witness Sr. Manager in the UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch 82 PW82 Ms. Sushma Drabu Official Witness Director at Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Pharmacy 83 PW83 Ms. Neha Saxena Official Witness Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.
Punjabi Bagh Branch 84 PW84 Sh. Ganesh Official Witness Sr. Manager in 3i Infotech Dandapani Iyer Limited, Tower #5, 3rd Floor, International Infotech Park, Vashi, Navi Mumbai CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 11 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 85 PW85 Sh. Santosh Official Witness Computer InCharge in Thankappan M/s. Akash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. 86 PW86 Ms. Purnima Nangia Official Witness Employee (Red.) Hans Raj Model School, Road 73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 87 PW87 Sh. Ganeshi Lal Official Witness Registrar, Manav Rachna Sagar College of Engineering, Faridabad 88 PW88 Smt. Neelima Jindal Public Witness who had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori in respect of flat no. B4, Radha Bhawan Estate, New Circular Road, Mussorie 89 PW89 Sh. Raman Deep Official Witness Branch Operations and Singh Service Head, ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Karol Bagh 90 PW90 Sh. Hitender Official Witness ITO Ward41 (5), Civic Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi 91 PW91 Sh. Anil Arora Official Witness Assistant Finance Officer, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26 92 PW92 Sh. Vikas Kumar Official Witness Inspector in ACB, CBI, Pathak New Delhi 93 PW93 Sh. Naveen Gandas Official Witness Lifter in Department of Archive Defence Witnesses: 94 DW1 Smt. Neelam Grover Public Witness Family friend of the accused who had given a loan to Smt. Raj Kishori 95 DW2 Sh. Sansar Singh Public Witness Family friend of the accused Hooda on whose assurance a loan was given to Smt. Raj Kishori 96 DW3 Sh. Anand Singh Public Witness - Brother in law of DW2 Sh.
Sansar Singh Hooda who had given a loan to Smt. Raj Kishori 97 DW4 Smt. Chitra Sharma Public Witness Younger sister of late Smt. Raj Kishori CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 12 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 98 DW5 Sh. Satish Sharma Public Witness - Brother of Smt. Santosh Kaushik 99 DW6 Sh. Shiv Kumar Public Witness - Father of Smt. Santosh Sharma Kaushik 100 DW7 Smt. Promila Public Witness - Sister of accused S.K. Bhardwaj Kaushik 101 DW8 Sh. Anup Nayyar Public Witness Property Dealer / Partner of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand 102 DW9 Sh. Rahul Sharma Official Witness Sales Manager, Ms.
Cantabil Retail India Ltd. Having its office at B16, Lawrence Road, New Delhi.
103 DW10 Sh. Vikas Official Witness Single Window Operator in Oriental Bank of Commerce Karampura, New Delhi.
104 DW11 Mohd. Shahjab Official Witness Assistant Sales Manager in Axis Bank, Kirti Nagar, Branch.
105 DW12 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Official Witness Dy. Manager in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Central Zone, with office of CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi.
106 DW13 Sh. Devi Prasad Official Witness Sr. Assistant in DCM Semwal Financial Services having its office at D73, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi20.
107 DW14 Sh. Shailendra Official Witness Business Associate, Bank Kumar Singh of Baroda, Branch Karampura, New Delhi. 108 DW15 Sh. Nishant Saurav Official Witness from LIC who has brought the summoned record relating to LIC mutual fund bearing folio No. R1001088 of Smt. Raj Kishori.
109 DW16 Sh. Sudish Kumar Official Witness Field Boy in Lovkush Ram Leela Committee (Regd.) having its office at 8233, Rani Jhasi Road, Near Filimistan Cinema, Delhi06 110 DW17 Sh. Praveen Kumar Public Witness who has identified the signatures of his father Sh. Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 13 of 364 Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description No. No. 111 DW18 Sh. Lalit Arora Official Witness Public Relation Inspector (Post) at GPO New Delhi.
112 DW19 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Official Witness Public Relation Inspector (Post) at the Nangloi Post Office.
113 DW20 Sh. R.K. Vashishth Official Witness Assistant Post Master at Ramesh Nagar, Delhi.
114 DW21 Sh. Navin Malhotra Official Witness Manager, PP Jewellers 115 DW22 Sh. Nirbhay Singh Official Witness AAO in LIC Branch 129, situated at Karampura, Delhi.
116 DW23 Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Official Witness Assistant Manager in OBC Vasant Vihar New Delhi 117 DW24 Sh. Alok Kumar Official Witness Manager (Facilities) at ICICI Securities Ltd. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
118 DW25 Sh. Anup Singh Official Witness Record keeper in the office of SRII, Kashmere Gate 119 DW26 Sh. Naveen Official Witness Record Keeper in Department of Delhi Archives, 18A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Spl. Institutional Area, New Delhi 120 DW27 Sh. Purushottam Official Witness Senior Manager, Syndicate Kumar Kaushik Bank, Kirti Nagar Branch 121 DW28 Sh. Harshit Anand Official Witness Scale1 Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Jwalaheri Branch, New Delhi. 122 DW29 Sh. Hitender Official Witness Tax Assistant in Ward 41 (5) Civic Centre Office of Principal CIT, New Delhi.
123 DW30 Sh. Ramphal Official Witness Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India, Sultanpuri, New Delhi 124 DW31 Sh. Rakesh Negi Official Witness Inspector in Income Tax Department Circle 40 (1), New Delhi situated at Civil Centre, 17th Floor, Minto Road, New Delhi.
125 DW32 Sh. Sevajit Official Witness Record Attendant,
Department of Delhi Archives
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 14 of 364
Sr. Witness Name of Witness Description
No. No.
126 DW33 Sh. Daulat Ram Official Witness Record Keeper in the office
Kashyap of sub RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali, Road, Delhi
127 DW34 Sh. Nishant Saurav Official Witness Branch Manager of LIC
Mutual Funds, 25, Kasturba Gandhi, Marg, New Delhi 128 DW35 Sh. H. Surya Prakash Official Witness Branch Head, M/s. M.N. Dastur & Company Limited, 232B, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Estates, PhaseIII, New Delhi110020.
129 DW36 Sh. Hitender Official Witness Tax Assistant in the Office of Principal Commissioner, Income Tax14, Civic center, Minto Road, New Delhi 130 DW37 Sh. Udit Sharma Public Witness who had purchased property bearing no. A44 (Double Storey), Palam Extension PartI, Sector7, Dwarka, Delhi from Smt. Santosh Kaushik for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/.
List of documents admitted by the accused:
Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
1. P1 D4 Letter dated 25.3.10 of S.K. Kaushik to AO, MCD Town Hall for issuance of certificate of acquirement of Property No. WZ246/1 Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in the name of his wife.
2. P2 D4 Reply of letter No.HC/PR/Engg/HQ/09/S49/2237 dated 27.07,09 to AO, Town Hall MCD Delhi.
3. P3 D4 Copy of Death Certificate of Raj Kishori W/o Laxmi Chand
4. P4 D4 IPR as on 31.12.08 (Property at No. Uttam Nagar, Mundaka, Palam, Rangpuri), filed by S.K. Kaushik
5. P5 D4 IPR as on 31.12.08 (Property No. D191 Karampura,) filed by S.K. Kaushik.
6. P6 D4 IPR as on 31.12.08 (Property No. L.R. Complex, Filmistan Karol Bagh, Mussoorie) filed by S.K. Kaushik.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 15 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
7. P7 D4 IPR of years 2005,2006,2007, filed by S.K. Kaushik.
8. P8 D4 Copy of Will of Smt Raj Kishori W/o Laxmi Chand dated 08.09.2003 regd. at SRII Janak Puri Vide No.3862 dated 23.07.13
9. P9 D4 Intimation regarding false compliant filed by Sh Ravi Kaushik to Commissioner, Town Hall, Delhi dated 01.08.09
10. P10 D4 Compliant against Ravi Kumar Kaushik to ADC, MCD Town Hall, Delhi on 16.04.09
11. P11A D4 Copy of Letter No. IC/ADV/2008/BR/08/X/3655 dated 08.07.08 from Vigilance Deptt MCD to DC/Naj. Zone.
12. P11B D4 Copy of Compliant from PS Moti Nagr dt. 01.08.08
13. P11C D4 Copy of letter No. GIV/Engg Deptt(HQ) to S.K. Kaushik.
14. P12 D4 Settlement deed dated 10.07.08 between S.K. Kaushik and others.
15. P13 D4 Letter No. HC/PR/Eng./HQ/09/S49/2237 dated 27.07.09 regarding filing the Property return since 2005 (Property at Filmistan, Mussorrie, Uttam Nagar, Palam, Mundka, Faiz Road Karol Bagh, Karampura & Rangpuri)
16. P14 D4 Letter dated 24.06.09 of S.K. Kaushik to AD MCD Delhi for filing of property return.
17. P15 D4 Relinquishment deed (Copy)Reg No.1721 dated 17.03.08 SRI New Delhi between Ravi Kaushik & Smt Promila Bhardwaj D/o Laxmi Chand.
18. P16 D4 GPA (Copy) between Smt Neelima Jindal & Smt Raj Kishori W/O Laxmi Chand regarding property at Mussorrie (Uttarakhand)
19. P17 D4 Will (Copy) dated 11.08.09 between Smt. Neelima Jindal and Raj Kishori regarding Property at Mussorrie
20. P18 D4 Copy of Receipt dated 06.06.1097 for Rs.1,92,000/ signed by Smt. Neelima Jindal and Raj Kishori.
21. P19 D4 Copy of Agreement to Sell between Smt. Neelima Jindal and Smt. Raj Kishori
22. P20 D4 Possession letter dated 01.04.95 signed by Smt Neelima Jindal.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 16 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No. 23. P21 D4 Copy of Sale Deed No.5693/08 of Property at Mussoorie. 24. P22 D4 Letter No. HC/PR/Engg/HQ/09/690 dated 25.05.09 from
AO Engg Cell HQ to S.K. Kaushik.JE(C).
25. P23 D4 Letter No. HC/PR/Engg/HQ/09/5122 dated 24.03,09 from AO Engg HQ to S.K. Kaushik.
26. P24 D4 IPR as on 31.12.2004
27. P25 D4 Letter No. HC/PR/Engg/HQ/04/S49/748 dated 03.09.04 from AO Engg HQ to S.K. Kaushik regarding filing of APR
28. P26 D4 Application for filing Annual Property Return
29. P27 D4 First Annual Property Return from 19.02.86 to December 2003
30. P28 D4 Copy of GPA in favour of Santosh Kaushik W/o S.K. Kaushik of Property No. A44 Dauble Story Palam, New Delhi.
31. P29 D4 Copy of Agreement to Sell in respect of Property no. C83 New Multan Nagar, New Delhi56
32. P30 D4 Copy of Receipt of Rs.2,31,000/ between Smt Radha Show & Santosh Kaushik W/o S.K. Kaushik.
33. P31 D2 Joining report dated 19.02.86 of S.K. Kaushik JE(C)
34. P32 D2 Joining report dated 08.06.2009 of S.K. Kaushik JE(C)
35. P33 D2 Office order of joining report dated 12.06.09 of EE (Bldg) West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
36. P34 D2 Salary Certificate of S.K. Kaushik dated 23.11.83 signed by Property Manager M/s Shah Construction Co. Mumbai.
37. P35 D2 Declaration Form of appointment letter in Hindi filed by Surinder Kuamr Kaushik JE(C) on 12.02.86.
38. P36 D2 Opening page of the service book containing the photograph of the accused S.K. Kaushik
39. P37 D16 Special Power of Attorney & Deeds dated 24.09.2008 executed between S.K. Kaushik, Smt. Santosh Kaushik and M/s. Kapish Product Pvt Ltd B47,FF Lawrance Road New Delhi in respect of Property No. WZ246B/1 Najafgarh Road Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 17 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
40. P38 D23 Account Opening form of Bank of Baroda Karampura of A/cs No.21740100014323 in the name of Santosh Kaushik.
41. P39 D23 Account Opening form of Bank of Baroda Karampura of A/cs No.21740100012673 in the name of Hardik by F& NG
42. P40 D23 Account Opening form of Bank of Baroda Karampura of A/cs No.21740100014323 in the name of Santosh Kaushik.
43. P41 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.611201 dated 28/03/03 for Rs.70,000 in favour of Post Mater New Delhi issued by S.K. Kaushik
44. P41A D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.611203 dated 30.04.03 for Rs.10,000 issued by S.K. Kaushik in his favour (self)
45. P42 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.611216 dated 25.09.04 for Rs.50,000/ issued by S.K. Kaushik in his favour
46. P43 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.611217 dated 22.12.04 for Rs.50,000/ issued by S.K. Kaushik in his favour
47. P44 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.611208 dated 31.01.04 for Rs.60,000/ issued by S.K. Kaushik in his favour
48. P45 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cash deposit slip dt. 25.09.04 for Rs.10,355/ in favour of S.K. Kaushik through Cheuqe of PNB Dev Nagar Branch
49. P46 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cash deposit slip dt. 14.09.04 for Rs.10,049/ in favour of S.K. Kaushik through Cheuqe of PNB Dev Nagar Branch
50. P47 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505004 dated 28.07.05 for Rs.27,000/ in favour of Pulkit Kaushik, issued by S.K. Kaushik
51. P48 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505003 dated 19.07.05 for Rs.25,000/ issued by S.K. Kaushik in his favour CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 18 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
52. P49 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505010 dated 22.05.06 for Rs.30,000/ in favour of Post Master New Delhi issued by S.K. Kaushik
53. P50 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505011 dated 24.05.06 for Rs.30,000 in favour of Pulkit Kaushik, issued by S.K. Kaushik
54. P51 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505007 dated 12.04.06 for Rs.10,000/ in favour of Pulkit Kaushik, issued by S.K. Kaushik
55. P52 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505016 dated 12.12.06 for Rs.48,000/ in favour of UTI A/Cs Service sector fund New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
56. P53 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No. 505014 dated 28.09.06 for Rs.25,000/ in favour of UTI Wealth Builder Fund New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
57. P54 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505017 dated 10.12.06 for Rs.48,000/ in favour of UTIA/Cs ETSP New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
58. P55 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505015 dated 11.12.06 for Rs.48,000/ in favour of UTI A/Cs Service sector fund New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
59. P56 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505013 dated 28.09.06 for Rs.25,000/ in favour of UTI A/Cs wealth builder fund New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
60. P57 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505012 dated 09/06/06 for Rs.21,840/ in favour of Principal Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
61. P58 D23 Payinslip dated 8.11.07 of A/Cs10304166876 in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.96,755.28p by Axis Bank Cheque No.24951
62. P59 D23 Demand loan Payinslip dated 12.07.07 of Account No. 10304166876 in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.16,532.83 deposited by S.K. Kaushik.
63. P60 D23 Payinslip dated 01.12.07 of A/Cs No. 10304166876 in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.61,000/ by Axis Bank Cheque No.254299 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 19 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
64. P61 D23 Payinslip dated 05.12.07 of A/Cs No. 10304166876 in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.78,000/ by Corp. Bank Cheque No.390637
65. P62 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505018 dated 15.02.07 for Rs.1,00,000/ in favour of UTI Infrastructure fund New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
66. P63 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563403 dated 02/11/07 for Rs.2,75,000/ in favour of Raj Kishori, issued by S.K. Kaushik
67. P64 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.505019 dated 15.02.07 for Rs.1,00,000/ in favour of UTI long term advantage, issued by S.K. Kaushik
68. P65 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563399 dated 12.07.07 for Rs.25,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
69. P66 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563404 dated 08.11.07 for Rs.1,10,000/ in favour of Raj Kishori, issued by S.K. Kaushik
70. P67 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563401 dated 17.09.07 for Rs.21,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
71. P68 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563406 dated 08.11.07 for Rs.1,50,000/ in favour of Raj Kishori, issued by S.K. Kaushik
72. P69 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563408 dated 07.12.07 for Rs.13,920/ in favour of Hans Raj Model School, issued by S.K. Kaushik
73. P70 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.611214 dated 14.09.04 for Rs.10,000/ in favour of Post Master New Delhi, issued by S.K. Kaushik
74. P71 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563420 dated 10.05.08 for Rs.80,167/ in favour of Principal HRMS Punjabi Bagh, issued by S.K. Kaushik
75. P72 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116120 dated 30.07.08 for Rs.33,720/ in favour of Income Tax, issued by S.K. Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 20 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
76. P73 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116121 dated 30.07.08 for Rs.27,820/
77. P74 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563411 dated 21.03.08 for Rs.3,48,000/ in favour of Anand Singh, issued by S.K. Kaushik
78. P75 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116121 dated 30.07.08 for Rs.27,820/ in favour of Income Tax, issued by S.K. Kaushik
79. P76 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116124 dated 17.09.08 for Rs.25,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
80. P77 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116128 dated 17.09.08 for Rs.2,00,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
81. P78 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563410 dated 10.01.08 for Rs.20,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
82. P79 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563413 dated 28.03.08 for Rs.5,00,000/ in favour of Lalait Narain, issued by S.K. Kaushik
83. P80 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116127 dated 17.09.08 for Rs.1,50,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
84. P81 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116130 dated 18.10.08 for Rs.2,42,225/ in favour of ICICI Securities Ltd, issued by S.K. Kaushik
85. P82 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.563415 dated 28.03.08 for Rs.1,92,786/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
86. P83 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116126 dated 08.09.08 for Rs.30,000/ in favour of LIC of India, issued by S.K. Kaushik
87. P84 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116125 dated 08/09/08 for Rs.30,000/ in favour of LIC of India, Policy No.332170517 ULIP issued by S.K. Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 21 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
88. P85 D23 Payinslip dt.21.03.08 of A/Cs No. 10304166876 of SBI Najafgarh Road in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.3,24,947/ by Axis Bank Ch. No.309
89. P86 D23 Payinslip dated 21.03.08 of A/Cs10304166876 of SBI Najafgarh Road in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.3,98,440/ by Axis Bank Rajouri Garden Ch. No.3094
90. P87 D23 Payinslip dated 21.03.08 of A/Cs10304166876 of SBI Najafgarh Road in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.3,98,440/ by Axis Bank Rajauri Garden Ch. No.3094
91. P88 D23 Payinslip dated 21.03.08 of A/Cs No. 10304166876 of SBI Najafgarh Road in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.3,98,440/ by Axis Bank Ch. No.3094
92. P89 D23 Payinslip dated 21.03.08 of A/Cs No. 10304166876 in the name of S.K. Kaushik for Rs.3,98,440/ by Axis Bank Ch. No.3094
93. P90 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br.Cheque No.382460 dated 23.04.09 for Rs.30,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
94. P91 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.382461 dated 19.05.09 for Rs.80,405/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
95. P92 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.382474 dated 17.03.10 for Rs.2,68,000/ in favour of self, issued by S.K. Kaushik
96. P93 D23 SBI Najafgarh Road Br. Cheque No.116131 dated 30.10.08 for Rs.50,000/ in favour of LIC of India, issued by S.K. Kaushik
97. P94 D24 Account Opining Form of A/Cs No.02340110007358 of UCO Bank Punjabi Bagh in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushi
98. P95 D24 Copy of Election Card IC No. DL/06/065/093606 of Surender Kumar Kaushik R/o D183, Karampura, New Delhi.
99. P96 D24 Application for Hiring of Locker by Sh, S.K. Kaushik & Santosh Kaushik joint in UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 22 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
100. P97 D25 Copy of Power of Attorney in the name of Surender Kumar Kaushik of ICICI Bank (Account Opining Form) A/Cs No.015501022795 & Demat A/cs No.44042268
101. P98 D31 Application Form S. No.203781 of Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs.50,000/in the name of S.K. Kaushik & Santosh Kaushik
102. P99 D31 Copy of PAN Card No. AEKPK 8289B of Surender Kumar Kaushik.
103. P100 D31 Copy of Election Card IC No. DL/06/065/093606 of Surender Kumar Kaushik R/O D183 Karampura New Delhi.
104. P101 D68 Letter Dt 02.03.2012 of Surender Kumar Kaushik R/o D 183 Karampura, New Delhi to Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, Inspector.
105. P102 D69 Letter Dt 02.03.2012 of Surender Kumar Kaushik R/o D 183 Karampura, New Delhi to Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, Inspector.
106. P103 D85 Bank of Baroda Karampura Ch. No.164492 dated 28.03.2003 Rs.18,000/ in favour of the Post Master, New Delhi
107. P104 D85 Bank of Baroda Karampura Ch. No.547361 Dated 18.10.2008 Rs.2,00,000/ in favour of S.K. Kaushik.
108. P105 D65 Letter dt 07.12.2011 of Santosh Kaushik showing the Income of Pulkit Kaushik & Santosh Kaushik to Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, Inspector.
109. P106 D38 Copy of ITR in respect of Financial Year 20082009 of Smt Santosh Kaushik.
110. P107 D38 Copy of ITR in respect of Financial Year 20072008 of Smt Santosh Kaushik.
111. P108 D38 Copy of ITR in respect of Financial Year 20062007 of Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
112. P109 D46 Copy of Form of application for admission of Divya Kaushik in LKG of Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 23 of 364 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Description of documents No. No.
113. P110 D46 Copy of Form of application for admission of Pulkit Kaushik in ClassIII of Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
114. P111 D46 Copy of Form of application for admission of Hardik Kaushik in Class LKG of Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
115. P112 D46 Copy of Letter of S.K. Kaushik to Principal Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
116. P113 D46 Copy of application for fee concession of Divya Kaushik to Principal Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
117. P114 D46 Copy of application for fee concession of Divya Kaushik to Principal, Hans Raj Model School Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi List of Documents exhibited by the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses:
Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
1. Ex.PW1/A Nil Sanction Order PW1 Kiran Dabral
2. Ex.PW2/A D43 Seizure memo dated PW2 Sudha 28.12.2010 Kapoor
3. Ex.PW2/B D43 Attested copy of locker lease PW2 Sudha deed in favour of S. K. Kapoor Kaushik
4. Ex.PW2/C D43 Attested photocopy of ledger PW2 Sudha sheet of locker No.1591 in the Kapoor name of S. K. Kaushik
5. Ex.PW2/D D43 Attested copy of authority PW2 Sudha regarding deduction of rent Kapoor from the account
6. Ex.PW2/E D43 Attested copy of account PW2 Sudha opening form of account no. Kapoor 35227 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 24 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
7. Ex.PW2/F D43 Statement of account No. PW2 Sudha 3075000101352278 (old No. Kapoor 35227) in the name of Surender Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik, for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to 01.11.2010
8. Ex.PW3/A D82 Seizure memo dated PW3 HariKisan 02.03.2012 Gupta
9. Ex.PW3/B D83 Letter dated 14.03.12 PW3 HariKisan Gupta
10. Ex.PW3/C D83 Letter dated 19.03.2012 PW3 HariKisan Gupta
11. Ex.PW5/A D51 Production cum seizure memo PW5 Vinod Kumar of photocopy of commercial Sharma file pertaining to telephone No. 25912844
12. Ex.PW5/B D51 Photocopy of note sheet of PW5 Vinod Kumar commercial file authenticated Sharma by Commercial Officer namely Shri Mukund Tewari
13. Ex.PW5/C D52 Photocopy of Installation PW5 Vinod Kumar details (26 pages) Sharma
14. Ex.PW8/A D62 Production cum seizure memo PW8 Narender of Sales invoice No. S.Bedi A200102561 and one sheet of subsidiary ledger
15. Ex.PW9/A D24 Production cum seizure memo PW9 H. C. Doria certified copies of documents (Sept 2010)
16. Ex.PW9/B D24 Letter dated 10.08.10 PW9 H. C. Doria
17. Ex.PW10/A D5 Production cum seizure memo PW10 Dinesh of property return file of S.K. Sharma Kaushik
18. Ex.PW10/DX1 D4 Notesheets running into seven PW10 Dinesh to DX7 pages Sharma CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 25 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
19. Ex.PW11/A D3 Production cum seizure memo PW11 Neeraj Pant of Personal file of S.K. Kaushik
20. Ex.PW11/B D2 Affidavit dated 01.03.2005 PW11 Neeraj Pant
21. Ex.PW11/C D36 Seizure memo dated PW11 Neeraj Pant 20.06.2011 of details of salary of S.K. Kaushik for period 19.02.86 to June 2010
22. Ex.PW11/D D36 Details of Salary (18 pages) PW11 Neeraj Pant
23. Ex.PW12/A D6 Seizure memo dt. 01.06.2010 PW12 Dharmender of property & LIC etc Kumar
24. Ex.PW12/B D11 Search cum Observation PW12 Dharmender memo dated 01.06.10 Kumar
25. Ex.PW13/A D20 Letter dated 13.10.2011 PW13 T.A.Menon
26. Ex.PW13/B D19 Letter dated 19.10.2011 PW13 T.A.Menon
27. Ex.PW13/C D15 Letter dated 19.11.2011 PW13 T.A.Menon
28. Ex.PW14/A D13 Letter dated 12.10.2010 issued PW14 Sunil Kumar by the Office of SubRegistrar 1 Kashmere Gate Delhi
29. Ex.PW15/A D12 Letter dated 18.10.2011 PW15 B.K.Puri
30. Ex.PW16/A D53 Seizure memo dated PW16 Ms.Payal 01.11.2010 Sethi
31. Ex.PW16/B D53 Customer details of CRN No. PW16 Ms.Payal 2640050556 Sethi
32. Ex.PW16/C D53 Payment Details during PW16 Ms.Payal period 25.05.2002 to Sethi 14.09.2010
33. Ex.PW17/A D39 Letter dated 01.11.2010 PW17 Rajender Singh
34. Ex.PW17/B D55 Letter dated 18.10.2011 PW17 Rajender Singh
35. Ex.PW18/A D37 Letter dated 29092011 PW18 Bhupinder Singh CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 26 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
36. Ex.PW18/DA to Additional Acknowledgment of Income PW18 Bhupinder DD Document tax returns for the AY 1998 Singh 99, 19992000, 200001 and 200102
37. Ex.PW19/A D34 Seizure memo PW19 Hemraj
38. Ex.PW19/B D34 Certified copy of Registration PW19 Hemraj file in respect of vehicle DL 9S V 8557 Motorcycle
39. Ex.PW20/A D33 Production cum Seizure memo PW20 S. R. Singhal dated 18.08.2010 of certified copy of document in respect of Vehicle No, DL2C V 0049 Make Hyundai Santro
40. Ex.PW20/B D33 Certified copy of Registration PW20 S. R. Singhal File of Car (13 pages)
41. Ex.PW21/A D45 Letter dated 08.10.2011 PW21 P. N. Arora
42. Ex.PW21/B D45 Fees Details PW21 P. N. Arora
43. Ex.PW22/A D26 Letter dated 28.10.2010 PW22 K. M. Ved
44. Ex.PW22/B D27 Letter dated 07.03.2011 PW22 K. M. Ved
45. Ex.PW22/C D28 Letter dated 20.01.2011 PW22 K. M. Ved
46. Ex.PW22/D D29 Letter dated 01.10.2010 PW22 K. M. Ved
47. Ex.PW22/E D75 Letter dated 02.03.2012 PW22 K. M. Ved
48. Ex.PW22/A1 to D26 Statement of Account PW22 K. M. Ved A8
49. Ex.PW22/B1 to D27 Certified copy of Statement of PW22 K. M. Ved B5 Account
50. Ex.PW22/C1 to D28 Certified copy of Statement of PW22 K. M. Ved C4 Account
51. Ex.PW22/D1 D29 Certified copy of Statement of PW22 K. M. Ved Account
52. Ex.PW22/E1 to D75 Certified copy of Statement of PW22 K. M. Ved E5 Account CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 27 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
53. Ex.PW23/A D20 Photocopy of Sale Deed of PW23 Naveen property No. 31 bearing Kumar Khasra No. 1296/1144 measuring 117 square yards
54. Ex.PW24/A D20 Photocopy of Sale Deed PW24 Manish Nayyar
55. Ex.PW25/A D16 Photocopy of Sale Deed of PW25 Rajeev property F265 Sudarshan Malhotra Park to Smt. Santosh kaushik
56. Ex.PW26/A D18 Sale deed of property No. 10 PW26 Surender Paschim Vihar Near Kumar Narang Peeragarhi Chowk Delhi
57. Ex.PW27/A D8 Sale Deed of agricultural land PW27 Tarif Singh bearing Khasra No. 57/23, 65/3 and 65/8 measuring 1 Bigha and 10 Biswa
58. Ex.PW28/A D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Geeta Devi and Pulkit Kaushik
59. Ex.PW28/B D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Pulkit Kaushik
60. Ex.PW28/C D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Pulkit Kaushik and Lalit Narayan
61. Ex.PW28/D D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Divya Kaushik
62. Ex.PW28/E D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Santosh Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 28 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
63. Ex.PW28/F D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Divya Kaushik
64. Ex.PW28/G D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Santosh Kaushik
65. Ex.PW28/H D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Divya Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik
66. Ex.PW28/I D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Santosh Kaushik and Divya Kaushik
67. Ex.PW28/I1 D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Santosh Kaushik and Divya Kaushik
68. Ex.PW28/J D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Santosh Kaushik and Pulkit Kaushik
69. Ex.PW28/K D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Divya Kaushik and Pulkit Kaushik
70. Ex.PW28/L D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik
71. Ex.PW28/M D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Lalit Narayan and Pulkit Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 29 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
72. Ex.PW28/N D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Santosh kaushik and Lalit Narayan
73. Ex.PW28/O D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Geeta Devi and Divya Kaushik
74. Ex.PW28/P D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Geeta Devi and Divya Kaushik
75. Ex.PW28/Q D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Geeta Devi and Santosh Kaushik
76. Ex.PW28/R D32 Application for purchase of PW28 S.R. Kisan Vikas Patra in joint Aggarwal name of Geeta Devi and Divya Kaushik
77. Ex.PW28/S1 to D10 Receipt of Cash PW28 S.R. S35 Aggarwal
78. Ex.PW28/T1 to D10 Original Kisan Vikas Patra PW28 S.R. T7 Aggarwal
79. Ex.PW29/A D13 Certified copy of Sale Deed PW29 Arjun Kumar
80. Ex.PW31/A D40 Letter dated 29102010 PW31 Ms. Dhiraj Chhabra
81. Ex.PW31/B D40 List of policies PW31 Ms. Dhiraj Chhabra
82. Ex.PW31/C D40 Status Report alongwith PW31 Ms. Dhiraj premium paid history of LIC Chhabra policies (46 pages)
83. Ex.PW32/A D35 Letter Dated 22.08.2011 PW32 Naveen Kumar Sharma CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 30 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
84. Ex.PW32/B D35 Transaction statement PW32 Naveen between 22.08.2009 to 0902 Kumar Sharma 2011
85. Ex.PW32/C D35 Transaction statement in PW32 Naveen annexure B Kumar Sharma
86. Ex.PW33/A D30 Photocopies of application PW33 Jhagger forms alongwth the identity Singh document (32 pages)
87. Ex.PW33/B D31 Copy of ledger (PPF) 5 pages PW33 Jhagger Singh
88. Ex.PW34/A D52 Letter dated 23.09.2010 PW34 Bhagmal regarding information Singh telephone 25912844 for period September 2000 till 17.09.2010
89. Ex.PW34/B D52 Computer generated payment PW34 Bhagmal details running into two pages Singh
90. Ex.PW34/C D51 Computer generated payment PW34 Bhagmal details (3 pages) Singh
91. Ex.PW35/A D49 Production cum Seizure memo PW35 Surender dated 12.08.2010 Singh
92. Ex.PW35/B D49 Copy of admission form of PW35 Surender Divya Kaushik Singh
93. Ex.PW35/C D49 Letter dated 10.08.2010 PW35 Surender Singh
94. Ex.PW35/D D50 Details of expenses of Ms. PW35 Surender Divya Kaushik for B. Tech Singh Program
95. Ex.PW35/E D50 Photocopies of documents PW35 Surender regarding fee structure of Singh Divya Kaushik
96. Ex.PW36/A D73 Letter dated 03.08.2011 Safety PW36 Sanjay Bond Sharma
97. Ex.PW36/B D73 Photocopy of application form PW36 Sanjay for safety bonds Sharma CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 31 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
98. Ex.PW37/A D66 Seizure memo dated 06.01.12 PW37 Arun Sharma
99. Ex.PW37/A1 D66 Computer generated Status PW37 Arun Report of policy No. Sharma 330655375 (2pages)
100. Ex.PW37/A2 D66 Computer generated status PW37 Arun report of policy No. Sharma 120002810 in the name of Surender Kumar Kaushik
101. Ex.PW37/A3 D66 Computer generated status PW37 Arun report of policy No. Sharma 110998276
102. Ex.PW38/A D72 Seizure memo dated PW38 Lalait 28.11.2011 Narayan Sharma
103. Ex.PW38/A121 D72 Photocopy of 21 rent receipts PW38 Lalait pertaining to the rent paid by Narayan Sharma Smt Santosh Kaushik
104. Ex.PW38/B D86 Letter dated 08.11.2011 PW38 Lalait Narayan Sharma
105. Ex.PW38/B1 D86 Photocopy of certificate of PW38 Lalait verification of Dharam Kanta Narayan Sharma dated 29.06.2001
106. Ex.PW38/C D86 Photocopy of income tax PW38 Lalait returns for the said period Narayan Sharma running into 9 pages
107. Ex.PW39/A D8 Receipt dated 24.02.1989 for PW39 Hansraj Rs.1,35,000/ Arora
108. Ex.PW39/B D8 Will dated 24.02.1989 in PW39 Hansraj favour of accused Santosh Arora Kaushik in respect of half share of property WZ/246B1 Killa No.21 Musatatil No. 74 measuring 115.55 sq. yds.
Uttam Nagar
109. Ex.PW39/C D8 Will dated 24.02.1989 in PW39 Hansraj favour of Santosh Kaushik Arora executed by Narayan Dass CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 32 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
110. Ex.PW40/A D8 General Power of Attorney PW40 Arun Kumar executed by Smt. Neelima Jindal Jindal in favour of Raj Kishore dated 11.08.1997
111. Ex.PW40/B D8 Will dated 11.08.1997 PW40 Arun Kumar executed by Neelima Jindal Jindal
112. Ex.PW40/C D8 Agreement to sell dated PW40 Arun Kumar 11.08.97 executed by Neelima Jindal Jindal in favour of Raj Kishori
113. Ex.PW40/D D8 Possession letter dated 0104 PW40 Arun Kumar 95 executed by Neelima Jindal Jindal in favour of Raj Kishori
114. Ex.PW41/A D48 Production cum seizure memo PW41 Manuj dated 12.08.2010 Chadha
115. Ex.PW42/A D77 Photocopy of certificate dated PW42 Rajesh Jain 19.01.2008 regarding purchase of gold from Santosh Kaushik
116. Ex.PW42/B D77 Production cum seizure memo PW42 Rajesh Jain of documents Certificate dated 19.01.2008
117. Ex.PW43/A D80 Letter dated 24.02.2012 PW43 Brij Mohan relating to details of shares Paliwal held by Mrs. Santosh Kaushik
118. Ex.PW43/B D80 Letter dated 01.03.2012 PW43 Brij Mohan relating to details of shares Paliwal held by Mrs. Santosh Kaushik
119. Ex.PW45/A D90 Computer generated copy of PW45 Shailender receipt dated 14.08.2008 Kumar issued by the RTO
120. Ex.PW46/A D18 Certified copy of registered PW46 Ved Prakash sale deed dated 08.12.2008
121. Ex.PW47/A D16 Seizure memo dated PW47 Krishan 11.07.2011 Kumar
122. Ex.PW48/A D17 Letter dated 12.10.2010 (2 PW48 Mahesh pages) Dhar CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 33 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
123. Ex.PW48/B D17 Sale deed dated 12.12.2008 PW48 Mahesh executed between Neelam Dhar Jindal as seller and S.K. Kaushik as purchaser
124. Ex.PW49/A D46 Seizure memo dated PW49 Jai 12.08.2010 Malhotra
125. Ex.PW49/B D46 Letter dated 12.08.2010 PW49 Jai Malhotra
126. Ex.PW49/C D46 Details of fee for the period PW49 Jai w.e.f. 1995 to 2011 in respect Malhotra of Divya Kaushik and Pulkit Kaushik (16 pages)
127. Ex.PW50/A D61 Production cum seizure memo PW50 Sri Ram dated 15.09.2011
128. Ex.PW50/B D61 Receipt No. 557050 dated PW50 Sri Ram 30.06.2009 of the Property Tax name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik
129. Ex.PW54/A D41 Letter dated 29.07.2010 PW51 V. Krithivasan
130. Ex.PW54/B D41 Statement of account for the PW51 V. period 18.11.92 to 02.09.2009 Krithivasan
131. Ex.PW55/A D54 Letter dated 27.07.2011 PW55 Pawan Singh
132. Ex.PW55/B D54 Annexure A of letter PW55 Pawan Singh
133. Ex.PW55/C D54 Photographs PW55 Pawan Singh
134. Ex.PW56/A D57 Letter dated 21.05.2012 PW56 N.K.Mahajan
135. Ex.PW56/B D57 Valuation report of property PW56 No. f265 Sudarshan Park N.K.Mahajan second floor New Delhi
136. Ex.PW56/C D57 Valuation report of property PW56 No. A44 Palam Sector7 N.K.Mahajan Dwarka CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 34 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
137. Ex.PW56/D D76 Valuation report of property PW56 No. WZ246B Uttam, Nagar N.K.Mahajan New Delhi
138. Ex.PW56/E D76 Forwarding letter dated PW56 09.03.2012 N.K.Mahajan
139. Ex.PW59/A D63 Letter dated 06.06.2011 PW59 Suneet Sharma
140. Ex.PW60/A D20 Copy of sale deed PW60 Daulat Ram Kashyap
141. Ex.PW61/A D12 Survey Report PW61Himanshu
142. Ex.PW62/A D32 Letter dated 13.03.2012 PW62 D. C. Sharma
143. Ex.PW63/A D33 Certified copy of the PW63 Hemant registration slip of Vehicle DL2CV 0049
144. Ex.PW63B D33 Certified copy of fancy PW63 Hemant Number allotment slip
145. Ex.PW63/C D33 Certified copy of Form20 PW63 Hemant
146. Ex.PW63/D D33 Certified copy of Form PW63 Hemant 21/Sale Certificate
147. Ex.PW63/E D33 Certified copy of form 22/ PW63 Hemant vehicle identification certificate
148. Ex.PW63/F D33 Certified copy of PW63 Hemant manufacturer invoice
149. Ex.PW63/G D33 Certified copy of sale invoice PW63 Hemant of agency
150. Ex.PW63/H D33 Certified copy of insurance PW63 Hemant policy
151. Ex.PW63/I D33 Certified copy of Form60 PW63 Hemant
152. Ex.PW63/J D33 Certified copy of Form PW63 Hemant 17/Trade Certificate CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 35 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
153. Ex.PW63/K D33 Certified copy of Form19 PW63 Hemant
154. Ex.PW63/DA D33 Photocopy of Election ID Card in the name of Lalit Narain son of Shiv Kumar Sharma
155. Ex.PW64/A to D83 Certificate U/s 2A of bankers PW64 Sh. Bhim Ex.PW64/F Book of Evidence Act in Singh Singal Respect of A/c No. 21740100014923, 2174010007575, A/c No. 2174010007576, A/c No. 21740100012673,A/c No. 21740100004798
156. Ex.PW64/F D89 Certified copy of statement of PW64 Sh. Bhim account No. 21740100014923 Singh Singal
157. Ex.PW64/G D89 Certified copy of statement of PW64 Sh. Bhim account No. 21740100004798 Singh Singal
158. Ex.PW65/A D22 Letter dated 03.08.2010 PW65 R. M. Sati
159. Ex.PW65/B D21 Letter dated 12.08.2010 PW65 R. M. Sati
160. Ex.PW65/C D21 Computer generated statement PW65 R. M. Sati of account No. 21740100014923 in the name of Santosh Kaushik
161. Ex.PW65/D D21 Computer generated statement PW65 R. M. Sati of account No. SB28105 in the name of Pulkit Kaushik
162. Ex.PW65/E D21 Computer generated statement PW65 R. M. Sati of account Bearing No, 2174100007576
163. Ex.PW65/F D21 Computer generated statement PW65 R. M. Sati of account Bearing No. SB 28106 in the Name of Divya Kaushik
164. Ex.PW65/G D21 Statement of account in PW65 R. M. Sati respect of account No. 28106 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 36 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
165. Ex.PW65/H D21 Computer generated copy of PW65 R. M. Sati statement of account in respect of account No. 21740100012673
166. Ex.PW65/I D85 Letter dated 10.11.2010 PW65 R. M. Sati
167. Ex.PW67/A D78 Details regarding 4 MIS PW 67 Roop account Chand
168. Ex.PW67/B D78 Photocopies of ledger sheet of PW 67 Roop Ex.PW67/E all the four Account Chand
169. Ex.PW68/A D67 Details regarding three PW68 Mohan Lal Recurring Deposit
170. Ex.PW68/B D67 Attested copies of ledger PW68 Mohan Lal Ex.PW68/D sheets of all RD Accounts bearing No. 344875, 344872, 344871
171. Ex.PW69/A D64 Details regarding account of PW69 A. K. Raj Kishori account bearing Mahajan No. 6947 UCO Bank Rajendra Place
172. Ex.PW69/B D64 Copy of opening form of PW69 A. K. account No. 6947 Mahajan
173. Ex.PW69/C D64 Copy of account opening form PW69 A. K. of account No. 6941 Mahajan
174. Ex.PW69/D D64 Statement of account No, 6947 PW69 A. K. Mahajan
175. Ex.PW69/E D64 Photocopy of ten vouchers PW69 A. K. relating to account no. 6947 Mahajan
176. Ex.PW69/F D42 Details of account of Smt. Raj PW69 A. K. Kishori Mahajan
177. Ex.PW69/G D42 Photocopies of six vouchers PW69 A. K. relating to account no. 6947 Mahajan
178. Ex.PW69/H D42 Statement of account in PW69 A. K. respect of account no. 6947 Mahajan
179. Ex.PW70/A D88 Letter dated 10.05.2012 PW70 M.R.V. Subrahmanyam CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 37 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
180. Ex.PW70/B D88 Certificate under banker's PW70 M.R.V. Book of evidence act Subrahmanyam
181. Ex.PW70/C D88 Statement of account PW70 M.R.V. Subrahmanyam
182. Ex.PW71/A D38 Income tax return for the PW71 P.N. assessment year 20092010 Kaushik running into five pages
183. Ex.PW71/B D38 Covering Letter PW71 P.N. Kaushik
184. Ex.PW71/C D39 Income tax return for PW71 P.N. assessment year 200607 to Kaushik 200809 relating to Smt. Raj Kishori
185. Ex.PW71/D D39 Income tax return for the PW71 P.N.Kaushik assessment year 200708
186. Ex.PW71/E D39 Income tax return for PW71 P.N. assessment year 200809 of Kaushik Raj Kishori
187. Ex.PW72/A D23 Letter dated 15.09.2010 PW72 Lalit Kumar Gupta
188. Ex.PW72/B D23 Statement of Account PW72 Lalit Kumar Gupta
189. Ex.PW72/C D23 Statement of Account of S.K. PW72 Lalit Kumar Kaushik of account No, Gupta 01190058463 for the period from 15.03.2003 to 30.06.2010
190. Ex.PW72/D1 D23 FDR No. 30225635455 dated PW72 Lalit Kumar 17.08.87 for Rs.70,000/ in the Gupta Name of S.K. Kaushik
191. Ex.PW72/D2 D23 FDR No. 30495484459 dated PW72 Lalit Kumar 18.09.2008 for Rs.1,05,000/ Gupta
192. Ex.PW72/D3 D23 FDR No. 30495484721 dated PW72 Lalit Kumar 18.09.2008 of Rs.2,00,000/ Gupta CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 38 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
193. Ex.PW73/A D70 Information by company PW73 Sunil Bhatia Secretary of Delhi Stock Exchange
194. Ex.PW73/B D70 Certified copy of daily PW73 Sunil Bhatia quotation dated 30.06.89 to 24.12.92 in respect of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
195. Ex.PW73/C D70 Certified copy of daily PW73 Sunil Bhatia quotation 30.06.89 to 24.12.92 in respect of Oswal Greentech Ltd.
196. Ex.PW74/A D74 Letter dated 10.10.2011 PW74 Geeta Batra
197. Ex.PW74/B D74 Copy of GPF Account No, CF PW74 Geeta Batra 61292
198. Ex.PW74/C D74 Summary about contribution PW74 Geeta Batra and interest of the account holder
199. Ex.PW75/A D56 Certified copy of Power of PW75 Sameet Vats Attorney dated 14.05.96 vide registration No. 7834 in Addl.
Book IV Vol No. 86200. Ex.PW75/B D56 Covering letter PW75 Sameet Vats
201. Ex.PW77/A D16 General Power of attorney PW77 Vivek Yadav dated 30.09.2004
202. Ex.PW79/A D66 Computer generated copy of PW79 Kuldeep status report of policy bearing Kumar 330655375
203. Ex.PW80/A D66 Computer generated certified PW80 Mukesh copy of status report of policy Kumar bearing No. 120002810
204. Ex.PW80/B D66 Computer generated certified PW80 Mukesh copy of status report of policy Kumar bearing No, 110998276
205. Ex.PW81/A D24 Certified photocopy of PW80 Mukesh Account opening form of Kumar account no, 20175 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 39 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
206. Ex.PW82/A D50 Admission slip pertaining to PW82 Sushma Ms. Divya Kaushik
207. Ex.PW82/B D50 Photocopy of fee receipt dated PW82 Sushma 24.02.2010
208. Ex.PW83/1 D25 Letter dated 30.07.2011 PW83 Neha Saxena
209. Ex.PW83/2 D25 Statement of account No, PW83 Neha 015501022795 of S.K. Saxena Kaushik
210. Ex.PW85/A Additional Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian PW85 Santosh Document Evidence Act
211. Ex.PW87/A D47 Letter dated 07.08.2010 PW87 Sh. Ganeshi Lal Sagar
212. Ex.PW87/B D47 Copy of registration cum PW87 Sh. Ganeshi admission form of Pulkit Lal Sagar Kaushik
213. Ex.PW87/C D48 Photocopies of fee receipt No. PW87 Sh. Ganeshi 133733 Lal Sagar
214. Ex.PW87/D D48 Photocopies of fee receipt No. PW87 Sh. Ganeshi 137360 Lal Sagar
215. Ex.PW87/E D48 Photocopies of fee receipt No, PW87 Sh. Ganeshi 135807 Lal Sagar
216. Ex.PW87/F D48 Photocopies of fee receipt no. PW87 Sh. Ganeshi 1785 Lal Sagar
217. Ex.PW88/A D8 Affidavit executed by Smt. PW88 Neelima Neelima Jindal Jindal
218. Ex.PW88/B D8 Cash receipt PW88 Neelima Jindal
219. Ex.PW88/C D8 Letter dated 24.11.2008 PW88 Neelima Jindal
220. Ex.PW88/DX1 Additional Copy of the receipt of Laxmi PW88 Neelima to DX9 Document Chand Jindal
221. Ex.PW90/A Additional Authority letter PW90 Hitender Document CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 40 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
222. Ex.PW90/B Additional Copies of ITR of Late Smt. Raj PW90 Hitender Document Kishori for assessment year 200607
223. Ex.PW90/C Additional Copies of ITR of late Smt. Raj PW90 Hitender Document Kishori for Assessment year 200708
224. Ex.PW90/D Additional Copies of ITR of Late Smt. Raj PW90 Hitender Document Kishori for Assessment year 200809
225. Ex.PW90/E Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 200910
226. Ex.PW90/F Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201011
227. Ex.PW90/G Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201112
228. Ex.PW90/H Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201213
229. Ex.PW90/I Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201314
230. Ex.PW90/J Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201415
231. Ex.PW90/K Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201516
232. Ex.PW90/L Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201617
233. Ex.PW90/M Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201617 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 41 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
234. Ex.PW90/N Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201617
235. Ex.PW90/O Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201617
236. Ex.PW90/P Additional Income tax return of Santosh PW90 Hitender Document Kaushik for assessment year 201617
237. Ex.PW91/A Additional Letter addressed to the Court PW91 Anil Arora Document
238. Ex.PW91/B D2 Computer generated copy of PW91 Anil Arora electricity bill dated 26.07.17
239. Ex.PW91/C Additional Original record of electricity PW91 Anil Arora Document connection no. 7Z63176
240. Ex.PW91/D Additional Computer generated payment PW91 Anil Arora Document details from year 2002 to 2010
241. Ex.PW91/E Additional Meter reading details from PW91 Anil Arora Document year 2002
242. Ex.PW91/F Additional Meter details / status PW91 Anil Arora Document
243. Ex.PW91/G Additional Electricity bills from year PW91 Anil Arora Document 2002 to 2010
244. Ex.PW91/H Additional Certificate u/s 65B of PW91 Anil Arora Document Evidence Act
245. Ex.PW91/I Additional Copy of consumer request PW91 Anil Arora Document status
246. Ex.PW92/A D1 Carbon copy of FIR dated PW92 Vikas 31.05.2010 Kumar Pathak
247. Ex.PW92/B D2 Service Book PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
248. Ex.PW92/C D13 Letter dated 12.10.2010 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 42 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
249. Ex.PW92/D D30 Letter dated 28.07.2010 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
250. Ex.PW92/E D38 Letter dated 25.08.2010 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
251. Ex.PW92/F D58 Letter dated 04.08.2011 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
252. Ex.PW92/G D59 Letter dated 24.12.2010 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
253. Ex.PW92/H D59 Statement of account bearing PW92 Vikas No. 5965633 Kumar Pathak
254. Ex.PW92/I D59 Letter dated 02.12.2010 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
255. Ex.PW92/J D59 Letter dated 09.08.2011 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
256. Ex.PW92/K D60 Letter dated 09.08.2011 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
257. Ex.PW92/L1 D71 Letter dated 12.01.2012 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
258. Ex.PW92/M D79 Letter dated 24.02.2012 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
259. Ex.PW92/N D87 Letter dated 02.03.2012 PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
260. Ex.PW92/DX1 D36 Arrears of DA for period PW92 Vikas intervening July 1994 to Kumar Pathak September 1994
261. Ex.PW92/DX2 D36 Details of Arrears of DA PW92 Vikas 01.06.2006 31.03.2007 Kumar Pathak
262. Ex.PW92/DX3 D36 Details of Arrears of DA PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
263. Ex.PW92/DX4 Additional Letter dated 16.08.96 PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
264. Ex.PW92/DX5 D7 FDR No. NC015971 dated PW92 Vikas 04.01.95 Kumar Pathak
265. Ex.PW92/DX6 D7 Seizure memo of pronote PW92 Vikas receipt dated 13.03.88 Kumar Pathak CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 43 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
266. Ex.PW92/DX7 D7 Seizure memo of Nine PW92 Vikas certificate issued by Alp Kumar Pathak Bachat Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society
267. Ex.PW92/DX8 D7 Seizure memo of two share PW92 Vikas certificate issued by Delhi Kumar Pathak State consumer cooperative society store Ltd
268. Ex.PW92/DX9 D7 Photocopy of KVP PW92 Vikas Kumar Pathak
269. Ex.PW92/DX10 D7 National saving certificate in PW92 Vikas the name of LateSh. Laxmi Kumar Pathak Chand for the total of Rs.29,000/
270. Ex.PW92/DX11 D7 Photocopy of Indra Vikas PW92 Vikas Patra Kumar Pathak
271. Ex.PW92/DX12 Additional Certified copy of sale deed PW92 Vikas Document dated 28.08.95 Kumar Pathak
272. Ex.PW92/DX13 Additional Sale deed dated 05.10.71of PW92 Vikas Document plot no. 81 Indira Park Kumar Pathak Madipur Delhi
273. Ex.PW92/DX14 Additional Cash receipt of Rs.3,38000/ PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
274. Ex.PW92/DX15 Additional Copies of Cheque bearing No. PW92 Vikas Document 806706, 806707 dated Kumar Pathak 17.12.93 drawn from Punjab and Sind Bank, Paschim Puri Delhi
275. Ex.PW92/DX16 Additional Copy of Sale Deed date PW92 Vikas Document 09.03.73 in favour of Laxmi Kumar Pathak Chand
276. Ex.PW92/DX17 Additional Copy of sale deed dated PW92 Vikas Document 11.02.71 in favour of Laxmi Kumar Pathak Chand in respect of plot No. 67 situated at village Singal Pur Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 44 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
277. Ex.PW92/DX18 Additional Translated copy of Sale Deed PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
278. Ex.PW92/DX19 Additional Copy of sale deed dated PW92 Vikas Document 06.09.95 of property no. 27/4 Kumar Pathak Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi
279. Ex.PW92/DX20 Additional Certificate of Sale Deed dated PW92 Vikas Document 21.08.95 of property No. 27/4 Kumar Pathak Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi
280. Ex.PW92/DX21 Additional Copies of ITR PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
281. Ex.PW92/DX22 Additional Copy of tax return of Late Raj PW92 Vikas Document Kishori pertaining to year Kumar Pathak 199899
282. Ex.PW92/DX23 Additional Copy of tax return of S.K. PW92 Vikas Document Kaushik for the year of 2008 Kumar Pathak
283. Ex.PW92/DX24 Additional Original copy of bill dated PW92 Vikas Document 19.01.2008 of Rupal Jewellers Kumar Pathak Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh New Delhi for Rs. 2,50,990/
284. Ex.PW92/DX25 Additional Copy of cheque dated PW92 Vikas Document 21.01.2008 Kumar Pathak
285. Ex.PW92/DX26 Additional 5 Photocopies of shares PW92 Vikas Document certificate of 100 units issued Kumar Pathak by UTI in the name of Laxmi Chand Kaushik
286. Ex.PW92/DX27 Additional Two letters regarding share PW92 Vikas 28 Document certificate issued by UTI in Kumar Pathak Favour of Raj Kishori
287. Ex.PW92/DX29 Additional Photocopies of 18 Share PW92 Vikas Document Certificates issued by UTI in Kumar Pathak the name of Laxmi chand
288. Ex.PW92/DX30 Additional Original dated 08.02.99 PW92 Vikas Document containing all the details of Kumar Pathak 1900 units of shares in the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 45 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No. name of Smt. Raj Kishori
289. Ex.PW92/DX31 Additional Intimation letter dated PW92 Vikas Document 23.08.99 issued by M.N. Kumar Pathak Dastur on behalf of Dastur
290. Ex.PW92/DX32 Additional Photocopy of sale deed PW92 Vikas Document 28.08.95in the name of Kumar Pathak Saubhagya Madaan in respect of property No. 27/4 Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi
291. Ex.PW92/DX33 D7 Loan receipt dated 12.06.89 PW92 Vikas executed by Indira Trading co. Kumar Pathak in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori
292. Ex.PW92/DX34 D7 Loan receipt dated 28.05.89 PW92 Vikas executed by Indira Trading Kumar Pathak company in favour of Raj Kishori
293. Ex.PW92/DX35 D7 Original statement of account PW92 Vikas of A/c No. 011411 of Raj Kumar Pathak Kishori
294. Ex.PW92/DX36 D7 Intimation dated 06.01.95 sent PW92 Vikas by Bank of Baroda to Raj Kumar Pathak Kishori
295. Ex.PW92/DX37 D7 Intimation letter sent by PW92 Vikas Syndicate Bank addressed to Kumar Pathak Smt. Raj Kishori
296. Ex.PW92/DX38 D7 Letter dated 07.08.97 issued PW92 Vikas by DCM Financial Services Kumar Pathak Ltd. To Raj Kishori
297. Ex.PW92/DX39 D7 Copy of UTI monthly income PW92 Vikas scheme certificate No. GMIS Kumar Pathak 1992 of 2000 units having value of Rs.10/
298. Ex.PW92/DX40 D7 Copy of FDR dated 269.97 in PW92 Vikas the name of Raj Kishori issued Kumar Pathak by the Siel Financial Services Ltd for the sum of Rs. 25000/ CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 46 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
299. Ex.PW92/DX41 D7 Interest certificate of DCM PW92 Vikas Financial services seized from Kumar Pathak the house of accused S.K. Kaushik
300. Ex.PW92/DX42 Additional National Insurance co, Ltd. PW92 Vikas Document Policy No. 3603016103157 Kumar Pathak
301. Ex.PW92/DX43 Additional Receipt dated 28.02.1987 in PW92 Vikas Document respect of payment of premium Kumar Pathak
302. Ex.PW92/DX44 D7 LIC Mutual Fund income PW92 Vikas warrant for moth of August Kumar Pathak 1992
303. Ex.PW92/DX45 Additional Valuation report of Jewellery PW92 Vikas Document from P.P. Jewellers Kumar Pathak
304. Ex.PW92/DX46 Additional Copy of bill for Rs.11,8,476/ PW92 Vikas to 47 Document and Rs.6,12,223/ Kumar Pathak
305. Ex.PW92/DX48 Additional Five premium receipt issued PW92 Vikas Document by LIC Kumar Pathak
306. Ex.PW92/DX49 Additional LIC Mutual Fund Certificate PW92 Vikas Document dated 22.06.92 in the name of Kumar Pathak Raj Kishori
307. Ex.PW92/DX50 Additional Original of ULIP No. PW92 Vikas Document 331418586, 331418587, Kumar Pathak 331418588, 331418589, 331418592 for Rs.3,81,967/
308. Ex.PW92/DX51 Additional Market Plus Policies for PW92 Vikas Document Rs.3,80,000/ Kumar Pathak
309. Ex.PW92/DX52 Additional Death Claim in respect of Smt. PW92 Vikas Document Raj Kishori Kumar Pathak
310. Ex.PW92/DX53 Additional Counter foil issued by the PW92 Vikas Document bank Kumar Pathak
311. Ex.PW92/DX54 Additional ITR of Raj Kishori pertaining PW92 Vikas Document to year 199192, 199293, Kumar Pathak 199394
312. Ex.PW92/DX55 Additional Receipt of Rs.30,000/ from PW92 Vikas Document Switzerland by Raj Kishori Kumar Pathak CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 47 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
313. Ex.PW92/DX56 Additional Receipt of Rs.50,000/ from PW92 Vikas Document Union Bank of Switzerland Kumar Pathak
314. Ex.PW92/DX57 Additional Copy of RC of Maruti Car No. PW92 Vikas Document DL2C5610 in the name of Raj Kumar Pathak Kishori
315. Ex.PW92/DX58 Additional Copy of cheque No. 62135 PW92 Vikas Document dated 13.11.91 for Kumar Pathak Rs.1,57,896/
316. Ex.PW92/DX59 Additional Original ITR pertaining to PW92 Vikas Document assessment year 199192 Kumar Pathak 199293, 199495
317. Ex.PW92/DX60 Additional Copy of Novation agreement PW92 Vikas Document dated 01.11.2007 Kumar Pathak
318. Ex.PW92/DX61 Additional Copies of Cheques dated PW92 Vikas to 63 Document 31.10.2007 for Rs.1,31,080/ Kumar Pathak
319. Ex.PW92/DX64 Additional Copy of Cheque dated PW92 Vikas Document 31.10.2007 issued by APM Kumar Pathak GPO New Delhi
320. Ex.PW92/DX65 Additional Copy of four Cheque for PW92 Vikas Document Rs.25,50,000/ Kumar Pathak
321. Ex.PW92/DX66 Additional Copy of cheques dated PW92 Vikas Document 01.11.2007 Kumar Pathak
322. Ex.PW92/DX67 Additional Copy of 3 TDS Certificates PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
323. Ex.PW92/DX68 Additional Certified copy of TDS PW92 Vikas Document Certificate Kumar Pathak
324. Ex.PW92/DX69 Additional Form No. 16 dated 13.02.90 PW92 Vikas Document issued By Income Tax Kumar Pathak Department regarding TDS deducted
325. Ex.PW92/DX70 Additional Credit Bills dated 31.03.92 for PW92 Vikas to 71 Document Rs.1,30,482/ Kumar Pathak
326. Ex.PW92/DX72 Additional Dividend Warrant issued by PW92 Vikas Document Bindal Agro Chem Ltd and Kumar Pathak Oswal Chemical and CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 48 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No. Fertilizers Ltd for Rs. 4025/ and Rs. 22,350/
327. Ex.PW92/DX73 Additional 17 Dividend Warrant PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
328. Ex.PW92/DX74 Additional Photocopy of Sale Deed PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
329. Ex.PW92/DX75 Additional Valuation Report PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
330. Ex.PW92/DX76 Additional Copy of ITR PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
331. Ex.PW92/DX77 Additional Sale Deed Dated 26.06.1996 PW92 Vikas Document Kumar Pathak
332. Ex.PW92/DX78 Additional Relinquishment Deed dated PW92 Vikas Document 17.12.2004 Kumar Pathak
333. Ex.PW92/DX79 Additional Copy of Pass book of PPF PW92 Vikas Document account of S. K. Kaushik Kumar Pathak
334. Ex.PW92/DX80 Additional Copy of Passbook of Sh. PW92 Vikas Document Jaiveer who issued demand Kumar Pathak draft in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori
335. Ex.PW92/DX81 Additional Copy of General power of PW92 Vikas Document Attorney Kumar Pathak
336. Ex.PW92/DX82 Additional Letter regarding acquisition of PW92 Vikas Document property situated in Malikpur, Kumar Pathak Kohi @ Rangpuri bearing Khasra No.1135
337. Ex.PW92/DX83 Additional Copy of Will executed by Smt. PW92 Vikas Document Raj Kishori in favour of Kumar Pathak Surender Kaushik
338. Ex.PW93/A1 D19 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 17.11.1995 Gandas
339. Ex.PW93/A2 D19 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 17.11.1995 Gandas
340. Ex.PW93/A3 D19 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 17.11.1995 Gandas CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 49 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
341. Ex.PW93/A4 D20 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 13.07.1998 Gandas
342. Ex.PW93/A5 D20 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 13.07.1998 Gandas
343. Ex.PW93/A6 D20 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 24.02.1989 Gandas
344. Ex.PW93/A7 D20 Copy of sale deed dated PW93 Sh. Naveen 24.02.1989 Gandas Defence Documents:
345. Ex.DW1/1 Nil Photocopies of Bank Passbook DW1 Neelam Account No.03590530000005 Grover
346. Ex.DW2/A Nil Affidavit of Sansar Singh DW2 Sansar Hooda
347. Ex.DW2/2 Nil Copy of entry of passbook of DW2 Sansar account no. Hooda 0477/SB/01/004351
348. Ex.DW3/A Nil Affidavit of Anand singh DW3 Anand Singh
349. ExDW3/1 Nil Copy of entry of passbook of DW3 Anand Singh account No. 672210110000824
350. Ex.DW4/A Nil Affidavit of Chitra DW4 Chitra Sharma
351. Ex.DW5/A Nil Affidavit of Satish Sharma DW5 Satish Sharma
352. Ex.DW6/A Nil Affidavit of Shiv Kumar DW6 Shiv Kumar Sharma Sharma
353. Ex.DW7/A Nil Affidavit of Promila Bhardwaj DW7 Promila Bhardwaj
354. Ex.DW8/1 Nil Valuation Report DW8 Anup Nayyar
355. Ex.DW9/1 Nil Authorization DW9 Rahul Sharma
356. Ex.DW9/2 Nil Rent Receipt DW9 Rahul Sharma CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 50 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
357. Ex.DW10/1 Nil Computer generated Copy of DW10 Vikas statement of account No. 5201211910013565
358. Ex.DW11/1 Nil Copy of account opening form DW11 Mohd.
of Smt. Santosh Kaushik A/c Shehjad No. 910010018811750
359. Ex.DW11/2 Nil Copy of Cheque No. 075749 DW11 Mohd.
dated 04.09.10 for Shehjad
Rs.3,00,000/
360. Ex.DW12/1 Nil Copy of lease deed executed DW12 Pardeep
between MTNL and Santosh Kumar
Kaushik
361. Ex.DW12/2 Nil Rent Details and TDS DW12 Pardeep
Certificate Kumar
362. Ex.DW13/113/3 Nil Original application forms DW13 Devi Prasad
363. Ex.DW13/4 Nil Details of maturity amount DW13 Devi Prasad
364. Ex.DW14/1 Nil Record of account No. 11411 DW14 Shailender
of Smt. Raj Kishori Kumar Singh
365. Ex.DW14/2 Nil Record of account No. 12816 DW14 Shailender
of Santosh Kaushik Kumar Singh
366. Ex.DW15/1 Nil LIC mutual fund bearing folio DW15 Nishant
No. R1001088 of Raj Kishori Saurav
367. Ex.DW15/2 Nil Authorization DW15 Nishant Saurav
368. Ex.DW16/1 Nil Authorization DW16 Sudish Kumar
369. Ex.DW16/2 Nil Letter of authorized signatory DW16 Sudish of Lavkush Ramleela Kumar Committee
370. Ex.DW16/3 Nil Copy of Statement of Account DW16 Sudish Kumar
371. Ex.DW18/1 Nil Copy of issue register showing DW18 Lalit Arora entry of cheque no. 565709 dated 31.10.07 for Rs.41,000/ CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 51 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
372. Ex.DW18/2 Nil Certificate u/s 65B of DW18 Lalit Arora Evidence Act
373. Ex.DW19/1 Nil Copy of KVP No. DW19 Rajiv OJBB272839 for Rs.5000/ Kumar dated 22.04.93
374. Ex.DW19/2 Nil Copy of KVP No. DW19 Rajiv O5CC635896 for Rs.10,000/ Kumar dated 22.04.93
375. Ex.DW19/3 Nil Copy of KVP No. DW19 Rajiv 01AA061144 for Rs.1000/ Kumar
376. Ex.DW19/4 Nil Copy of KVP No. DW19 Rajiv 01AA061145 Kumar
377. Ex.DW19/5 Nil Copies of purchase DW19 Rajiv application containing the Kumar details of seven KVP
378. Ex.DW19/6 Nil Copies of purchase DW19 Rajiv application containing the Kumar details of three KVP
379. Ex.DW19/7 Nil Copies of purchase DW19 Rajiv applications containing the Kumar details of two KVPs
380. ExDW19/8 Nil Copies of purchase DW19 Rajiv applications containing the Kumar details of two KVPs
381. ExDW19/10 Nil Copies of purchase DW19 Rajiv applications containing the Kumar details of four Indira Vikas Patra
382. Ex.DW20/1 Nil Copy of letter dated 25.10.17 DW20 R.K.Vasisht
383. Ex.DW20/2 Nil Copy of the record from Post DW20 R.K.Vasisht Office Ramesh Nagar
384. Ex.DW21/1 Nil Valuation report of Jewellery DW21 Sh. Navin of Smt. Raj Kishori Malhotra
385. Ex.DW22/1 Nil Status report of 13 policies in DW22 Nirbhay the name of Raj Kishori Singh CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 52 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
386. Ex.DW22/2 Nil Status report of maturity DW22 Nirbhay amount of LIC Policy Singh
387. Ex.DW22/DX1 Nil Authorization letter dated DW22 Nirbhay 21.10.17 Singh
388. Ex.DW23/1 Nil Authorization DW23 Avdesh Kumar
389. Ex.DW23/2 Nil Statement of account of Ms. DW23 Avdesh Divya Jain bearing No. Kumar 526020211000388
390. Ex.DW24/1 Nil Copy of Novation agreement DW24 Alok Kumar dated 01.11.07
391. Ex.DW24/2 Nil Copy of TDS Certificate DW24 Alok Kumar running 6 pages
392. Ex.DW24/3 Nil Copy of ledger account DW24 Alok Kumar regarding payment of rent to Santosh Kaushik
393. Ex.DW24/4 Nil Authorization letter DW24 Alok Kumar
394. Ex.DW25/1 Nil Copy of Sale deed 30.04.70 DW25 Anup Singh vide registration 3272 in additional book No. 1 vol.
1220 pages 52.53
395. Ex.DW25/2 Nil Copy of sale deed vide DW25 Anup Singh registration No. 12019 in additional book1 vol. 1536 pages 4244 dated 14.08.71
396. Ex.DW26/1 Nil Copy of relinquishment deed DW26 Naveen vide registration No. 8676 in additional book NO.1 Vol.
9341 pages 116120 dated 27.12.96
397. Ex.DW26/2 Nil Copy of Sale deed vide DW26 Naveen registration no. 7508 in additional book No.1 vol 8861 pages 168175 dated 06.09.95
398. Ex.DW26/3 Nil Sale deed vide registration no. DW26 Naveen 10115 in additional book no. 1 vo0l 8964 pages 96102 dated CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 53 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No. 21.11.95
399. Ex.DW26/4 Nil Sale deed vide registration no. DW26 Naveen 6894/6849 in additional book no.1 Vol. 8840 pages 173180 dated 21.08.95
400. Ex.DW26/5 Nil Sale deed vide registration no. DW26 Naveen 1302 in additional book No.1 Vol. 9069 pages 4653 dated 13.02.96
401. ExDPW26/6 Nil Sale deed vide registration DW26 Naveen 4525 in additional book No/.1 9069 4653 dated 13.02.96
402. Ex.DW26/7 Nil Sale deed vide registration DW26 Naveen 7650 in additional Book No.1 Vol. 8866 pages 117124 dated 12.09.95
403. Ex.DW27/1 Nil Copy of saving account DW27 opening form of Raj Kishori Purushottam Kumar
404. Ex.DW27/2 Nil Authority Letter DW27 Purushottam Kumar
405. Ex.DW28/A Nil Letter of Assistant General DW28 Harshit Manager Punjab & Sind Anand Bank, Jwalaheri Branch
406. Ex.DW29/129/2 Nil Certified copies of Income Tax DW29 Hitender return of Raj Kishori for the assessment year 20405 and 200809
407. Ex.DW29/3 Nil Record pertaining to the DW29 Hitender income tax return of Raj Kishori for the assessment year 199899, 199900, 2000 2001, 20012002, 20022003 and 20032004
408. Ex.DW29/4 Nil Record of income tax returns DW29 Hitender for the assessment year 2002 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 54 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No. 03 to 20162017
409. Ex.DW29/5 Nil Covering letter DW29 Hitender
410. Ex.DW30/1 Nil Computerized statement of DW30 Sh.
account of Lalit Naryan Ramphal
account no. 10651092282
411. Ex.DW30/2 Nil Computer generated copy of DW30 Sh.
statement of account of Shiv Ramphal
Kumar
412. Ex.DW31/1 Nil Letter dated 17.10.17 duly DW31 Rajesh Negi
signed by Ms. Archana
Chaudhary Principal
commissioner of Income Tax
413. Ex.DW31/2 Nil Certificate relating to DW31 Rajesh Negi
Voluntarily Disclosure
Scheme
414. Ex.DW32/A Nil Record regarding sale deed in DW32 Sevajit
respect of property bearing
Plot No. 67 Khasra No. 25/6
village Singlapur Delhi
Registered on 15.02.71 vide
registration No. 1122 Addl.
Book No.01
415. Ex.DW33/A Nil Record regarding DW33 Daulat Ram
relinquishment deed in respect Kashyap of property bearing No. 1002 and 1003 plot no. 27 to 30 at Shivaji Street Faiz road Naiwala Karol Bagh Delhi registered on 17.12.04 vide registration No. 9000 addl.
Book No.1 Volume 11292 pages 6876
416. Ex.DW34/A Nil LIC Mutual fund bearing No. PW34 Nishant R0101699 to R1001088 dated Saurav 22.06.92
417. Ex.DW34/B Nil Covering letter PW34 Nishant Saurav CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 55 of 364 Sr. Exhibit No. D. No. Details of Document Relied upon by No.
418. Ex.DW35/A Nil Covering letter 08.02.99 DW35 Sh. H. Surya Prakash
419. Ex.DW35/B Nil Covering letter dated 23.08.99 DW35 Sh. H. Surya Prakash
420. Ex.DW36/A Nil Report from the office of DW36 Hitender Principal Commissioner Income Tax has to the effect that the relevant record is not traceable
421. Ex.DW37/A Nil GPA, Agreement to Sell, DW37 Sh. Udit Affidavit, Cash Receipt and Sharma Deed EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Ninety Three Witnesses whereas the accused have examined as many as Thirty Seven witnesses, which are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Witness Deposition No.
1. Ms. Kiran Dabral PW1 Ms. Kiran Dabral the then Additional (PW1) Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of May, 2012, she was working as Additional Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation.
2. That her duties as Additional Commissioner of the MCD were to supervise the work of different departments of South and Central Zone of the MCD, including the granting of sanction for prosecution of subordinate staff, upto the employee of GroupB. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 56 of 364
3. That the sanction order in respect of Surender Kumar Kaushik who was working as Junior Engineer, MCD bears her signatures at pointA along with her official seal and the same is Ex.PW1/A.
4. That a request was received in their department from the CBI, along with SP report and other relevant document annxed thereto and the file was processed and submitted by their Vigilance Department.
5. That after considering all the facts, documents and the statements of witnesses, she considered that it is a fit case for granting sanction for prosecution of Surender Kumar Kaushik.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That she has been authorized by specific orders of the Commissioner MCD, to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused and other subordinate officials.
That she has not seen the ownership documents of the properties, mentioned in the sanction order and therefore, she is not aware about the names of the owners of the said properties.
That she has not seen any supporting document regarding the details of the properties and income of the accused mentioned at page6 of the sanction order.
That she has not seen any document in support of payments against LIC policies, worth Rs.66,99,287.70p.
That she has not seen any document in support of the income of the expenditure, mentioned in her sanction order but has only seen the report submitted by the IO for granting the sanction. That she does not remember what other documents were attached with the report by the IO. 2 Ms. Sudha PW2 Ms. Sudha Kapoor, Officer, Punjab National Bank, Kapoor (PW2) Fire Station, Rajender Nagar Branch, New Delhi has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects: CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 57 of 364
1. That in the month of November, 2010, she was working as an officer, Punjab National Bank, Fire Station, Rajender Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
2. That vide seizure memo dated 28.12.2010 which is Ex.PW2/A (D43) she had provided the documents mentioned therein to CBI Inspector Vikas Kumar Pathak.
3. That the attested photocopy of locker lease deed in favour of Surender Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik bears her signatures and official seal on all the four pages at point A and the same is Ex.PW2/B.
4. That she had compared the said lease deed from the original, from their record, and then got photocopied from the original.
5. That the attested photocopy of ledger sheet of locker No. 1591 in the name of Surender Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kuashik, for the period, w.e.f. 10.03.1987 to 09.04.1988 bears her signatures and official seal on all the four pages at point A and the same is Ex.PW2/C.
6. That she had compared the said ledger sheet from the original, from their record, and then got photocopied from the original.
7. That the total amount paid as rent of the locker is Rs.7,600/.
8. That the attested photocopy of authority regarding deduction of rent from the account maintained in the same branch, in case of nonpayment of the rent of the locker, is Ex.PW2/D bearing her signatures and official seal at point A.
9. That she had compared it from the original, from their record, and then got photocopied from the original.
10. That the attested photocopy of account opening from of account No. 35227 in the name of Surender Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik, is Ex.PW2/E bearing her signatures and official seal at point A on all the four pages.
11. That she had compared it from the original, from their record, and then got photocopied from the original.
12. That the computer generated printout of the statement of account No. 3075000101352278 (old CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 58 of 364 No. 35227) in the name of Surender Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik, for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to 01.11.2010 is Ex.PW2/F which printout is taken from their system in the branch.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That she has no personal knowledge as to how the figure of Rs.7,600/ has been arrived towards the rent of the locker.
That the annual payment towards the rent of the locker is made and the same is shown in the ledger account of the customer.
That she does not know the period for which the amount of Rs.7,600/ has been paid as locker rent but the same can be ascertained from the ledger account of the customer.
That the amount of Rs.7,600/ was the locker rent for the period w.e.f. March, 1987 to March, 1990 @ Rs. 50/ per year and w.e.f. March 1990 to March, 1992 @ Rs. 100/ per year, w.e.f., March, 1992 to March, 1994 @ Rs. 125/ per year, w.e.f. March 1994 to March 1996 @ Rs. 150/ per year, w.e.f., March, 1996 to March 1998 @ Rs. 300/ per year, w.e.f. March 1998 to March 2000 @ Rs. 350/ per year, w.e.f. March, 2000 to March 2005 @ Rs. 500 per year, w.e.f. March 2005 to March 2009 @ Rs.550/ per year, w.e.f. March 2009 to March 2010 @ Rs. 700/ per year.
That the lock of the locker of the accused was broken open in the month of November, 2011. That she does not know about the payment made by the accused, regarding the break open charges and the other arrears of rent.
That the CBI officials have not recorded her statement.
That the computer from which the documents have been generated are installed in their bank and are in custody of the bank officials who operate the same. That Ex.PW2/F was generated by the concerned incharge on 01.11.2010.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 59 of 364 3 Sh. HariKisan PW3 Sh. HariKisan Gupta, Company Secretary, in Oswal Gupta (PW3) Chemical and Fertilizers Limited has in his examination inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2009, he was working as Company Secretary, in Oswal Chemical and Fertilizers Limited. Its new name is Oswal Greentech Limited, since the year 2011.
2. That he used to look after the work of Oswal Chemical and Fertilizers Limited pertaining to its share etc.
3. That in the year 2012, the CBI officials send some letters to their company, on which his assistant visited the CBI office and thereafter he also visited the CBI office, for the investigations of the present case.
4. That vide the seizure memo dated 02.03.2012 he provided the relevant information to the CBI, regarding the shares and demat account etc., pertaining to the company, on which the CBI official, prepared this document which bears his signatures at point A and Ex.PW3/A.
5. That vide this document, he provided the attested copies of some documents, as mentioned in this document, to the CBI.
6. That he provided attested photocopies of 121 pages to the CBI and all these photocopies bear his signatures, in token of attestation.
7. That vide letter dated 14.03.2012 (D83) in pursuance to the Email dated 05.03.2012, he provided the photocopies of some documents to Inspector Vikas Kumar Pathak and the same is Ex.PW3/B and bears his signatures on page2 at point A.
8. That vide letter dated 19.03.2012 he provided the photocopies of some documents to the IO and the same is Ex.PW3/C which bears the signatures of Sh. B.M. Paliwal, his Assistant.
9. That Mr. B.M. Paliwal is still working in their company.
10. That the IO Vikas Kumar Pathak had also submitted the letter to him or to his office assistant, regarding furnishing of required information pertaining to various shares certificates.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 60 of 364
11. That the said letter, running into 13 pages, is attached with Ex.PW3/C, as 'AnnexureII', from page No. 8 to 20 of this document.
12. That in pursuance to this AnnexureII, he provided the information vide AnnexureIII, running into 29 pages, which are at page21 to page49, of Ex.PW3/C. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he provided the information to the IO, from their record and the same was a computer generated record.
That the computers are in the custody of the Registrar of the Company.
That he has not brought the original of the documents, attached with Ex.PW3/A. That he has provided the photocopies of the documents, to the CBI, from the originals. That he does not remember whether the original documents were seen by the CBI officials or not. That they are not having the price of the shares on a particular date, in their records. The same are mentioned in the share transfer deeds.
4 Sh. Neeraj Bali PW4 Sh. Neeraj Bali has in his examinationinchief (PW4) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That properties bearing Plot No. A83 & A84, Sector07, Palam Extension, New Delhi were owned by him and by his father, jointly.
2. That in the year 2005 or 2006, these properties were sold to two persons namely Sh. S.K. Kaushik and his wife but he does not remember the name of his wife now.
3. That he is not known to any Deepa Sharma.
4. That property No. A83 was sold against the sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/, whereas the other property bearing No. A84 was sold for consideration of Rs.55,000/ and the payments were received through cheque.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 61 of 364
5. That all the documents of the properties, were handed over to the purchasers, at the time of the sale.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he cannot say whether the property bearing No. A84 was sold to Smt. Deepa Sharma and Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
That CBI officials had called him and made inquiries from him and his statement was also recorded.
That the CBI officials recorded his statement correctly, as per his statement.
That his father was looking after the aforesaid two properties and the sale of these two properties was not effected by him.
That he does not remember the exact date on which his statement was recorded by the IO. That he was never shown any sale deed by the IO, when his statement was recorded.
That the IO was already having the cheque number of payment with him. He had not disclosed any cheque number to him.
5 Sh. Vinod Kumar PW5 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Clerk in Record Section, Sharma (PW5) MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 2010, he was posted in Record Section, MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, as Clerk and his nature of duties were to maintain the commercial record of the telephone.
2. That on 17.09.2010, he handed over certified photocopy of commercial file, pertaining to telephone No. 25912844, to the IO, vide production cum seizure memo dated 17.09.2010, which bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW5/A.
3. That the file of telephone number 25912844 (D52), page No. 2 to 4 are photocopies of note sheet of commercial file, authenticated by Commercial Officer namely Sh. Mukund Tewari and the same was also handed over to the IO, CBI and he identifies the signatures of Sh. Mukund Tewari at point A and the same is Ex.PW5/B. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 62 of 364
4. That photocopies of the same, running into 26 pages, at page1 of 26 of file (D52), were provided to the IO and the same are Ex.PW5/C.
5. That he know Bhagmal Singh, who was the accounts officer at Rajouri Garden, MTNL Office but he had never seen him signing or writing.
6. That the CBI had never recorded his statement, however, his signatures were obtained on the letter itself.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the IO had never asked the payment details of phone number 25912844 from him.
That he was having no concern with it as the payment details were the subject matter of the account department.
That he has not disclosed to the IO that a payment of Rs.94,202/ was made against phone number 25912844, for the period 01.09.2000 to 08.07.2010. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/PX the above fact was found so recorded. That the phone number 25912844 was initially installed in the name of Sh. Laxmi Chand and it was transferred in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori, on 27.01.2000. He had never seen the original record. That the name of the concerned commercial officer is Mukul Tewari and not Mukund Tewari. That the commercial officer is in possession of these records.
That he does not know the date on which these documents were supplied to the IO, from the custody of the commercial officer.
That he had not stated to the IO that he had brought the document, from the custody of Mr. Narender Kumar.
That he does not know the name of the person to whom he handed over the documents, mentioned om Ex.PW5/A. 6 Sh. Salil Kumar PW6 Sh. Salil Kumar, Assistant Manager, Delhi Stock (PW6) Exchange, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects: CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 63 of 364
1. That during the year 2012, he was posted in Delhi Stock Exchange, as Assistant Manager, since 2009.
2. That Sh. Sunil Bhatia was Company Secretary in Delhi Stock Exchange, in the year 2009 and presently, he is chief operating officer (officiating). He is still available.
That this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
7 Smt. Anjana PW7 Smt. Anjana Rastogi, Asstt. Manager at Najafgarh Rastogi (PW7) Road Branch of State Bank of India, New Delhi has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in September, 2010, she was posted as Asstt. Manager at Najafgarh Road Branch of State Bank of India, New Delhi and she know Sh. Lalit Kumar Gupta who was the chief manager, State Bank of India, during the period,
2. That she had worked with him for approximately 1½ years as well conversant with his signatures and can identify his signatures if shown to her.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
8. Sh. Narender S. PW8 Sh. Narender S. Bedi, Sales Coordinated in Hans Bedi (PW8) Hyundai at 69/1A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in October, 2010, he was working as Sales Co ordinated in Hans Hyundai at 69/1A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
2. That he has handed over one envelope, which contained one seals invoice No. A 200102561, which was in the name of Sh. Laxmi Narayan Sharma R/o Nangloi, New Delhi and one sheet of subsidiary ledger.
3. That D63, which is productioncumseizure memo, is shown to the witness and the witness identifies his signatures at point A along with date 22.10.2010 and the same is Ex.PW8/A.
4. That he identifies his initials along with date at point B with the endorsement as 'received by Narender'.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 64 of 364
5. That the sales invoice and the copy of the subsidiary ledger were handed over by him to the IO.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he does not remember the name of the person from whom these documents were received by him.
9. Sh. H.C. Doria PW9 Sh. H. C. Doria, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Punjabi (PW9) Bagh Branch, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in September, 2010, he was posted as second man Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi.
2. That he has handed over some document to CBI, through one productioncumseizure memo which is Ex.PW9/A (D4).
3. That the originals of these documents are in possession of the bank and he had certified these documents as per the record of the Bank and after comparing the same from the original.
4. That vide letter dated 10.08.2010 which is Ex.PW9/B (D24) bearing his signatures and official seal at point A, he had provided the documents mentioned therein to Sh. V. K. Pathak, Inspector CBI in response to his letter dated 10.07.2010.
5. That the photocopy of the documents relating to the account number 02340110007358 which is Ex.PW81/A was certified by him and the photocopy of the nomination form of account no. 20175 which is Ex.PW81/B was certified by him and bear his signature and official seal at point A.
6. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 28.04.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 373772 for Rs.27,060/ in the account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik by Sh. Pulkit Kaushik, is Ex.PW9/C1 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
7. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 19.12.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 024511 for Rs.33,750/ in the account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C2 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 65 of 364
8. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 14.09.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 324549 for Rs.1,50,000/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C3 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
9. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 20.10.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 016705 for Rs.33,750/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C4 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
10. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 22.09.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 513562 for Rs.31,706/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C5 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
11. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 16.01.2010 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 026755 for Rs.33,750/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C6 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
12. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 05.09.2009 for deposit of cash amount of Rs.30,000/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C7 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
13. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 12.06.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 475553 for Rs.31,706/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C8 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
14. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 15.05.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 458863 for Rs.31,706/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C9 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
15. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 28.03.2009 for deposit of cash amount of Rs.50,000/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C10 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
16. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 23.06.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 046460 for Rs.3,35,000/ in the account of Smt. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 66 of 364 Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C11 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
17. That the certified photocopy of the payin slip dated 11.09.2009 for deposit of cheque bearing no. 105590 for Rs.3,35,000/ in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik is Ex.PW9/C12 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
18. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 127898 dated 15.09 (year not legible) for Rs.30,000/ paid to LIC of India by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D1 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
19. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144850 dated 26.11.2009 for Rs.1,50,000/ paid for FDR by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D2 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
20. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144846 dated 26.11.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/ paid to S. K. Kaushik by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D3 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
21. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 127894 dated 18.07.2009 for Rs.38,114/ paid to self by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D4 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
22. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 127848 dated 26.11.2009 for Rs.35,000/ paid to self by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D5 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
23. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 127890 dated 23.06.2009 for Rs.5,000/ paid to self by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D6 bearing my signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
24. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144855 dated 13.01.2010 for Rs.2,850/ paid to Locker account by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D7 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
25. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144841 dated 10.09.2009 for Rs.21,320/ paid to herself by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D8 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 67 of 364
26. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144842 dated 13.10.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/ paid to Pulkit Kaushik by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D9 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
27. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144847 dated 27.11.2009 for Rs.2,30,000/ paid to Sh. Rajeev Malhotra by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D10 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
28. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 144851 dated 30.11.2009 for Rs.51,000/ paid to Divya Kaushik by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D11 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
29. That the certified photocopy of the cheque bearing no. 159250 dated 10.04.2010 for Rs.30,000/ paid to Post Master, GPO by Smt. Santosh is Ex.PW9/D13 bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal.
30. That the certified photocopy of the computer generated statement of account, of account number 02340110007358 of Smt. Santosh Kaushik for the period 29.01.2009 to 10.08.2010 is Ex.PW9/E bearing the certificate under Banker's book of evidence Act alongwith his signatures at points A on all the five pages.
31. That vide his letter dated 04.08.2011 which is Ex.PW9/F (D44) bearing his signatures at point A alongwith official seal, he had provided the certified copy of statement of fees/charges in respect of locker no. 420 of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and S. K. Kaushik.
32. That the photocopy of manual record certified by him is Ex.PW9/G bearing his signatures at points A and B. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That the payin slips Ex.PW9/C1 to Ex.PW9/C12 and cheques Ex.PW9/D1 to Ex/PW9/D13 were not filled in his presence.
That Ex.PW9/E is the computer generated copy but he is not aware as to who had generated the same CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 68 of 364 and out of which computer, the same was generated and also as to who had generated the same. That the seal at point A document Ex.PW9/E was affixed by his clerk whose name he does not remember.
That he is not aware about the purpose for which the said seals were affixed on point A on document Ex.PW9/E. That no enquiry was made from him by the CBI official in connection of the present case. That he had not inspected the originals of documents Ex.PW9/C1 to Ex.PW9/C12 and documents Ex.PW9/D1 to Ex.PW9/D13. That he had put his seal on the photocopies which were produced before him and he personally cannot vouch about the authenticity of the documents. That his clerk had compared the copies and thereafter the seal had been put.
10 Sh. Dinesh PW10 Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Head Clerk, MCD Sharma (PW10) (Engineering Department), Town Hall, Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of September 2010, he was working as Head Clerk, MCD (Engineering Department), Town Hall, Delhi.
2. That the productioncumseizure memo dated 16.09.2010 (D5) which is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' vide which he had handed over property return file of accused S.K. Kaushik to Inspector, CBI Sh. Vikas Pathak.
3. That the file which he had handed over to Inspector Vikas Pathak, is on judicial record as D4 and the documents in the said file had been admitted by the accused and are Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 (pertaining to accused S.K. Kaushik) and Ex.P28 to Ex.P30 (Pertaining to accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the file D4 pertaining to property returns filed by accused S. K. Kaushik, also contained the notesheets running into seven pages and the same are now Ex.PW10/DX1 to Ex.PW10/DX7 respectively.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 69 of 364 11 Sh. Neeraj Pant PW11 Sh. Neeraj Pant, LDC, MCD (Building (PW11) Department), (West Zone), Rajouri Garden, Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of June 2010, he was working as LDC, MCD (Building Department), (West Zone), Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
2. That the productioncumseizure memo dated 01.06.2010 (D3) Ex.PW11/A bears his signatures at point 'A' and vide this memo, he had handed over the personal file of accused S. K. Kaushik to Inspector, CBI, Sh. B.M. Meena.
3. That the file which he had handed over to Inspector, CBI, Sh. B.M. Meena, is on judicial record as D2 and the documents in the said file had been admitted by the accused S.K. Kaushik and are Ex.P31 to Ex.P35.
4. That the affidavit dated 01.03.2005 has been submitted by accused S.K. Kaushik to the department which is Ex.PW11/B.
5. That he had also handed over the service book of accused S. K. Kaushik to Inspector B.M. Meena, vide Memo Ex.PW11/A which service book (part of D2) is on judicial record.
6. That the opening page of the service book containing the photograph of the accused S.K. Kaushik and his particulars and signatures have been admitted by the accused which is Ex.P36.
7. That vide seizure memo dated 20.06.2011 (D36), he had supplied the details of salary of accused S.K. Kaushik for the period 19.02.1986 to June 2010 which is Ex.PW11/C bearing his signatures at point A.
8. That the details of the salary of accused has been prepared by him, as per their official record which are Ex.PW11/D (Running into 18 pages) bearing his signatures at point 'A' on all the pages.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed the following aspects: That he has no personal knowledge of the record. That the service book contains all the details of the salary, which was paid to the accused.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 70 of 364 That he had prepared the salary details, on the basis of the details mentioned in the service book. That the service book does not mention the arrears of D.A., and bonus paid to the accused. That the details of D.A., has been mentioned in the salary details.
That he had not requisitioned the supplementary bills, on the basis of which the arrears of D.A., were paid to the accused.
12 Sh. Dharmender PW12 Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Tax Assistant in the Kumar (PW12) office of Commissioner of IncomeTax, Delhi5, at C.R. Building, ITO, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of June 2010 he was posted as Tax Assistant in the office of Commissioner of IncomeTax, Delhi5, at C.R. Building, ITO, New Delhi.
2. That on 01.06.2010, on directions of his senior officer, he visited CBI office, in the morning.
3. That in the CBI office, he was told that he had to accompany a team of CBI for search.
4. That later on he was told the place of search at Karampura, New Delhi.
5. That he was told that the premises of S. K. Kaushik was to be searched.
6. That they reached at the spot at about 8.00 a.m., on 01.06.2010 and the CBI team along with him and his official colleague Sh. Anand Singh, conducted the search at the residence of accused S.K. Kaushik, at Karampura, New Delhi.
7. That the CBI officials conducted the search of residence of accused S.K. Kaushik and prepared the inventory and the memos of the articles, lying there.
8. That they also seized various documents of properties and LIC etc. and examined the documents and prepared the memos.
9. That the search cum seizure memo dated 01.06.2010 which is Ex.PW12/A (D6) bears his signatures at point 'A' on all the six pages.
10. That search cum observation memo dated 01.06.2010 which is Ex.PW12/B (D11) bears his signatures at point 'A'.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 71 of 364
11. That the file (D7) running into 188 pages; file (D8) tunning into 118 pages; file (D9) and file (D10) running in to 42 pages bear his signatures at point A on all the pages.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the searchcumobservation memo Ex.PW12/B was prepared by IO Inspector Pathak whose complete name he does not remember. That he was not asked any question to Inspector Pathak, regarding its contents and the valuation of the articles.
That he does not know whether any electrical expert was present, when the document Ex.PW12/B was prepared.
That they remained at the spot till 2.30 p.m. That he does not remember about the number of stories built at house No. D183, Karampura, New Delhi.
That he also does not remember the number of rooms in the said house at the ground floor. There were several houses in the vicinity of the said house. No person from the nearby houses was called to witness the raid.
That he had seen the articles mentioned in the seizure cum observation memo Ex.PW12/B, at the spot. He has not compared the same with the document.
That he does not remember the make or model of the air conditioners.
That there was no car parked inside the house but one car was parked outside the house which was registered in the name of the accused. That the registration document was seen by him, however, he does not remember the year of the manufacture of the car.
That he does not remember the contents of the registration certificate, now.
That he cannot say that the registration certificate of the car bearing registration No. DL 2CV0049 was not seen by him.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 72 of 364 That he does not remember whether any motorcycle was parked inside the house or not.
That he does not remember whether the RC of the motorcycle was shown to him.
That he does not remember whether the RC of the motorcycle was seized by Inspector Pathak. 13 Sh. T.A. Menon PW13 Sh. T.A. Menon, UDC in the office of Sub (PW13) RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi has in n his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of October 2011, he was working as UDC in the office of SubRegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
2. That his nature of duties were to check the documents, presented for registration, along with the SubRegistrar.
3. That in October 2011, he visited CBI office, for the purpose of identification of the signatures of the Sub Registrar, Sh. Dalip Kumar.
4. That the letter dated 123.10.2011 which is Ex.PW13/A (D20), letter, dated 19.10.2011 which is Ex.PW13/B (D19) and letter dated 19.11.2011 which is Ex.PW13/C (D15) bear his signatures at point A.
5. That these letters were received from the office of sub registrar, Sh. Dalip Kumar, under his signatures.
6. That Sh. Dalip Kumar, is presently working as Assistant Value Added Tax Officer (AVTO), Sales Tax Office, ITO, New Delhi.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That these letters were not signed by Sh. Dalip Kumar, in his presence.
That these letters were not dispatched by him, in his presence.
14 Sh. Sunil Kumar PW14 Sh. Sunil Kumar, UDC in the office of Sub (PW14) RegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has in his examination inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of October, 2010 he was working as UDC in the office of SubRegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 73 of 364
2. That his nature of duties were to maintain the records as Record Keeper.
3. That the letter dated 12.10.2010, issued by the office of Sub Registrar1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi which is Ex.PW14/A bears signatures of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, the then Sub Registrar1, at point 'A'.
4. That he knew Sh. Rakesh Kumar and identified his signatures as he had worked with him but he does not know his present posting.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that this letter was not signed by Sh. Dalip Kumar, in his presence nor it not dispatched by him, in his presence. 15 Sh. B.K. Puri PW15 Sh. B.K. Puri is the then Assistant Labour (PW15) Commissioner, District West, Labour Department who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in October, 2011, he was posted as Assistant Labour Commissioner, District West, Labour Department, and was also having additional charge of Assistant Housing Commissioner, Labour Department, GNCTD, New Delhi and his duties were to look after the pending audits and the RTI matters.
2. That pursuant to a letter from Inspector CBI Sh.
V.K. Pathak (witness) had sent a letter dated 18.10.2011 (D12) which is Ex.PW15/A vide which he has handed over the documents mentioned therein, to Inspector Sh. V.K. Pathak.
3. That the photocopies of the documents, which are mentioned in this letter, were enclosed with the letter as 'Annexure1', 'Annexure2'.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
16 Ms. Payal Sethi PW16 Ms. Payal Sethi was the Commercial Officer in the (PW16) office of DGM, BSES, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi who has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of November, 2010, she was posted as Commercial Officer in the office of DGM, BSES, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 74 of 364
2. That the seizure memo dated 01.11.2010 which is Ex.PW16/A (D53) bears her signatures at point 'A' along with official stamp.
3. That vide this memo, she had provided the documents mentioned therein.
4. That the consumer details of CRN No. 2640050556 of premises at D/183, Industrial 'H' Colony, New Delhi, is in the name of Lalit Narayan Sharma, regarding meter installation details.
5. That the details are computer generated and she had taken printout from the computer. It bears her signatures at point 'A', which details are Ex.PW16/B.
6. That the payment details during the period 25.05.2002 to 14.09.2010 is computer generated printout and it bears her signatures on both pages, at point 'A' alongwith official seal and the same is Ex.PW16/C.
7. That the total amount paid during the above said period is Rs.58,980/.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed that the data was not fed into their system by her nor the data was fed on her dictation.
17 Sh. Rajender PW17 Sh. Rajender Singh, Inspector, Income Tax, Ward Singh (PW17) 25, DBlock, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of November, 2010, he was posted as Inspector, Income Tax, Ward25, DBlock, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. That on 01.11.2010, he had handed over the letter, dated 01.11.2010 of Sh. P. N. Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Ward25, along with the documents mentioned therein, to Sh. Vikas Pathak, Inspector CBI, at CBI office, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, which letter dated 01.11.2010 (D39) is Ex.PW17/A bearing signatures of Sh. P.N. Kaushik at point 'A' which he identified as he had seen him signing and writing in ordinary course of his duties.
3. That vide letter dated 18.10.2011 which is Ex.PW17/B (D55) written by Sh. P. N. Kaushik, he again handed over some documents, mentioned therein, to Inspector Vikas Pathak.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 75 of 364 This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
18 Sh. Bhupender PW18 Sh. Bhupender Singh, Income Tax Officer, Ward Singh (PW18) 41, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of September, 2011, he was working as Income Tax Officer, Ward41, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. That vide letter dated 29.09.2011 which is Ex.PW18/A (D37) bearing his signatures on both pages, at point 'A' alongwith his official stamp, he had forwarded the computer generated year wise details of the ITRs and the orders, u/s 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 200203 to 201011, except 200607, of Sh. S.K. Kaushik.
3. That the details of income return, income assessed or processed, tax deducted and balance tax for the above said assessment years, are mentioned in the letter.
4. That the record and the attested copies of the documents, as stated above, are the computer generated record and have been fed in their computer system during the ordinary course of business of the Income Tax Department.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he had supplied the documents and the ITR record to the IO, which were available in their system.
That prior to the assessment year 200203, the Income Tax returns were being filed manually and the details were not maintained or fed in their computer system, prior to the said assessment year. That he had not supplied the copies of the income tax returns to the IO, prior to the AY 200203. That the Ld. Defence counsel has produced the acknowledgement of income tax returns for the AY 199899, 19992000, 200001 and 200102, which are Ex.PW18/DA, Ex.PW18/DB, Ex.PW18/DC & Ex.PW18/DD respectively.
That these returns have been filed in the Income Tax office.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 76 of 364 That the net taxable income is less than the gross taxable income.
That it is not mandatory to file the income tax return for a financial year/assessment year, in case the taxable income is below the taxable limit. 19 Sh. Hemraj PW19 Sh. Hemraj, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport (PW19) Department, GNCTD, South West District, Palam Zone, Janakpuri, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the month of November, 2010, he was posted as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, GNCTD, South West District, Palam Zone, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
2. That vide memo dated 01.11.2010 (D34) which is Ex.PW19/A he handed over the certified copy of the complete file in respect of vehicle No. DL9S V 8557, motorcycle, make Bajaj Pulsar, to the CBI Inspector Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak.
3. That the certified copies of the file, running into eleven pages, are Ex.PW19/B, collectively.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the name of the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle is Sh. Pulkit Kaushik son of Sh. S.K. Kaushik. 20 Sh. S.R. Singhal PW20 Sh. S. R. Singhal, M. L. O., North Zone, Mall (PW20) Road, Transport Department, Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of August, 2010, he was posted as M.L.O., North Zone, Mall Road, Transport Department, Delhi.
2. That vide production cum seizure memo dated 18.08.2010 (D33) which is Ex.PW20/A he handed over certified photocopies of the documents, mentioned in the memo, in respect of vehicle No. DL2C V 0049, make Huyndai Santro, to the CBI Inspector Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak.
3. That vide this memo, he supplied certified photocopies of the registration file of this car, running into thirteen pages, to CBI Inspector Sh. Vikas Pathak.
4. That the certified photocopies of the said documents, are Ex.PW20/B (Colly).
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 77 of 364
5. That he has retired from service in the month of October, 2010 and, therefore, he has not brought the original registration file.
6. That the same is available in the transport department and the same can be requisitioned from there.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the above car was registered in the name of Sh. Lakshmi Narayan Sharma who is the first owner of this car. 21 Sh. P.N. Arora PW21 Sh. P.N. Arora, Chief Corporate Officer of Akash (PW21) Institute, I.I.T.J.E.E., at plot No. 4, Sector11, Akash Tower, Dwarka, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the letter dated 08.10.2011 (D45) which is Ex.PW21/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' and vide this letter, he has provided the documents in the shape of Annexures 1 to 4, to the CBI Inspector Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak.
2. That the Annexures are the fee details and the documents, in respect of Divya Kaushik daughter of S.K. Kaushik, running into eleven pages and the same are Ex.PW21/B (Colly).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he has not fed the records in their computer system, from which these documents were generated and the said documents are even not certified by him. 22 Sh. K.M. Ved PW22 Sh. K. M. Ved, U.T.I. Assets Management (PW22) Company Limited, as Vice President, Vigilance Cell, at Mumbai has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010 and 2011, he was working with U.T.I. Assets Management Company Limited, as Vice President, Vigilance Cell, at Mumbai and he retired from service in August, 2013.
2. That the letters dated 28.10.2010 (D26); dated 07.03.2011 (D27); dated 20.01.2011 (D28); dated 01.10.2010 (D29); and dated 02.03.2012 (D75), all of which bears his signatures at point 'A'.
3. That vide these letters, he had provided the certified copies of the statements of accounts, in respect of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 78 of 364 the investor as mentioned in these letters itself, to Inspector CBI sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak.
4. That the letters are now Ex.PW22/A; Ex.PW22/B;
Ex.PW22/C; Ex.PW22/D and Ex.PW22/E.
5. That the certified copies of the statement of accounts, attached with Ex.PW22/A, are running into eight pages and are now Ex.PW22/A1 to Ex.PW22/A8 (Colly).
6. That the certified copies of the statements of accounts, attached with Ex.PW22/B, are running into five pages and are now Ex.PW22/B1 to Ex.PW22/B5 (Colly).
7. That the certified copies of the statements of accounts, attached with Ex.PW22/C, are running into four pages and are now Ex.PW22/C1 to Ex.PW22/C4 (Colly).
8. That the certified copies of the statements of accounts, attached with Ex.PW22/D, and is now Ex.PW22/D1.
9. That the certified copies of the statements of accounts, attached with Ex.PW22/E, are running into five pages and are now Ex.PW22/E1 to Ex.PW22/E5 (Colly).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That whenever a person intends to purchase any units of U.T.I., he has to make an application in prescribed proforma, for that purpose. That the cheque in faovur of the U.T.I. is also to be attached with the application form. That no person is authorized to purchase the units of the U.T.I., in the name of any other adult person. That the parents or the grand parents can purchase the units in the name of minor children. That there are certain schemes, which are used to gift purposes and in those schemes, the units can be allotted to the grand parents or other relatives, on behalf of the minor children.
That the record of all the applications, is maintained in the office of the Registrar, U.T.I. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 79 of 364 23 Sh. Naveen PW23 Sh. Naveen Kumar, Businessman into Kumar (PW23) manufacturing of 'Bindi' at J21, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 1998, he was running a business of manufacturing of 'Bindi' at J21, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, New Delhi.
2. That he had purchased the part of the property bearing Municipal No. 1004 & 1005, Constructed on Plot No. 31, bearing Khasra No. 1296/1144, measuring 117 square yards and Khasra No. 2030/1505, measuring 33 square yards, from Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, on 06.07.1998, for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/.
3. That the details of the portion of the property purchased by him are mentioned in the sale deed, dated 06.07.1998.
4. That he had made the payment of Rs.4,50,000/ to Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, vide cheque No. 074542, dated 06.07.1998 of State Bank of India, Punjabi Bagh.
5. That the photocopy of the sale deed is already on record and the same was registered at the office of the Sub Registrar concerned.
6. That the photocopy of the sale deed is Ex.PW23/A. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
24 Sh. Manish PW24 Sh. Manish Nayyar, Bbusinessman / Contractor Nayyar (PW24) having Office at 16/46, Subash Nagar, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 1998, he was running a business of contractor having office at 16/46, Subash Nagar, New Delhi.
2. That on 06.07.98, he had purchased part of the property bearing Municipal No. 1004 & 1005, Constructed on plot No. 31, bearing Khasra No. 1296/1144, measuring 117 square yards and Khasra No. 2030/1505, measuring 33 square yards, from Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, on 06.07.1998.
3. That he had made the payment of Rs. 4,50,000/ to Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, vide draft bearing No. 012557, dated 02.07.1998 of Union Bank of India, CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 80 of 364 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Photocopy of the sale deed is on record.
4. That the same was registered at the office of the Sub Registrar concerned. Photocopy of the sale deed is Ex.PW24/A. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
25 Sh. Rajeev PW25 Sh. Rajeev Malhotra, Property Dealer, at Fun Malhotra (PW Cinema, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, has in his examination
25) inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2009, he was running business of property dealing at Fun Cinema, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
2. That on 26.11.2009, he sold his half share in the property F265, Sudarshan Park to Smt. Santosh Kaushik, for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/.
3. That the second half share in the property was owned by Sh. Dhiraj Dua.
4. That the certified copy of the sale deed, dated 26.11.2009, executed by him and Dhiraj Dua in favour of Smt. Santosh Kaushik bears his signatures at pointA.
5. That he received the payment of Rs. 2,30,000/, vide cheque no. 144847, dated 27.11.2009, drawn upon UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
6. That the sale deed is Ex.PW25/A (The accused have objected to the mode of proof of this document).
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
26 Sh. Surender PW26 Sh. Surender Kumar Narang, Subbroker of M/s.
Kumar Narang Adinath Capital Services Ltd., having office at 10, (PW26) Paschim Enclave, Near Peeragarhi Chowk, Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 2008, he was subbroker of M/s. Adinath Capital Services Ltd., having office at 10, Paschim Enclave, Near Peeragarhi Chowk, Delhi.
2. That on 04.12.2008, he had sold his property, i.e., second floor, alongwith the roof, of property No. 10, Paschim Enclave, Near Peeragarhi Chowk, Delhi, CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 81 of 364 to Smt. Santosh Kaushik, vide sale deed.
3. That the certified copy of the sale deed, dated 04.12.2008 (D18) and the original sale deed was handed over to Smt. Santosh Kaushik, after registration of the sale deed.
4. That he identify his signatures at pointA and also of Smt. Santosh Kaushik at pointB, as she had signed the sale deed in his presence and sale deed is now Ex.PW26/A.
5. That the property was sold for amount of Rs.
20,50,000/ through the cheque bearing no. 380002 dated 08.12.2008, drawn upon ING Vysya Bank.
6. That the stamp duty of Rs. 82,000/ was paid by Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
27 Sh. Tarif Singh PW27 Sh. Tarif Singh, Businessman / Bricks Supplier, in (PW27) the name of Vishal Bhatta at Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar Road, Village Dabodha, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 1990, he was running the business of bricks supplier, in the name of Vishal Bhatta at Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar Road, Village Dabodha.
2. That vide sale deed dated 24.07.1990 (containing in file D8), he had sold his agricultural land, bearing Khasra No. 57/23, 65/3 and 65/8, measuring 1 Bigha and 10 Biswa, situated in the area of village Mundka, Delhi, to Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ which were paid in cash.
3. That he identifies his signatures at pointA on the said sale deed, on all the three pages and the same is now Ex.PW27/A.
4. That the stamp duty of Rs.12,000/ was paid by Sh. Laxmi Chand.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
28 Sh. S.R. PW28 Sh. S. R. Aggarwal, Agent for Post Office Agency
Aggarwal (PW Work has in his examinationinchief deposed on the
28) following aspects:
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 82 of 364
1. That he is agent for post office agency work.
2. That he know accused S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik (both accused correctly identified in the court by the witness) as they are one of his depositors and they approached him for investments done in various post office schemes.
3. That whenever they had desired for some investments, they handed over the amount in cash to him and also hand over the photocopies of identify documents of the investors, in the name of whom the investments were to be made.
4. That on receiving the cash amount and photocopies of the identification documents, he used to fill up the application form.
5. That the application in the joint name of Geeta Devi and Pulkit Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/A.
6. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at point A on both the pages of the application.
7. That the application in the joint name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Pulkit Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/B.
8. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
9. That the application in the joint name of Lalit Narayan and Pulkit Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/C.
10. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
11. That the application in the joint name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Divya Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/D.
12. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 83 of 364
13. That the application in the joint name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/E.
14. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at point A on both the pages of the application.
15. That the application in the joint name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Divya Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/F.
16. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
17. That the application in the joint name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/G.
18. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
19. That the application in the joint name of Divya Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/H.
20. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
21. That the two applications in the joint name of Santosh Kaushik and Divya Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ each are in his handwriting and the same are Ex.PW28/I & Ex.PW28/I1. The applications bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at point A on both the pages of the applications.
22. That the application in the joint name of Pulkit Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/J.
23. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 84 of 364
24. That the application in the joint name of Divya Kaushik and Pulkit Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/K.
25. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
26. That the application in the joint name of S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/L (already admitted on 07.11.2014 and marked as Ex.P98).
27. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
28. That the application in the joint name of Lalit Narayan and Pulkit Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/M.
29. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at point A on both the pages of the application.
30. That the application in the joint name of Lalit Narayan and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/N.
31. That the applications bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
32. That the application in the joint name of Geeta Devi and Divya Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/O.
33. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
34. That the application in the joint name of Geeta Devi and Divya Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/P.
35. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 85 of 364 pages of the application.
36. That the application in the joint name of Geeta Devi and Santosh Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/Q.
37. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
38. That the application in the joint name of Geeta Devi and Divya Kaushik for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/, is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW28/R.
39. That the application bears his stamp with licence number and his signatures at pointA on both the pages of the application.
40. That whenever the documents and cash amount was given to him by Sh. S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik, he used to supply them the receipt, regarding acknowledgement of the cash amount received by him.
41. That since, the receipt could not be issued for more than Rs.10,000/, he had to prepare five receipts for each application worth Rs.50,000/.
42. That he has seen the 35 receipts, issued by him to Sh. S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik, worth Rs.10,000/ each.
43. That the said 35 receipts are Ex.PW28/S1 to Ex.PW28/S35 respectively.
44. That he used to submit the applications alongwith the relevant necessary documents at GPO, New Delhi from there he used to get the Kissan Vikas Patra in the name of the applicants.
45. That the post office used to note his name on the Kissan Vikas Patras and he used to affix his stamp on the back side of the Kissan Vikas Patra.
46. That seven original Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ each, in the name of the applicants.
47. That these Kissan Vikas Patras were received by him on behalf of the applicants from the GPO, New Delhi and were handed over by him to S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik. Original Kissan Vikas Patras are Ex.PW28/T1 to Ex.PW28/T7.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 86 of 364
48. That the applicant S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik also used to get the investments done in their PPF account, through him.
49. That he does not know Smt. Geeta Devi or Sh. Lalit Narayan or Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma.
50. That he know only Sh. S.K. Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik, who are present in the court.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite grant of opportunity to this effect. 29 Sh. Arjun Kumar PW29 Sh. Arjun Kumar, Director, L. R. Builders Pvt.
(PW29) Ltd., has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he running business in the name of L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd., since 1984 and he is director of the said company.
2. That he was the owner of property bearing No. 8233, 8234 & 8243, situated at New Anaj Mandi, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi6 and this property consisting of four storey having total measuring area of 1700 sq ft.
3. That on 01.11.2007, he sold the ground floor of this property to Smt. Santosh Kaushik, Raj Kishori, Smt. Geeta, Sh. Lalit Narayan for Rs.1,02,00,000/ and stamp duty of Rs.6,65,000/ was paid by them.
4. That at the time of ICICI bank was also there in the premises.
5. That he had handed over the original sale deed to Smt. Santosh Kaushik, after registration of sale deed.
6. That the certified copy of the sale deed is Ex.PW29/A and it bears my signatures at pointA on all the 31 pages. (The accused have objected to the mode of proof of this document).
7. That the sale deed Ex.PW29/A also bears the signatures of accused Santosh Kaushik at pointB on all the pages.
8. That he has identified her signatures because she had signed the sale deed in his presence.
9. That the detail of payments given by each vendee is mentioned at page15 & page16 of the sale deed.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 87 of 364 This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
30 Ms. Kanupriya PW30 Ms. Kanupriya Aggarwal, Relationship Manager Aggarwal (PW in ING Vysya Bank in the Wealth Management Division
30) has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of June, 2011, she was working as Relationship Manager in ING Vysya Bank in the wealth management division. She was handling two branches at that time.
2. That she used to sit in the morning session at ING Vysya Bank, Connaught Place Branch and in the afternoon session, she used to sit at ING Vysya Bank, Karol Bagh Branch.
3. That in the year 2011, Mr. Ramandeep Singh, the branch operations head, Karol Bagh Branch had directed him to hand over some documents to the CBI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road.
4. That she handed over a closed / sealed packet to him, containing some documents and directed him to hand over the same to the concerned official at the CBI office.
5. That she had handed over the said packet to the concerned official of the CBI.
6. That she does not remember the name of the said official now.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That her statement was not recorded by CBI, at any point of time.
That even she is not aware, as to the documents which were handed over to her in a sealed packet, were signed by whom and she is not aware about the contents of the documents.
31 Ms. Dhiraj PW31 Ms. Dhiraj Chhabra, Administrative Officer in Chhabra (PW31) Branch 129, Moti Nagar, LIC, New Delhi, has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 29.10.2010, she was posted as Administrative Officer in Branch 129, Moti Nagar, LIC, New Delhi.
2. That she remained posted there, since May 2010 till May 2012.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 88 of 364
3. That Sh. Jai Prakash Pabri was posted as Branch Manager in the same branch.
4. That the letter dated 29.10.2010 bears the signatures of Sh. Jai Prakash Pabri at point 'A' which signatures she identifies as she has seen him signing and writing in official course of duties. The said letter is Ex.PW31/A.
5. That she also identifies the seal of Sh. Jai Prakash Pabri, at point 'B'.
6. That the aforesaid letter was accompanied with the list of policies, which bears her signatures at point 'A' on all the three pages and the same is now Ex.PW31/B (Colly).
7. That she also identifies the signatures of Sh. Jai Prakash Pabri, at point 'B' on page number 3.
8. That the status report alongwith premium paid history of LICs policies, which consists of 46 pages. The said status report is Ex.PW31/C (Colly). It bears her signatures and seal at point 'A' on all the pages.
9. That this status report is a computer generated report and was generated by her from their computer system installed in the office.
10. That she was directed to hand over the aforesaid documents to the CBI, so she visited CBI office and handed over the same to the IO of the case.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That whenever an insurance policy is taken by a person, he signs the proposal form and the same is submitted at the LIC office.
That she has not handed over any proposal form to the IO.
That she does not remember the date on which she visited the CBI office and handed over the documents to the IO.
That her statement was not recorded by the CBI officials.
That inquiries were made by CBI officers from her.
That there are large number of computers installed in their office.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 89 of 364 That the computer from which she had generated the aforementioned record, was not in her exclusive possession.
That she does not remember the exact number of location of the computer from which this record was generated by her. She has no technical knowledge of the computers.
That she does not know whether any seizure memo was prepared by the IO, regarding seizure of the documents, by her.
That she had handed over the documents to Mr. Pathak of the CBI.
That no specific order in writing was given to her for handing over the documents to the CBI at the CBI office.
32 Sh. Naveen PW32 Sh. Naveen Kumar Sharma, Employee at 5E, Rani Kumar Sharma Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, has in (PW32) his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 22.08.2011, he was working in the office at 5E, Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.
2. That the CBI called for information, regarding investment by Surender Kumar Kaushik and Ms. Santosh Kaushik.
3. That the nature of his duties was for opening of Demat Account and all other related activities regarding Demat Accounts and all the activities were controlled by Sh. Vijay Bhushan, who was the owner/proprietor.
4. That the letter dated 22.08.2011 Ex.PW32/A bears his signatures at point 'A', vide which he submitted information, as desired by the CBI, vide annexures A & B.
5. That Annexure A consisting of two pages is transaction statement between 22.08.2009 to 09.02.2011 and the same bears his seal and signatures at point 'A' on each page and the same is now Ex.PW32/B.
6. That he took out the printout from the computer system of national security depository limited.
7. That the Annexure B consisting of nine pages bear his signatures on each page at point 'A' which is Ex.PW32/C and the same was generated from the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 90 of 364 computer by him.
8. That after generating the record, he submitted the aforesaid documents to the IO at the CBI office.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That there are five computer operators, working in his department and all the computers are in their exclusive possession.
That he is not aware as to when he received a letter from CBI, thereby asking him to furnish the aforesaid documents.
That she does not remember as to when he generated the aforesaid exhibits from the computer. The transaction date is printed on the documents. That there are 67 computers installed in his department but he is unable to tell as to from which computer the aforesaid exhibits were generated. That no seizure memo was prepared by the CBI officials at the time of handing over the aforesaid exhibits.
That he does not remember if his statement was recorded by the CBI officials in connection with the handing over of the aforesaid documents. That at the time of opening Demat Account, the customer furnishes an application accompanied with the identity documents and address proof. That he submitted the documents to the CBI which were demanded by the CBI from him.
33 Sh. Jhaggar PW33 Sh. Jhaggar Singh, Public Relation Officer at Singh (PW33) GPO, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he was working as Public Relation Officer at GPO, New Delhi, in the year 20102011 and remained posted there from July 2007 to 31.12.2012.
2. That the letter dated 28.07.2010 (D30) was written by Assistant Director (Admn), GPO, New Delhi, addressed to the CBI, vide which he submitted the desired information to the CBI officials.
3. That along with the said letter, he submitted the photocopies of the application forms along with the identity documents, running into 32 pages, to the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 91 of 364 CBI officials and all these documents bear his signatures and seal at point 'A' on each page and are Ex.PW33/A (Colly).
4. That the CBI officials had directed him to put his seal and signatures on these photocopies and on their directions, he had put his signatures and seal on the documents.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he had visited the CBI office on 02.08.2010. That vide letter dated 28.07.2010 (D30), he was directed by the Assistant Director (Admn.) to visit the CBI office to hand over the documents to the CBI officials.
That no inquiries were made by the CBI officials from him.
That his statement was not recorded by the CBI officials.
That vide letter dated 16.08.2010 (D31) he had handed over some documents to the CBI. That this letter was handed over to him by Sh. D.C. Sharma, Assistant Director (Admn.), GPO, Delhi. That he identifies his signatures on this letter at point 'A' which is now Ex.PW33/B. That vide this letter, he also handed over the photocopies of some documents, running into 29 pages to the CBI.
That he had not taken original documents with him at the time of handing over the documents Ex.PW33/A (Colly) to the CBI officials. That he is not aware as to who generated the copy of ledger (PPF) consisting of five pages, which is part of Ex.PW33/B and he is also not aware as to when the same was generated and from which computer. That he does not have any personal knowledge about the documents.
That no seizure memo was prepared when he handed over the aforesaid documents to the CBI. That he had visited the CBI office on two occasions, but he does not remember the dates of his visit.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 92 of 364 34 Sh. Bhagmal PW34 Sh. Bhagmal Singh, Account Officer, MTNL, Singh (PW34) Rajouri Garden, New Delhi has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That presently, he is retired from the post of Account Officer, MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
2. That he worked as Account Officer in MTNL, Rajouri Garden from July, 2002 to 31.12.2011.
3. That the office/carbon copy of the letter dated 23.09.2010 bears his signatures at point 'A' along with his official stamp and the same is Ex.PW34/A(D52).
4. That vide this letter, he had provided the information regarding telephone No. 25912844, for the period September, 2000 till 17.09.2010, to the CBI.
5. That alongwith the letter Ex.PW34/A, the payment detail of aforesaid telephone number, was also furnished to the CBI.
6. That the computer generated payment details, running into two pages, also bear his signatures at point 'A', alongwith his official stamp and the same is now Ex.PW34/B (2 pages Collectively).
7. That the subscriber of the above mentioned telephone number was Smt. Raj Kishori.
8. That the computer generated print out regarding details of payment of abovesaid telephone number from 01.09.2000 to 09.09.2010, containing in file (D51), which is at page No. 28 to 30.
9. That it bears his signatures at point 'A' alongwith his official stamp, at page30 and the same is now Ex.PW34/C (3 pages collectively).
10. That the payment has been made by cash, cheque and ECS.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That no seizure memo of documents Ex.PW34/B and Ex.PW34/C was prepared by the IO, in his presence.
That the payment record were being maintained in the billing section, which was separate from his office.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 93 of 364 That the Account Officer CSMS, Rajouri Garden, was incharge of that Section.
That he has not issued any certificate, u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, in respect of the document Ex.PW34/B & Ex.PW34/C. That he has no personal knowledge about the generation of these documents.
That he does not remember about the mode vide which these documents were handed over to the CBI.
That he has visited the CBI office once but he does not remember the exact date.
That the CBI officials made inquiries from him by showing these files, probably, his statement was also recorded.
That initially, the telephone was installed in the name of Smt. Raj Kumari.
That Sh. Laxmi Chand was the name of her husband. That the payments are received by the department on behalf of the subscriber.
35 Sh. Surender PW35 Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, Office Assistant in Singh Narwal Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, C4, (PW35) Janakpuri, Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010, he was working as Office Assistant in Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, C4, Janakpuri, Delhi, and his duties were to conduct examination activities in the institute.
2. That the productioncumseizure memo dated 12.08.2010 (D49) bears his signatures at point 'A' which is Ex.PW35/A and vide this memo, he had provided the documents mentioned therein to Inspector CBI Vikas Pathak.
3. That the copy of the admission form of Divya Kaushik (admitted document) also bears his signatures at point 'A' in token of attestation which is now Ex.PW35/B.
4. That the letter dated 10.08.2010 was written to SP., ACB, CBI and it bears his signatures at point 'A' which is Ex.PW35/C and this letter also bears the signatures of the then Director Dr. Sushma Dabru at point 'B'.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 94 of 364
5. That vide this letter the information sought by the CBI, was provided through a separate letter.
6. That presently, Dr. Sushma Dabru is not working in the institute and her whereabouts are not known.
7. That he has been shown the letter, dated 10.08.2010, written to SP, ACB, CBI.
8. That it bears signatures of Dr. Sushma Dabru, at point 'A', which he identifies as he has seen her signing the documents during the official course of his duties and the same is now Ex.PW35/D.
9. That vide this letter, their institute had provided details of expenses of Ms. Divya Kaushik for B. Tech Programme.
10. That he has been shown the photocopies of the documents regarding fee structure of Divya Kaushik.
11. That the documents bear signatures of Dr. Sushma Dabru at point 'A', on all the three pages and are Ex.PW35/E (Colly)
12. That as per these documents, Rs.53,000/ were deposited with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and the part payment of Rs.21,250/ were deposited with their institute, as first year fee.
13. That another amount of Rs.11,000/ was deposited on behalf of Divya Kaushik, on 24.02.2010. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That two receipts of payment are prepared on a single page.
That one copy is given to the student, whereas, the acknowledgment portion is deposited in the college. That he had handed over the documents to the CBI, himself, probably, in the year 2010 itself. That he does not remember the exact date. That his statement was also recorded by the CBI and the same was signed by him.
That their college provides the books to the students against the payment of the aforementioned fees. That it also contained the refundable security of Rs.5,000/.
That Dr. Samunder Singh, Office Superintendent, had handed over the photocopies of the original documents to him for supplying the same to the CBI.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 95 of 364 36 Sh. Sanjay PW36 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Manager, Legal Cell, ICICI Sharma (PW36) Bank, NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2011, he was working as Manager, Legal Cell, ICICI Bank, NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi.
2. That his duties as Manager (Legal) was to attend the courts and to pursue the legal matters/cases on behalf of ICICI Bank.
3. That he visited the CBI office to hand over the statements / documents on the instructions of Sh. D. Ganesh, Sr. Manager, who was working at Bombay, at that time.
4. That he has handed over the documents, which are on record as D73.
5. That he identifies signatures of Sh. D. Ganesh, as he worked with him and acquainted with his signatures, as he used to meet him during the course of official duties.
6. That he identifies the signatures of D. Ganesh at point 'A' on the letter dated 03.08.2011 and on the photocopy of safety bond at point 'A'.
7. That the letter along with AnnexureI, is Ex.PW36/A and the photocopy of the application form for safety bonds is Ex.PW36/B. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the entire record pertaining to the old transactions with ICICI Bank are maintained at Mumbai Head Quarter.
That he has never seen the originals of document Ex.PW36/B. That he has also not seen the original record. That CBI has recorded his statement. 37 Sh. Arun Sharma PW37 Sh. Arun Sharma, Branch Manager at Satellite (PW37) Branch of LIC, at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2012, he was posted as Branch Manager at Satellite Branch of LIC, at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.
2. That vide seizure memo dated 06.01.2012 (D66) Ex.PW37/A which bears his signatures at point 'A', CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 96 of 364 he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Inspector CBI, Sh. Vikas Pathak.
3. That the status report of policy No. 330655375, in the name of Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, which has been matured.
4. That during the currency of this policy, the total premium paid was Rs.24,100/.
5. That the said policy was opened on 11.08.2000 and matured in August 2005 and the maturity amount paid was Rs.37,591/.
6. That the computer print out, running into two pages, was taken out by him from their system and bears his signatures at point 'A' and the same is now Ex.PW37/A1.
7. That the status report of policy No. 120002810, in the name of Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, which has been matured.
8. That during the currency of this policy, the total premium paid was Rs.6379.60/.
9. That this policy was opened on 28.03.1991 and matured in March, 2011 and the maturity amount payable was Rs.1,56,800/ and after deductions, net amount paid was Rs.59,598/ and the deduction was of Rs.97,202/.
10. That the computer print out, was taken out by him from their system and bears his signatures at point A which is Ex.PW37/A2.
11. That the status report of policy No. 110998276, in the name of Sh. Surender Kumar Kaushik, which has been matured.
12. That during the currency of this policy, the total premium paid was Rs.6,350.50p.
13. That it was opened on 13.06.1990 and matured in June, 2010 and maturity amount paid was Rs.1,61,300/.
14. That the computer print out was taken out by him from their system and bears his signatures at point 'A' which is Ex.PW37/A3.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That whenever a customer pays the premium of LIC policy, a receipt is issued to him and the copies of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 97 of 364 the same are retained in their record. That all the premium paid by the customers, are reflected in the ledger book being maintained in their office.
That he did not hand over the copies of the receipt or the ledger book to the IO.
That his statement was never recorded in connection with this case, by the CBI.
That there are number of computers being maintained in their office.
That the computers are under the direct control of Assistant, whosoever is officiating the department. That he cannot tell from which computer, Ex.PW37/A1 to Ex.PW37/A3 were generated and whether they were in the working order or not. That he did not issue any certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to the IO, nor the same was asked by the IO.
That he is not aware about the computer code with the help of which the documents are generated. That he had stated to the CBI officer that the aforesaid documents had been generated by him, himself. However, the witness is confronted with the statement Ex.PW37/DX where it is not so recorded. That he did not hand over the alleged original policies to the IO, during the investigation of this case.
That the endorsement made on Ex.PW37/A1 between points 'B to B1' is not in his handwriting and he cannot say as to who had endorsed the same. 38 Sh. Lalit Narain PW38 Sh. Lalit Narain Sharma, Property Dealer at Sharma (PW38) Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is running a business of Dharamkanta and also running a property dealer business at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi and accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik is his real sister.
2. That vide seizure memo dated 28.11.2011 (D72) which is Ex.PW38/A bearing his signatures at point A, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Inspector CBI Sh. Vikas Pathak.
3. That he had handed over to the IO the photocopy of the photocopies of 21 rent receipts pertaining to the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 98 of 364 rent paid by Smt. Santosh Kaushik to him after signing each copies of the rent receipts as he was the owner of the property No. D183, Karampura, Delhi, which copies are Ex.PW38/A1 to Ex.PW38/A21 bearing his signatures at point 'A'.
4. That the original of the above rent receipts are filled by him in the case, titled as "Lalit Sharma vs. Sub Registrar, Janak Puri", pending in the court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. ADJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
5. That he had purchased the said property in the year 1996 and since then, he had rented the same to accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
6. That he also has the counterfoil of the rent receipts, from September, 2009 till May, 2010 and he can produce the same, if asked so.
7. That the letter dated 08.11.2011 (D86) which is Ex.PW38/B bearing his signatures at point 'A' and vide this letter, he had submitted the copy of the income tax return to Inspector CBI Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, for the period 2000 to 201011 and the copy of registration of Shiv Shakti Dharam Kanta.
8. That the photocopy of the certificate of verification of Dharam Kanta, dated 29.06.2001, bears his signatures at point 'A' which is Ex.PW38/B1.
9. That the photocopies of the income tax returns for the said period, running into nine pages, bears his signatures at point 'A', on each page and the same are now Ex.PW38/C (Colly).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That his statement was recorded by the CBI officials, during investigations. That whatever photocopies were asked by the IO, he had produced the same before him.
That Santro Car No. DL2CD 0049 of black color belongs to him and he had paid the value of the same through his SBI bank account at Sultanpuri Branch.
That he had purchased the same in February 2000 or February 2001.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 99 of 364 39 Sh. Hansraj PW39 Sh. Hansraj Arora, Owner of Hotel Vaishnav Raj Arora (PW39) Hotel at Gali Mochia, Paharganj, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 198990, he was running a hotel in the name and style of Vaishnav Raj Hotel at Gali Mochia, Paharganj, New Delhi.
2. That receipt dated 24.02.1989 Ex.PW39/A bears his signatures at point 'A' and of his brother Narayan Dass at point 'B' (in Urdu), who is now expired.
3. That vide this receipt, they have received total amount of Rs.1,35,000/ from accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
4. That the registered 'Will' dated 24.02.1989 bears his signatures at point 'A'.
5. That the said 'Will' was executed by him in favour of accused Santosh Kaushik, in respect of his half share of property WZ/246B1, Killa No.21, Mustatil No. 74, measuring 115.55 sq. yards, situated at Uttam Nagar, area of village Hastsal, New Delhi and the Will is Ex.PW39/B.
6. That another Will dated 24.02.1989 Ex.PW39/C which was executed by his brother Narayan Dass, who is now expired, in favour of accused Santosh Kaushik, in respect of his half share of property WZ/246B/1, Killa No.21, Mustatil No. 74, measuring 115.55 sq. yards, situated at Uttam Nagar, area of village Hastsal, New Delhi.
7. That he identifies the signatures of his brother Narayan Dass in Urdu at point 'A', as he has seen him signing this document.
8. That the General Power of Attorney executed on 09.03.1989 between his brother Narayan Dass, himself and accused S.K. Kaushik, for sale permission in respect of property WZ/246B/1, Killa No. 21, Mustatil No. 74, measuring 115.55 sq yards, situated at Uttam Nagar, area of village Hastsal, New Delhi.
9. That the General power of Attorney, running into three pages, bear his signatures at point 'A' and signatures of his brother, in Urdu, at point 'B'.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 100 of 364 40 Sh. Arun Kumar PW40 Sh. Arun Kumar Jindal, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jindal (PW40) Jal Board has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 1995, he was working as Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board. Smt. Neelima Jindal is his wife.
2. That the General Power of Attorney Ex.PW40/A executed by his wife Smt. Neelima Jindal in favour of Raj Kishore wife of late Sh. Laxmichand, on 11.08.1997 and he had signed the said General Power of Attorney as a witness at point 'A' on page 3.
3. That the 'Will', dated 11.08.1997 executed by his wife Neelima Jindal bears his signatures as a witness at point 'A' and the Will is now Ex.PW40/B.
4. That the agreement to sell dated 11.08.1997 executed by his wife Smt. Neelima Jindal in favour of Raj Kishori, he had signed this documents at page3, at point 'A' and the same is now Ex.PW40/C.
5. That the possession letter dated 01.04.1995 Ex.PW40/D executed by Neelima Jindal in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori and the same also bears his signatures at point 'A' as a witness.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
41 Sh. Manuj Sh. Manuj Chadha, Assistant Administrative Officer in Chadha (PW41) Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Sector43, Arawali Hills, Faridabad has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010, he was working as Assistant Administrative Officer in Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Sector43, Arawali Hills, Faridabad.
2. That the productioncumseizure memo dated 12.08.2010 bears his signatures at point 'A' which is Ex.PW41/A.
3. That vide this memo he had provided the documents mentioned therein to Inspector CBI Vikas Kumar Pathak.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 101 of 364 42 Sh. Rajesh Jain PW42 Sh. Rajesh Jain, Owner of Jewellery showroom at (PW42) Karol Bagh, New Delhi, under the name and style of New Kusal Jewellers has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2012, he was running a jewellery showroom at Karol Bagh, New Delhi, under the name and style of New Kusal Jewellers, since 1989.
2. That about 34 years ago, he was called by the CBI at its office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. That during inquiries, the CBI officials asked him about his business activities and also asked him about sale or purchase of jewellery articles to any lady, named Santosh Kaushik.
4. That he told them that in case, he had sold or purchased some jewellery to the said lady, there must be the relevant receipts and documents in that regard, issued by them.
5. That they told him to bring the relevant documents.
6. That the same was produced by him before the CBI officials, again after a few days.
7. That he can identify those documents, if shown to him.
8. That photocopy of a certificate dated 19.01.2008 was shown to the witness upon which the witness stated that this photocopy was provided by him to the CBI officials.
9. That the original of this document has been produced by this witness in the court.
10. That the witness has identified his signatures on the photocopy of this certificate at point A and B.
11. That the certificate was issued by him to Mrs. Santosh Kaushik on 19.01.2008, regarding the purchase of 361.1 gms. Gold worth Rs.3,25,000/, from her and the payment of the said amount was made to her vide cheque No. 860897, dated 19.01.2008, drawn upon State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Faizroad, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
12. That a photocopy of the PAN card was also taken from Smt. Santosh Kaushik and her PAN card number was also mentioned in this certificate.
13. That the certificate bears signatures of Smt. Santosh Kaushik at pointC, photocopy of the certificate is Ex.PW42/A (part of D77).
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 102 of 364
14. That he had supplied the photocopy of the certificate Ex.PW42/A alongwith photocopy of the PAN card of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and a copy of the purchase account of his firm New Kusal Jewellers for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008.
15. That the CBI officials prepared a production cum seizure memo, regarding the seizure of the aforesaid documents, which bears his signatures at point A which production cum seizure memo is Ex.PW42/B (D77).
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
43 Sh. Brij Mohan PW43 Sh. Brij Mohan Paliwal, Secretarial Officer, Oswal Paliwal (PW43) Greentech Limited (erstwhile Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Limited), at 7th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2012, he was working as Secretarial Officer in the office of Oswal Greentech Limited (erstwhile Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Limited), at 7th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.
2. That in the year 1989, company had launched its right cum public issue and at that time, name of the company was Bindal Agro Chem Limited.
3. That his company secretary Sh. H.K. Gupta directed him to attend the CBI office, in connection of inquiry relating to a case against Ms. Santosh Kaushik.
4. That he submitted the relevant record, asked for by the CBI officers.
5. That he can identify the records, if shown to him.
6. That the letter dated 24.02.2012 Ex.PW43/A (D80) bears his signatures at point A and is addressed to CBI, ACB, New Delhi relating to details of shares held by Mrs. Santosh Kaushik, in the records of the company.
7. That the letter dated 01.03.2012 Ex.PW43/B (D81) bears his signatures at point A and is addressed to CBI, ACB, New Delhi by him, relating to details of shares held by Mrs. Santosh Kaushik, in the records of the company.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 103 of 364
8. That the letter dated 19.03.2012 Ex.PW3/C bears his signatures at point A addressed to CBI, ACB, New Delhi by him, relating to details of shares held by Mrs. Santosh Kaushik, in the records of the company.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That his statement was not recorded by the CBI in connection with this case.
That he had supplied the supporting documents to the CBI, which show that Smt. Santosh Kaushik was holding the shares of their company, as mentioned in Ex.PW43/A to Ex.PW43/B. That he does not remember the exact date when he checked the records pertaining to the above mentioned shares nor he can tell as to when the documents were supplied to the CBI. That all the records pertaining to the holding of shares by any customers, are kept stored in their computers.
That the details and the computers were under the control of their registrar, Skyline Financial Services.
That the details of the above mentioned shares were supplied to them by him.
That he had telephonically asked him to submit the details.
That he had not obtained any certificate from him under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. That he had stated to the CBI that he was having no personal knowledge of the records. 44 Sh. Amrender PW44 Sh. Amrender Kumar Singh, GradeII Labour Kumar Singh Inspector in the office of Labour Commissioner, 5 (PW44) Shamnath Marg, Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2005, he was working as GradeII Labour Inspector in the office of Labour Commissioner, 5 Shamnath Marg, Delhi.
2. That during the above said period, he was assigned to conduct a door to door survey of Karampura area in respect of labour homes.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 104 of 364
3. That during that survey, he had gone to the various houses and verified about the inmates of the houses.
4. That he had prepared a survey report and submitted the same to the Housing Commissioner concerned.
5. That the original report can be produced if directed in this regard.
6. That the survey report for the year 2005 Ex.PW61/A (running into 9 pages) was prepared by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A' on page9.
7. That as per his survey report, property No. D183, DBlock, Karampura, Delhi was allotted to Sh. Dhankvir and at the time of the survey, the same was occupied by Surender Kaushik in the capacity of purchaser/owner.
8. That the property No. D191, Karampura, Delhi, was allotted to Laxmi Chand and the same was occupied by him as allottee.
9. That the property No. D192, Karampura, Delhi, was allotted to Parhlad and was occupied by Lalit Narain as purchaser.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he cannot identify the occupiers of the aforesaid properties now.
That he does not remember whether he had met the above named occupiers in the properties at the time of this survey.
That the person who met him during the survey, had disclosed him the names of the occupiers of the properties and therefore, he had mentioned their names in his survey report.
That he had not verified the status of the occupiers of the properties by checking the title document of the said properties.
45 Sh. Shailender PW45 Sh. Shailender Kumar, General Manager in Kumar (PW45) Dewan Motors, having its head office at Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2011, he was working as General Manager in Dewan Motors, having its head office at Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 105 of 364
2. That sometime around the year 2012, the CBI officials made inquiries from him, regarding a Pulsar Motorcycle, in the name of one Pulkit.
3. That he does not remember the registration number of the motorcycle now.
4. That he does not remember the complete name or parentage of said Pulkit.
5. That he had furnished the copies of their records to the CBI officials.
6. That he had supplied the copy of the registration slip/ road tax receipt and copy of the sale register to the CBI.
7. That the witness is shown office of registration slip/road tax receipt, dated 14.08.2008, issued by the RTO.
8. That the witness states that the Pulsar motorcycle was got registered, online, at the RTO office, by his office and this is a computer generated copy of the receipt issued by the RTO, in this regard.
9. That copy of the same is Ex.PW45/A (D90) which bears his signatures at point A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the sale register was not being maintained by him.
That the original register was not produced or handed over to the CBI officials.
That the registration slip was generated by their employee and the same was not generated by him. That he does not remember the date when he generated the copy of the registration slip. That he does not remember whether the CBI officials had recorded his statement. That this motorcycle was purchased by the customer in cash and was not financed.
That he had not handed over the cash receipt to the CBI.
46 Sh. Ved Prakash PW46 Sh. Ved Prakash, Sub Registrar Punjabi Bagh Sub (PW46) District, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Nangloi Delhi41, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in September 2011 he was working as Sub Registrar Punjabi Bagh Sub District, Govt. of NCT CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 106 of 364 of Delhi, Nangloi Delhi41.
2. That in reply to the letter dated 13.09.2011, he had provided the certified copies of the registered sale deed dated 08.12.2008 to the CBI.
3. That his covering letter dated 28.09.2011, is already on record and the same is now Ex.PW46/A, which bears his signatures at pointA.
4. That the certified copy of the sale deed is already Ex.PW26/A, which bears his signatures at pointC, on all the ten pages.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he had not appeared before any investigating officer of the CBI, at any time.
47 Sh. Krishan PW47 Sh. Krishan Kumar, LDC, Record Keeper, in the Kumar (PW47) office of SubRegistrarII, Janak Puri, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 2011, he was posted as LDC, Record Keeper, in the office of SubRegistrarII, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
2. That the seizure memo dated 11.07.2011 (D16) which is Ex.PW47/A bearing his signatures at point A and vide this memo, he has provided the certified copies of documents, mentioned therein, to inspector CBI Vikas Kumar Pathak.
3. That he has supplied the certified copies, after comparing the same with the originals and in token of comparison of the documents, he has signed the certified copies.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has no personal knowledge of the document, the certified copies of the which were supplied by him to the IO.
That he had not shown the originals of these documents to the IO and the originals were never produced before the IO.
48 Sh. Mahesh Dhar PW48 Sh. Mahesh Dhar Dwivedi, SubRegistrar Dwivedi (PW48) DehradunII has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects: CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 107 of 364
1. That during the period w.e.f. 30.11.2006 to 16.07.2011, he was posted at Dehradun as Sub Registrar DehradunII.
2. That the letter dated 12.10.2010 (D17) (running into two pages) bears his initials on pageI and signatures alongwith official stamp at page2.
3. That he identify his initials and signatures at point A, on both the pages. The letter is now Ex.PW48/A.
4. That vide this letter, he had provided certified copies of two sale deeds mentioned therein along with the details, to Inspector CBI, ACB, Delhi, in response to his letter dated 14.09.2010.
5. That he has been shown the sale deed, dated 12.12.2008 (Contained in the file D8).
6. That the sale deed is running into eleven pages.
7. That he had registered this sale deed in the capacity of SubRegistrar DehradunII, on 12.12.2008 which bear his signatures on back of all the pages.
8. That the sale deed was executed between Smt. Neelam Jindal as seller and S.K. Kaushik, as purchaser, in respect of the property mentioned in the sale deed and the same is Ex.PW48/B. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
49 Sh. Jai Malhotra PW49 Sh. Jai Malhotra, Computer Operator, Hans Raj (PW49) Model School, Road No. 73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That since the year 2003 he is working in Hans Raj Model School, Road No. 73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, as a computer operator.
2. That the productioncumseizure memo, dated 12.08.2010, Ex.PW49/A running into two pages, bears his signatures at point 'A' on both the pages.
3. That vide this memo, he had provided the documents to the IO of the CBI, which are mentioned in this memo.
4. That the Principal of the School vide her letter dated 12.08.2010 Ex.PW49/B instructed Smt. Purnima Nangia and himself to assist the IO. He identifies the signatures of Mrs. R. R. Kumar, Principal of School, at point 'A' who has since retired from the service of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 108 of 364 the school.
5. That he identifies the signatures of Mrs. R.R. Kumar, as he had seen her signing and writing, during the ordinary course of his duties.
6. That he had also handed over the form of application, for admission of Ms. Divya Kaushik, Dated 17.07.1995, which is Ex.P109 (admitted document).
7. That another admission form in respect of Master Pulkit Kaushik, dated 28.08.1995 was handed over by him, which is already admitted documents Ex.P 110.
8. That another admission form in respect of Master Hardik Kaushik, dated 22.09.2001 was handed over by him, which is an admitted document as Ex.P111.
9. That he also handed over the copy of application for full fee concession submitted by S.K. Kaushik, which is an admitted document Ex.P112 and another application for fee concession, dated 10.07.2003, submitted by S.K. Kaushik in respect of his son Pulkit Kaushik, is an admitted document, which is Ex.P113.
10. That accused S. K. Kaushik also submitted another application for fee concession for all of his three children on 02.07.2004 (admitted document) Ex.P 114 and the same was handed over by him to the IO.
11. That the computer generated copy in respect of details of fee for the period w.e.f. 1995 to 2011 in respect of Ms. Divya Kaushik; Pulkit Kaushik and Hardik Kaushik, were also handed over to the IO.
12. That the same bears the signatures of Mrs. Purnima Nangia, the Head of Fee Department, at point 'A' on each page and also the signatures of the school principal at point 'B' on each page and his signatures at point 'C' on pages 9 to 16.
13. That the statement running into sixteen pages, is now Ex.PW49/C (Colly).
14. That he identified her signatures as he has seen her signing and writing in the ordinary course of his duties.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 109 of 364 That his statement was recorded by the CBI officials, but he does not remember the place or date of recording his statement.
That he does not remember whether the same was being noted down by CBI officials on his dictation. That the fee receipts or the record of deposition of the fees will not be available in the school, being an old record. He had not seen the original fee deposit receipts.
That he had prepared these details after going through the fee registers.
That he does not remember whether he had stated to the IO in his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., that he had prepared these details after going through the fee registers.
That he had prepared these documents by typing these records in his computer.
That some of the record was already fed in the computers.
That the fee statement for the year 200910 and 201011 was prepared on the basis of record already available in the computers. That he does not remember whether he had stated this fact to the IO in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. That the statement Ex.PW49/C was prepared by Smt. Purnima Nangia and the same was typed by him.
That the present address of Smt. Purnima Nangia might be available in the school record. That he had not stated about preparation of these records, in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. That Smt. Purnima Nangia is the person, who can disclose about the records from which she had prepared these documents.
That Smt. Purnima Nangia had provided him the day book etc., for typing of these statements. That CBI had not obtained any certificate from him regarding the computer generated statement Ex.PW49/C. That he does not remember the date of preparation of these statements.
That he does not remember whether the original registers were produced before the IO or not.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 110 of 364 That no other employee of the school has produced the registers before the IO, in his presence. That he does not remember about the period for which the statement was to be prepared. That he had not seen the original school record, in the court today.
50 Sh. Sri Ram PW50 Sh. Sri Ram, Zonal Inspector, Property Tax (PW50) Department, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in September, 2011, he was working as Zonal Inspector, Property Tax Department, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi.
2. That the productioncumseizure memo (D61) dated 15.09.2011 Ex.PW50/A which bears his signatures at point 'A'.
3. That vide memo Ex.PW50/A he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, Inspector, CBI, New Delhi, at CGO Complex, New Delhi.
4. That the certified copy of property tax receipt pertaining to property No. WZ246/1/B, Najafgarh, Uttam Nagar, Delhi is Ex.PW50/B.
5. That the property tax receipt No. 557050 dated 30.06.2009 Ex.PW50/B was in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik, for the year 20092010, amounting to Rs. 22,612/.
6. That the receipt is certified by Assistant Assessor & Collector, Property Tax, West Zone, although, he does not know his name.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That his statement was never recorded by the CBI in connection with this case.
That they have demanded the documents from him, in the year 2011. He does not remember the exact date.
That he had handed over these documents in the CBI office at CGO Complex.
That they had obtained his signatures on the undertaking when he handed over these documents.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 111 of 364 That he had seen the carbon copy of the document Ex.PW50/B and the same was also shown to the CBI officials.
That the witness has voluntarily explained that original is kept by the assessee.
That he does not remember the name of the person, who had certified this document.
That the said official had certified these documents in his presence.
That he does not know whether the property No. WZ 246/1/B, Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi was constructed in the year 1970 or thereafter. That no register regarding a particular property is maintained in their office after the introduction of unit area method, which was introduced in the year 2004.
That he does not know whether the record of the aforesaid property is still in their office or not. 51 Sh. Ravi Kaushik PW51 Sh. Ravi Kaushik, Manager, Grand Celebration (PW51) Banquet Hall, at Pitampura, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That presently, he is working as Manager, Grand Celebration Banquet Hall, at Pitampura, New Delhi and his father's name is late Sh. Laxmichand Kaushik.
2. That they are two brothers and one sister; S.K. Kaushik is his elder brother and Mrs. Promila Bhardwaj is his sister.
3. That his father was working in Swantra Bharat Mill, Karampura, as Supervisor.
4. That the property bearing No. D191, Karampura is in the name of his father.
5. That this property was earlier situated in Labour Colony, owned by the authority, which he does not know.
6. That later on, in the year 1981, it was allotted to his father who expired in the year 1986.
7. That his father paid the amount for allotment, but he does not remember the amount.
8. That he does not know the name of the person who owned the property at Pitampura, i.e. F1/U169 or F1/U170.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 112 of 364
9. That he does not know the name of the owner of the flat No. D192, Karampura, Delhi.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement made to the CBI, hence he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he had visited the CBI office, during the investigations of this case and his statement was also recorded.
That Inspector Vikas Pathak made inquiries from him and recorded his statement, but he does not remember the date.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that he told the IO during his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., that his father was working as a labour. That he might have disclosed to the IO in his statement that an amount about Rs.3,500/ was paid by his father for allotment of the property in his name, but he does not remember about the exact amount.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That he completed his diploma in Hotel Management from ITDC, New Delhi.
That in the year 1988, he went abroad for a job. That he remained employed in France for about four years and returned to India in the year 1991. That he used to send money from his salary to his parents at India.
That his father also used to do some property business.
That his mother was also running a milk diary and was also earning some money by supply of milk. That she also used to pay income tax and he used to file her income tax return and filed her returns from the year w.e.f. 1991 to 1994.
That his father had also purchased about four or five plots in various colonies in Delhi. That his mother also used to help his father in his property business and she used to get commission for the said service also.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 113 of 364 That his parents had also constructed some properties in one or two places in Delhi. That it is possible that the property at Mussoorie was purchased by his mother of her own income. That his mother executed a Will in favour of his brother S.K. Kaushik, in respect of the said property.
That his mother had also executed various Wills in respect of the properties owned by her in favour of his brother S.K. Kaushik, as well as himself. That his father also used to give some money to his mother for her business.
52 Inspector Anil PW52 Inspector Anil Bisht, Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Bisht (PW52) Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 2010, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi. Sh. Vivek Priaydarshi was the then SP of the branch.
2. That he was directed by the SP to record the statement of one witness Sh. Narender Singh Bedi and collect the documents, which he brought with him.
3. That he seized the documents vide productioncum seizure memo dated 22.10.2010.
4. That he also recorded the statement of Narender Singh Bedi.
5. That the productioncumseizure memo (D62) Ex.PW8/A bears his signatures at point 'C' and the signatures of Narender Singh at point 'A'.
6. That the IO of this case was preoccupied, therefore, he was directed to seize the documents, by the SP.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That no written order was passed by the S.P. Sh.
Vivek Priyadarshi Singh, to seize the documents from the witness.
That he does not remember whether the IO recorded his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
That no notice was sent to him for joining the investigation.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 114 of 364 53 Inspector Brij PW53 Inspector Brij Mohan Meena, Inspector in ACB, Mohan Meena CBI, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed (PW53) on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 2010, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi. Sh. N.M. Singh, was the then SP of the branch.
2. That he was directed by the S.P. to seize the record from MCD office, West Zone, Delhi.
3. That he seized the documents vide productioncum seizure memo dated 01.06.2010, from Sh. Neeraj Pant, LDC, MCD, West Zone, Delhi.
4. That the productioncumseizure memo (D3) Ex.PW11/A bears his signatures at point 'B' and the signatures of Neeraj Pant at point 'A'.
5. That the IO of this case was preoccupied, therefore, he was directed to seize the documents, by the S.P. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That no written order was passed by the S.P. Sh.
N.M. Singh, to seize the documents from the witness. That he does not remember whether the IO recorded his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
That no notice was sent to him for joining the investigation.
54 Sh. V. PW54 Sh. V. Krithivasan, Branch Operation and Services Krithivasan (PW Head in ING Vysaya Bank, at Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi,
54) has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in July, 2010, he was working as Branch Operation and Services Head in ING Vysaya Bank, at Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi.
2. That letter dated 29.07.2010 (D41) Ex.PW54/A bears signatures of his the then Branch Head Sh.
Jasvinder Singh, whose signatures appear at point 'A' and he identifies his signatures as he has seen him signing and writing during the ordinary course of his duties.
3. That vide this letter, the statement of account bearing account No. 530010007623, pertaining to Mrs. Santosh Kaushik, was provided to Sh. Vikas Pathak, Inspector, CBI as he had requested to provide the same from their bank.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 115 of 364
4. That the statement of account, (running into five pages), for the period 18.11.1992 to 02.09.2009 is Ex.PW54/B.
5. That he had handed over the print of the same from the computer and certified the same and his signatures appears at point 'A' on all the five pages.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That there were 10 to 20 employees of ING Vysaya Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, who were working on the computer from where this statement of account has been generated.
That he does not remember to which employee, direction was given for generating the statement of account Ex.PW54/B. That the signatures of the said employee was not taken.
That on 29.07.2010, Mr. Jasvinder Singh was in service when he signed the letter Ex.PW54/A. He is not in bank service.
That he has only initiated at Ex.PW54/A, at point 'B'.
That he does not remember if the bank had ever handed over any certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, to the CBI.
55 Sh. Pawan Singh PW55 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, has in his (PW55) examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Nodal Officer since 2005 and his duties are to provide the confidential data to their law enforcement agencies, like CBI, IB, Delhi Police, DRI, ED, Income Tax etc.
2. That they provide data like, customer details, location, CDRs, billing details, interception etc. and also to depose in court of law.
3. That vide letter dated 27.07.2011 Ex.PW55/A which bears his signatures at point A he had provided the payment details of mobile number 9911019242, for the years 2008 to 2011, which is a post paid connection, which is annexed with this letter as AnnexureA, to CBI.
4. That the AnnexureA to the said letter bears his initials alongwith official seal at point 'A' and the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 116 of 364 same is now Ex.PW55/B (Colly) (2 pages).
5. That he has also provided the copy of the customer application form along with the relevant document, i.e. voter ID card.
6. That the customer application form and the copy of voter ID card also bear his initials alongwith his official seal at point 'A' and the same are now Ex.PW55/C (Colly).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he did not generate AnnexureA, Ex.PW55/B nor he knew the name of the person who has generated Ex.PW55/B. That the company verifies the correctness of the photograph of the person who applies for the mobile telephone connection.
That the concerned official of the concerned department of the company verifies the photograph of the applicant by physical verification of the applicant.
That he had not obtained the source of the payments alleged to have been made, as per Ex.PW55/B. 56 Sh. N. K. PW56 Sh. N. K. Mahajan, Asstt. Engineer (Civil), in Mahajan (PW PWD, in the office of M132 Division, Tihar Jail, New
56) Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That presently he is working as Asstt. Engineer (Civil), in PWD, in the office of M132 Division, Tihar Jail, New Delhi.
2. That earlier he was posted in Valuation Office as Asstt. Valuation Officer, in CPWD at Rohit House, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
3. That the letter dated 21.05.2012 (D57) addressed to DIG, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
4. That vide this letter, he had forwarded his valuation reports in respect of two properties, (I) F265, Sudarshan Park, 2nd Floor, New Delhi and (ii) A44, Palam, Sector7, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. That the letter bears his signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW56/A.
6. That their office of Chief Engineer, received the request letter from CBI to value the properties, as CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 117 of 364 mentioned above.
7. That in property F265, Sudarshan Park, 2nd Floor, New Delhi, Sh. S.K. Kaushik is the coowner and the property at A44, Palam, Sector7, Dwarka, is exclusively in the name of Santosh Kaushik.
8. That the valuation report in respect of property No. F265, Sudarshan Park, 2nd Floor, New Delhi, is running into four pages and bear his signature alongwith official seal on all the four pages at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW56/B.
9. That the valuation report in respect of property No. A44, Palam, Sector7, Dwarka, running into five pages, bear his signatures alongwith his official seal at point 'A' on all the five pages and the same is Ex.PW56/C.
10. That he has also valued the property No. WZ246 B, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, owned by Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
11. That the valuation report, running into four pages bear his signatures on all the pages at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW56/D and the forwarding letter dated 09.03.2012 (D76) bears his signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW56/E. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he took the measurement of all the floors of Uttam Nagar property and made entries in their routine register. He has not brought the said register today. The same was not supplied to the CBI.
That Mr. Naveen Kapoor, Jr. Engineer, had accompanied him to the said property and took measurements.
That he has not taken the sample of the construction material from the said property.
That the valuer is not supposed to take the samples of the construction material.
That he has mentioned the year of construction as 1990, in his valuation report, on the basis of the correspondence letters issued by the CBI to our department.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 118 of 364 That the said letters are not attached with the valuation report.
That the said property was not in occupation of any person at that time, however, a guard was present there and the building was in semifinished condition.
That he made inquiries from the neighbours of the property regarding the year of construction of the property, but none of them could disclose the year of construction of the property.
That as an expert, he was unable to disclose the exact year of construction of the property. That he had mentioned the names of the owners of the properties, in his valuation reports Ex.PW56/B, Ex.PW56/C & Ex.PW56/D, as S.K. Kaushik, on the basis of the letter given to him by the CBI. That he did not verify any document to find out the true name of the owner. He had not taken any photograph of the property. It took him about two hours to inspect the property. He had not mentioned this fact in his report.
57 Sh. Rakesh PW57 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, SubRegistrar1, Kashmere Kumar (PW57) Gate, Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010, he was working as Sub Registrar1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
2. That vide letter Ex.PW14/A bears his signatures at point 'A', he had provided the documents mentioned therein to CBI.
3. That the certified copy of the sale deed, which he had provided to the CBI is Ex.PW29/A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the relinquishment deed dated 17.03.2008 (contained in file D8), is shown to the witness and the said relinquishment deed is Ex.PW57/DX. That this relinquishment deed has been registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate on 17.03.2008 and at that time he was not the Sub Registrar there and therefore, the fact of registration of the said relinquishment deed can be verified from the record of the Sub Registrar.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 119 of 364 58 Sh. Praveen PW58 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana is the Record Keeper, Kumar Rana Office of Sub Registrar - 1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi who (PW58) has proved the certified copy of the sale deed dated 01.11.2007 which is Ex.PW29/A. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
59 Sh. Suneet PW59 Sh. Suneet Sharma, Dy. Branch Manager, ICICI Sharma (PW59) Bank, Noida, Sector18 Branch has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of June, 2011, he was posted in ICICI Bank, Noida Sector18 Branch, as Dy. Branch Manager.
2. That letter dated 06.06.2011 (D63) Ex.PW59/A was issued by him on 24.05.2012, on the instructions of his Branch Manager (Operations) Mr. Ramandeep Singh, of ING Vysya Bank, Karol Bagh Branch.
3. That he further states that on 24.05.2012, he was working as Branch Manager, at ING Vysya Bank, Karol Bagh.
4. That this letter bears his signatures at points 'A' and signatures of Sh. Ramandeep Singh at point 'B'.
5. That along with this letter, certified copies of the statement of account pertaining to account No. 530010007623 of Smt. Santosh Kaushik, running into six pages; certified true copies of the cheques mentioned in the aforesaid letter and certified true copy of payinslip dated 28.02.2005, were also supplied to the CBI officials.
6. That the certified copies of the statement of account and the certified true copies of the payinslip and the cheques also bear his signatures on each page at point 'A'.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he does not remember whether he had visited the CBI office for signing the letter Ex.PW59/A. That he had not seen the original vouchers, the cheques or the original record, at the time of signing this letter.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 120 of 364 60 Sh. Daulat Ram PW60 Sh. Daulat Ram Kashyap, Record Keeper, Sub Kashyap (PW60) Registrar OfficeIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently working as Record Keeper, Sub Registrar OfficeIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
2. That as record keeper, his duties are to maintain the record of sub registrar office, and to issue certified copies of the documents.
3. That he also attends the courts whenever received the summons from the court, to produce the summoned record.
4. That he also received the summons in this case on 04.03.2017.
5. That he could not bring the summoned record, pertaining to sub registrar office of Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, regarding property bearing Municipal No. 8243/14 and 8244/14, L.R. Complex, Nai Anaj Mandi, Near Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi; property agriculture land measuring 01 bighas and 06 biswas at Khasra No. 1135, min., situated in Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and property bearing municipal No. 1002 & 1003, constructed on leasehold plot No. 27 to 30, bearing Khasra No. 1298/1144 and Khasra No. 1506/1145, at Shivaji Street, Faiz Road, Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, Delhi and property bearing Municipal No. 1004 and 1005, constructed at plot No. 31, bearing Khasra No. 1296/1144 and Khasra No. 2030/1505 in Block No. NN, situated at Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as the record has been transferred to the Department of Delhi Archives, GNCTD, at 18A, Satsang Vihar, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi, prior to the year 2001.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
61 Sh. Himanshu PW61 Sh. Himanshu, conducted Survey of Colony, D (PW61) Block, Karampura, Delhi, carried out w.e.f. 03.06.2005 to 11.06.2005, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the summoned record pertaining to Survey of Colony, DBlock, Karampura, Delhi, carried out w.e.f. 03.06.2005 to CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 121 of 364 11.06.2005.
2. That he has produced the survey report file of the year 2005, containing the survey report dated 15.06.2005.
3. That the photocopy of the same is on judicial record as Annexure8 of letter, dated 18.10.2011 which is Ex.PW15/A and the survey report is Ex.PW61/A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the case or the record and he is not the record keeper.
62 Sh. D. C. Sharma PW62 Sh. D. C. Sharma, Assistant Director (Admn.), (PW62) GPO, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he remained posted as Assistant Director (Admn.), GPO, New Delhi, during the year 2010 to 2012.
2. That the letter dated 16.08.2010 (D31) Ex.PW33/B which bears his signatures marked at point 'A'.
3. That vide this letter, he had provided certified copy of documents as mentioned in the letter.
4. That the document was provided in pursuance to the letter received from Sh. V.K. Pathak, Inspector, CBI.
5. That the letter dated 13.03.2012 (D32) bears his signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW62/A.
6. That vide this letter he had provided documents, as mentioned therein to Sh. V.K. Pathak, Inspector, CBI.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he has not brought any original documents in the court. 63 Sh. Hemant (PW PW63 Sh. Hemant is the UDC, Mall Road Transport
63) Authority, North Zone, Delhi who has in his examination inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the summoned record of vehicle bearing registration No. DL2CV 0049, make Santro Car, Registered in the name of Sh. Laxmi Narain Sharam, resident of House No. 195, Village Pooth Kalan, New Delhi.
2. That the certified copy of the registration slip of the abovesaid vehicle is Ex.PW63/A.
3. That the certified copy of Fancy Number allotment CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 122 of 364 slip is Ex.PW63/B.
4. That the certified copy of the Form20 for registration of Vehicle is Ex.PW63/D.
5. That the certified copy of Form22 (Vehicle identification certificate) is Ex.PW63/E.
6. That the certified copy of manufacturer invoice is Ex.PW63/F.
7. That the certified copy of sale invoice of the agency is Ex.PW63/G.
8. That the certified copy of insurance policy (cover note) is Ex.PW63/H.
9. That the certified copy of Form60 is Ex.PW63/I.
10. That the certified copy of Form17 (Trade Certificate) is Ex.PW63/J,
11. That the certified copy of Form19 (Part of Trade certificate) is Ex.PW63/K. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has no personal knowledge of the case or the registration of the vehicle.
That at present, the identity documents of the owner of the vehicle, in whose name the vehicle is to be registered, are taken by the authority. That a photocopy of identity card issued by Election Commission of India, in the name of Lalit Narain son of Shiv Kumar Sharma, bearing the stamp of Hans Hyundai, the dealer who sold the vehicle, was received in their office, alongwith other documents for registration of the vehicle and the same is on their record.
That the certified copy of the same is on judicial record which is Ex.PW63/DA.
64 Sh. Bhim Singh PW64 Sh. Bhim Singh Singal, Branch Manager, Bank of Singal (PW64) Baroda, Karampura Branch, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the period w.e.f. February 2012 to August 2012, he was working as Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, New Delhi.
2. That the certificates, u/s 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, in respect of statement of account, bearing account No. 21740100007575, in the name CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 123 of 364 of Ms. Divya Kaushik, for the period w.e.f. 26.10.2002 to 04.09.2006; account No. 21740100007576, in the name of Pulkit Kaushik, for the period w.e.f. 26.10.2002 to 04.09.2006; account No. 21740100012673, in the name of Hardik Kaushik, for the period w.e.f. 08.11.2007 to 04.05.2010 and account No. 21740100004798, in the name of Hardik Kaushik for the period w.e.f. 08.11.2007 to 04.05.2010 and account No. 21740100004798, in the name of Raj Kishori, for the period w.e.f. 01.09.2006 to 10.05.2012.
3. That he has issued these certificates under his signatures and his signatures are at point 'A', alongwith the official seal on all the certificates and the same are Ex.PW64/A, Ex.PW64/B, Ex.PW64/C, Ex.PW64/D & Ex.PW64/E respectively.
4. That the certified copy of the statement of account, bearing account No. 21740100014923, in the name of Santosh Kaushik, for the aforesaid period and account No. 21740100004798 in the name of Raj Kishori wife of Laxmi Chand for aforesaid period.
5. That the statement of account bears his signatures alongwith the official seal at point 'A' on both the statements and the same are now Ex.PW64/F & Ex.PW64/G, respectively.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That his statement was never recorded in connection with the present case by the CBI.
That the statements of accounts are computer generated statements and were generated by Sh. R.C. Sandhu, Manager, on the demand of the CBI officials.
That he had handed over the signed copies to Sh. R.C. Sandhu, who in turn handed over the same to the CBI officials.
That CBI officials had not interrogated Sh. R.C. Sandhu in his presence.
That he had not personally generated any statement of account from the computers.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 124 of 364 65 Sh. R.M. Sati PW65 Sh. R. M. Sati, Sr. Branch Manager, in Bank of (PW65) Baroda, Karampura Branch, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010, he was working as Sr. Branch Manager, in Bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, New Delhi.
2. That the letter dated 03.08.2010 bears his signatures at point A and the said letter is Ex.PW65/A.
3. That vide letter Ex.PW65/A, he had provided the documents, mentioned therein to Inspector of CBI, Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak.
4. That the letter dated 12.08.2010 bear his signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW65/B.
5. That vide Ex.PW65/B letter, he had provided the documents, mentioned therein to Inspector of CBI, Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak.
6. That along with this letter, he had also provided the statement of account in respect of account No. 21740100014923 in the name of Santosh Kaushik.
7. That the computer generated statement of account is certified by him and his signatures alongwith the official seal are at point 'A' which is Ex.PW65/C.
8. That he had also provided computer generated statement of account in respect of account bearing No. SB 28105 in the name of Pulkit Kaushik, which bears his seal and signatures at point A which Ex.PW65/D.
9. That he had also provided the computer generated statement of account in respect of account bearing No. 2174100007576 in the name of Pulkit Kaushik.
10. That this account was earlier account No. SB 28105 and after CBS, the account No. SB 28105 was converted into aforesaid account number.
11. That the statement of account of the aforesaid account number, running into two pages, bears his signatures and official seal at point 'A' which is Ex.PW65/E.
12. That he had also provided computer generated statement of account in respect of account bearing No. SB 28106 in the name of Divya Kaushik, which bears his seal and signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW65/F. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 125 of 364
13. That he had also provided the computer generated statement of account in respect of account bearing No. SB 28106 9in the name of Divya Kaushik, which bears his seal and signatures at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW65/F.
14. That he had also provided the computer generated statement of account in respect of account bearing No. 21740100007575 in the name of Divya Kaushik.
15. That this account was earlier account No. SB 28106 and after CBS, the account No. SB 28106 was converted into aforesaid account number.
16. That the statement of account of the aforesaid account number, running into three pages, bears his signatures and official seal at point 'A' and the same is Ex.PW65/G.
17. That he had also provided the computer generated copy of account No. 21740100012673 in the name of Hardik Kaushik, running into two pages, bearing his signatures and official seal at point 'A' on each page and the same is Ex.PW65/H.
18. That the letter dated 10.11.2010 bears his signatures at point 'A' which is Ex.PW65/I and vide this letter, he had provided documents, mentioned therein to Sh. Vikas Pathak, Inspector, CBI.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he does not recollect if he ever received any requisition in writing from the IO, regarding the supply of documents as have been mentioned in his examination in chief.
That his statement was never recorded by the IO in connection with this case at any stage. That he had not personally taken out the printouts of the statement of accounts from the computers. About 1214 computers are maintained in their bank.
That he does not remember the name of the official, who took out the printouts.
That the documents were sent to the CBI by post. That a dispatch register is maintained in the bank. That he has no personal knowledge of the bank accounts.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 126 of 364
66 Ms. Surekha PW66 Ms. Surekha Bhardwaj, Assistant Post Master,
Bhardwaj (PW GPO, New Delhi, has in her examinationinchief deposed
66) on the following aspects:
1. That during the year 2010, she was working as Assistant Post Master, GPO, New Delhi.
2. That the application form Ex. PW28/A for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra, in the name of Geeta Devi and Pulkit Kaushik was dealt with / proceeded by her and the said application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A2' on the back of the application which is Ex. PW28/A.
3. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application, which is Ex.PW28/T7 and the said Kissan Vikas Patra bears her signatures at point 'A' along with her official stamp.
4. That the application form for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Pulkit Kaushik was proceeded by her and the said application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A2' on the back of the application which is Ex.PW28/B.
5. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application, which is already Ex. PW28/T6 which Kissan Vikas Patra bears her signature at point 'A' along with her official stamp.
6. That the application form for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra in the name of Lalit Narain and Pulkit Kaushik was proceeded by her and the said application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A 2' on the back of the application which is Ex.PW28/C.
7. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application, which is Ex.PW28/T5.
8. That the application form for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Divya Kaushik had been processed by her and the application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A2' on the back of the application which application is Ex.PW28/D.
9. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application which is Ex.PW28/T4 which Kissan Vikas Patra bears her signatures at point 'A' CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 127 of 364 alongwith her official stamp.
10. That the application form for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Santosh Kaushik had been proceeded by her and the said application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A2' on the back of the application and is Ex.PW28/E.
11. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application, which is Ex.PW28/T3.
12. That the Kissan Vikas Patra bears her signatures at point 'A' aongwith her official stamp.
13. That the application form for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra, in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Divya Kaushik had been processed by her and application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A 2' on the back of the application and is Ex.PW28/F.
14. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application, which is Ex.PW28/T2 which Kissan Vikas Patra bears her signatures at point 'A' alongwith her official stamp.
15. That the application form for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patra, in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Santosh Kaushik had been processed by her.
16. That the application bears her signatures at point 'A1' & 'A2' on the back of the application and is Ex.PW28/G.
17. That she had issued the Kissan Vikas Patra, in lieu of this application, which is Ex.PW28/T1.
18. That the Kissan Vikas Patra bears her signatures at point 'A' alongwith her official stamp.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That her statement was never recorded by the IO in connection with this case.
That she does not know about the official who supplied original KVP to the IO.
That she had not supplied these documents to the IO. The CBI had not collected any documents from me.
That the CBI officials had never made any inquires from her.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 128 of 364 That application forms for issuance of KVP remains in the custody of the Assistant Post Master. That dealing assistant takes acknowledgement from the applicant regarding issuance of KVP. That a register is maintained regarding issuance of Kissan Vikas Patra.
67 Sh. Roop Chand PW67 Sh. Roop Chand, Senior Post Master, Ramesh (PW67) Nagar, Head Post Office from February 2012 to June 2014 has in his examination in chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he was posted as Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, Head Post Office from February 2012 to June 2014.
2. That on receipt of query from the CBI regarding the four MIS accounts, he had sent the details of the same vide communication dated 28.03.2012 which is now Ex.PW67/A bearing his signatures at point A and the reference of the CBI communication at point encircled B.
3. That vide the above communication he had informed the CBI that there existed four MIS accounts bearing numbers 205581, 205582, 205294 and 205295 all in the name of Raj Kishore, D191, Karampura, Delhi.
4. That the amount in the account number 20551 was Rs.36,000/ in account number 205582 the amount was Rs.30,000/ in account number 205294 the amount was Rs.45,000/ and in account number 205295 the amount was Rs.30,000/.
5. That the MIS account number 205294 was closed on 21.07.2008.
6. That the MIS account number 205295 was closed on 21.07.2008 as per the ledger copy but on account on the clerical mistake it has been written as 21.07.2012.
7. That the other remaining two accounts are still operative.
8. That attested photocopies of the ledger sheet of all the four accounts Ex.PW67/B, Ex.PW67/C, Ex.PW67/D and Ex.PW67/E all bearing his signatures at point mark A alongwith the attestation.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 129 of 364 In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That to open an account in the Monthly Income Scheme, the applicant has to submit an account opening form.
That he cannot tell if the account opening forms for all the above four accounts were handed over to the CBI but again clarified that the same were not handed over to the CBI.
That the said accounts were opened in the sub post office at Karampura.
That the letter dated 25.02.2010 Ex.PW67/DX1 has been issued by the Sub Post Office Karampura and hence he cannot respond with regard to its contents. That he cannot tell in which year the accounts were opened nor he has personally dealt with account opening forms.
That the same were opened in Sub post Office Karampura whereas he was posted in the main post office at Ramesh Nagar.
That he cannot tell whether the account holder was a male or female since the name mentioned in the same is simply "Raj Kishore".
That he has not placed on record any document regarding the closure of the accounts and the signatures present on the closing. That it is the nominee who got the account closed by moving an application as per procedure. That he has not handed over any receipt or application signed by the nominee showing receipt of the money.
That he was never asked for the said document by the CBI.
That as per Ex.PW67/B and Ex.PW67/C, Ravi Kaushik has been shown as the nominee. That the ledgers of these accounts used to remain in the Sub post office.
That he has never called these ledgers for inspection because there is no such requirement. That he does not recollect on what basis he had attested these documents that is whether only the photocopies were received or the same were got done by him after seeing the original record.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 130 of 364 That on requisitioning any record from any other post office including the sub post office, the same is sent in writing.
That he has not handed over the said requisitioning record to the CBI.
That as on date he cannot produce any such record because he has not posted in that post office. That the said record can be requisitioned from the concerned post office.
That so far as he remember, no CBI officer met him in person nor recorded his statement, he only sent the requisitioned record through concern Public Relation Inspector of his office.
68 Sh. Mohan Lal PW68 Sh. Mohan Lal, Sub Post Master at Paschim (PW68) Vihar, Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he was posted as Sub Posts Master at Paschim Vihar, Delhi from 31.01.2011 to 31.01.2014.
2. That on receipt of query from the CBI regarding the three Recurring Deposit accounts, he had sent the details of the same vide communication dated 29.02.2012 which is Ex.PW68/A and bears his signatures at point A and the reference of the CBI communication at point encircled B.
3. That vide the above communication he had informed the CBI that there existed three Recurring Deposit accounts bearing numbers (i) 344875 for Rs.5,000/ per month in the name of Divya Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik, (ii) 344872 for Rs.5,000/ per month in the name of Divya Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik and (iii) 344871 for Rs.5,000/ per month in the name of Hardik Kaushik, all resident of D 183, Karampura, New Delhi.
4. That all the three accounts were opened on 11.05.2010 with the check in period before 01.06.2010.
5. That he has also provided the attested copies of ledger sheets of all the above said R.D. accounts bearing no. 344875, 344872 and 344871 which are Ex.PW68/B, Ex.PW68/C and Ex.PW68/D respectively bearing his signatures and attestation at point B and C respectively on all the pages.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 131 of 364 In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That to open an R.D. Scheme account, the applicant has to submit an account opening form. That the account opening forms for all the above three accounts were not handed over to the CBI and has voluntarily explained that they had never asked him for the same.
That he cannot tell whether the above accounts have been closed or the same are still operational. That he has never seen the account opening forms of all the three accounts.
That he cannot tell the relationship of the nominees with the account holders.
That the above ledger account Ex.PW68/B to Ex.PW68/D have been entered in the official CPU which is under his control and supervision and has voluntarily explained that the entries are made by the Babu/Clerk and he has not made the same. That Babu / Clerk can open and shut down the CPU for making the entries.
That the entries have been made by the Babu on the basis of entries made in manual register and he has not checked the same personally.
That he was never asked to submit any certification with regard to correctness of the electronic record of the ledgers Ex.PW68/B to Ex.PW68/D or any certificate Under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
That he has not brought the original ledger account book today for purposes of comparison with the above record Ex.PW68/B to Ex.PW68/D. That as on date he cannot produce original ledger record which he has exhibited today since he has retired.
That no CBI officer had ever met him nor recorded his statement.
That he does not recollect the mode by which he had sent the requisitioned record that is whether it was by post or through official dak or was handed over to the CBI officers directly.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 132 of 364 69 Sh. A.K. Mahajan PW69 Sh. A. K. Mahajan, Chief Manager, UCO Bank, (PW69) Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the period 2010 to 2012, he was posted as Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi.
2. That on receipt of query from the CBI regarding the account of Smt. Raj Kishori, account bearing number 6947, UCO Bank, Rajendra Place Branch, he had sent the details of the same vide communication dated 21.07.2012 which is Ex.PW69/A and bearing his signatures at point A and the reference of the CBI communication at point encircled B.
3. That alongwith this communication he had also dispatched four documents i.e. (i) copy of the account opening form of account no. 6947 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori which is Ex.PW69/B, (ii) copy of account opening form of account No. 6941 in the name of Sh. Ravi Kaushik, the introducer of this account which is Ex.PW69/C, (iii) Statement of account in respect of account No. 6947 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori which is Ex.PW69/D bearing the signatures of his Assistant Manager Mrs. Mamta Bani which he identifies at point A having seen her while writing and signing during her official course of duties, and (iv) photocopies of ten vouchers relating to account number 6947 of Smt. Raj Kishori which are Ex.PW69/E (Colly, running into 10 pages) bearing signatures of Mrs. Mamta Bani which he identified at point A having seen her while writing and signing during her official course of duties.
4. That on receipt of query from the CBI regarding the account of Smt. Raj Kishori, he vide communication dated 26.08.2011 vide Ex.PW69/F bearing his signatures at point A and the reference of the CBI communication at point B had sent photocopies of six vouchers relating to account bearing no. 6947 to the CBI which vouchers are Ex.PW69/G (Colly, running into 6 pages) bearing the signatures of some officials of the bank alongwith the seal at point which signatures he cannot identify as of now.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 133 of 364
5. That he had also dispatched the statement of account relating to account no. 6947 of Smt. Raj Kishori which is Ex.PW69/H (running into single page) bearing the signatures of some officials alongwith the official seal at point A which signatures he cannot identify.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That as per the official record, the accounts in question were opened in the year 1988 and he was not posted in the said branch at that time and hence he does not have any personal knowledge of the same.
That he had only got the same photocopied from the original records and attested the same. That the vouchers Ex.PW69/E (Colly) and Ex.PW69/G (Colly) were not executed in his tenure. That he had got the copies prepared from the original and then got the attested the same. That the originals are with the bank and he cannot produce the same since he has retired. That he does not recollect if the CBI had asked the bank to hand over the original vouchers. That the above statement of accounts Ex.PW69/D and Ex.PW69/H have been retrieved from the official computer.
That the same are auto generated being connected to the CBS i.e. Core Banking Solutions having its server at Kolkata.
That any officer of the bank who has been officially entrusted with the code can certify the correctness of the above record Ex.PW69/D and Ex.PW69/H. That the CBI had not asked any officer of the bank to give any certification regarding the correctness of the above record or any certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
That the above document Ex.PW69/D and Ex.PW69/H also does not bear the certificate Under the Banker's Book of Evidence.
That the account opening form Ex.PW69/DX1 belongs to the account of Sh. Ravi Kaushik.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 134 of 364 That the account opening form of Smt. Raj Kishori Ex.PW69/C does not show any person as the nominee.
That the CBI had not asked him for any details relating to Sh. Ravi Kaushik and hence he did not provide the same to the CBI.
That he recollect having sent another communication / letter to the CBI but he does not find the same on record.
That as on date he cannot produce original records as aforesaid since he has retired.
That no CBI officer had ever met him nor recorded his statement.
That he had sent the requisitioned record to the CBI by hand but he does not recollect if any receipt regarding the same was issued.
70 Sh. M.R.V. PW70 Sh. M. R. V. Subrahmanyam, General Manager in Subrahmanyam Karvy Computershare Private Ltd. has in his examination (PW70) inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of May 2012, he was working as General Manager in Karvy Computershare Private Ltd.
2. That Narayani Mansion, H.No. 190/2/10/E, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad500081.
3. That on 10.05.2012, he provided the documents required by Inspector Vikas Kumar Pathak, vide his letter No. 14660 dated 08.10.2010 vide his letter dated 10.05.2012.
4. That the letter dated 10.05.2012 which is Ex.PW70/A (D88) bearing his signatures at point A.
5. That the certificate under banker's book of evidence act, annexed with the letter is on record and the same is Ex.PW70/B bearing his signatures at point A.
6. That the certificate is with regard to the computer generated statements of account as mentioned in the certificate.
7. That the statements of account are Ex.PW70/C (Colly, 23 pages).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 135 of 364 That his statement was never recorded by the CBI during the investigation of this case, nor any inquiry was made from him.
That the computer from which the data pertaining to Ex.PW70/C (Colly) was allegedly retrieved, remained in the central I.T. of Karvy and UTI. That the aforesaid exhibits were generated by his assistant whose name he does not remember. That the aforesaid exhibits were generated by his assistant on 10.05.2012.
That at the time of applying for mutual fund, the customer always submits an application for the same.
That he did not supply any such copy of application or original to the CBI officials during investigations. That the name shown in Ex.PW70/C i.e. the name of Sh. S.K. Sharma, Smt. Raj Kishori and Smt. Santosh Kumari were the persons who had applied in the name of beneficiary for the purpose of obtaining UTI mutual fund.
That he is not aware about the personal details of S.K. Sharma and Smt. Raj Kishori Sharma who might have applied in the name of minor children Divya Kaushik for obtaining the policies. That the documents Ex.PW70/A to Ex.PW70/C were sent by post to the office of CBI. That he can produce the postal record regarding dispatch of the letter Ex.PW70/A if so directed. 71 Sh. P.N. Kaushik PW71 Sh. P.N. Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (PW71) (3), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010 he was posted at Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi as Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (3).
2. That pursuant to a request from the CBI dated 25.06.2010, he had handed over the Income Tax Return for assessment years 20062007 to 200910 relating to Smt. Santosh Kaushik to the CBI.
3. That the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 200607 is Ex.P108 (running into five pages); Income Tax return for the assessment year 200708 is Ex.P107 (running into four pages); Income Tax Return for the assessment year 200809 is Ex.P106 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 136 of 364 (running into six pages) and the computer generated certified copy of Income Tax Return for the assessment year 200910 (running into five pages) is Ex.PW71/A (D38).
4. That all the above copies of Income Tax Return, bear his signatures on all the pages at point A.
5. That the covering letter issued by him is Ex.PW71/B (D38) bearing his signatures at point A and alongwith the same he attached the documents which he had earlier dispatched vide his communication Ex.PW17/B (D55) which documents are Ex.PW71/A.
6. That pursuant to a request from the CBI dated 26.10.2010, he had handed over the Income Tax Return for assessment years 200607 to 200809 relating to Smt. Raj Kishori to the CBI.
7. That the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 200607 is Ex.PW71/C (D39) (running into two pages); Income Tax Return for the assessment year 200708 is Ex.PW71/D (D39) (running into five pages) and the Income Tax return for the assessment year 200809 is Ex.PW71/E (D39) (running into three pages).
8. That all the above copies of Income Tax Return, bear his signatures on all the pages at point A.
9. That the covering letter issued by him is Ex.PW17/A (D39) bearing his signatures at point A. (It has been observed by the Court that the documents Ex.P106, Ex.P107, Ex.P108 and Ex.PW17/A have been duly admitted by the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik. The accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik has also admitted the documents Ex.PW71/C, Ex.PW71/D and Ex.PW71/E relating to Smt. Raj Kishori who was her mother in law.) This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
72 Sh. Lalit Kumar PW72 Sh. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager, State Gupta (PW72) Bank of India, Nagajgarh Road Branch, New Delhi, has in examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of September 2010, he was working as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Nazafgarh Road Branch, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 137 of 364
2. That their branch received a letter dated 26.07.2010 from CBI requiring the documents/information about S.K. Kaushik, Smt. Santosh Kaushik, Pulkit Kaushik, Divya Kaushik, Hardik Kaushik and Sh. Lalit Narayan.
3. That in response to the said letter he wrote a letter dated 15.09.2010 to Inspector CBI Vikas Kumar Pathak, providing him the documents and necessary information about the above said account holder as mentioned in the letter.
4. That the letter dated 15.09.2010 bears his signatures alongwith his official seal at point A which letter is Ex.PW72/A.
5. That the details of statement of account were got prepared by him manually was also annexed with the letter which is Ex.PW72/B (running into three pages).
6. That he had also provided the statement of account of Surender Kumar Kaushik having account No. 01190058463 (New account No. 10304166876) for the period from 15.03.2003 to 30.06.2010 which is a computer generated print out and it also bears the certificate under Banker's Book of Evidence Act alongwith his signatures and official seal at point A on all pages and the same is Ex.PW72/C (running into 25 pages).
7. That all the debits/credit vouchers and DDs and cheques which he had provided with his letter Ex.PW72/A are also on record.
8. That the FDRs bearing No. 30225635455 dated 17.08.2007 for Rs.70,000/ in the name of Sh. S.K. Kaushik is Ex.PW72/D1; FD 30495484459 dated 18.09.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/ in the name of Surender Kaushik is Ex.PW72/D2 and FDR No. 30495484721 dated 18.09.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/ is Ex.PW72/D3.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That no CBI official ever approached him for the purpose of recording of his statement or for the purpose inquiry from him with regard to this case.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 138 of 364 That he does not have any personal knowledge as to who was the CBI official who sent this letter to their bank since he had not personally received the same. That he is not aware as to who was the scribed/typist of document Ex.PW72/B. That the typist might have checked the record of the bank and thereafter he might have typed Ex.PW72/B. That the documents Ex.PW72/B neither bears the name or signatures of the person who prepared the said document and even it does not bear date, month or year of preparing the same.
That the documents supplied from their bank to the CBI remained in the custody of one accountant whose he does not know.
That he is not aware as to how and when and by what means the documents got exhibited by him today were sent to the office of CBI and he cannot say whether the same were handed over personally or by post.
That the documents Ex.PW72/D1, Ex.PW72/D2 and Ex.PW72/D3 supposed to remain with the customer since the same are stated to be original. That at the time of applying for getting an FDR, the customer is required to submit an application which should contain his details like name, father's name, address and photographs etc. That no such customer application from was available with them and that is why the same were not supplied to the CBI officials.
That he does not have any personal knowledge as to whose signatures are there on Ex.PW72/D1, Ex.PW72/D2 and Ex.PW72/D3.
That he is not aware as to who was that person who had retrieved documents Ex.PW72/C from the computer and as to when the same were generated. That the person who had allegedly retrieved the documents Ex.PW72/C from the computer had put the seal of the bank as well as the seal of banker's certificate and thereafter he produced it for his signatures.
That the customer namely Surender Kumar Kaushik had opened the account on 13.07.1982 and he is not CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 139 of 364 aware as to between 1982 and 1986 how much amount was the balance in the account of S.K. Kaushik.
That it could be possible that the balance in the account of Surender Kaushik between 1982 and the balance in the account of Surender Kaushik between 1982 and 1986 could be Rs.2,00,000/ to Rs.4,00,000/ but he is not aware.
That despite the fact that the statement of account of the customer was available with their bank with effect from 13.07.1982 but still no such statement of account was ever handed over to CBI. 73 Sh. Sunil Bhatia PW73 Sh. Sunil Bhatia, Company Secretary at Delhi (PW73) Stock Exchange, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2012, he was working as Company Secretary at Delhi Stock Exchange.
2. That pursuant to a request from the CBI, he had forwarded the necessary information as required vide his covering letter which is Ex.PW73/A (D70) bearing his signatures at point A.
3. That the said covering letter was accompanied with the certified copy of the daily quotations w.e.f. 30.06.1989 till 24.12.1992 in respect of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Which are Ex.PW73/B (running into seventeen pages) bearing the seal of Delhi Stock Exchange on each page alongwith the signatures of the competent officer; certified copy of the daily quotations w.e.f. 30.06.1989 till 24.12.1992 in respect of Oswal Greentech Ltd. Previously known as Bindal Agro Chem Limited which are Ex.PW73/C (running into seventeen pages) bearing the seal of Delhi Stock Exchange on each page alongwith the signatures of the competent officer.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the said information has been retrieved by their office from their computerized records. That the above information is required to be preserved for eight years but they are maintaining this for a longer period as well.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 140 of 364 That the Ex.PW73/B and Ex.PW73/C do not bear his signatures on all the pages.
That he has not brought the original records relating to Ex.PW73/B and Ex.PW73/C are the electronically generated record and is not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
74 Mrs. Geeta Batra PW74 Mrs. Geeta Batra, Assistant Chief Accountant, (PW74) GPF Section, Third Floor, Dr. S.P. M., Civic Center, New Delhi, has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of October 2011, she was working as Assistant Chief Accountant, GPF Section, Third Floor, Dr. S.P. M., Civic Center, New Delhi.
2. That their office received a letter dated 26.09.2011 from CBI requiring certain documents/information from their office regarding Sh. S.K. Kaushik, J.E., MCD.
3. That she had provided the documents vide her letter dated 10.10.2011 which is Ex.PW74/A to Inspector CBI Vikas Kumar Pathak which bears her signatures at point A.
4. That the copy of statement of GPF account bearing no. CF61292 (annexure A to the letter Ex.PW74/A) pertaining to S.K. Kaushik, is Ex.PW74/B (Colly, running into 13 pages).
5. That as per the statement, the balance in this account as on 30.06.2010 was Rs.2,36,752/ including the interest paid was Rs.1,36,725/.
6. That the hand written summary containing details about contribution and interest of the account holder was also provided by her to the CBI which is annexure B to the letter Ex.PW74/A.
7. That the summary which is Ex.PW74/C bears signatures of the then AAO at point A but she does not recollect his name.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the record pertaining to Ex.PW74/B remains in the custody of one of their clerk whose name she does not know.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 141 of 364 That she is not aware as to when the said clerk had obtained the photocopy of document Ex.PW74/B. That Ex.PW74/B are the photocopies and the same neither bear the seal of their office nor her signatures.
That after an employee joins duty, his deduction from salary towards GPF is done after one year of service.
That thereafter the GPF is deducted from the salary on every month till the employee retires. That in Ex.PW74/C no contribution of Sh. S.K. Kaushik towards the GPF deduction is reflected pertaining to year 199697, 199899, 19992000, 200203 and 20032004.
That it might be that the said deductions deducted from the salary of Sh. S.K. Kaushik for aforesaid period might not have been forwarded to their office from his parent department of MCD.
That the person who prepared Ex.PW74/C might have inspected the record and thereafter prepared the aforesaid document.
That so far as she is personally concerned, she had inspected the original record of Ex.PW74/B as and when it was placed before her.
That she is not aware of the mode by which these documents were sent to CBI i.e. by post or by hand. That he is not aware if any receipt was given by the CBI with regard to the receiving of documents and she has to check the record in her office and thereafter she can say whether the same is present in their office or not.
75 Sh. Sameer Vats PW75 Sh. Sameer Vats is the Data Entry Operator, Sub (PW75) Registrar Office VIA, Pitampura, Delhi who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the summoned record relating to General Power of Attorney dated 14.05.1996 registered vide registration No. 7834 in Addl. Book IV, Vol. No. 86 on pages 3 to 5 and the certified copy of the same is Ex.PW75/A (D56).
2. That on receipt of request from the CBI, the certified copy Ex.PW75/A had been sent to the Inspector CBI by the Sub Registrar Sh. Sachinder Chaudhary vide CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 142 of 364 his covering letter Ex.PW75/B (D56) bearing his signatures at point Mark A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the entry in the original register has not been made by him and he has only brought the summoned record. 76 Sh. Sachinder PW76 Sh. Sachinder Chaudhary is the Assistant electoral Chaudhary (PW registration Officer, AC27, Rajouri Garden who in his
76) examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on receipt of request from Inspector CBI Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, he had sent the requisite information to him relating to General Power of Attorney dated 14.05.1996 registered vide registration NO. 7834 in Addl. Book IV, Vol. No. 86 on pages 3 to 5, which is Ex.PW75/A(D56).
2. That the covering letter which is Ex.PW75/B (D56) bears his signatures at point Mark A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the entry in the original register has not been made during his tenure or under his hand and he had only sent the certified copy of the requisitioned record to the Inspector CBI. 77 Sh. Vivek Yadav PW77 Sh. Vivek Yadav is the LDC office of the Sub (PW77) RegistrarII, Basai Darapur, Delhi who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the summoned record relating to General Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2009 registered vide registration No. 11010 in Addl. Book IV, Vol. No. 12624 on pages 104 to 110 certified copy of the same is Ex.PW25/A (D16).
2. That he has also brought the summoned record relating to Lease Deed of property No. WZ246B/1, Nazafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi dated 24.09.2008 registered vide registration No. 22114 in Addl. Book I, Vol. No. 16415 on pages 15 to 20 and the certified copy of the same is Ex.P37 (D16) .
3. That he has not brought the original record of General Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2004 registered vide registration No. 58681 in Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. 10209 on pages 104108 since the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 143 of 364 serial number has been wrongly mentioned in the summons. The accused has admitted the above General Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2004 which is Ex.PW77/A (D16).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the entry in the original register has not been made by him and he has only brought the summoned record and he has no personal knowledge of the same.
78 Sh. Surender PW78 Sh. Surender Singh, Sub RegistrarII, Janakpuri Singh (PW78) has deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was working as Sub RegistrarII, Janakpuri and on that day, on the request of Inspector CBI Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak the documents i.e. General Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2009 registered vide registration No. 11010 in Addl. Book IV, Vol. No. 12624 on pages 104 to 110, certified copy of which is Ex.PW25/A (D16); certified copy of Lease Deed of property No. WZ246B/1, Nazafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi dated 24.09.2008 registered vide registration No. 22114 in Addl. Book I, Vol. No. 16415 on pages 15 to 20, which is already Ex.P37 (D16) and certified copy of Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2004 registered vide registration no. 58681 in Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. 10209 on pages 104 to 108 which is Ex.PW77/A (D16) were handed over to him on his direction by Sh. Krishan Kumar LDC vide seizure Memo Ex.PW47/A (D16) bearing the signatures of Sh. Krishan Kumar, LDC at point Mark A which he duly identifies having seen him signing and writing during the course of official duties while he was posted under him.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the entry in the original register has not been made during his tenure of under his hand. That he has no personal knowledge of the contents of any of these documents.
79 Sh. Kuldeep PW79 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Assistant Administrative Kumar (PW79) Officer in the LIC Branch No. 129, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, Delhi, has in his examination inchief deposed on the following aspects: CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 144 of 364
1. That he is working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC Branch No. 129, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, Delhi since 01.06.2012.
2. That he has brought the computer generated copy of status report of policy bearing no. 330655375 which is Ex.PW79/A.
3. That the copy of the status report of the aforesaid policy is on record which is Ex.PW37/A1 (D66).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the IO CBI did not make any inquiry from or recorded his statement in connection with the above document.
That Ex.PW79/A and Ex.PW37/A1 are not supported by any certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
80 Sh. Mukesh PW80 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Assistant Administrative Kumar (PW80) Officer in the LIC Branch No. 11E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC Branch No. 11E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi since the last two years.
2. That he has brought the computer generated certified copy of status report of policy bearing No. 120002810 which is Ex.PW80/A bearing his signatures along with his official stamp at point A.
3. That the copy of the status report of the aforesaid policy is on record and the same is Ex.PW37/A2 (Part of D66).
4. That he has also brought the computer generated certified copy of status report of policy bearing no. 110998276 which is Ex.PW80/B bearing his signatures along with his official stamp at point A.
5. That the copy of the status report of the aforesaid policy is on record and the same is Ex.PW37/A3 (part of D66).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the IO CBI did not make any inquiry from or recorded his statement in connection with the above CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 145 of 364 document.
That Ex.PW80/A, Ex.PW80/B and Ex.PW37/A2 and Ex.PW37/A3 are not supported by any certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. 81 Ms. Shalini (PW PW81 Ms. Shalini, Sr. Manager in the UCO Bank,
81) Punjabi Bagh Branch, has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she is working as Sr. Manager in the UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch since August, 2016.
2. That she has brought summoned record of certified photocopy of Ex.P94 i.e. locker signature card with respect to locker no. 428 in the joint name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and Sh. S.K. Kaushik, opened on 13.01.2010.
3. That certified copy of application form hiring of locker is Ex.P96 which is in the joint name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and Sh. S.K. Kaushik.
4. That she has also brought the certified photocopy of account opening form of account No. 02340110007358 in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik in two pages which is Ex.PW81/A.
5. That she has also brought the certified photocopy of account opening form of account no. 20175 in the name of Sh. Ashok Oberoi in one sheet which is Ex.PW81/B .
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the above said account were not opened in her presence nor the locker was assigned by the bank in her presence.
That the bank account was never operated by the account holder in her presence.
That the locker was never operated by the account holder in her presence.
That she has no personal knowledge about the details of the account holders and the locker. 82 Ms. Sushma PW82 Ms. Sushma Drabu, Director at Maharaja Drabu (PW82) Surajmal Institute of Pharmacy, has in her examination inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010, she was working as Director at Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Pharmacy.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 146 of 364
2. That there were three college i.e. Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology and Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Management.
3. That in absence of any director of either of the Institutes, she used to officiate as Director for purpose of forwarding the letters/correspondence to the concerned University.
4. That in the said capacity of officiating Director of Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, she had signed the letter Ex.PW35/C for the purpose of forwarding the information to the CBI which bears her signatures at point already B.
5. That she had also signed the letter Ex.PW35/D bearing her signature at point already A in the said capacity.
6. That the document Ex.PW35/E also bears her signatures at point A in token of attestation of the document.
7. That he has not seen before, the original of the document Ex.PW35/E brought by Sh. Ashish from the Institute.
8. That after comparing of both original as copy of the same Ex.PW35/B, witness stated that it is the same document.
9. That she identifies her signatures at point A on the document Ex.PW82/A (D50) which is admission slip pertaining to Ms. Divya Kaushik.
10. That the photocopy of fee receipt dated 24.02.2010 is Ex.PW82/B (D50) pertaining to admission of Divya Kaushik.
11. That the original of the said document is produced and shown to the witness and after the comparison of both the documents, the witness states that the documents bears her signatures at point A. In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That she has no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents except that she was the forwarding officer.
That the document which she had signed i.e. the photocopies on the court record were produced before her and she has seen the originals for the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 147 of 364 first time in the court.
That she cannot vouch for the authenticity and correctness of these document.
That the CBI official had never come to her nor conducted any enquiry from her at any point of time. That she is not aware if the refundable security alongwith the book fee amounting to Rs.5,000/ and Rs.2,500/ respectively are refunded to the student. That she cannot tell the date on which the tuition fee and the other charges were paid and also who had paid the same and whether they were even paid or not.
83 Ms. Neha Saxena PW83 Ms. Neha Saxena, Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.
(PW83) Punjabi Bagh Branch, has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2011, she was working with ICICI Bank Ltd. and posted as Manager, Punjabi Bagh Branch.
2. That the letter dated 30.07.2011, D25 bears her signatures at point A and same is Ex.PW83/1.
3. That the transaction inquiry/statement of accounts (three sheets) of Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik having account no. 015501022795 from 21.05.2008 to 21.06.2011.
4. That each page of the statement of accounts bears the certificate/stamp alongwith signatures of Sh. Ashutosh Sarkar, the then Branch Manager at Punjabi Bagh Branch at point A on each page and the statement of account is Ex.PW83/2 (Colly3 pages).
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the document Ex.PW83/2 is a computer generated copy.
That she is not aware as to who generated the copy of Ex.PW83/2 from the computer.
That she is not aware for what purpose the official stamp at point A on Ex.PW83/2 was put or by whom it was put. No inquiries were made from her by the CBI officials.
That she had never seen the notice issued by CBI to ICICI Bank the reference of which finds mentioned CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 148 of 364 in Ex.PW83/1.
That she had only signed the document Ex.PW83/1 only at the directions of the office after the same was put up before her in a typed condition. 84 Sh. Ganesh PW84 Sh. Ganesh Dandapani Iyer, Sr. Manager in 3i Dandapani Iyer Infotech Limited, Tower #5, 3rd Floor, International (PW84) Infotech Park, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in 2011, he was posted as Sr. Manager in 3i Infotech Limited, Tower #5, 3rd Floor, International Infotech Park, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
2. That the document Ex.PW36/A bears his signatures and initials at point A and B and he identifies his signatures and initials as aforesaid and admits having issued the said letter. The documents exhibited as Ex.PW36/B and the witness identified his signatures at point A.
3. That in response to notice received from CBI, he had issued letter Ex.PW36/A along with the document Ex.PW36/B to the CBI office.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he had got the document Ex.PW36/B retrieved from the office system where a scanned copy of the same was being maintained but he is not aware who scanned the same.
That he had seen the original in the year 2000 but now it is kept somewhere in the Godown after the same was got scanned and reserved.
That he has not issued any certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act with regard to the document Ex.PW36/B. That no officer of the CBI had made any inquires from him nor he had any statement.
85 Sh. Santosh PW85 Sh. Santosh Thankappan is the Computer In Thankappan Charge in M/s. Akash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. who (PW85) in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in year 2011, he was working with the same institution and had issued the document Ex.PW21/B (11 pages), each page bears his signatures at point CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 149 of 364 A.
2. That the fee collection reports provided by him to CBI are computer generated annexure 2 and 4 to Ex.PW21/A which are Ex.PW21/B1 and Ex.PW21/B2.
3. That he has brought print out of the said record with certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act which certificates u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act is Ex.PW85/A bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he had never seen the original statement of accounts as maintained in their institute. That it is incorrect to say that as per document Ex.PW21/B1 a sum of Rs.2,697/, Rs.20,057/ and Rs.2,135/ had been refunded to the child on account of scholarship.
That only a sum of Rs.2,697/ and Rs.2,135/ had been refunded to the child on account of scholarship whereas Rs.20,057/ refunded due to bouncing of cheque after the institute received the cash and the above amount was mutually adjusted by paying an amount of Rs.17,697/.
That he was never called to the CBI office for inquiry nor any inquiry was made from him by the CBI at any point of time.
86 Ms. Purnima PW86 Ms. Purnima Nangia, Employee (Red.) Hans Raj Nangia (PW86) Model School, Road 73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, has in her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she worked in Hans Raj Model School, Road 73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi for 33 years and had retired in 2014.
2. That her duties were to enter the fee in the relevant register of the school.
3. That Ex.PW49/C (Colly) i.e. details of fee paid by Sh. S.K. Kaushik in respect of his wards namely Divya Kaushik, Pulkit Kaushik and Hardik Kaushik and the witness thereafter identifies her signatures at point A of Ex.PW49/C (Colly) on 8 sheets respectively.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 150 of 364 In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the document Ex.PW49/C (Colly) are computer generated copies.
That no inquiries were made in this connection of this case by any CBI official from her. That she is not aware about the source of payment of fees. The school has no concern with the same. 87 Sh. Ganeshi Lal PW87 Sh. Ganeshi Lal Sagar, Registrar, Manav Rachna Sagar (PW87) College of Engineering, Faridabad, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2010, he was working as Registrar, Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Faridabad.
2. That the document D47 Ex.PW87/A bears his signatures at point A.
3. That copy of registration cum admission from Pulkit Kaushik S/o Surinder Kaushik which is Ex.PW87/B bears his signatures at point A.
4. That photocopies of fee receipts no. 133733, 137360 and 135807 of Pulkit Kaushik S/o Surinder Kaushik which are Ex.PW87/C, Ex.PW87/D and Ex.PW87/E respectively bears his signatures at point A.
5. That photocopy of fee receipts no. 1785 of Pulkit Kaushik S/o Surinder Kaushik which is Ex.PW87/F bears the signatures of Sh. Manoj Chadha who worked under him as AAO at point A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he does not remember the name of the person who typed the Ex.PW87/A. That he had not personally perused the statement of fee paid by the student and he is not aware as to who had made the payment to their Engineering College for the fee of the student namely Pulkit Kaushik.
That he is also not aware as to who had issued the cheque in favour of their institute with regard to the alleged payment of fee.
That he had not provided the originals of document Ex.PW87/A to Ex.PW87/F to the CBI officials.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 151 of 364 That he can not say as to whether original of any such receipts is available with Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Faridabad and he is not in a position to produce the same.
88 Smt. Neelima PW88 Smt. Neelima Jindal is a public witness who has in Jindal (PW88) her examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she had been residing at A24, PhaseI, Ashok Vihar Delhi starting from 1991 till 2016.
2. That in the year 1995 she executed a General Power of Attorney Ex.PW40/A in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori W/o Sh. Laxmi Chand R/o D191, Karampura, New Delhi in respect of flat no. B4, Radha Bhawan Estate, New Circular Road, Mussorie, Now Uttarakhand.
3. That she had also executed will Ex.PW40/B in her favour and agreement to Sell dated 11.08.1997 Ex.PW40/C in her favour in respect of the said property.
4. That she also executed a possession letter Ex.PW40/D in her favour and also an affidavit which bears his signatures at point A1 and A2 and colour photographs of Smt. Raj Kishori at point X and the same is now Ex.PW88/A.
5. That all the aforesaid documents bears of Smt. Raj Kishori are present at point C on Ex.PW40/C at page no. 3 (D8) and on possession letter Ex.PW40/C at point C.
6. That she had also executed a receipt dated 06.06.1997 for amount of Rs.1,92,000/ acknowledging the receipt of amount for sale price of the flat no. B4, Radha Bhawan Estate, New Circular Road, Mussurie, Dehradoon from Smt. Raj Kishori W/o Sh. Laxmi Chand.
7. That the cash receipt is Ex.PW88/B bearing his signatures at point A1 and A2 respectively.
8. That she had also written a letter dated 24.11.2008 which is Ex.PW88/C to Sh. S.K. Kaushik bearing her signatures at point A.
9. That vide this letter she had acknowledged the receipt of photocopies of the documents provided by Sh. S.K. Kaushik and thereafter she had executed a sale deed based upon those documents in favour of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 152 of 364 Sh. S.K. Kaushik.
10. That the sale deed is on record and the same is Ex.PW48/B and the same bears her signatures of Sh. S.K. Kaushik at points B on all the pages.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That no enquiry was made from her by the CBI officials with regard to this case. She was an income tax payee in the year 1995.
That she had disclosed about the sale of this property in the income tax return for the said year 1995.
That as per the receipts dated 17.10.1992, 22.02.1994 (two receipts), 03.04.1995 and 06.05.1995 sum of Rs.19,200/, Rs.28,800/ (each), Rs.28,800/ and Rs.76,800/ respectively were paid by Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of the aforesaid flat which was purchased in the name of Sh. Laxmi Chand.
That the photocopies of the said receipts are Ex.PW88/DX1 to Ex.PW88/DX5.
That although entire payment of the sale consideration of the aforesaid flat situated at Mussurie was made by Sh. Laxmi Chand but the documents of sale were executed in favour of his wife from Smt. Raj Kishori.
That since Smt. Raj Kishori during her lifetime had executed a will in favour of S.K. Kaushik, therefore sale deed Ex.PW48/B was executed in the name of Sh. S.K. Kaushik based upon the copy of will executed by Smt. Raj Kishori and her death certificate.
That the flat in question belong to Park Leasing and Finance Ltd and his brother in law (jeth) Sh. Ashok Gupta was its Director who had issued and executed the receipt Ex.PW88/DX1 to Ex.PW88/DX5 in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand and signatures of Sh. Ashok Gupta are at point A on each of the receipts. That her brother in law Sh. A. K. Gupta had written letters dated 29.07.1994, 03.12.1994, 27.04.1995 and 13.03.1996 which are Ex.PW88/DX6 to CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 153 of 364 Ex.PW88/DX9.
That she can identify the signatures of her brother in law Sh. Ashok Gupta on the aforesaid exhibited documents as she has seen him writing and signing. That she is residing in a joint family with Sh. Ashok Gupta who is her chartered accountant and is still alive.
89 Sh. Raman Deep PW89 Sh. Raman Deep Singh, Branch Operations and Singh (PW89) Service Head, ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Karol Bagh has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2011, he was working in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. As Branch Operations and service Head in branch Karol Bagh.
2. That document D63 which is Ex.PW59/A bears his signatures at point B.
3. That he identifies the signatures of Sh. Sumeet Sharma at point A who worked with him in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. as Branch Manager.
In her cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the signatures of Ex.PW59/A were not put in his presence at point B and he is not aware as to who had put the signatures.
That he is also not aware as to in what connection the seal on document Ex.PW59/A were put and by whom it was put.
That he cannot recall as to who had generated the statement of account or on which date the same was generated or from which computer it was generated. That no inquiries were made from him in connection with this case by any CBI official.
That he does not recall having seen the original cheques as mentioned in Ex.PW59/A. 90 Sh. Hitender PW90 Sh. Hitender, ITO Ward41 (5), Civic Center, (PW90) Income Tax Department, New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That at present, he is posted ITO Ward41 (5), Civic Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi and his duties are Diary/Dispatch, receiving of manual/paper ITR and processing of ITR and ITD System etc. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 154 of 364
2. That he is authorized by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli, Income Tax Officer, Ward41(5) to appear before this Hon'ble Court alongwith summoned record.
3. That the authority letter Ex.PW90/A bears the signatures of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli at point A.
4. That the copies of ITRs of Late Smt. Raj Kishori for the assessment year 200607, 200708, 200809 certified by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli, Income Tax Officer, War41(5) are Ex.PW90/B, Ex.PW90/C and Ex.PW90/D respectively at point A on each page.
5. That the signatures of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli, Income Tax Officer, War41(5) is identified by him as he is working under him.
6. That the copies of ITRs of Smt. Santosh Kaushik for the assessment year 200607, 200708, 200809, 200910, 201011, 201112, 201213, 201314, 201415, 201516 and 201617 certified by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli, Income Tax Officer, War 41(5) are Ex.PW90/E, Ex.PW90/F, Ex.PW90/G, Ex.PW90/H, Ex.PW90/I, Ex.PW90/J, Ex.PW90/K, Ex.PW90/L, Ex.PW90/M, Ex.PW90/N and Ex.PW90/P respectively at point A on each page.
7. That the signatures of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli, Income Tax Officer, War41(5) is identified by him as he is working under him.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the income reflected in the aforesaid income tax return of the assesses were accepted by their department.
That any assesses filing the income tax returns gets a receipt from the office of Income Tax Department. That the photocopies of the income tax returns of Sh. S.K. Kaushik for the assessment year 199899, 19992000, 20002001 are shown to the witness, who states that he can not vouch for the authenticity of the stamp on the aforesaid income returns as to whether the same belongs to Income Tax department or not.
That the same are marked as Mark PW90/DX1 to Ex.PW90/DX3 for the identification purpose only.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 155 of 364 91 Sh. Anil Arora PW91 Sh. Anil Arora, Assistant Finance Officer, BSES (PW91) Rajdhani Power Ltd., East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26 has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That at present, he is posted in the office of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi26 as Assistant Finance Officer.
2. That the summoned record pertaining to Sh. Lalit Narain Sharma from their department.
3. That the letter addressed to this Hon'ble Court is Ex.PW91/A signed by Sh. Vikram Narula in his present at point A.
4. That the computer generated copy of the bill of electricity bill dated 26.07.2017 Ex.PW91/B bearing seal and signed by Sh. Vikram Narula in his present at point A.
5. That he has brought the original record of electricity connection no. 7Z63176 (old number) New Connection number 2640T3360102.
6. That the copies of the record pertaining to above mentioned electricity connection are Ex.PW91/C (Colly5 pages) attested by Sh. Bhupendra Singh, Commercial Officer, District Punjabi Bagh, he identified his signatures on each page at point A.
7. That he is working with Sh. Bhupendra Singh since last 5 years.
8. That he has also brought the computer generated payment details from year 2002 to 2010 Ex.PW91/D (four pages) attested by Sh. Vikram Narula, Business Manager with whom he is working from last 1½ year and meter reading details from year 2002 to 2010 Ex.PW91/E (2 pages), meter details/status Ex.PW91/F (1 page) of the above mentioned electricity connection attested by Sh. Bhupendra Singh alongwith his certificates u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW91/H.
9. That the application for transfer of electricity connection filed on 11.06.2009 by Sh. Lalit Narain Sharma for transfer of connection on his name.
10. That the copy of the consumer request status attested by Sh. Bhupendra Singh at point A, same is Ex.PW91/I.
11. That the computer generated document produced by him today in the court printed in his presence by Sh.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 156 of 364 Bhupendra Singh from the official computer of the department.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the bill Ex.PW91/B was paid by Sh. Lalit Narain Sharma in whose name the electricity connection had been installed at H. No. D183, Karam Pura, New Delhi.
That Sh. Dhanak Vir Singh had taken electricity connection in H. No. D183, Karam Pura, Delhi in the year 1964.
That no application moved by Lalit Narain Sharma is available on record which may prove that the electricity connection was transferred on his name based upon his request.
That Ex.PW91/I was retrieved from their computer but the certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act was never provided to the CBI officials. That his statement was never recorded by the CBI officials nor any inquiry was made from him in connection with this case.
92 Sh. Vikas Kumar PW92 Sh. Vikas Kumar Pathak, Inspector in ACB, CBI, Pathak (PW92) New Delhi, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That during the period 2010, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
2. That on 31.05.2010, he was entrusted with the investigations of the present case by his the then SP Sh. Sumit Sharan with an FIR dated 31.05.2010 against accused S.K. Kaushik who was working as Junior Engineer, MCD, Delhi. The carbon copy of the FIR dated 31.05.2010.
3. That he identifies the signatures of Sh. Sumit Sharan at point A1 and A2 on page no.6 and 7 of the FIR which FIR is Ex.PW92/A.
4. That after receiving the copy of FIR, he conducted the search at the resident of accused S.K. Kaushik at D183, Karampura, New Delhi on 01.06.2010 in presence of independent witnesses namely Sh. Dharemendra Kumar, Tax assistant and Sh. Anand Singh, Sr. Tax Assistant, both from the Income Tax Department.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 157 of 364
5. That during the search the incriminating material were seized through search cum seizure memo which was prepared by him in his own handwriting and got signed by all the team members as well as the independent witnesses.
6. That the signatures of accused Santosh Kaushik and the signatures of S.K. Kaushik were also obtained on the seizure memo and a copy of the said memo was also handed over to S.K. Kaushik, which search memo is Ex.PW12/A (D6) bearing his signatures at point B, that of independent witness Dharmender Kumar at point A on all the six pages, signatures of Anand Singh at point C, that of accused Santosh at points D and of S.K. Kaushik at point E on all the pages.
7. That he had also prepared on inventory of seized documents/articles alongwith the annexure A and B and also he had observed in the said memo about the availability of cash during the house search which is on record and is Ex.PW12/B bearing his signatures at point B and that of independent witness Sh. Dharamender Kumar at point already A and that of Sh. Anand Singh at point C on all the four pages.
8. That he had also obtained the signatures of accused Santosh Kaushik at point D on all the pages.
9. That after the search, he had got collected the documents through Inspector B.M. Meena vide memo dated 31.05.2010 already Ex.PW11/A (D3) from Neeraj Pant, LDC, MCD, Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
10. That the service record of accused S.K. Kaushik (D
2) (pages 1 to 238), Service book containing 21 pages are collectively Ex.PW92/B.
11. That he has seized the documents i.e. property return filed by S.K. Kaushik, by Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Head Clerk, MCD, Engg, Department on 16.09.2010 vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A.
12. That the seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bear his signatures at point B.
13. That during the investigation, he had received a letter dated 18.10.2011 Ex.PW15/A (D12) from Assistant Housing Commissioner, through which he CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 158 of 364 had provided the information regarding quarter No. D183, D191 and D192, Karampura Colony, Najafgarh Road, Delhi.
14. That he had received the letter dated 12.10.2010 Ex.PW14/A (D13) from Rakesh Kumar Sub RegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi through which he had sent the certified copy of the documents as mentioned in the said letter in response to his letter dated 06.10.2010 copy of which is on record and is now Ex.PW92/C and it bears impression of his signatures at point A.
15. That he had received a letter dated 19.11.2010 of SubRegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi whereby he had provided the copy of sale deed dated 29.08.1981 Ex.PW13/C (D14) executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar, in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori.
16. That he had seized documents vide memo dated 11.07.2011 vide memo Ex.PW47/A (D16) from Krishan Kumar, LDC, SubRegistrarII, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
17. That the memo bears his signatures at point B and that of Krishan Kumar at point A.
18. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 12.10.2010 Ex.PW48/A (D17) of Mahesh Dhar Dwivedi, SubRegistrarII, Dehradoon vide which he had provided the certified copy of the documents mentioned therein.
19. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 28.09.2011 Ex.PW46/A (D18) of Ved Prakash, SubRegistrarII(A), Punjabi Bagh, Nangloi, Delhi by which he had provided the certified copy of the sale deed Ex.PW26/A.
20. That he had received the document vide letter dated 19.10.2011 already Ex.PW13/B (D19) of Sub RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi vide which he had provided the photocopies of three registered sale deeds as mentioned in the letter.
21. That he had received the document through registered post from Bank of Baroda, vide forwarding letter dated 12.08.2010 Ex.PW65/B (D
21) vide which he had received the documents pertaining to accounts of Pulkit Kaushik, Divya Kaushik, Hardik Kaushik and accused Santosh CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 159 of 364 Kaushik maintained at Karampura Branch of Bank of Baroda.
22. That he had also received the document through registered post from Bank of Baroda, vide forwarding letter dated 03.08.2010 Ex.PW65/A (D
22) vide which he had received the documents pertaining to account of Smt. Raj Kishori Devi maintained at Karampura Branch of Bank of Baroda.
23. That he had received documents vide letter dated 15.09.2010 Ex.PW72/A (D23) of Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road Branch as mentioned in the said letter.
24. That the letter also bears his signatures at point B in token of receipt of the same.
25. That he had received the documents vide seizure memo dated 16.09.2010 Ex.PW9/A (D24) from H.C. Doria, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi as mentioned in the said seizure memo and the said seizure memo bears his signature at point B.
26. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 30.07.2011 of ICICI Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, Ex.PW83/1 (D25) as mentioned in the letter.
27. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 28.10.2010 Ex.PW22/A (D26) of UTI as mentioned therein.
28. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 07.03.2011 Ex.PW22/B (D27) of UTI as mentioned therein.
29. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 20.01.2011 Ex.PW22/C (D28) of UTI as mentioned therein.
30. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 01.10.2010 Ex.PW22/D (D29) of UTI as mentioned therein.
31. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 28.07.2010 which is now Ex.PW92/D (D30) of Assistant Director (Admn.) as mentioned therein.
32. That the letter also bears his signature at point A as a token of receipt of the same.
33. That he has also received a document vide letter dated 16.08.2010 Ex.PW33/B (D31) of Assistant CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 160 of 364 Director (Admn.) as mentioned therein.
34. That he has also received a document vide letter dated 113.03.2012 Ex.PW62/A (D32) of Assistant Director (Admn.) as mentioned therein.
35. That he has also received a document vide seizure memo dated 18.08.2010 Ex.PW20/A (D33) from S.R. Singhal, MLO, North Zone, Mall Road, Transport Department, Delhi as mentioned therein.
36. That the seizure memo bears his signatures at point B.
37. That he has also received a document vide seizure memo dated 01.11.2010 Ex.PW19/A (D34) from Hem Raj, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, South West District, Palam Zone, Janak Puri, Delhi as mentioned therein. The seizure memo bears his signatures at point B.
38. That he had received the documents vide letter dated 22.08.2011 Ex.PW32/A (D35) of Bharat Bhushan Equity Traders Ltd., Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi as mentioned therein.
39. That the above said letter bears his signatures at point B as token of the receipt of the same.
40. That he had also seized the document vide seizure memo dated 20.06.2011 Ex.PW11/C (D36) from Neeraj Pant, UDC, Office of MCD Rajouri Garden, Delhi as mentioned therein.
41. That the seizure memo bears his signatures at point B.
42. That he had also received the documents vide letter dated 29.09.2011 Ex.PW18/A (D37) of Bhupender Singh, Income Tax Officer, (Ward No.41), Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi as mentioned therein.
43. That he had written a letter dated 25.08.2010 Ex.PW92/E (D38) to Income Tax Officer Ward No.25 (3), Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi for providing the certified copies of income tax returns for period 1986 to 2010 pertaining to accused Santosh Kaushik. The letter bears his signatures at point A.
44. That in response to his above letter, he received a letter dated 01.09.2010 as Ex.PW71/B from Sh. P.N. Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 25 (3) CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 161 of 364 alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
45. That he has also received the documents vide the letter dated 01.11.2010 which is Ex.PW17/A (D39) from Sh. P.N. Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 25 (3) alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
46. That he had received the documents vide the letter dated 29.10.2010 Ex.PW31/A (D40) from LIC, Branch Office 129, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi alongwith documents as mentioned therein.
47. That he had received letter dated 29.07.2010 Ex.PW54/A (D41) from ING Vysya Bank, Karol Bagh Branch alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
48. That he had received the letter dated 18/26.08.2011 Ex.PW69/F (D42) from UCO Bank, Rajendra Place Branch, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
49. That he had seized the documents vide seizure memo dated 28.12.2010 Ex.PW2/A (D43) from Smt. Sudha Kapoor, Officer, Punjab National Bank, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi as mentioned in the seizure memo.
50. That he had received the letter dated 04.08.2011 Ex.PW9/F (D44) from UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi alongwith the documents as mentioned therein.
51. That he had received the letter dated 08.08.2011 Ex.PW21/A (D45) from Akash Institute, New Delhi alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
52. That he had seized the documents vide production cum seizure memo dated 12.08.2010 Ex.PW49/A (D46) bearing his signatures at point B, as mentioned in the memo.
53. That he had received the letter dated 07.08.2010 Ex.PW87/A (D47) from Manav Rachna College of Engineering alongwith the documents as mentioned in the above letter.
54. That he had seized the documents vide production cum seizure memo dated 12.08.2010 already Ex.PW41/A (D48) bearing his signatures at point B, as mentioned in the memo.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 162 of 364
55. That he had seized the documents vide production cum seizure memo dated 12.08.2010 already Ex.PW35/A (D49) bearing his signatures at point B, as mentioned in the memo.
56. That he had received two letters both dated 10.08.2010 Ex.PW35/C and Ex.PW35/D (D50) of Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology.
57. That vide letter Ex.PW35/C, the intimation was given to him through his S.P. that Sh. S.S. Narwal, an employee of the institute is being sent alongwith the requisite information/documents vide a separate letter i.e. Ex.PW35/D.
58. That vide letter Ex.PW35/D, he had received the details of expenses regarding Divya Kaushik, being Engineering Institute at the time of admission in the first year (academic session 20092010).
59. That he had seized documents vide seizure memo dated 17.09.2010 Ex.PW5/A (D51) from Vinod Kumar Sharma, Clerk, Commercial Record Section, MTNL, Main Rajouri Garden, near Vishal Cinema, New Delhi as mentioned in the memo and the memo bears his signatures at point B.
60. That he had received a letter dated 23.09.2010 Ex.PW34/A (D52) from Account Officer (Revenue)92, office of General Manager, MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi alongwith documents mentioned therein.
61. That vide this letter, the statement Ex.PW34/B of telephone No. 25912844 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori from 01.09.2000 to 08.07.2010.
62. That he had seized the documents vide seizure memo dated 01.11.2010 Ex.PW16/A (D53) as mentioned in the memo which seizure memo bears his signatures at point B.
63. That he had received the letter dated 27.07.2011 Ex.PW55/A (D54) from Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. alongwith the payment of details of mobile number 9911019242.
64. That he had received the letter dated 18.10.2011 Ex.PW17/B (D55) from Sh. P.N. Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 25 (3) New Delhi alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 163 of 364
65. That he had received the letter dated 18.10.2011 Ex.PW75/B (D56) from SubRegistrarVIA, Pitampura, Delhi alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
66. That he got valuation of properties bearing no. F 265, Sudarshan Park, Second Floor, New Delhi and A44, Palam, Sector7, Dwarka, New Delhi both of accused S.K. Kaushik, from Income Tax Department and received the reports through his DIG which valuation reports in respect of both the properties are on record alongwith their forwarding letter as Ex.PW56/A and valuation report Ex.PW56/B (D
57).
67. That he had also received another valuation report Ex.PW56/C (D57).
68. That he had also received the letter dated 09.11.2011 of accused Santosh Kaushik which is Ex.PW92/F (D58).
69. That vide this letter accused had provided the rate and amount of shares of different companies as mentioned in the letter.
70. That he had also received the letter dated 24.12.2010 from Department of Post, Karampura, New Delhi which is now Ex.PW92/G (D59).
71. That vide this letter the Postal department had provided the statement of account bearing no. 5965633 of Smt. Raj Kishori for the period 31.03.1999 to 01.04.2009 which is now Ex.PW92/H (D59).
72. That he had received the letter dated 02.12.2010 from Sub Post Master, North East Area, New Delhi which is now Ex.PW92/1 (D59).
73. That vide this letter he had received the documents as mentioned therein.
74. That he had received another letter dated 02.12.2010 from Sub Post Master, North East Area, New Delhi which is now Ex.PW92/J (D59) and vide this letter he had received the documents as mentioned therein.
75. That he had received the letter dated 09.08.2011 of LIC which is now Ex.PW92/K (D60) alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 164 of 364
76. That he had seized the documents vide seizure memo dated 15.09.2011 which is already Ex.PW50/A (D
61) from Sh. Shri Ram, Zonal Inspector, Property Tax Department, West Zone, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi as mentioned in the memo and the same memo bears his signatures at point B.
77. That he had received the letter dated 06.06.2011 which is already Ex.PW59/A (D63) from ING Vyasya Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi alongwith documents as mentioned therein.
78. That he had received a letter dated 21.07.2011 Ex.PW69/A (D64) from UCO Bank, Rajendra Place Branch alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
79. That he had received the letter dated 07.12.2011 Ex.P105 (Admitted) (D65) of accused Santosh Kaushik and vide this letter she had provided the details of information as mentioned in the letter.
80. That he had seized the documents vide memo dated 06.01.2012 Ex.PW37/A (D66) from Sh. Arun Sharma, Branch Manager, LIC, Lajpat Nagar as mentioned in the said memo which bears his signatures at point B.
81. That he had received the letter dated 29.02.2012 Ex.PW68/A (D67) from SubPost master Paschim Vihar alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
82. That he had received the letter dated 02.03.2012 Ex.P101 (Admitted) D68 of accused Surender Kaushik vide which he has provided the details of awards received Divya Kaushik from her school.
83. That he had also received the letter dated 02.03.2012 Ex.P102 (Admitted) (D69) of accused Surender Kaushik vide which he has provided the details of income as well as Income Tax Returns for the assessment years, of his mother Smt. Raj Kishori as mentioned in the letter.
84. That he had received the letter dated 14.03.2012 Ex.PW73/A (D70) from Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd.
85. That through his the then S.P. alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
86. That he had received a letter dated 12.01.2012 from LIC, Kamla Nagar Branch which is Ex.PW92/L1 (D71).
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 165 of 364
87. That vide this letter he had received the documents as mentioned therein.
88. That he had seized the documents vide seizure memo dated 28.11.2011 Ex.PW38/A (D72) from Sh. Lalit Narayan, brother in law of accused Surender Kaushik as mentioned therein which bears his signatures at point B.
89. That he had received a letter dated 03.08.2011 Ex.PW36/A (D73) from 3i Infotech Ltd. New Delhi alongwith the documents and information as mentioned therein.
90. That he had received a letter dated 10.10.2011 Ex.PW74/A (D74) from Assistant Chief Accountant, GPF Section, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Center, MCD, Delhi as mentioned therein.
91. That he had received a letter dated 02.03.2012 Ex.PW22/E (D75) from UTI Mutual Fund alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
92. That he had also got valuation of property bearing no. WZ246B, Uttam Nagar, Delhi pertaining to accused S.K. Kaushik from Income Tax Department and procured the report which already on record alongwith its forwarding letter as Ex.PW56/E and valuation report Ex.PW56/D (D76).
93. That he had seized the documents vide seizure memo dated 28.03.2012 Ex.PW42/B (D77) from Sh. Rajesh Jain, proprietor of New Kusal Jewellers, Karol Bagh, Delhi, as mentioned therein.
94. That vide this memo he had seized the certificate Ex.PW42/A given by New Kusal Jewellers pertaining to purchase of gold from accused Santosh Kaushik for amount of Rs.3,25,000/ on 19.01.2008 and the payment was made to accused Santosh Kaushik vide cheque bearing no. 860897 dated 19.01.2008.
95. That he had also received a letter dated 28.03.2012 Ex.PW67/A (D78) from Sr. Post Master, Ramesh Nagar alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
96. That he had received a letter dated 24.02.2012 which is now Ex.PW92/M (D79) from Oswal Greentech Limited alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 166 of 364
97. That he had received letters dated 24.02.2012 and 01.03.2012 which are already Ex.PW43/A (D80) and Ex.PW43/B (D81) respectively from Oswal Agro Mills Limited alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
98. That he had seized the documents vide seizure memo dated 02.03.2012 already Ex.PW3/A (D82) H.K. Gupta, Company Secretary, Oswal Greentech Limited as mentioned therein and the seizure memo bears his signatures at point B.
99. That he had received a letter dated 14.03.2012 of Oswal Greentech Limited Ex.PW3/B (D83) and letter dated 19.03.2012 of Oswal Agrro Mills Ltd. Ex.PW3/C (D84).
100.That vide these letters he had received documents mentioned therein.
101.That he had received the letter dated 08.11.2011 Ex.PW38/A (D86) from Lalit Narayan Sharma, brother in law of accused S.K. Kaushik, vide which he had received the documents mentioned therein.
102.That he had received a letter dated 02.03.2012 which is now Ex.PW92/N (D87) vide which accused Santosh Kaushik has provided the information as detailed in the letter alongwith the document.
103.That the letter also bears his signatures at point A in token of the receipt of the same.
104.That he had received a letter dated 12.05.2012 Ex.PW70/A (D88) from Karvy Computershare vide which the details of investments made by accused Surender Kaushik in the mutual funds of UTI was provided to him.
105.That he had examined the various witnesses and recorded statements of material witnesses.
106.That he has recorded the statement of Sh. Arun Sharma Ex.PW37/DX and Vinod Kumar Sharma Ex.PW5/PX, truly and correctly whatever they had stated before him.
107.That while calculating the DA, he had also calculated 1/3rd of the gross salary income as kitchen expenditures which is added in the head "Expenditure".
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 167 of 364
108.That he had also received the sanction for prosecution of accused S.K. Kaushik from the competent authority.
109.That after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before this Hon'ble Court.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he denied that he has intentionally not taken the complete salary details and all the perks viz arrears of DA, arrears of increment which the accused got as and when he was entitled to get the increment as per the rules and regulations of the MCD and the bonus which was paid to nongazetted employees of the MCD from year to year. That the accused S.K. Kaushik was being transferred by the competent authorities from one branch to other branch and from one section to other section.
That he had not verified from the MCD authorities as to accused S.K. Kaushik remained posted in which zone and for what period.
That he verified the assets left by the father of the accused at the time of investigation, he came to know that father of the accused S.K. Kaushik was owning two properties i.e. one property bearing no. flat No. D191, Karampura, New Delhi and the other property is a piece of land situation in area of Mundka, as mentioned in the charge sheet. That during the investigation, he did not come across any such movable property belonging to the father of accused S.K. Kaushik.
That document D7 was seized from the house of the accused S.K. Kaushik during house search conducted on 01.06.2010 and it also bears the signatures of both the independent witnesses at the top of each paper of document D7.
That the arrears of DA for the period intervening July 1994 to September 1994 has not been mentioned in document Ex.PW92/DX1 which is regarding salary w.e.f. 01.06.1994 to 14.11.1994. That the arrears of DA for the period intervening 01.07.2006 to September 2006 and for the period between 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2007 as well as for the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 168 of 364 period between 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2007 as well as for the period between 01.07.2007 to 30.09.2007 and from 01.01.2008 to 01.03.2008 and 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009 and 01.01.2010 to May 2010 have not mentioned in document Ex.PW92/DX2 and Ex.PW92/DX3.
That he cannot say that accused S.K. Kaushik had received a total sum of Rs. 13,412/ towards the arrears of DA during the aforesaid period which have not been included in his income by him in the documents filed alongwith the charge sheet. That he has perused the service book of accused S.K. Kaushik (D2) and states that a sum of Rs.27,794/ is mentioned towards the arrears of pay for the period 15.11.1994 to 01.06.1995 have been paid to accused S.K. Kaushik.
That the aforesaid amount has not been specifically reflected but it is included in the table reconstructed by PW11 Neeraj Pant.
That he has seen the service book of accused S.K. Kaushik (D2) and on page no. 14 at point 'B', a sum of Rs.79,965/ is mentioned towards the arrears of the 5th pay commission w.e.f. 20.02.1996 to November 1999, paid to accused S.K. Kaushik. That the aforesaid amount has not been specifically reflected but it is included in the table reconstructed by Neeraj Pant (PW11).
That he has seen the service book of accused S.K. Kaushik (D2) and on page no. 14 at point 'c' of the said service book, a sum of Rs.2,419/ is mentioned towards the bonus for the period 19981999 for 30 days only.
That the said amount Rs.2,419/ has not been shown and reflected in Ex.PW11/D. That Neeraj Pant does not speak about the addition of the bonus while reconstructing the table Ex.PW11/D. That the bonus for the period 1986 to 2010 received by accused S.K. Kaushik does not find reflected in the reconstructed table Ex.PW11/D. That he cannot tell the amount of bonus received by the accused S.K. Kaushik during the period 1986 to 2010.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 169 of 364 That the amount of bonus received by accused S.K. Kaushik during the period 1986 to 2010 has not been included in the reconstructed table Ex.PW11/D or in the charge sheet.
That the ITRs between the period 19981999, 1999 2000, 20002001 and 2001 to 2002 were never produced before him by the accused S.K. Kaushik and whatever ITRs which were produced before him and were for the years 199192, 19921993, 1993 1994 had been taken on record but no such ITRs for the year 19981999, 19992000, 20002001 and 2001 to 2002 which are Mark A, Mark B, Mark C and Mark D were produced.
That during the period 1981 to 1986 the accused S.K. Kaushik was unmarried and was residing with his parents and other siblings in a joint family. That the benefit for the said period has already been given to the accused S.K. Kaushik who was serving in other department i.e. Shah Construction Company during this period and joined the department i.e. MCD only thereafter. That the kitchen expenses for the said period was not deducted for the said period i.e. 1981 to 1986. That he made no inquiry from the Shah Construction Company about the increments, bonus and other benefits being received by the accused S.K. Kaushik during the period 1981 to 1986 and he therefore cannot tell about the amount under the above heads if any.
That he has prepared the salary receipt of S.K. Kaushik from Shah Construction Company which is Rs.1,19,850/.
That he made no inquiry from Shah Construction Company regarding the salary alongwith other perks and benefit paid by them to the accused S.K. Kaushik between 1983 to 1986.
That during the investigation, he was told by the accused that his son Pulkit Kaushik was also assessed to income tax.
That he was told by the accused that his mother and son were having their independent income and gave him a letter with regard to that and he accepted what the accused had told him and gave him the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 170 of 364 benefit for the same.
That the father of the accused S.K. Kaushik had expired long back and S.K. Kaushik had shown his mother as totally dependent upon him, in his departmental record and therefore he did not make any inquiry with regard to her assets which she inherited from his deceased father. That he cannot tell whether Late Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik, the father of the accused S.K. Kaushik was also an income tax assessee.
That the accused had shown his mother as having independent income and the accused had given him her ITRs for the period pertaining to the period 1991 to 1994, 20052006, 20062007 and 2007 2008.
That he has already given the accused the benefit on the basis of the said disclosure.
That he has neither included the nonverifiable income of Smt. Raj Kishori nor her expenditures while calculating the disproportionate assets of accused S.K. Kaushik.
That he is not aware if Smt. Raj Kishore, the mother of the accused S.K. Kaushik had declared her jewellery and cash amounting to Rs.9,46,672/ with the office of Commissioner, Income Tax under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in the year 1997 vide receipt no. 1803 dated 31.12.1997 vide photocopy Mark N. That he cannot tell if Late Sh. Laxmi Chand, the father of the accused S. K. Kaushik had also purchased the units from UTI.
That during the search of the house of accused S.K. Kaushik, they had recovered and seized the original warrant of UTI in the name of late Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik, the father of the accused which seizure memo is Ex.PW12/A and the document i.e. UTI warrant is Mark A1 (D7), seized vide Ex.12/A (D
6).
That accused S.K. Kaushik has not been given the benefit of the same since he is not required to be given any benefit of the same.
That during the search of the house of accused S.K. Kaushik, they had recovered and seized the original CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 171 of 364 interest warrant of SRF Finance Ltd in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik, the father of the accused which seizure memo is Ex.PW12/A and the documents SRF Finance Ltd.
That interest warrants are Mark A2 to Mark A5 (D7), seized vide Ex.12/A (D6).
That accused S.K. Kaushik has not been given the benefit of the same.
That he had made inquiries from company i.e. SRF Finance Ltd. asking them as to who were the beneficiary of the FDRs in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik but the said letter were unserved and hence there was no clarity on this issue.
That he did not conduct any verification from the SBI Branch Najafgarh Road regarding the encashment of interest warrant in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand in his bank account. That he had seized the letter dated 16.08.1996 issued by World Link Finance Ltd., Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi to the effect that Late Sh. Laxmi Chand had deposited his amount of Rs.15,000/ towards fixed deposits on 26.08.1995, the maturity date which was 25.08.1996 vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said letter is Ex.PW92/DX4 (D7 page 56).
That he had seized the FDR No. NC015971 dated 04.01.1995 issued by World Link Finance Ltd., Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 20,000/ in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand vide seizure memo already Ex.PW12/A and the said FDR is now Ex.PW92/DX5 (D7 page 50). That he had seized Nine (9) certificates issued by "The Alp Bachat Coperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Delhi" in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand for a total sum of Rs.300/ vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said letter is Ex.PW92/DX7 (Colly, D7, Page No. 41 to 49).
That he had also seized two share certificates issued by Delhi State Consumer Cooperative Store Ltd., New Delhi in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand vide seizure memo already Ex.PW12/A and the said share certificates are Ex.PW92/DX8 (D7pages CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 172 of 364 39 and 40).
That he had also seized the photocopies of twelve Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand for a total amount of Rs.85,000/ vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said photocopies of KVPs are Ex.PW92/DX9 (Colly, D7pages 24, 25, 27 to 33 and 35 to 37).
That he had also seized the photocopy of National Saving Certificate in the name of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand for a total amount of Rs.29,000/ vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said photocopy of the NSC is Ex.PW92/DX10 (D7page no. 34). That he had also seized the photocopies of Ten Indira Vikas Patras for a total amount of Rs.55,000/ vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said photocopies of the India Vikas Patra are now Ex.PW92/DX11 (colly, D7pages no. 13 to 23). That during the investigation, he asked Sub RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi for the supply of certified copy of sale deed dated 28.08.1995 which could not be suppled by the Sub Registrar as per reply given by SubRegistrarIII dated 13.10.2011 as per the document D20. That he could take into consideration the said deed executed by one Prem Kumar Ghai in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand.
That the certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed is Ex.PW92/DX12 and the consideration amount of Rs.4,50,000/ alongwith Rs.36,000/ were paid towards Stamp duty and Corporation Tax by Late Sh. Laxmi Chand.
That the photocopy of the sale deed is Ex.PW92/DX13 and the copy of the receipt is Ex.PW92/DX14.
That he had not carried out any inquiry regarding the bank account of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand. That the copies of banker's cheques bearing no. 806706 and 806707 dated 17.12.1993 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Paschim Puri, Delhi are Ex.PW92/DX15.
That the copy of the sale deed Ex.PW92/DX16 dated 09.03.1973 in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards out of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 173 of 364 Khasra no. 36 in the area of Sultanpur, Dada Nagar Colony, Delhi was not produced before him by the accused.
That copies of the sale deed Ex.PW92/DX17 (translated copy Ex.PW92/DX18) dated 11.02.1971 in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of a plot no.67 measuring 50 sq. yards situated at Village Singal Pur, Delhi was not produced before him by the accused.
That copy of the sale deed Ex.PW92/DX19 dated 06.06.1975 in favour of one Anoop Nayyar and Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of entire first floor of property no. 27/4, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi measuring 88.1 sq. yards was not produced before him by the accused.
That copy of the sale deed Ex.PW92/DX20 dated 21.08.1995 in favour of one Anoop Nayyar and Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of the complete basement floor of property no. 27/4, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi measuring 88.1 sq. yards was not produced before him by the accused.
That during investigation of this case, he had seized the ITRs of Late Smt. Raj Kishori pertaining to year 199192, 20052006, 20062007, 20072008 and 20082009 and the incomes reflected in those ITRs of Smt. Raj Kishori were duly considered by him as her distinguished and separate income. That had the same been produced before him, in that event he would have verified it from income tax department and included the same in the income of Late Smt. Raj Kishori.
That the copies of the aforesaid ITRs are Ex.PW92/DX21 (Colly, 18 pages).
That had he received a positive response from the income tax department regarding the aforesaid ITRs, in that event he would have included the amounts reflected in the ITRs towards the income of Smt. Raj Kishori.
That the wealth tax return of late Smt. Raj Kishori pertaining to the year 19981999 in respect of the property situated at Shivaji Marg, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi were not produced before him by the accused S.K. Kaushik, which copy of tax return CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 174 of 364 along with tax receipts are Ex.PW92/DX22. That Late Smt. Raj Kishori, i.e. the mother of accused S.K. Kaushik died in the year 2008. That he cannot say whether in the year 20082009 her legal heirs had submitted her ITR for the assessment year of 20082009 vide which her gross total income was shown to be Rs.2,72,890/ and income tax of Rs.27,820/ was paid. That the copy of the aforesaid income tax return is Ex.PW92/DX23.
That he cannot say whether in the aforesaid ITR pertaining to year 20082009 a jewellery worth Rs.2,50,990/ was shown to have been shown sold vide bill no. 083 dated 19.01.2008. That he cannot say whether Late Smt. Raj Kishori during her lifetime had sold her jewellery to Rajput Jewellers, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ vide bill dated 19.01.2008.
That he also cannot say that Smt. Raj Kishori had received the consideration amount of Rs.2,50,990/ from the aforesaid jewellers by way of cheque bearing no. 189021 dated 21.01.2008 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Prashant Vihar Delhi. That the original copy of bill dated 19.01.2008 is Ex.PW92/DX24 and copy of aforesaid cheque dated 21.01.2008 is Ex.PW92/DX25. That during investigations the accused S.K. Kaushik has not produced the following documents:
(a) 5 photocopies of shares certificates of 100 units each having its face value of Rs.10/ per unit, issued by UTI in the name of Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik, i.e. the father of accused S.K. Kaushik which are Ex.PW92/DX26.
(b) Two letters regarding share certificates of 500 units, issued by UTI, in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori and thereafter these were transferred in the name of accused S. K. Kaushik because Sh.
Laxmi Chand died on 13.03.1996 which documents are Ex.PW92/DX27 & Ex.PW92/DX28.
(c) Photocopies of 18 share certificates of 100 units each and two share certificates of 50 units each CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 175 of 364 issued by UTI in the name of Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik having value of Rs.10/ per unit and the total share certificates came to 1900 units of the value of Rs.19,000/ which are Ex.PW92/DX 29.
(d) Original of letter / intimation dated 08.02.1999 containing all the details of 1900 units of shares in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori i.e. mother of accused S. K. Kaushik which were transferred in her name after the death of Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik which are Ex.PW92/DX30.
(e) Intimation letter dated 23.08.1999 issued by M. N. Dastur and Company Ltd. For and on behalf of Unit Trust of India vide which all the above 1900 shares of Master Shares 1986 were transferred in the name of S. K. Kaushik as per desire of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand Kaushik father of accused S. K. Kaushik which is Ex.PW92/DX 31 (two pages).
(f) Photocopy of registered sale deed dated 28.08.1995 in the name of Smt. Saubhagya Madan, executed by Late Sh. Laxmi Chand and Anoop Nayyar in respect of Second floor property bearing no. 27/4, measuring 88.1Sq.Yards situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for a sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/ with stamp duty and transfer duty of Rs.15,200/ which is Ex.PW92/DX32.
That during investigation he had seized certain documents pertaining to Smt. Raj Kishori on 01.06.2010 from the house of accused S.K. Kaushik in the presence of witnesses and which are part of document (D7) detailed as under:
(a) A loan receipt dated 12.06.1989 executed by Indira Trading Company in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori to the effect that the aforesaid company had received a loan of Rs.35,000/ on interest from Smt. Raj Kishori which is Ex.PW92/DX 33.
(b) A loan receipt dated 28.05.1989 executed by Indira Trading Company in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori to the effect that the aforesaid company CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 176 of 364 had received a loan of Rs.30,000/ on interest from Smt. Raj Kishori which is Ex.PW92/DX 34.
(c) Original statement of account, of account bearing number 011411 of Smt. Raj Kishori in Bank of Baroda, Karampura, Delhi which showed total balance of Rs.35,200/ (Page no. 132 of D7) which is Ex.PW92/DX35.
(d) Intimation dated 06.01.1995 sent by Bank of Baroda to Smt. Raj Kishori that an amount of Rs. 250/ had been debited in her account bearing no. 11411 (page no. 135 of D7) which is Ex.PW92/DX36.
(e) Intimation letter sent by Syndicate Bank addressed to Smt. Raj Kishori pertaining to her Saving Bank Account number 15467 regarding two cheques which were dishonoured on account of the reasons given therein, the original of which is Ex.PW92/DX37.
(f) Letter dated 07.08.1997 issued by DCM Financial Service Ltd., to Smt. Raj Kishori regarding her FDR No. 33852 regarding the income earned by her on FDR during financial 199596 and 19961997 which is Ex.PW92/DX 38.
(g) The copy of UTI monthly income scheme certificate No. GMIS 1992 for 2000 units having value of Rs.10/ of each unit, in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori and the nominee is shown to be Sh. Laxmi Chand and Ravi Kaushik which is Ex.PW92/DX39.
(h) Copy of FDR dated 26.09.1997 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori, issued by Siel Financial Services Limited for a sum of Rs.25,000/ which is Ex.PW92/DX40.
(i) Interest certificates of DCM Financial Services seized from the house of the accused S.K. Kaushik but not considered which is collectively Ex.PW92/DX41 (Pages 77, 78, 79, 80, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 of D7).
(j) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Policy No. 3603016103157 which is Ex.PW92/DX42 (already on page 55 of D7 taken on record and CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 177 of 364 not considered) and premium paid vide receipt dated 28.02.1997 for a sum of Rs.3,459/ which is Ex.PW92/DX43.
(k) LIC Mutual Fund income warrant for month of August 1992 (page 97 of D7), October 1992 (Page 96 of D7) November 1992 (Page 95 of D
7), January 1993 (page 93 of D7), December 1992 (page 94 of D7) March 1993 (page 91 of D7) February 1993 (page 92 of D7), May 1993 (Page 89 of D7) April 1993 (page 90 of D7), June 1993 (Page 88 of D7), July 1993 (page 87 of D7), July 1992 (Page 86 of D7) August 1993 (page 85 of D7) and September 1993 (page 84 D7), September 1992 (page 83 of D7) (Total 15 number of income warrant to the tune of Rs. 3,933.28 which are Ex.PW92/DX44.
That he had included the amounts relating to the document pertaining to DCM Financial Service and LIC Mutual Fund while making the final calculations.
That he had not recorded the statement of any of the witnesses from Indira Trading Company. That he did not verify and confirm the bank accounts and the balance lying therein in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori in Bank of Baroda, Karam Pura Brandh and Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar pertaining to account number 11411 and 15467 respectively. That he also did not conduct any inquiry or verify the amounts deposited by Smt. Raj Kishori with DCM Financial Services.
That he did not search for the address of the DCM Financial Services or even confirm if there were any orders from various courts regarding the appointment of Receivers of change of address of communication purpose.
That accused S.K. Kaushik had not disclosed to him that his mother Smt. Raj Kishori was having her own jewellery which she got valued from P.P. Jewellers, Bank Street, KaroL Bagh, New Delhi on 25.10.1997 and 21.03.1998 and the value mentioned in the papers of P.P. Jewellers which documents are Ex.PW92/DX45 (colly, running into four pages) CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 178 of 364 and the same was disclosed by her in her VDI Scheme and later on 22.05.1997 she had sold this jewellery for an amount of Rs.11,68,476/ and Rs.6,12,223/ vide copies of bill which are Ex.PW92/DX46 and Ex.PW92/DX47. That the accused S.K. Kaushik had not produced five premium receipts issued by LIC of India in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori which receipts are Ex.PW92/DX48 (colly, running into 7 pages). That he was not shown by the accused S.K. Kaushik during investigation the original of LIC Mutual Fund Certificate dated 22.06.1992 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori for 2000 units which is Ex.PW92/DX49.
That the accused S.K. Kaushik had not produced the originals of ULIP No. 331418586, 331418587, 331418588, 331418589 and 331418590 amounting to Rs.3,81,967/ each, which are Ex.PW92/DX50 (colly).
That the accused S. K. Kaushik has not produced the copies of Market Plus policies which were in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori in which he was shown as a nominee and issued by LIC of India, which was for an amount of Rs.3,80,000/ each (total 5 in number) and two of them for the premium of Rs.3,10,000/ and Rs.2,50,000/ which are Ex.PW92/DX51. That the accused S.K. Kaushik has not produced before him the death claims documents received from LIC of India after the death of his mother Smt. Raj Kishori towards the benefits of the LIC policies as he was the nominee of his later mother showing that the amount received by him was Rs.3,98,440/ each for five policies and Rs.3,24,947/ for one policy, which death claims running into six pages are Ex.PW92/DX52 and the counterfoils issued by the bank towards deposit are Ex.PW92/DX53. That the accused S.K. Kaushik had not produced the ITRs of Smt. Raj Kishori, pertaining to year 1991 1992, 19921993, 19931994 which are Ex.PW92/DX54 (9 pages).
That the accused S.K. Kaushik had not produced original documents showing receipt of a sum of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 179 of 364 Rs.30,000/ from Switzerland by Smt. Raj Kishori which amount was transferred in her bank account no. 11411 in Bank of Baroda, Karampura, Delhi on 15.12.1988 which transfer certificate is Ex.PW92/DX55 (9 pages).
That the accused S.K. Kaushik had not produced the copy of documents showing receipt of a sum of Rs.50,000/ from Union Bank of Switzerland by Smt. Raj Kishori which amount was transferred in her bank account no. 11411 in Bank of Baroda, Karampura, Delhi on 19.06.1989 and which was sent to her by her son Ravi Kaushik, which copy of pay order is Ex.PW92/DX56.
That the accused S.K. Kaushik had not produced the RC of Maruti car no. DL2C5610 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori, having registration dated as 08.05.1990, copy of which R.C. is Ex.PW92/DX57. That after the death of Sh. Laxmi Chand, his movable and immovable properties were inherited by Smt. Raj Kishori and other legal heirs like, S.K. Kaushik, Ravi Kaushik and her daughter Promila Sharma.
That he cannot say whether the legal heirs of Late Sh. Laxmi Chand inherited movable and immovable properties to the tune of more than Rs. One Crore or that he did not carry out a fair and impartial investigation about the said assets which the legal heirs including the accused persons got in inheritance from late Sh. Laxmi Chand. That the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik had not produced the copy of banker's cheque bearing bo. 62135 dated 13.11.1991 issued by Habib Bank AG Zurich for an amount of Rs.1,57,896/ which amount had been sent by her brother in law Sh. Ravi Kaushik from Switzerland in her bank account no. 12816 in Bank of Baroda, Karampura, Delhi, copy of which banker's cheque is Ex.PW92/DX58. That accused Santosh Kaushik had not produced her original ITRs pertaining to assessment year 1991 1992, 19921993, 19941995, alongwith challans numbering 6 pages which are Ex.PW92/DX59. That he had not given the benefit of the movable assets found in the residence of the accused persons CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 180 of 364 which were part of Istridhan of accused Santosh Kaushik which were received by her from her parents and relatives at the time of marriage and thereafter on various festival occasions which included, Air Conditioner, Sony TV, Steel Utensils, cooking utensil, gas stove with cylinder, washing machine and other domestic articles. That the price and time of purchase of these articles were informed by Smt. Santosh Kaushik and then they were included.
That he had conducted an inquiry that Smt. Santosh Kaushik is the only sister of her three real brothers and four cousins.
That father of accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik namely Shiv Kumar Sharma is a retired Gazetted officer from Department of Education, NCT of Delhi. That he cannot say whether Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma is having a lot of immovable properties inherited by him at Village Pooth Kalan and other places. That as per document Ex.PW92/D (D30) which is letter dated 28.07.2010 addressed to him, it has been shown by Assistant Director, GPO, Delhi that the amount invested in Kisan Vikas Patra was invested by Lalit Narayan and Geeta Devi amounting to Rs.3,00,000/.
That on the day of purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra by Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Geeta Devi and Lalit Narayan, Pulkit Kaushik and Divya Kaushik had attained adulthood.
That Smt. Santosh Kaushik had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,54,000/ and Rs.1,75,000/ on 17.03.2010 from her bank account bearing no. 02340110007358 of UCO Bank, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi which clearly reflected in the document Ex.PW9/E (D24). That accused S. K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik had not produced novation agreement dated 01.11.2007 and copy of security money received through cheque by Smt. Santosh Kaushik from Sh. Arjun Kumar vide cheque dated 05.11.2007 for an amount of Rs.2,42,250/ in respect of the property situated at Nai Anaj Mandi, Near Filmistan, Delhi. That they had not produced copy of the cheque issued by Deputy Post master, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 181 of 364 in favour of Smt. Santosh Kaushik for a sum of Rs.6,55,000/ for encashment of Kisan Vikas Patra and also another cheque dated 31.10.2007 in favour of Smt. Santosh Kaushik for a sum of Rs.1,31,080/, which copies of novation agreement is Ex.PW92/DX60 and copies of aforesaid cheques which are Ex.PW92/DX61 to Ex.PW92/DX63. That Smt. Santosh Kaushik had not produced before him copy of cheque dated 31.10.2007 issued by APM, GPO, New Delhi towards withdrawal of PPF amounting to Rs.41,000/ copy of which cheque is Ex.PW92/DX64.
That during the investigation he had come to know that Smt. Santosh Kaushik had paid a sum of Rs.25,50,000/ from her account by way of four different cheques dated 01.11.2007 for the purchase of property situated at Nai Anaj Mandi, Delhi, copy of which cheques are Ex.PW92/DX65 (colly, 4 in number).
That similarly Smt. Raj Kishori also paid the amount of consideration to the vendor Sh. Arjun Kumar (HUF) towards her share in the aforesaid property by way of four different cheques dated 01.11.2007 out of her separate and independent income copies of the said cheques which are Ex.PW92/DX66 (Colly).
That property no. WZ246/B, Uttam Nagar belonging to Smt. Santosh Kaushik, was on rent to Cantabil Retail India Pvt. Ltd., on a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/.
That after deduction of TDS from the monthly rent, Smt. Santosh Kaushik used to be paid the monthly rent by the aforesaid company, copies of which TDS certificates numbering in three are collectively Ex.PW92/DX67.
That the aforesaid document were not produced before him during the investigations by the accused persons but he collected the same from Cantabil Retail India Pvt. Ltd.
That the accused Santosh Kaushik had not produced TDS certificates which are Ex.PW92/DX68 (colly. 7 in number).
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 182 of 364 That accused Santosh Kaushik had not produced before him the Form No.16 dated 13.02.1990 issued by Income Tax Department regarding TDS deducted on the amount received from Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. on shares owned by her, which is Ex.PW92/DX69. That accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik has not produced before him two credit bills both dated 31.03.1992 issued by Nisha & Co. regarding sale shares for amount of Rs.1,30,482/ and for another amount of Rs.1,63,548/ which are now Ex.PW92/DX70 and Ex.PW92/DX71. That the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik has not produced before him dividend warrants issued by Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. and Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. amounting to Rs.4,025/ & Rs.22,350/ which warrants dated 06.02.1993 and 07.02.1997 are Ex.PW92/DX72 (colly). That during the investigation accused S. K. Kaushik had not shown him a total income amounting to Rs.80,430.20ps received by him through 17 dividend warrants starting from year 1994 to 2007 of UTI Master share 1986 Scheme which income warrants are Ex.PW92/DX73 (colly, 17 pages). That as per the statement of Sh. K.M. Vaid recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. income of accused S.K. Kaushik comes to Rs.1,04,034/ but he has wrongly mentioned the amount as Rs.8,27,932.63 paise as income of accused S.K. Kaushik.
That in the statement of Sh. K.M. Vaid, the name of other family members as unit holder of UTI have not been mentioned therein.
That in the statement of Smt. Dheeraj Chhabra, she had mentioned three policies twice bearing no. 332177430 dated 20.03.2008 for the amount of Rs.2,73,000/ and policy no. 333033587 and 19.03.2010 for the amount of Rs.50,000/ and policy no. 332170518 dated 18.09.2007 to 21.09.2010 for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/.
That the following policies were having the date of commencement after the check period i.e. 01.06.2010:
(a) Policy no. 333033587 mentioned at Sl. No. 13 in the statement of Smt. Dheeraj Chhabra was CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 183 of 364 shown the date of commencement of the policy as 06.08.2010 for an amount of Rs.1,74,000/ in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
(b) Policy no. 333151876 mentioned at Sl. No. 17 in the statement of Smt. Dheeraj Chhabra was shown the date of commencement of the policy as 06.08.2010 for an amount of Rs.1,27,000/ in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
(c) Policy no. 33303873 mentioned at Sl. No. 4 in the statement of Smt. Dheeraj Chhabra was shown the date of commencement of the policy as 18.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.92,000/ in the name of Sh. Pulkit Kaushik.
(d) Policy no. 333151875 mentioned at Sl. No. 15 in the statement of Smt. Dheeraj Chhabra was shown the date of commencement of the policy as 06.08.2010 for an amount of Rs.67,000/ in the name of Sh. Surender Kaushik.
(e) Policy no. 333153452 mentioned at Sl. No. 18 in the statement of Smt. Dheeraj Chhabra was shown the date of commencement of the policy as 31.08.2010 for an amount of Rs.44,000/ in the name of Sh. Surender Kaushik.
That Surender Kumar Kaushik was having only one LIC policy no. 330906518 dated 17.07.2007 for the amount of Rs.1,57,536/ which he got after surrendering the policy.
That he has added Rs.48,81,711/ in the income of accused S.K. Kaushik.
That the 13 policies out of 14 were in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori and only one policy mentioned above was in the name of S.K. Kaushik even then he has shown the amount of Rs.49,81,711/ in the income of S.K. Kaushik.
That he had received a letter Ex.PW13/A by which he was intimated that the sale deed 28.08.1995 was not found correct.
That photocopy of the sale deed dated 28.08.1995 of house no. 1004 & 1005 shown to the witness he cannot admit or deny the said sale deed, photocopy of which sale deed is Mark PW92/DX74.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 184 of 364 That he cannot admit or deny that Sh. Laxmi Chand and his partner Anup Nayyar constructed the said house by spending Rs.11,50,000/ and the valuation report about the said construction was given by Ramesh Chandra & Associates and the copy of the said valuation report is Mark PW92/DX75. That he also cannot admit or deny regarding the filing of Income Tax return by accused Surender Kumar Kaushik for the assessment year 19992000 for which he had given the details about the cost of land and cost of construction of the said house, copy of which ITR is Mark PW92/DX76.
That the name of Smt. Raj Kishori has not been inadvertently mentioned in the heading income in the chargesheet at serial no. C14 and only the words had been written Smt. That Smt. Raj Kishori obtained the amount of Rs.20 lacs from Sh. Raj Rani Gupta through cheques no. 081220 of Rs.5 lac dated 22.12.2004 drawn on PNB, Pitam Pura, Delhi and cheque no. 194123 dated 17.01.2005 for Rs. 15 lacs drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pitam Pura, vide sale deed Ex.PW60/A. That he is not aware if Smt. Raj Kishori had purchased 1/3rd share of the said property from Smt. Santosh vide sale deed dated 26.06.1996, true copy of which is Mark PW92/DX77.
That he cannot admit or deny if a relinquishment deed was executed on 17.12.2004 by Surender Kumar Kaushik, Ravi Kumar Kaushik and Promila Sharma in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori in respect of house no. 1002 and 1003, Nai Wala, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi which is Mark PW92/DX78. That he cannot admit or deny the photocopy of the pass book of the PPF account of S.K. Kaushik, which copy of the passbook is Mark PW92/DX79. That he was not informed by accused that Smt. Raj Kishori had taken a loan of Rs.5 lacs from Jaiveer, a family friend and this loan was given by him through demand draft in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori issued by PNB, Jhajjar (Haryana), photocopy of which demand draft is Mark PW92/DX80.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 185 of 364 That Smt. Santosh Kumari had not sold half portion of the house property no. A44 situated in Palam Colony known as Palam Extn. to Sh. Udit Sharma by executing GPA, agreement to sell dated 14.05.2010 and also gave one affidavit and receipt for Rs.3,80,000/ and also executed a Will which documents are Mark PW92/DX81 (colly). That Sh. Arjun, seller of house situated in Nai Anaj Mandi near Filimistan gave her Rs.2,42,250/ which he had taken a security from ICICI bank when the bank became the tenant and the security was given to her because the said bank was still a tenant in the house and she also got Rs.2,50,990/ from the sale of her jewellery to Rupal Jewellers on 22.01.2008 for the purpose of purchasing the house. That Smt. Raj Kishori was having an account with UCO Bank and during investigation, he had seized the photocopy of vouchers mentioned in document D42.
That the income tax return filed by Smt. Santosh Kaushik for the year 20052006 to 20092010, and it is also mentioned that she filed ITRs for the year 199192 & 199394 and that she sold her jewellery to Kusal Jewellery for Rs.3,25,000/. That one letter was issued by Land Acquisition Officer, New Delhi to Smt. Raj Kishori, W/o Laxmi Chand, R/o D191, Karampura, New Delhi regarding the acquisition of property situated in Malikpur, Kohi @ Rangpuri bearing khasra no. 1135 min area 16 share ½ for appearing before them on 26.11.1998 regarding the acquisition of her property situated at Rangpuri, which letter was seized by him during investigations and the same is Ex.PW92/DX82.
That he had also seized the copy of Will executed by Smt. Raj Kishori in favour of Surender Kaushik in respect of the property situated at Rangpuri and other movable and immovable properties, which Will is Ex.PW92/DX83.
That in the chargesheet under the heading Assets at serial no. B30 to B33 the monthly income scheme bearing nos. 270292 to 270295 dated 28.08.2002 for Rs.50,000/ each were taken by Smt. Raj Kishori CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 186 of 364 and in the said schemes she had made the nominee Surender Kaushik and Ravi Kaushik both jointly and in the monthly schemes no. 205581 and 205582 dated 21.12.2006 for Rs.36,000/ and Rs.30,000/ respectively and for these two schemes the nominee is Ravi Kaushik and all the said amount of Rs.2,66,000/ of the said schemes are still lying in the post office and has not been physically taken by Surender Kaushik or Ravi Kaushik.
That he has clubbed the amount of Rs.2,66,000/ with the assets of accused Surender Kumar Kaushik. That he has shown the income from post office i.e. from PPF Account, MIS Account, term deposit account etc. Rs.4,70,419/ as interest from PPF and Rs.88,899/ (interest from TDR and MIS) and total amount of Rs.5,59,318/ as income of Surender Kumar Kaushik.
That in the statement of Jhajjar Singh recorded under Section 161, he has mentioned that accused S.K. Kaushik earned Rs.19,819 as interest from PPF and Smt. Santosh Kaushik earned Rs.73,276/. 93 Sh. Naveen PW93 Sh. Naveen Gandas, Lifter in Department of Gandas (PW93) Archive, has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as record Lifter in Department of Archive since 1997.
2. That his duties as record lifter is to maintain the records and custodian of the records received from the office of SubRegistrars situated at Delhi.
3. That he has brought the summoned record pertaining to the sale deed dated 17.11.1995 bearing no. 9943, book no.1, Volume no. 8957 on pages 134 to 144 in favour of Smt. Santosh W/o Surinder Kumar the photocopy of the same is on the record which Ex.PW93/A1(D19).
4. That he has also brought the summoned record pertaining to the sale deed dated 17.11.1995 bearing no. 9945, book no.1, Volume no. 8957 on pages 156 to 166 in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand S/o Late Sh. Bal Kisan the photocopy of the same is on the record which is Ex.PW93/A(D19).
5. That he has also brought the summoned record pertaining to the sale deed dated 06.07.1998 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 187 of 364 bearing no. 362, book no.1, Volume no. 15 on pages 74 to 80 executed by Sh. S.K. Kaushik in favour of Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal Kumar the photocopy of the same is on the record and is Ex.PW23/A (D20).
6. That he has also brought the summoned record pertaining to the Will dated 24.02.1989 bearing no.
3310, book no. 3, Volume no. 701 on page No. 127executed by Sh. Narayan Dass S/o Late Sh. Thakur Dass in favour of Smt. Santosh Kaushik S/o Sh. S.K. Kaushik the photocopy of the same is on the record and is Ex.PW93/A6 (D20).
7. That he has also brought the summoned record pertaining to the Will dated 24.02.1989 bearing no.
3311, book no. 3, Volume No. 701 on page No. 128executed by Sh. Hans Raj S/o Late Sh. Thakur Dass in Favour of Smt. Santosh Kaushik S/o Sh. S.K. Kaushik the photocopy of the same is on the record and is Ex.PW93/A7 (D20).
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the summoned record and he has only produced the summoned record pursuant to the summons of this Court. Defence Witnesses 94 Smt. Neelam DW1 Smt. Neelam Grover is a family friend of the accused Grover (DW1) who in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of NovemberDecember 2007 Smt. Raj Kishori who was the mother in law of Smt. Santosh Kaushik, had approached her and her husband for a loan of Rs. 5 lacs pursuant to which she (witness) gave a loan of Rs.2,50,000/ through cheque to Smt. Raj Kishori and her husband also gave a loan of Rs.2,10,000/ through cheque to her.
2. That the said loan was returned through cheques by the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik because Smt. Raj Kishori had expired on 24.02.2008.
3. That due to their close relations, Smt. Santosh Kaushik also approached her in the month of December 2008 and requested for loan of Rs.4 lacs on which she gave her the said loan which returned CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 188 of 364 to her in the year 2011.
4. That photocopies of the bank passbook account no. 0359053000005195 in her name maintained in the South Indian Bank Ltd., Janakpuri Branch, are Ex.DW1/1 (Colly) and the relevant entries are encircled at point A and B on Ex.DW1/1.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard.
95 Sh. Sansar Singh DW2 Sh. Sansar Singh Hooda is also a family friend of Hooda (DW2) the accused who has in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of November 2007, Smt. Raj Kishori approached him for a loan of Rs.10 Lacs since she wanted to purchase the property situated in New Anaj Mandi, near Filmistan, New Delhi.
2. That on his assurance, his brother in law Sh. Anand Singh gave a cheque of Rs.3,48,000/ in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori and her relative Sh. Jaivir gave a Demand Draft of Rs.5 lacs in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori.
3. That in the month of November 2007 he gave a loan of Rs.77,000/ through cheque to late Smt. Raj Kishori without interest.
4. That the said amount could not be repaid by Smt. Raj Kishori as she had expired on 24.02.2008 and all the amount was repaid by the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik through cheques.
5. That the copy of entry of passbook of account No. 0477/SB/01/004351 in his name maintained in Corporation Bank, Bahadurgarh Branch is Ex.DW2/1 and the relevant entry is encircled in red at Point A. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard.
96 Sh. Anand Singh DW3 Sh. Anand Singh is the brother in law of DW2 (DW3) Sansar Singh Hooda who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/A has corroborated the testimony CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 189 of 364 of DW2 Sansar Singh Hooda to the effect that he had given a loan of Rs.3,48,000/ to Smt. Raj Kishori on the assurance and guarantee of Sansar Singh Hooda. That the son of Smt. Raj Kishori had returned the said loan amount to him through cheque on 31.03.2008. He has placed his reliance upon the copy of entry of passbook of account no. 672210110000824 in his name maintained in Bank of India, Sonepat Branch which is Ex.DW3/1 and the relevant entry is encircled in red at point A. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard.
97 Smt. Chitra DW4 Smt. Chitra Sharma is the younger sister of late Smt. Sharma (DW4) Raj Kishori and in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/A has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That her sister Smt. Raj Kishori and her husband were earning additional income by selling milk and from the sale & purchase of the immovable property.
2. That her sister Smt. Raj Kishori was also investing her income in immovable properties with her husband and they were having quite sufficient income to invest their savings in immovable & movable properties.
3. That her sister and her husband had been earning the profits which they receiving by selling the immovable properties and they were having good earnings from the sale of the immovable properties and during their life time they had acquired number of properties due to their hard work.
4. That Smt. Santosh Kaushik wife of Surender Kumar Kaushik had been given a lot of gold, cash and other gifts at the time of her marriage and even thereafter.
5. That Smt. Santosh Kaushik had invested her personal istridhan, cash and assets in the purchase of immovable properties and moveable assets and she never got any financial help from her husband.
In her cross examination by the Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That she knew accused S.K. Kaushik who is her nephew being the son of her sister.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 190 of 364 That when the stridhan as stated in her affidavit was purchased for her sister Smt. Raj Kishori, he was of tender age.
That she had seen the stridhan but she is aware of these things because being a family affair these things were often discussed by his parents. That her younger sister got married after about three to four years of the marriage of the mother of the accused and it was then that her parents had discussed what had been given to the mother of the accused in her wedding that he came to know about the details of the articles given as mentioned in her affidavit.
That she cannot tell exactly but approximately 250 to 300 persons must have attended the wedding of the mother of the accused S.K. Kaushik. That her sister and brother in law used bear the kitchen expenses of S.K. Kaushik even after his wedding.
That her sister Raj Kishori was running a diary at Karampura but he has not stated this thing in her affidavit.
That her sister used to file Income Tax Returns and she has not mentioned this fact in her affidavit. 98 Sh. Satish Sharma DW5 Sh. Satish Sharma is the brother of Smt. Santosh (DW5) Kaushik and in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.DW5/A has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That they had been giving gifts in cash as well as gold ornaments and traditional gifts to Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the entire family collectively had been presenting about Rs.40,000/ per year to her.
2. That his sister Smt. Santosh Kaushik had been doing the business of sale & purchase of properties and she had purchased properties in different areas in Delhi she had been selling the same and used to earn a lot of profit.
3. That her sister had been investing her legal income and assets in moveable property also i.e. by purchasing Kisan Vikas Patra, UTI in LIC, PPF, shares of different companies etc. and she had been earning by the said investments.
4. That her sister was an income Tax Assessee and she had been filing the Income Tax Returns and she was CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 191 of 364 having her independent separate and distinguishable income from the very day of her marriage.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed that he is the real brother in law (Sala) of accused S.K. Kaushik and real elder brother of accused Santosh Kaushik.
99 Sh. Shiv Kumar DW6 Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma is the father of accused Sharma (DW6) Smt. Santosh Kaushik and father in law of accused S.K. Kaushik and he has in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.DW6/A has corroborated the testimony of his son DW5 Satish Sharma to the effect that Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) was earning independently and his family used to give her various gifts, ornaments, cash etc. on different occasions. This witness has also deposed that he used to financially help Smt. Santosh Kuahsik in sale and purchasing of the various properties.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he is the father of accused Santosh Kaushik and the accused S.K. Kaushsik is his soninlaw. That he has not attached any document in support of the details provided in his affidavit of evidence but he can produce the document if required. That diary maintained by him at the time of marriage of accused Santosh Kaushik alongwith three passbooks showing the relevant entries of the expenditure and with regard to the amount withdrawn are ExDW6/DX1 (colly) i.e. one hand written diary and three original passbooks bearing account nos. 01190027394 in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, 01190027181 and 01190027534 in his name and in the name of Lalit Narayan all maintained in SBI, Sultanpuri).
100 Smt. Promila DW7 Smt. Promila Bhardwaj is the sister of accused S.K. Bhardwaj (DW7) Kaushik and in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.DW7/A she has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That her mother was helping his father in his business transaction of sale / purchase of the property and was also looking after the milk dairy at home during the day, CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 192 of 364
2. That during his life time, her father had purchased a number of residential plots in different colonies in Delhi and her mother had also been purchasing and selling the properties and had been investing her savings.
3. That her Bhabhi Smt. Santosh Kaushik had also been investing her stridhan and savings in the sale and purchase of the property and other schemes.
4. That her father had purchased all the properties with his own income and personal savings.
In his cross examination by the PP for CBI, the witness has deposed that the accused S.K. Kaushik is her real brother and has denied the various suggestions put by the Ld. PP for the CBI.
101 Sh. Anup Nayyar DW9 Sh. Anup Nayyar is a Property Dealer who in his (DW8) examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is dealing in properties and had a partnership with Late Sh. Laxmi Chand.
2. That he alongwith Sh. Laxmi Chand had vide registration no. 7508 in additional book no.1. Vol. 8861 (page168175) dated 06.09.1995, purchased property vide a sale deed was executed by Smt. Harbans Kaur in favour of himself and late Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property bearing no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 sq. yards, situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
3. That vide registration no. 10115 in additional book no.1. Vol. 8964 (pages 96102) dated 21.11.1995, a sale deed was executed by Smt. Harbans Kaur in his favour and Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
4. That vide registration no. 6894/6849 in additional book no.1. Vol. 8840 (pages 173180) dated 21.08.1995, a sale deed was executed by Smt. Harbans Kaur in his favour and Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
5. That vide registration no. 1302 in additional book no.1. Vol. 9069 (pages 4653) dated 13.02.1996, a sale deed was executed by his father Sh. M.L. Nayyar and Sh. Laxmi Chand in favour of Smt. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 193 of 364 Saubhagya Madan in respect of built up property no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
6. That after demolishing and reconstructing the property at Old Rajinder Nagar, basement and flats were constructed at first and second floors and sold to different persons and they earned a profit of Rs. 3 lacs.
7. That he alongwith late Sh. Laxmi Chand also purchased a built up property bearing no. 1004 and 1005 situated at Naiwala Karolbagh Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9 lacs (approximately) which was divided by them equally for purchase of said property.
8. That the said property was demolished and reconstructed into basement and four floors and converted into a guest house.
9. That both of them spent a sum of Rs. One Lac (approximately).
10. That they obtained a valuation report in respect of the said property from M/s. Ramesh Chander and Associates which report is Ex.DW8/1 (Colly., running into 8 pages).
11. That the legal heirs of Laxmi Chand upon his death has sold his share to Sh. Manish Nayaar, Puneet Nayyar and Neelam Nayyar and earned a profit of Rs. 2 Lacs approximately.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has not brought his bank statement to show the investment in the above properties and the profit earned thereof.
That he has not brought the ITRs to show the transactions in respect of above properties and the profits earned thereof.
That he has not brought the permission obtained from MCD with regard to demolition of the properties as above and fresh construction thereof. That he had obtained the permission from the MCD and also reflected the transaction in his ITRs. That he does not maintain any ledger account with regard his property dealing and hence he cannot produce the same.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 194 of 364 That he cannot show any document to show the investment and gain to Sh. Laxmi Chand except mentioned in the sale deeds.
That he was dealing with Laxmi Chand Since 1994 but there is no partnership deed or registration thereof.
102 Sh. Rahul Sharma DW9 Sh. Rahul Sharma is the Sales Manager with M/s.
(DW9) Cantabil Retail India Ltd. who has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as a sales manager with M/s. Cantabil Retail India Ltd. Having its office at B16, Lawrence Road, New Delhi.
2. That he has been authorized by the board of directors to appear in the present case which authorization is Ex.DW9/1.
3. That one shop bearing no. WZ 246, B/1 Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi has been taken on rent by M/s. Cantabil Retail India Ltd. from Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
4. That the rent paid by the said firm M/s. Cantabil Retail India Ltd.
5. That from 05.12.2008 till date are reflected in the document Ex.DW9/2.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has not brought the minute book containing the resolution authorizing him to appear in the present case.
That he has not brought the supporting certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act in respect of Ex.DW9/2 which is the computer print out of the details of the rent in respect of the shop in question. That he has brought the rent agreement and he can produce the copy of same which is Mark D9/X1. That he has not brought the original rent agreement. That Mark D9/X1 does not bear his signatures nor he is the executant of the same.
103 Sh. Vikas (DW DW10 Sh. Vikas is the Single Window Operator in
10) Oriental Bank of Commerce Karampura, New Delhi who has brought the copy of the statement of accounts of account No. 520121910013565 of Smt. Santosh Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 195 of 364 for the period 05.07.2010 to 24.07.2010 copy of which is Ex.DW10/1 and the relevant entry is encircled in red ink at point A. In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the document Ex.DW10/1 is a computer print out.
That he has not brought the certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act in respect of the said document.
That the witness has voluntarily states that it only bear the signatures of Branch Manager. That document Ex.DW10/1 does not bear the certification under the banks book of evidence. 104 Mohd. Shahjab DW11 Mohd. Shahjab is the Assistant Sales Manager in (DW11) Axis Bank, Kirti Nagar, Branch who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Assistant Sales Manager in Axis Bank, Kirti Nagar, Branch.
2. That he had brought the summoned documents.
3. That the copy of the account opening form of Smt. Santosh Kaushik in respect of account no. 910010018811750 is Ex.DW11/1.
4. That the copy of the cheque bearing no. 075749 dated 04.09.2010 for sum of Rs. 3 lacs in favour of Ms. Divya Jain was issued by Smt. Santosh Kaushik which copy is Ex.DW11/2.
5. That the authorization in his favour is Ex.DW11/3.
In his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has not brought original account opening from and accompanying documents in respect of above account.
That he has also not brought the original cheque bearing no. 075749.
That the photocopies of the above documents Ex.DW11/1 and Ex.DW11/2 do not bear any certification of correctness.
That he has not brought the statement of account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik confirming the encashment of the said cheque.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 196 of 364 105 Sh. Pradeep DW12 Sh. Pradeep Kumar is the Dy. Manager in Kumar (DW12) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Central Zone who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Dy. Manager in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Central Zone, with office of CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi.
2. That he has brought the summoned record according to which a mobile tower of MTNL has been installed on the roof of House No. 10, Paschim Enclave, Main Peera Garhi Chowk, New Delhi87.
3. That the copy of the lease deed executed between the MTNL and Smt. Santosh Kauhik is Ex.DW12/1 bearing his signatures on all the pages at point A and signatures of Smt. Santosh Kaushik at point B respectively.
4. That the rent details of the same from March 2009 upto September 2017 alongwith TDS certificate are collectively Ex.DW12/2 (running into 15 pages).
In his cross examination the by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Ex.DW12/2 are the computer print outs. That he has not produced the certificate under Section 65 B of evidence act in support of the same. That it contains the signatures of Accounts Officer Sh. Bharti.
That he personally cannot certify the correctness of the Ex.DW12/2.
That there is a presumption of correctness of the said document in view of the certification by the Accountant.
106 Sh. Devi Prasad DW13 Sh. Devi Prasad Semwal is the Sr. Assistant in Semwal (DW13) DCM Financial Services who in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as Sr. Assistant in DCM Financial Services having its office at D7/3, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi20.
2. That he has brought the summoned record.
3. That the original application form (3 in number) for public deposit scheme by Smt. Raj Kishori are Ex.DW13/1, Ex.DW13/2 and Ex.DW13/3.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 197 of 364
4. That the details of the maturity amount in respect of the above three deposits is Ex.DW13/4 details of the maturity amount in respect of the above three deposits is Ex.DW13/4.
5. That the entire maturity amount was paid to Smt. Raj Kishori as per the official record.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That the document Ex.DW13/4 is computer print out.
That the above details related to the year 1997. That he has not brought the original register showing the maturity amount in respect of the above deposits.
That the document Ex.DW13/4 is computer print out and he has bot brought any supporting certificate under section 65B of evidence Act.
That Ex.DW13/4 does not contain signatures of any authority and only bears the seal of the company which is Ex.DW13/4 has been put by him. That he is not the competent officer having and control over the server or the CPU from which the above details have been retrieved. That the relevant entries in the original record have not been made by him.
That he has not produced any record from the office today to confirm that the entire maturity amount had been received by Raj Kishori.
107 Sh. Shailendra DW14 Sh. Shailendra Kumar Singh is the Business Kumar Singh Associate, Bank of Baroda has in his examinationinchief (DW14) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently working as Business Associated Bank of Baroda, Branch Karampura, New Delhi.
2. That he has not brought the summoned record relating to account no. 11411 of Smt. Raj Kishori and account no. 12816 of Smt. Santosh Kumar Kaushik in the Bank of Baroda Karampura Branch and the said record relates to the year 1991.
3. That as per the office, and the said record has been weeded out being more than 10 years old.
4. That the certificate in respect of the same is Ex.DW14/1 and Ex.DW14/2.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 198 of 364 This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. PP for CBI.
108 Sh. Nishant DW15 Sh. Nishant Saurav is a witness from LIC who has Saurav (DW15) in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the summoned record relating to LIC mutual fund bearing folio No. R1001088 of Smt. Raj Kishori.
2. That the redemption amount of the same is Rs.20,000/.
3. That the certificate issued by him on behalf of the LIC mutual fund to show that the said amount of Rs. 20,000/ had been released to Smt. Raj Kishori on 28.05.1998 is Ex.DW15/1.
4. That the authorization in his favour by the compliance officer and company secretary Sh. Mayank Arora is Ex.DW15/2.
5. That the photocopies of the counter foils of the warrants issued in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori the holder of the mutual fund is Ex.PW92/DX44 (Colly, running into 5 pages).
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has no personal knowledge of the contents of the documents Ex.DW15/1.
That the witness has voluntarily states that the said details have been mentioned on the basis of the mail received from the corporate office at Mumbai. That he has not placed before this court the said mails.
That he has not brought the certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act in support of document Ex.DW15/1.
109 Sh. Sudish Kumar DW16 Sh. Sudish Kumar is the Field Boy in Lovkush (DW16) Ram Leela Committee who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Field Boy in Lovkush Ram Leela Committee (Regd.) having its office at 8233, Rani Jhasi Road, Near Filimistan Cinema, Delhi06 and he has been authorized to appear and tender his evidence before this court vide authorization CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 199 of 364 Ex.DW16/1.
2. That he ha brought the summoned record according to which a sum of Rs.1,37,500/ was repaid/ returned to Smt. Santosh Kaushik through cheque bearing no. 130807 dated 20.12.2007 payable at Indraprastha Sahkari Bank, New Delhi, during the financial year 20072008.
3. That the letter of authorized signatory of Lovkush Ramleela Committee namely Sh. Subhash Chand is Ex.DW16/2 and the copy of the statement of account is Ex.DW16/3.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he is working in the above organization for the last two years.
That he has no personal knowledge about the above transaction.
That the statement of account Ex.DW16/3 has not been prepared by him.
That Ex.DW16/3 has not been retrieved by him personally from any system under his control. That Ex.DW16/3 is not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act. That he has not brought the original minute book by way of which a resolution has been passed by the committee authorizing him to depose before this court.
That as per the record the refund of the above amount to Smt. Santosh Kauahsik was on account of the fact that the stall which was required to be put by her in the mela was not put.
That he has not brought the aforesaid record confirming the same.
110 Sh. Praveen DW17 Sh. Praveen Kumar is a public witness who has in Kumar (DW17) his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That his father Sh. Vijay Kumar who is aged about 6768 years is suffering from various ailments i.e. High BP, Diabetes, heart problem and he is unable to come to the court due to the above reasons.
2. That he can identify his signatures as he has seen him writing and signing the documents.
3. That the documents already Ex.PW92/DX33 and CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 200 of 364 Ex.PW92/DX34 bears the signatures of his father at point A on both the pages.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has not brought the medical certificate of his father showing that he is not in a position to appear before the court today.
That the witness has voluntarily states that he has brought his previous medical record confirming the above ailment.
That he has no personal knowledge of the above documents bearing the signature of his father. 111 Sh. Lalit Arora DW18 Sh. Lalit Arora is the Public Relation Inspector (DW18) (Post) at GPO New Delhi who has in his examinationin chief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as Public Relation Inspector (Post) at GPO New Delhi.
2. That he has brought the summoned record.
3. That the cheque bearing no 565709 of Rs. 41,000/ dated 31.10.2007 in favour of Smt. Santosh Kaushik was issued as PPF payment.
4. That the copy of the issue register showing the said entry is Ex.DW18/1.
5. That the print out of the ledger account showing the relevant entry at point encircled A is Ex.DW18/2.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has not made the entries in his hand in Ex.PW18/1.
That there is no certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act in support of Ex.DW18/2. That he is personally not handling the system from which the print out of Ex.PW18/2 has been taken. 112 Sh. Rajiv Kumar DW19 Sh. Rajiv Kumar is the Public Relation Inspector (DW19) (Post) at the Nangloi Post Office who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as Public Relation Inspector (Post) at the Nangloi post office.
2. That he has brought the summoned record.
3. That the copy of the KVP no. OJBB 272839 for CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 201 of 364 Rs.5,000/ dated 22.04.93 in the name of Laxmi Chand and 05CC635896 for Rs. 10,000/ dated 22.04.93 in the name of Laxmi Chand are Ex.DW19/1 and Ex.DW19/2 respectively (Previously Ex.PW92/DX9 Colly).
4. That the copy of KVPs No. 01AA061144 and no. 01AA061145 for Rs.1,000/ each in the name of Laxmi Chand are Ex.DW19/3 and Ex.DW19/4/ respectively.
5. That he has also brought the copies of the purchase applications containing the details of seven KVPs bearing no. 05CC687947, 05CC687948, 05BB274434, OJAA064962, OJAA064963, OJAAO64964 and OJAA064965 for the various sums as mentioned against them in the application purchased by Laxmi Chand is Ex.DW19/5.
6. That the total sum of above KVPs was Rs.29,000/.
7. That the nominee of the above KVPs was Smt. Raj Kishori.
8. That he has also brought the copies of the purchase application containing the details of the three KVPs bearing no. 272145, 272416 and 272417 for the various sums as mentioned against them in the application purchased by Laxmi Chand is Ex.DW19/6.
9. That the total sum of above KVPs was Rs.29,000/.
10. That the nominee of the above KVPs was Smt. Raj Kishori.
11. That he has also brought the copies of the purchase applications containing the details of the three KVPs bearing no. 272415, 242415 and 272417 for tahe various sums as mentioned against them in the application purchased by Laxmi Chand is Ex.DW19/6.
12. That the total sum of above KVPs was Rs 15,000/. The nominee of the above KVPs was Smt. Raj Kishori.
13. That he has also brought the copies of the purchase applications containing the details of two KVPs bearing no. 064C098005 and 064C0980010 for the various sums as mentioned against them in the application purchased by Laxmi Chand is Ex.DW19/8. The total sum of above KVPs was CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 202 of 364 Rs.20,000/ and the nominee of the above KVPs was Smt. Raj Kishori.
14. That he has also brought the copies of the purchase application containing the details of four Indira Vikas Patra (IVPs) bearing no. C/3199928 dated 07.09.88, C/3675292 dated 28.12.88, C/3675293 dated 28.12.1988, C/3675294 dated 28.12.1988 for the various sums as mentioned against them in the list of IVPs purchased by the purchaser are Ex.DW19/10 and Ex.DW19/10 respectively.
15. That the total maturity value of the above IVPs was Rs.20,000/.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he is posted at Nangloi branch from 2013. That he has not handled the above transactions and ha deposed on the basis of the official record. That he is not aware as to who received the maturity amount.
113 Sh. R.K. DW20 Sh. R. K. Vashishth is the Assistant Post Master
Vashishth (DW who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the
20) following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Assistant Post Master at Ramaesh Nagar, Delhi.
2. That he has brought the letter issued by Senior Post Master to the effect that the record pertaining to cheque no. 351526 dated 31.10.2007 for sum of Rs.6,55,000/ in the name of Santosh Kaushik and cheque no. 351590 dated 31.10.2007 for sum of Rs.1.03,180/ in the name of Santosh Kaushik has been weeded out on the basis of the copy of the record annexed with the application signed by Senior Post Master.
3. That the copy of letter dated 25.10.2017 signed by Sr. Post Master Sh. Ram Kisan is Ex.DW20/1 bearing the signatures of Sh. Ram Kisan Sr. Post Master, Post Office Ramesh Nagar which signatures he identified having seen him signing and writing during the course of his official duties and the copy of the record writing during the course of his official duties which running into two pages and is Ex.DW20/2.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 203 of 364 In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he is not personally aware of contents of the record and the correctness of the same. That he has only brought the summoned record as directed.
114 Sh. Navin DW21 Sh. Navin Malhotra has in his examinationinchief Malhotra (DW deposed on the following aspects:
21) 1. That he is working with PP Jewellers in the capacity of Manager since last 13 years.
2. That the document Ex.DW21/1 (previously Ex.PW92/DX45 running into 4 pages) which is valuation certificate pertaining to jewellery of Smt. Raj Kishori issued by the owner of the owner of the PP Jewellers namely Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta which bears his signatures at point A which he identified having seen him signing and writing during official course of his duties.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta is still alive and presently at Karol Bagh Branch.
That he is working in the PP Jewellers for the last 13 years.
That he has no personal knowledge of Ex.DW21/1. 115 Sh. Nirbhay Singh DW22 Sh. Nirbhay Singh is the AAO in LIC Branch who (DW22) in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as AAO in LIC Branch 129, situated at Karampura, Delhi.
2. That he has brought the status report of 13 policies bearing no. 331418586 to 331418723, 331332036449 to 332036454 and 331706702 in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori.
3. That during her life time she surrendered six policies the status of which is Ex.DW22/1 (colly, running into 6 pages).
4. That after surrendering the aforesaid six policies, Smt. Raj Kishori again investd in LIC by purchasing five policies under future plus scheme but during the said period she expired and the maturity amount of the said policies was received by her nominee the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 204 of 364 status reports have been signed by Sh. R.P. Sharma who is their Chief Manager and bears his seal and signatures at point A on each page which signatures he identified having seen him while writing and signing during his official duties.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Mr. Sharma is the Chief Manager. That he has authorized him to appear in the court to depose on his behalf vide authorization letter dated 21.10.2017 which is Ex.DW22/DX1. That the status report has not been prepared by him or by Mr. Sharma.
That it has been prepared by departmental head Sh. Sushil or by Mr. Sharma.
That he has been prepared by departmental head Sh. Sushil Kumar Verma.
That it has been prepared by Departmental head Sh. Sushil Kumar Verma and the same are Ex.DW22/1 and Ex.DW22/2 bears the signatures of Sh. Sushil Kumar Verma at point A on all the pages. That the status report Ex.DW22/1 and Ex.DW22/2 are not supported by any certificate under section 65 B of Evidence Act.
116 Sh. Avdhesh DW23 Sh. Avdhesh Kumar is the Assistant Manager in Kumar (DW23) OBC who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Assistant Manager in OBC Basant Vihar New Delhi since last two months.
2. That he has been authorized by the Manager of the Bank vide letter Ex.DW23/1 to depose in this case.
3. That he has brought the statement of account shows that Smt. Divya Jain had issued a cheque bearing No. 479098 dated 03.01.2008 for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the same was debited in the account of Smt. Divya Jain and the same which is Ex.DW23/2 (Colly, running into 8 pages) bearing the seal and signatures of Branch Manager Ms. Rachita Bhargav at each page at point A.
4. That he can identify the signatures of Ms. Rachita Bhargav having seen her signing the writing during CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 205 of 364 the course of his official duties.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Ex.DW23/2 does not bear the certification under the banker's book of evidence. That there is no supporting certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act in support of Ex.DW23/2. 117 Sh. Alok Kumar DW24 Sh. Alok Kumar is the Manager (Facilities) at (DW24) ICICI Securities Ltd. who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as Manager (facilities) at ICICI Securities Ltd. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
2. That he has brought the summoned record.
3. That the copy of the novation agreement dated 01.11.2007 is Ex.DW24/1 (previously Ex.DW92/DX60 running into 6 pages).
4. That he also brought the copy of TDS certificate running into 6 pages which is Ex.DW24/2 (Colly).
5. That the copy of the ledger account regarding the payment of rent to Santosh Kaushik is Ex.DW24/3.
6. That he has been authorized to deposed in this case by the Vice President (Internal Control) Smt. Mamta Sethi which letter is Ex.DW24/4.
In his cross examination the by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Ex.DW24/1 is only a copy and he has not brought the original.
That Ex.DW24/I has not been executed by him and does not bear his signatures.
That Ex.DW24/2 and Ex.DW24/3 do not bear any seal of authentication or certificate of correctness and have not been signed by any authority. That no supporting certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act has been produced in support of Ex.DW24/2 and Ex.DW24/3 respectively. 118 Sh. Anup Singh DW25 Sh. Anup Singh is the Record Keeper in the office (DW25) of SRII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi who has brought the summoned record as under:
1. That vide registration no. 3272, in additional book no.1 Vol. 1220 (pages 5253) dated 30.04.1970, a CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 206 of 364 sale deed was registered by Shiv Murat and Shiv Kumar in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of plot No.66 out of Khasra no. 25/6 of village Sahipur, Alipur Circle Delhi, measuring 150 sq. yards which was purchased for total sale consideration of Rs.500/ with stamp duty of Rs. 15 and corporation tax of Rs 25 and the copy of the same is Ex.DW25/I.
2. That vide registration no. 12019 in additional book no.1 Vol. 1536 (page 4244) dated 14.08.1971, a sale deed was registered by Bahadar Singh and Mohan Lal in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand and Sh.
Girwar Lal in respect of Plot no. 81 area 150 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 254, 276, 277, 278 situated in Indira Park area of village Madipur, Delhi which was purchased for total sale consideration of Rs.2,500/ with stamp duty of Rs.200/ and the same is Ex.DW25/2.
3. That vide registration no. 3191 in additional book no.1 Vol. 1954 (pages 149150) dated 12.03.1973, a sale deed was registered by Mukhitiar Singh in favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of plot no. 542 sector 1, in area of Sultanpur in Dada Nagar Colony Delhi measuring 200 sq. yards which was purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/ with stamp duty of Rs. 60 and corporation tax of Rs. 100 and the copy of the same is Ex.DW25/1.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he has only brought the summoned record and he is not personally aware of the contents of the above documents. 119 Sh. Naveen (DW DW26 Sh. Naveen is the record keeper in Department of
26) Delhi Archives who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as record keeper in Department of Delhi Archives, 18A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Spl. Institutional Area, New Delhi.
2. That he has brought the summoned record as that vide registration no. 8676 in additional book no.1 Vol. 9341 (pages 116120) dated 27.12.1996, a relinquishment deed was executed by Smt. Raj Kishori, Smt. Promila Sharma and Sh. Ravi Kaushik in favour of Sh. S.K. Kaushik S/o Sh. Laxmi Chand CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 207 of 364 in respect of 50% undivided share of built up property no. 1004 and 1005 Naiwala, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh which relinquishment deed is Ex.DW26/1 .
3. That vide registration no. 7508 in additional book no.1 Vol. 8861 (page 168175) dated 06.09.01995, a sale deed was executed by Smt. Harbans Kaur in favour of Sh. Anup Nayyar and Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property bearing no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 sq. yards, situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the same is Ex.DW26/2.
4. That vide registration no. 10115 in additional book no.1. Vol. 8964 (pages 96102) dated 21.11.1995, a sale deed was executed by Smt. Harbans Kaur in favour of Sh. Anup Nayyar Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the same is Ex.DW26/3 .
5. That vide registration no. 6894/6849 in additional book no.1 Vol. 8840 (pages 173180) dated 21.08.1995, a sale deed was executed by Smt. Harbans Kaur in favour of Sh. Anup Nayyar and Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property no. 27/4 measuring 88.1 situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the same is Ex.DW26/4 .
6. That vide registration no. 1302 in additional book no.1. Vol. 9069 (pages 4653) dated 13.02.1996, a sale deed was executed by Sh. M.L. Nayyar and Sh. Laxmi Chand in favour of Smt. Saubhagya Madan in respect of built up property no. 27/4 measuring 88.04 situated at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the same is Ex.DW26/5 .
7. That vide registration no. 4525 in additional book no.1 Vol. 9187 (pages) 132145) dated 26.06.1996 a sale deed was executed by Smt. Santosh in favour of Smt. Raj Kishori W/o Laxmi Chand in respect of 1/3 undivided share of built up property no. 1002 constructed on plot no. 27 to 30 measuring 150.5 sq. yards bearing Khasra No. 12981144, 1506, 1145 situated at Nai Wala Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the same is Ex.DW26/6 .
8. That vide registration no. 7650 in additional book no.1. Vol. 8866 (page 117124) dated 12.09.1995, a sale deed was executed by Sh. Prem Kumar Ghai in CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 208 of 364 favour of Sh. Laxmi Chand in respect of built up property no. 1004 and 1005 constructed on plot no. 31 measuring 150 sq. yds. bearing khasra no. 1296/1144 and 2030/1505 situated at Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the same is Ex.DW26/7.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he has only brought the summoned record and he is not personally aware of the contents of the above documents. 120 Sh. Purushottam DW27 Sh. Purushottam Kumar Kaushik is the Senior Kumar Kaushik Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar Branchhas in his (DW27) examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar Branch
2. That he has brought the original application for account opening in respect of Smt. Raj Kishori.
3. That the copy of the saving account opening form of Smt. Raj Kishori bearing account no. 15467 is Ex.DW27/1 .
4. That the other summoned record in respect of the above said account is not available in their bank as the same has been weeded out being old record more than five years.
5. That the authority letter in his favour to depose before this court is Ex.DW27/2 bearing the signatures of Sh. Hari Kumar K, Assistant General Manager.
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed that he is personally not aware of the details and contents of Ex.DW27/1 and has only brought the summoned record.
121 Sh. Harshit DW28 Sh. Harshit Anand is the Scale1 Officer, Punjab Anand (DW28) & Sind Bank, Jwalaheri Branch has in his examination inchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is presently posted as Scale1 Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Jwalaheri Branch, New Delhi.
2. That the summoned record which was cheque dated 17.12.1993 issued from their bank is not available in the bank being old record of the year 1993 having been weeded out.
3. That he has brought a letter in this respect duly signed by Assistant General Manager, Vinod Kumar CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 209 of 364 Pandey which is Ex.DW28/A bearing his signatures at point A. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. PP for CBI.
122 Sh. Hitender DW29 Sh. Hitender is the Tax Assistant in Ward 41 (5/) (DW29) Civic Centre who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is posted as Tax Assistant in Ward 41 (5/) Civic Centre Office of Principal CIT, New Delhi.
2. That he has brought the official record regarding income tax return of Smt. Raj Kishori for the assessment year 20042005 and 200809.
3. That the certified copies of both the returns are duly signed by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 41 (5) at point A is Ex.DW29/1 (running into 3 pages and Ex.DW29/2 (running into 6 pages).
4. That the record pertaining to the income tax return of Smt. Raj Kishori for the assessment year 199899, 19992000, 20002001, 20012002, 20022003 and 20032004 are not traceable for the reasons mentioned in Ex.DW29/3.
5. That he has brought the official record of the income tax returns for the assessment year 200203 and 20032004 are not traceable for the reasons mentioned in Ex.DW29/3.
6. That he has brought the official record of the income tax returns for the assessment year 200203 to 2016 17, except the ITR for the year 20062007 in respect of Sh. S.K. Kaushik and all these ITRs are Ex.DW29/4 (Collyrunning into 52 pages) and the covering letter in this regard duly signed by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kohli at point A is (objected to the mode of proof).
In his cross examination by the Ld. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has not brought any supporting certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act in respect of the documents Ex.DW29/1, Ex.DW29/2, Ex.DW29/4 and Ex.DW29/5.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 210 of 364 That the said document have not been retrieved by him form the system under his control. That he cannot give any detail with regard to contents of above documents.
That he has only produced the same from the office pursuant to the summons.
123 Sh. Ramphal DW30 Sh. Ramphal is the Assistant Manager in the State (DW30) Bank of India, Sultanpuri who in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India, Sultanpuri branch w.e.f. 21.10.2015.
2. That he has not brought the summoned record I.e. the statement of account of Sh. Lalit Narayan and Shiv Kumar Sharma.
3. That the computerized statement of account of Sh. Lalit Naryan having account No. 10651092282 is Ex.DW30/1 (running into 17 pages) bearing his signatures and seal of the bank on each page at point A.
4. That the computerized statement of account of Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma having account no. 10651089371 is Ex.DW30/2 (running into 18 pages) bearing his signatures and seal of the bank on each page at point A.
5. Tat this is the true statement of accounts of both the above persons which he himself have retrieved from the computer by applying the secret code number.
In his cross examination by the Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he has no personal knowledge of the contents of the above statement of accounts. That the documents Ex.DW30/1 and Ex.DW30/2 are computer generated copies and he has not brought any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
124 Sh. Rakesh Negi DW31 Sh. Rakesh Negi is the Inspector in Income Tax (DW31) Department who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as an Inspector in Income Tax Department Circle 40 (1), New Delhi situated at Civil Centre, 17th Floor, Minto Road, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 211 of 364
2. That he has not brought the summoned record as the same is not available in the office of the Commissioner Income Tax.
3. That a letter dated 17.10.2017 duly signed by Ms. Archana Chaudhary, the then Principal Commissioner of income Tax is Ex.DW31/1 bearing her signatures at point A which he duly identified.
4. That as per his knowledge, a Voluntarily Disclosure Scheme was launched by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in the year 1998 but he will not be able to comment on the correctness of the certificate put to him which is Ex.DW31/2.
This witness has not been examined by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
125 Sh. Sevajit (DW DW32 Sh. Sevajit is the Record Attendant, Department of
32) Delhi Archives who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the summoned record relating to sale deed in respect of the property bearing Plot No. 67, Khasra No. 25/6, Village Singalpur, (Now known as Shalimaar Bagh) Delhi registered on 15.02.1971 vide registration No. 1122, Addl. Book No.1, Volume 2526, page 4 to 5 certified copy of which Ex.DW32/A (previously Ex.PW92/DX17).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed that he is not aware of the contents of the above document which is in Urdu nor he is executant of the same.
126 Sh. Daulat Ram DW33 Sh. Daulat Ram Kashyap is the Record Keeper in Kashyap the office of sub RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali, Road, Delhi who (DW33) has brought the summoned record relating to relinquishment deed in respect of the property bearing no. 1002 and 1003 constructed at plot no. 27 to 30, at Shivaji Street, Faiz Road, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi registered on 17.12.2004 vide registration No. 9000, Addl. Book No.1, Volume 11292, pages 68 to 76 certified copy of which is Ex.DW33/A (previously Mark92/DX78).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed that he is not aware of the contents of the above document nor he is executant of the same.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 212 of 364 127 Sh. Nishant DW34 Sh. Nishant Saurav is the Branch Manager of LIC Saurav (DW34) Mutual Funds, 25, Kasturba Gandhi, Marg, New Delhi who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has not brought the summoned record relating to LIC Mutual Fund in the name of Smt. Raj Kishori as it is lying at Mumbai and being an old record is non printable form.
2. That he has got the relevant details from the Mumbai Office relating to the said LIC Mutual Fund bearing No. R0101699 to R1001088 dated 22.06.1992 in the name of Late Smt. Raj Kishori which is already on record and is already Ex.PW92/DX49 and is Ex.DW34/A (to be henceforth read as such) and the covering letter issued by the Mumbai Branch is Ex.DW34/B. In his cross examination by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Ex.DW34/A and Ex.PW34/B are computer generated printouts.
That he has received the same viaemail. That he has not placed on record the certificate U/s 65/B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the above document despite the summons bearing such instructions.
That he is not the executant of the above document. Tat he is personally not aware about the contents of the same.
128 Sh. H. Surya DW35 Sh. H. Surya Prakash is the Branch Head of /s.
Prakash (DW35) M.N. Dastur & Company Limited who has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is the Branch Head, M/s. M.N. Dastur & Company Limited, 232B, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Estates, PhaseIII, New Delhi110020.
2. That the said company was discharging the duties as a Registrar of Unit Trust of India from the year 1991 upto year 2001.
3. That he has seen covering letters dated 18.02.1999 which is Ex.PW92/DX30 and dated 23.08.1999 which is Ex.PW92/DX31 and the same were issued by their company for and behalf of Unit Trust of India to Smt. Raj Kishori as their agreement had CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 213 of 364 been terminated with the Unit Trust of India and all the record of Unit Trust of India had been returned to Unit Trust of India.
4. That the above said covering letter are Ex.DW35/A and Ex.DW35/B. In his cross examination the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That Ex.DW35/A and Ex.PW35/B are computer generated printouts.
That there is no certificate issued by the company U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the above documents.
That he is not the executant of the above documents. That he is personally not aware about the contents of the same.
That he also cannot vouch for the correctness and authenticity of these document.
That he is only identifying them on the basis of the format and the letter head.
129 Sh. Hitender DW36 Sh. Hitender is the Tax Assistant in the Office of (DW36) Principal Commissioner, Income Tax14, Civic center, Minto Road, New Delhi who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has not brought the summoned record relating to income tax returns of Smt. Raj Kishori for the year 19981999 and 19992000, 20002001, 20012002, 20022003, 20032004 as he could not trace them online in their computer system wherein the entire record after the year 2000 has been digitalized.
2. That it appears that the returns after the year 2000 which is not available has not been filed online.
3. That in so far as the record relating to the Voluntarily disclosure scheme (VDIS) relating to Smt. Raj Kishori is concerned, the same (Now Delhi14),
4. That the office of Principal Commissioner Income Tax has reported that the said record is not traceable and the said record is Ex.DW36/A which bears the signatures of Sh. Nilimesh Baruah, Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, New Delhi14 at point A whose signatures he can identify as he CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 214 of 364 has seen him signing during official course of his duties.
This witness has not been cross examined by the Sr. PP for the CBI.
130 Sh. Udit Sharma DW37 Sh. Udit Sharma is a Public Witness who has in his (DW37) examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he had purchased property bearing no. A44 (Double Storey), Palam Extension PartI, Sector7, Dwarka, (known as Harijan Basti), Delhi from Smt. Santosh Kauahsik for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/ and the documents of sale i.e. General Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell, affidavit, cash receipt, deed of will were executed by Smt. Santosh Kaushik in his favour which are Ex.DW37/A (Colly, running into 8 pages - previously mark PW92/DX81) and they bear his signatures and thumb impressions at various points as encircled A.
2. That he had taken over the physical possession of the said property from Smt. Santosh Kaushik after payment of sale consideration to her.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he is presently employed with Technip India Ltd., as Contracts Manager.
That he has not brought the originals of aforesaid documents because he does not have the same with him as the same were handed over to the subsequent purchaser by him when he sold the same. That he has not retained any of the original documents including the receipts as he has handed over the same to the subsequent purchaser whose name, address and details he cannot disclose as of now.
That all the documents of the sale purchase as above are Notarized and not registered.
That he does not recall if the subsequent sale was registered but the subsequent transaction was Notarized.
That he is neither related to them nor he is deposing falsely in this regard.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 215 of 364 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(7) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) and Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. (8) The accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) has stated that it is a false case and falsely made out by the Investigating Officer by illegally clubbing the separate, independent and distinguishable the income, assets, expenditures and savings of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and that of Smt. Raj Kishori (Mother of the accused who is now deceased), and that of the children of the accused person. According to him this said clubbing has totally given an illegal, unlawful picture regarding his income, assets, expenditures and savings of accused S. K. Kaushik who has been serving as J. E. with the MCD. It is stated that he (accused S. K. Kaushik) was earning his salary in the capacity of JE in MCD and he was also having income from other sources as mentioned in answers to the above questions and he also inherited movable and immovable assets from his father and mother because his father unfortunately died on 13.03.1996 and his mother died on 14.02.2008 and they left a lot of movable and immovable properties because both were earning and they had been investing and reinvesting in immovable properties as well as they had been investing and reinvesting in movable assets viz. UTI, Master Shares, Kissan Vikas Patras, Indra Vikas Patras, SBI Financial Ltd. and in the shares of different companies like DCM and other companies and also in the schemes of LIC viz. Market Plus and Future CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 216 of 364 Plus. It is stated that Smt. Raj Kishori also received a total amount of Rs.80,000/ which was sent by Ravi Kaushik, her son while he was working at Switzerland during the period 1988 to 1992and this money was sent by him through Pay Order and Smt. Raj Kishori deposited the said Pay Order in her Bank Account No. 11411 of Bank of Baroda, Karampura, New Delhi. Thus, if all the legal income consisting of salary from MCD, income from other sources and assets movable and immovable inherited from his parents as well as gifts received at the time of marriage and after the marriage from the parents of his wife or legally analyzed with the expenses which had been incurred exclusively by him, then the figures would show that there is no case of disproportionate assets made out against accused S. K. Kaushik. (9) The accused Surender Kumar Kaushik has further stated that similarly, if all the income which was being earned by Smt. Santosh Kaushik after her marriage by investing and reinvesting her Istridhan as well as the cash amount, Jewellery, clothes, electrical gadgets, utensils, furniture etc. received as gifts from her parents, relatives, friends and wellwishers which became the Istridhan of the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the gifts she received from her parents and brothers after marriage on the festival occasion viz. Raksha Bandhan, Diwali, Dushhera, marriage anniversaries and time to time of her visits to her parents and visits of her parents in her inlaws house and on the occasions of the birth of her three children as well as on the birthdays celebrations every year are calculated in a simple and genuine manner, there would be absolutely no amount or figure to show which CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 217 of 364 can be called that amount, income or assets is illegal or unlawful.
According to him thde accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik is a duly educated woman who under the advice of her parents, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw had been investing the money in immovable properties from where she could earn as rent ad thus, she multiplied her investments. She also had been purchasing and selling immovable properties as well as by investing the money in the schemes which have been launched by the different departments of Govt. of India viz. LIC, UTI, Kissan Vikas Patra and also in shares of the companies. He has further stated that the I.O. had not intentionally taken into consideration the separate, independent and distinguishable income of Smt. Santosh Kaushik though, it was available to him from the Income Tax Returns and from the Statement of Accounts of the different banks as well as he could have collected by examining the persons from whom she purchased the property and from the person to whom the properties were sold and all the purchase and sale of properties were document oriented i.e. through Sale Deed as well as through the execution of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and other necessary documents. He has stated that Smt. Santosh Kaushik also received more than Rs. 1,57,000/ which was sent to her by her Dever Ravi Kaushik while he was working in Switzerland during the period 1988 to 1992 and this money was sent by him through Pay Order which was received by her and she deposited this Pay Order in Bank Account No. 12816 in Bank of Baroda, Karampura, New Delhi. Had the I.O. taken into consideration the separate, independent and distinguishable income CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 218 of 364 of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the expenses incurred by her through cheques as well as given cash to the authorities of the schools and other institutions as well as other miscellaneous expenses, the said calculation of the income, expenses must have shown that there was absolutely no concealment of income and expenses and savings by Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the sources of the incomes of Smt. Santosh Kaushik clearly show that there was absolutely no contribution of any illegal or unlawful income of her husband coaccused S.K. Kaushik. According toh im, in fact, the I.O. had falsely and wrongly mentioned that Smt. Santosh Kaushik had acquired her assets from the ill gotten money illegally earned by her husband S. K. Kaushik. He has stated that in fact, the source of income of Smt. Santosh Kaushik have been clearly shown by her by filing Income Tax Returns as well as by keeping her money in the banks in her own name clearly show that she never abetted him (her husband accused S.K. Kaushik) to collect or obtain any money through illegal or unlawful means during his service and that this fact clearly shows that he (accused S.K. Kaushik) as well as accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution / CBI under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they have been falsely made accused by the I.O. by distorting the figures by illegally unlawfully clubbing as mentioned above. He states that he had been intimating his employer regarding the details of the properties inherited by him and the method how he inherited and in fact, he never purchased any immovable property or any objectionable movable assets. According to CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 219 of 364 him, the witnesses are false witnesses and the details facts mentioned above clearly show that the witnesses had not given the true statements. He has stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the CBI. In fact, they are the victims of highhandedness of the CBI officials who had not conducted the investigation honestly and did not bring the true facts on the file and distorted the complete facts in order to falsely implicate them.
(10) The accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) has stated it is a false case and falsely made out by the Investigating Officer by illegally clubbing the separate, independent and distinguishable the income, assets, expenditures and savings of her and that of Smt. Raj Kishori and that of the children of the accused persons. She further stated that this said clubbing has totally given an illegal, unlawful picture regarding the income, assets, expenditures and savings of accused S.K. Kaushik who has been serving as J.E. with the MCD. It is stated that the accused S.K. Kaushik was earning his salary in the capacity of JE in MCD and he was also having income from other sources and he also inherited movable and immovable assets from his father and mother because his father unfortunately died on 13.03.1996 and his mother died on 14.02.2008 and they left a lot of movable and immovable properties because both were earning and they had been investing and reinvesting in immovable properties as well as they had been investing and re investing in movable assets viz. UTI, Master Shares, Kissan Vikas Patras, Indra Vikas Patras, SBI Financial Ltd. and in the shares of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 220 of 364 different companies like DCM and other companies and also in the schemes of LIC viz. Market Plus and Future Plus. Smt. Raj Kishori also received a total amount of Rs. 80,000/ which was sent by Ravi Kaushik, her son while he was working at Switzerland during the period 1988 to 1992 and this money was sent by him through Pay Order and Smt. Raj Kishori deposited the said Pay Order in her Bank Account No. 11411 of Bank of Baroda, Karampura, New Delhi. Thus, if all the legal income consisting of salary from MCD, income from other sources and assets movable and immovable inherited from his parents as well as gifts received at the time of marriage and after the marriage from the parents of his wife are legally analyzed with the expenses which had been incurred exclusively by him, then the figures would show that there is no case of disproportionate assets made out against accused S.K. Kaushik.
(11) According to the accused Santosh Kaushik, similarly, if all the income which was being earned by her after her marriage by investing and reinvesting her Istridhan as well as the cash amount, jewellery, clothes, electrical gadgets, utensils, furniture etc. received as gifts from her parents, relatives, friends and wellwishers which became the Istridhan of the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the gifts she received from her parents and brothers after marriage on the festival occasions viz. Raksha Bandhan, Bhai Dooj, Diwali, Dushhera, marriage anniversaries and time to time of her visits to her parents and visits of her parents in her inlaws' house and on the occasions of the birth of her three children as well as on the birthdays celebrations every year are CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 221 of 364 calculated in a simple and genuine manner, there would be absolutely no amount or figure to show which can be called that amount, income or assets is illegal or unlawful. Accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik states that she is a duly educated woman who under the advice of her parents, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw had been investing the money in immovable properties from where she could earn as rent and thus, she multiplied her investments. She also had been purchasing and selling immovable properties and earned lot of money from this purchase and sale of the immovable properties as well as by investing the money in the schemes which have been launched by the different departments of the Govt. of India viz. LIC, UTI, Kissan Vikas Patra and also in shares of the companies. She has stated that the I.O. had not intentionally taken into consideration her separate, independent and distinguishable income of Smt. Santosh Kaushik though, it was available to him from the Income Tax Returns and from the Statement of Accounts of the different banks as well as he could have collected by examining the persons from whom she purchased the property and from the persons to whom the properties were sold and all the purchase and sale of properties were document oriented i.e. through Sale Deed as well as through the execution of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and other necessary documents. Accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik states that she also received more than Rs.1,57,000/ which was sent to her by her Devar Ravi Kaushik while he was working in Switzerland during the period 1988 to 1992 and this money was sent by him through Pay Order which was received by her and she deposited this Pay Order in CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 222 of 364 Bank Account No. 12816 in Bank of Baroda, Karampura, new Delhi. According to her had the I.O. taken into consideration the separate, independent and distinguishable income of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and the expenses incurred by her through cheques as well as given cash to the authorities of the schools and other institutions as well as other miscellaneous expenses, the said calculation of the income, expenses must have shown that there was absolutely no concealment of income and expenses and savings by her (Smt. Santosh Kaushik) and the sources of her incomes clearly show that there was absolutely no contribution of any illegal or unlawful income of her husband co accused S.K. Kaushik. She further stated that in fact, the I.O. had falsely and wrongly mentioned that she (Smt. Santosh Kaushik) had acquired her assets from the ill gotten money illegally earned by her husband S.K. Kaushik. She has stated that in fact, the sources of her income have been clearly shown by her by filing Income Tax Returns as well as by keeping her money in the banks in her own name clearly show that she never abetted her husband coaccused S.K. Kaushik to collect or obtain any money through illegal or unlawful means during his service and that This fact clearly shows that she and the accused S.K. Kaushik have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution / CBI under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they have been falsely made accused by the I.O. by distorting the figures by illegally and unlawfully clubbing as mentioned above. She has also stated that the accused S.K. Kaushik had been intimating his employer regarding the details of the properties CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 223 of 364 inherited by him and the method how he inherited. In fact, accused S.K. Kaushik never purchased any immovable property or any objectionable movable assets. It is stated that the witnesses are false witnesses and the detail facts mentioned above clearly show that the witnesses had not given the true statements. It is further stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the CBI. In fact, they are the victims of highhandedness of the CBI officials who had not conducted the investigation honestly and did not bring the true facts on the file and distorted the complete facts in order to falsely implicate them. (12) In their defence, the accused have examined Thirty Seven Witnesses as discussed herein above.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(13) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Learned Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI and the Learned Defence Counsel. I have also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the prosecution as well as the defence, the evidence on record and the various authorities. My findings are as under:
Registration of FIR:
(14) The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR has been registered on 31.05.2010 on the basis of source information. In this regard, the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimony of initial Investigating Officer Inspector Vikas Pathak (PW92) and the FIR CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 224 of 364 which is Ex.PW92/A. (15) I have gone through the testimony of Inspector Vikas Pathak (PW92) who has proved that on 31.05.2010, he was entrusted with the investigations of the present case by the then SP Sh. Sumit Sharan with an FIR dated 31.05.2010 against accused S.K. Kaushik who was working as Junior Engineer, MCD, Delhi. He has proved the carbon copy of the FIR dated 31.05.2010 which is Ex.PW92/A and has identified the signatures of Sh. Sumit Sharan, the then SP at point A1 and A2 on pages 6 and 7 of the FIR.
(16) The accused on their part have not disputed the registration of FIR and hence, I hold that the registration of FIR has been duly proved by the prosecution.
Fixing of Check Period:
(17) As per the prosecution case, the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) had joined services in Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Junior Engineer on 19.02.1986. The accused got married to Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) in the year 1986 and the couple has two sons namely Pulkit Kaushik and Hardik Kaushik and one daughter namely Divya Kaushik.
(18) The Check Period for purposes of calculating the Disproportionate Assets of the accused has been taken from 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010 i.e. 24 years and 4 months and as per the prosecution case the accused had acquired maximum assets in his own name and in the name of his family members. It is not disputed by the accused that CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 225 of 364 they have two sons namely Pulkit Kaushik and Hardik Kaushik and one daughter namely Divya Kaushik. The accused have also not disputed the check period of 24 years and 4 months (from 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010) as taken by the prosecution for calculating the disproportionate assets.
Sanction to prosecute the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) - Proved:
(19) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) was the Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and before filing the charge sheet, they have obtained the necessary sanction to prosecute the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik from the competent authority. In this regard, the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimony of Ms. Kiran Dabral, the then Additional Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the sanction order Ex.PW1/A. (20) Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the sanction given by Ms. Kiran Dabral (PW1) is bad in the eyes of law and is not a valid, legal sanction and has absolutely no force of law because the sanction was given without application of mind and without examining the necessary relevant and admissible documents and the said witness signed the sanction order mechanically. He has further argued that the prosecution miserably failed to bring on record the file by which order dated or by which the official number of the order and by whom that is the Commissioner MCD who specifically ordered to CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 226 of 364 authorize the witness Ms. Kiran Dabral (PW1) to give the sanction against the accused. It is also argued that in the absence of producing any such official order of the Commissioner MCD and legally proving such order clearly shows that Ms. Kiran Dabral (PW1) was not legally authorized to grant sanction without the specific orders of the Commissioner MCD and in the absence of showing and bringing the said order before this Court, the sanction itself becomes totally illegal and unlawful and without any force of law and any cognizance taken by the Court on the basis of such illegal, unlawful and having any force of law the cognizance becomes illegal, unlawful and bad in the eyes of law and the whole trial is vitiated. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also pointed out that in her crossexamination the said witness has admitted that she has not perused the personal file of the accused before granting sanction nor she has seen any document or the file, wherein the accused had informed his department about the mode of acquiring the various properties. He has also pointed out that the said witness has also admitted that she has not seen the ownership documents of the properties mentioned in the sanction order and she is not aware about the names of the owners of the said properties nor she has seen any supporting document regarding the details of the properties and income of the accused mentioned at Page 6 of the sanction order. It is further argued that the said witness had also included the income of the accused even after the check period which is totally illegal, unlawful and against the mandatory provision of law since the income of an employee for the period beyond check period cannot be included while CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 227 of 364 giving sanction for the prosecution of the employee when check period has been taken into consideration by the CBI. It is also argued that giving of sanction is not an act which can be executed in a formal way but the sanctioning authority has got the legal duties to see that no government employee is allowed to be prosecuted by the orders of the sanctioning authority without application of mind and without being satisfied that the accused has actually committed an offence for which sanction is being given meaning thereby signing of sanctioning orders entails the most difficult and official responsibility to satisfy herself / himself before giving the sanction that the accused had actually committed the offence for which the sanction is/was being given. It is further argued that the crossexamination of Ms. Kiran Dabral (PW1) shows that the sanctioning authority had signed and given the sanction without application of mind and the sanction authority had signed it without examining the most material admissible and relevant documents which were available in the department and it was mandatory as well as legally bound to examine and analyse those documents before giving the sanction and nonexamining and non analyzing those documents clearly proves that the sanction authority had signed the sanction order mechanically without application of mind.
(21) The Prosecution, on the other hand, have placed their reliance on the case of Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1274, Rajib Ranjan & Ors.
Vs. R. Vijay Kumar reported in 2015 (1) SCC 513, Subramaniyam CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 228 of 364 Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh reported in 2012 (3) SCC 64 (page 34) and also upon the Sanction Order dated 31.05.2012 which is Ex.PW1/A. (22) I have considered the rival contentions. Before coming to the merits of the case, I may observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2016 SCC online SC 357 elaborately dealt with the issues now being raised by the accused and had culled out the broad principles as under:
"..... 42. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarized hereunder:
I. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime.
II. Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent Section 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner.
III. Even in facts of a case when public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. There cannot be a universal rule to determine whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor it is possible to lay down such rule.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 229 of 364 IV. In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties sanction would be necessary under Section 197 Cr.PC, but such relation to duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim. The offence must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to commit offence. In case offence was incomplete without proving, the official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C without apply.
V. In case sanction is necessary it has to be decided by competent authority and sanction has to be issued on the basis of sound objective assessment. The court is not to be a sanctioning authority.
VI. Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance, but if the cognizance is taken erroneously and the same comes to the notice of Court at a later stage, finding to that effect is permissible and such a plea can be taken first time before appellant court. It may arise at inception itself. There is no requirement that accused must wait till charges are framed.
VII. Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charges and it can be decided primafacie on the basis of accusation. It is open to decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage.
VIII. Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in course of evidence during trial. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage and material brought on record depending upon facts of each case. Question of sanction can be considered at any stage of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 230 of 364 proceedings. Necessity for sanction may reveal itself in the course of progress of the case and it would be open to accused to place material during the course of trial for showing what his duty was. Accused has the right to lead evidence in support of his case on merits.
IX. In some case it may not be possible to decide the question effectively and finally without giving opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence. Question of good faith or bad faith may be decided on conclusion of trial....."
(23) Similarly, it was held in State of Maharashtra Vs. DR Budhikota Subbarao reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 339 as under:
"........ So far public servants are concerned the cognizance of any offence, by any court, is barred by Section 197 of the Code unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge of the official duty. The word 'cognizance' means 'jurisdiction' or 'the exercise of jurisdiction' or 'power to try and determine causes'. In common parlance it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have committed during discharge of his official duty. The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression, ' no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction'. Use of the words, 'no' and 'shall' make it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise or power of the court to taken cognizance of any offence is absolute and CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 231 of 364 complete. Very cognizance is barred. That is the complainant cannot be taken notice of.
Two questions arose for considerations - one if the offence for which the accused was charged and of which cognizance was taken was committed by him during the period he was in Naval service and if it be so then whether the violations were in discharge of official duty or they were beyond it. As regards the first question, the facts disclose that the act or omission which furnished foundation for indicating the accused either under O.S. Act or A. E. Act were related to the period when he was in service. Moreover, Section 197 of the Code as it stands after 1973, extends the protection even to a retired public servant as is clear from use of the words, 'is or was' provided the accusation is in respect of an act or omission done or purported to have been done when such public servant as in office. By legislative fiction the officer is deemed to be a public servant under Section 197 of the Code irrespective of his retirement if the accusations against him are for act or omission done by him when he was in service. The purpose is to avoid exposing a public servant to vexatious or frivolous prosecutions merely because he has demitted his office.
Section 197 does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 232 of 364 must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The section has, thus, to be constructed strictly while determining its applicability to have act or omission in course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharge in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the section in favour of the public servant. Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated. If on facts, therefore, it is prima facie that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to be official to which applicability of Section 197 of the Code cannot be disputed.
As regards the second question, evidence shows that the papers seized from the accused were written and the books published when the accused was attached with B. A. R. C. as a Second Officerin Command and, therefore, the material or documents which were found by him cannot be said to have been collected or procured by him by going out of way and beyond the discharge of his duties as an officer in the Naval Department. May be some of them were secret, confidential or unclassified items. But the accused came across them and obtained their copied in CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 233 of 364 course of his duty as an officer attached to B. A. R. C. Taking out of information obtained in course of employment was thus squarely covered by Section
197. Whether it was for communication or not is not material. Retention of Identity Card issued during service may be dereliction of duty but it was committed when the accused was in service and it was issued to him while discharging his duties as a Naval officer. The identity Card was issued to the accused as a retired officer and consequently the claim of the prosecution that the accused acted in violation of the provisions of the Act was not justified. But assuming there was violation since it was done when the accused was in service he was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code. Likewise the alleged information which the accused was taking with him to United States having been obtained by him in course of employment and in discharge of his duty the High Court did not commit and error of law in recording the finding that no prosecution could be initiated unless sanction under Section 197 was obtained. Thus even the second and the most important requirement of acting in discharge of official duty was satisfied. Therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to have obtained sanction for prosecuting the accused....."
(24) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the witness Ms. Kiran Dabral (PW1) who was the then Additional Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation has proved the sanction order dated 31.05.2012 in respect of accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) which is Ex.PW1/A. In so far as the accused asre concerned they have not examined even a single witness to disprove that the sanctioning authority had perused the entire CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 234 of 364 material collected during investigations. I may observe that the sanctioning authority had duly considered all the documents placed before it and also calculated the DA. The relevant portion of the sanction order is reproduced as under:
"....... Whereas the documents recovered during searches has revealed substantial assets (other than those mentioned in FIR) such as investment of around Rs.51 lacs towards a property bear Bara Hindu Rao Hospital in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik (wife) and Smt. Raj Kishori (mother), investment of Rs.20.5 lacs for purchasing First Floor of property no. 10 in Paschim Vihar, residential house at Himalayan Cottage in Mussorie, commercial property consisting of basement and four floors at WZB, 246/B at Main Najafgarh Road in Uttam Nagar, Double Storey Building at Harijan Basti in Palam and property at F265 in Sudershan Park, investment worth Rs.9.5 lacs in Post Office through KVPs, balance of Rs.13.5 lacs (approx.) in PPF accounts in the name of his family members, payments worth several lacs towards premium for LIC and different bank accounts in his name and in the name of his family members.
And whereas, the investigation disclose substantial expenses, investments made by the accused during his service which include education expenses of children from Hans Raj model School, Manav Rachna College of Engineering, Faridabad, Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology etc. Whereas taking a check period of 19.02.1986 (the date, when accused joined MCD as Junior Engineer) to 1.6.2010 (the date when searches were conducted after registration of this case on 31.5.2010) the assets acquired by Shri S.K. Kaushik are disproportionate to his known sources of income.....
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 235 of 364 .....Whereas on the basis of evidences collected during investigation, it is found that Shri Surender Kumar Kaushik during 1986 to 2010 i.e. the period of check is found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.84,37,204.03/ which is disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account for. Investigation further revealed that all the imovable properties acquired during the period are in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik W/o Shri S.K. Kaushik, who was actively helping him inall the financial transaction and there is no satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate assets acquired by her husband in her name and her act constitute the offence punishable u/s. 109 IPC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 to facilitate her husband Shri S.K. Kaushik.
And whereas the said acts of Shri Surender Kumar Kaushik constitute the offence punishable u/s. 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988.
And whereas, I, Kiran Dabral, Addl. Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal corporation being the authority competent to remove Shri Surender Kumar Kaushik S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Kaushik, Jr. Engineer from service/ offence after carefully examining the statement of witnesses, documents placed before me with regard to allegations and circumstances of the case and after application of mind, consider that accused Shri Surender Kumar Kaushik, Jr. Engineer should be prosecuted in the Court of Law for the said offences.
Now, therefore, I, Kiran Dabral, Addl. Commissioner,South Delhi Municipal Corporation hereby accord sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 for the prosecution of accused Shri Surender Kumar Kaushik, Jr. Engineer for these offence or offences CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 236 of 364 punishable under any other provisions of law in respect of above said acts and for taking cognizance by the Hon'ble Court of competent jurisdiction......"
(25) It is writ large that the above sanction order Ex.PW1/A is a detail speaking order running into 11 pages. In so far as the argument of the Ld. Counsels for the accused that there was no application of mind is concerned, I may observe that the application of mind can be inferred from the contents of the sanction order itself and in case, it is not sufficiently clear from the contents then only the prosecution has to produce the entire file in which the sanction order was processed by the concerned Department. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain in Criminal Appeal No. 2345 of 2009 decided on 28.05.2013 has specifically held as under:
"...... 16. Presently, we shall proceed to deal with the contents of the sanction order. The sanctioning authority has referred to the demand of the gratification for handing over TDS certificate in Form 16A of the Income Tax Act, the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused before the panch witnesses and how the accused was caught red handed. That apart, as the order would reveal, he has fully examined the material documents, namely, the FIR, CFSL report and other relevant documents placing in regard to the allegations and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and, thereafter, being satisfied he has passed the order of sanction. The learned trial judge, as it seems, apart from other reasons has found that the sanctioning authority has not referred to the elementary facts and there is no objective material to CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 237 of 364 justify a subjective satisfaction. The reasonings, in our considered opinion, are absolutely hyper technical and, in fact, can always be used by an accused as a magic trick to pave the escape route. The reasons ascribed by the learned trial judge appear as if he is sitting in appeal over the order of sanction. True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused. In the obtaining factual matrix, we must say without any iota of hesitation that the approach of the learned trial Judge as well as that of the learned single Judge is wholly incorrect and does not deserve acceptance...."
(26) The perusal of the sanction order Ex.PW1/A specifically confirm that the various documents with regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case were placed before the competent authority who after considering the same had accorded sanction. The accused on their part have not been able to rebut the evidence adduced by the prosecution as herein above establishing that the entire material was placed before the competent authority who granted the sanction after going through the same. They have also not been able to establish any nonapplication of mind on the part of the competent authority so according the sanction. It is not established that the entire material was not placed before the said authority. Once the sanctioning authority has testified that she had perused the documents, it means that the same CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 238 of 364 were produced before her by the CBI. Accordingly, I do not find it to be case of non application of mind by the sanctioning authority. (27) In the light of the above, I hereby hold that the sanction to prosecute the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) stand established.
Disproportionate Assets of the accused during the check period:
Case of the Prosecution:
(28) The case of the prosecution is that the assets of the accused at the beginning of the check period i.e. on or before 19.02.1986 was Rs.45,600/; the total moveable/ immovable assets acquired by the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik in his name, in the name of his wife Smt. Santosh Kaushik and in the name of his sons Pulkit Kaushik, Hardik Kaushik and Divya Kaushik during the check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010, were worth Rs.1,33,37,440/; the assets acquired during the check period comes to Rs.1,32,91,840/; the total income of the accused and his family members was found to be Rs.1,64,24,435.63p; the expenditure incurred by the accused and his family members was Rs.1,15,69,799.66p and the likely savings of the accused was found to be Rs.48,54,635.97p. As per the allegations, the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik while working as Junior Engineer in the MCD during 1986 to 2010 was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.84,37,204.03p in his name and in the name of his family CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 239 of 364 members which was disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account for. Further, it is alleged that most of the immovable properties acquired during the period 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010 were in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik W/o S.K. Kaushik who was actively helping him in all the financial transaction and there is no satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate assets acquired by her husband in her name.
According to the prosecution, the evidence and the documents collected during investigations establishes that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) has amassed assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for.
(29) In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its heavy reliance upon the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses particularly Sudha Kapoor (PW2), V.K. Sharma (PW5), H.C. Doria (PW9), Neeraj Pant (PW11), Dharminder Kumar (PW12), T.A. Manan (PW13), Sunil Kumar (PW14), Bhupinder Singh (PW18), Hem Raj (PW19), S.R. Singhal (PW20), P.N. Arora (PW21), K.M. Vaid (PW22), Navin Kumar (PW23), Manish Kumar (PW24), Rajiv Malhotra (PW25), Surender Kumar Narang (PW26), Tarif Singh (PW27), S.R Aggarwal (PW28), Arjun Kumar (PW29), Dheeraj Chhabra (PW31), Naveen Kumar Sharma (PW32), Jhaggar Singh (PW33), Bhagmal (PW34), S.K. Narwal (PW35), Lalit Kushik (PW38), Hans Raj Arora (PW39), A.K. Jindal (PW40), Manuj Chadha (PW41), Rajesh Jain (PW42), Ved Prakash (PW46), Krishan Kumar (PW47), Mahesh Dhar CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 240 of 364 Diwedi (PW48), Jai Malhotra (PW49), Shri Ram (PW50), Pawan Singh (PW55), Daulat Ram Kashyap (PW60), B.S. Singhal (PW64), R.M. Sati (PW65), A.K. Mahajan (PW69), MRV Subramanium (PW70), P.N. Kaushik (PW71), Lalit Kumar Gupta (PW72), Vivek Yadav (PW77), Sushma Darbu (PW82), Neha Saxena (PW83), D. Ganesh (PW84), Santosh. T (PW85), Purnima Nagia (PW86), G.L. Sagar (PW87), Anil Arora (PW91), Vikas Pathak (PW92) and Naveen Gandas (PW93). (30) As per the prosecution the Immovable Assets, Movable Assets, Income and Expenditure of the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik and their family members, in the light of the evidence which has come on record and the consecutive Disproportionate Assets, is as under:
Movable and Immovable Assets (according to the prosecution along with the details of the evidence adduced):
Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/ No. Exhibit 1 A property bearing no. Rs.5,10,0000/ PW14 Sunil Ex.PW14/A, 8243/14 and 8244/14 plus stamp duty of Kumar Ex.PW29/A, (ground floor) at Nai Rs.3,32,500/ = PW29 Arjun Ex.PW91/C Anaj Mandi near Bara Rs.54,32,500/ Kumar (D13) Hindu Rao, Near Filimistan, Delhi in name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik and Smt. Raj Kishori in the year Nov 2007 2 A residential flat at WZ Rs.1,35,000/ plus PW39 Hans Raj Ex.PW39/A B246/B1 Uttam cost of Arora (D14) Nagar, Main Najafgarh construction of Road in the name of Rs.8,53,120/ Smt. Santosh Kaushik W/o S.K Kaushik in the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 241 of 364 Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/ No. Exhibit year 24.02.1989 3 A double storey Rs.2,31,000/ plus PW47 Krishan Ex.PW47/A, building measuring 115 stamp duty of Kumar Ex.PW77/A Sq. yards at Harijan Rs.11,550/ PW 77 Vivek (D16) Basti, Palam, New Yadav Delhi in the name of Smt. Santoshi Kaushik, W/o SK. Kaushik in the year Sep 2004 4 A residential house at Rs.1,92,000/ plus PW40 A.K. Ex.PW40/A, B4, 1st Floor, stamp duty of Jindal B, C and D Himalayan Cottage, Rs.45,500/ Mussourie, Uttrakhand PW48 Mahesh (D8 & D17) owned by Sh. S.K. Dhar Diwedi Kaushik by way of will dated 23.07.2000 executed by his mother Smt. Raj Kishori Devi in the year Dec. 2008 5 A property at Khasra Rs.5,00,00/ PW13 T.A. ExPW13/C no. 1135, village stamp duty of Manan (D15) Rangpuri, Tehsil Rs.10,400/ Mehrauli, New Delhi PW60 Daulat owned by Sh. S.K. Ram Kashyap Kaushik in the year August 1991 6 Property no. F265 II Rs.2,30,000/ plus PW25 Rajiv Ex.PW25/A floor, Sudershan Park, stamp duty of Malhotra (D16) ND in the year Nov. Rs.4,600/ 2009 7 Second Floor with roof Rs.20,50,000/ PW 26 Surender Ex.PW26/A, right of property no.10, plus stamp duty of Kumar Narang Ex.PW46/A Paschim Enclave, New Rs.82,000/ PW46 Ved (D18) Delhi in the December Prakash 2008 8 A/c no. Balance on PW 64 Ex.PW64/B 21740100014923 in the 30.05.2010 as B.S. Singhal Ex.PW64/C bank of Baroda, Zero PW65 R.M. Sati D21 Karampura Branch, C 3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Santosh CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 242 of 364 Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/ No. Exhibit Kaushik as on 30.05.2010 balance is '0'.
9 A/c no. Rs.1,134/ PW 64 Ex.PW64/E, 21740100007576 in the B.S. Singhal, Ex.PW64/D bank of Baroda, PW 65 R.M. Sati (D21) Karampura Branch, C 3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Pulkit Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
10. A/c no. Rs.2,23,504/ PW 64 B.S. Ex.PW64/F 21740100007575 in the Singhal, Ex.PW64/G bank of Baroda, PW65 R.M. Sati (D21) Karampura Branch, C 3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Divya Kaushik as on 01.06.2010 11 A/c no. Rs.2,387/ PW 64 Ex.PW64/H 21740100012673 in the B.S. Singhal Ex.PW64/I bank of Baroda, PW 65 R.M. Sati (D21) Karampura Branch, C 3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Hardik Kaushik as on 01.06.2010 12 A/c no. Rs.2,223/ PW 64 Ex.64/A to G 21740100004798 in the B.S. Singhal (D89) bank of Baroda, PW 65 R.M. Sati Karampura Branch, C 3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Raj Kishori as on 01.06.2010 13 A/c no. 10304166876 Rs.42,884/ PW72 Lalit Ex.PW 72/A, in the State Bank of Kumar Gupta Ex.PW 72/B India, Najafgarh Road, (D23) CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 243 of 364 Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/ No. Exhibit in the name of SK Kaushik as on 01.06.2010 14 A/c no. Rs.43,215/ PW9 Ex.PW9/A, 023401100007358 in H C Doria Ex.PW9/B the UCO bank of India, (Admitted Punjabi Bagh Road Ex.P94, 95, no.7, East Punjabi 96) Bagh Market, N D, in D24 the name of SK Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
15 A/c no. 015501022795 Rs.3,766/ PW 83 Neha Ex.P97 in the ICICI bank, Saxena (D25) Punjabi Bagh Branch, N D in the name of SK Kaushik as on 01.06.2010 16 A/c no. 509200592641 Rs.1,00,000/ PW70 MRV Ex.PW22/A in the name of SK Subramanium (D26) Kaushik through which 10,000 units were PW22 K.M. purchased on Vaid 30.03.2007 by paying Rs. 100000/ as on 30.03.2007 17 UTI Folio no. Rs.25,000/ PW70 MRV Ex.PW22/A 509195714875 in the Subramanium (D26) name of Santosh Kaushik through which PW22 K.M. 25,00 units were Vaid purchased on 30.10.2006 by paying Rs. 25000/ as on 30.10.2006 18 UTI equity tax savings Rs.48,000/ PW 70 MRV Ex.PW22/A plan having Folio no. Subramanium D26 10921796581 in the name of SK Kaushik PW22 K.M. through which Vaid 1609.658 units were CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 244 of 364 Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/ No. Exhibit purchased on 12.12.2008.2006 by paying Rs. 48000/ as on 12.12.2006 19 UTI Folio no. Rs.25,000/ PW70 MRV Ex.PW22/A 509195716162 in the Subramanium (D26) name of SK Kaushik through which 25,00 PW22 K.M. units were purchased Vaid on 30.10.2006 by paying Rs. 25000/ as on 30.10.2006 20 UTI Folio no. Rs.5,000/ PW 70 MRV Ex.PW22/B, 50917263291 in the Subramanium Ex.PW22/B1 name of SK Kaushik PW22 K.M. to B5 through which 25,00 Vaid (D27) units were purchased on 12.12.1986 by paying Rs. 5000/ as on 12.12.1986 21 UTI Folio no. Rs.19,000/ PW 0 MRV Ex.PW22/B 50917260870 in the Subramanium (D27) name of SK Kaushik PW22 K.M. through which 19,00 Vaid units were purchased during 199195 by paying Rs. 19000/ as on 199195 22 KVP Registration no. Rs.3,50,000/ PW33 Jhaggar Ex.PW28/T1 203833 in the name of Singh to T7 Geeta Devi and Pulkit (D10) Kaushik. Ex.PW33/A, KVP Registration no. PW28 S.R Ex.PW33/B 203834 in the name of Aggarwal (D30) Shri Kumar Sharma and Pulkit Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203835 issued in favour of Lalit Narayan and Pulkit Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203836 issued in
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 245 of 364
Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/
No. Exhibit
favour of Shiv Kumar
and Divya Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203837 issued in
favour of Shiv Kumar
and Santosh Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203838 issued in
favour of Shiv Kumar
Sharma and Pulkit
Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203839 issued in
favour of Shiv Kumar
Sharma and Santosh
Kaushik as on
29.05.2010.
23 KVP Registration no. Rs.6,60,000/ PW28 S.R. Ex.PW28/H,I
203776 in the name of Aggarwal & I1, J, K, L,
Santosh Kaushik and M, N, O, P, Q
Divya Kaushik. PW33 Jhaggar & R
KVP Registration no. Singh
203777 in the name of Ex.PW33/B
Santosh Kaushik and
Divya Kaushik.
(D31)
KVP Registration no.
203778 issued in
favour of Santosh
Kumar and Divya
Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203779 issued in
favour of Pulkit
Kaushik and Santosh
Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203780 issued in
favour of Divya
Kaushik and Pulkit
Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203781 issued in
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 246 of 364
Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/
No. Exhibit
favour of Shiv Kumar
Sharma and Santosh
Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203797 issued in
favour of Lalit Kaushik
and Santosh Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203798 issued in
favour of Lalit Kaushik
and Santosh Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203799 issued in
favour of Geeta Devi
and Divya Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203800 issued in
favour of Geeta Devi
and Divya Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203816 issued in
favour of Geeta Devi
and Santosh Kaushik.
KVP Registration no.
203797 issued in
favour of Geeta Devi
and Divya Kaushik as
on 29.05.2010.
24 PPF account no. 13564 Rs.13,57,386/ PW28 S.R. Ex.P98, 99 &
in the name of S.K. Aggarwal 100
Kaushik. (D31)
PPF account no. 13565 PW33 Jhaggar Admitted
in the name of Santosh Singh
Kaushik.
PPF account no. 13566
in the name of Pulkit
Kaushik.
PPF account no. 13567
in the name of Divya
Kaushik.
PPF account no. 21099
in the name of Pulkit
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 247 of 364
Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/
No. Exhibit
Kaushik total balance
as on 01.06.2010.
25 Household inventory Rs.1,52,900/ PW12 Ex.PW12/B
items found available Dharminder (D11)
at the residence of the Kumar
accused during the
course of house search
including cash amount
of Rs. 51,000/during
the check period.
26 Vehicle no. DL2CV Rs.3,45,239/ PW20 S.R. Ex.PW20/A,
0049 of Santro make Singhal Ex.PW20/B,
found at the residence Ex.PW63/A
of the accused during (D33)
the house search as on
06.02.2002.
27 Vehicle no. DL9SV Rs.62,767/ PW19 Hem Raj Ex.PW19/A
8557 of make Pulsar Ex.PW19/B
Motor Cycle found at (D34)
the residence of the
accused during the
house search as on
14.08.2008.
28 The value of the shares Rs.3,19,365/ PW92 Ex.PW92/F
that have been Vikas Pathak (D59)
purchased by Sh. S.K.
Kaushik at different
points of time during
1988 to 2008
29 Monthly income Rs.50,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/G
scheme 270292 opened Vikas Pathak (D59)
on 28.08.2002 for Rs.
50000/ as on 2002
30 Monthly income Rs.50,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/H
scheme 270293 opened Vikas Pathak (D59)
on 28.08.2002 for Rs.
50000/ as on 2002
31 Monthly income Rs.50,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/I
scheme 270294 opened Vikas Pathak (D59)
on 28.08.2002 for Rs.
50000/ as on 2002
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 248 of 364
Sr. Description of assets Value in Rs. Proved by Document/
No. Exhibit
32 Monthly income Rs.50,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/J
scheme 270295 opened Vikas Pathak (D59)
on 28.08.2002 for Rs.
50000/ as on 2002
33 Monthly income Rs.36,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/K
scheme 205581 opened Vikas Pathak (D59)
on 21.12.2006 for Rs.
36000/ as on 2006
34 Monthly income Rs.30,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/I
scheme 205582 opened Vikas Pathak (D59)
on 21.12.2006 for
Rs.50,000/ as on 2006
35 Balance in RD A/c nos. Rs.15,000/ PW92 Ex.PW92/I
344871, 344872 and Vikas Pathak (D59)
344875 in the Paschim
Vihar Post office as on
2010.
Total Rs. 1,33,37,440/
Income of accused Surender Kumar Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik and their family during the check period (according to the prosecution along with the details of the evidence adduced):
Sr. Description of Income Amount of Income Proved by Documents No. (Rs.)
1. Net salary income of Rs.23,37,170/ PW11 Ex.PW11/C & accused S.K. Kaushik Neeraj Pant Ex.PW11/D and during the check also period. Ex.PW92/DX1 to DX3, D36
2. The total income of Rs.7,06,815/ PW18 Ex.P108 accused Surender Kr. Bhupinder Admitted D38 Kaushik which is other Singh than salary as declared in his income tax return for the period 2002 to 2010.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 249 of 364 Sr. Description of Income Amount of Income Proved by Documents No. (Rs.)
3. Income of Santosh Rs.8,53,753/ PW18 Ex. P108 Kaushik during AY Bhupinder Admitted D38 20102011 from hose Singh property as per her income tax return year 200910
4. Income of Santosh Rs.2,84,623/ PW71 P.N. Ex.P108 Kaushik during AY Kaushik Admitted D38 20092010 from hose property as per her income tax return year 200809
5. Income of Santosh Rs.2,65,806/ Nil Ex.P106 Kaushik during AY Admitted D38 20082009 from hose property as per her income tax return year 200708
6. Income of Santosh Rs.1,72,401/ Nil Ex.P107 Kaushik during AY Admitted D38 20072008 from hose property and other source as per her income tax return year 200607
7. Income of Santosh Rs.1,71,908/ Nil Ex.P108 Kaushik during AY Admitted D38 20062007 from hose property as per her income tax return year 200506
8. Income of Raj Kishori Rs.2,45,070/ PW71 P.N. Ex.PW71/A, during AY 20082009 Kaushik Ex.PW71/C to from the other source Ex.PW71/E (D as per her income tax 39) return year 200708
9. Income of Raj Kishori Rs.1,48,691/ PW 71 Ex.PW71/A, during AY 20072008 P.N. Kaushik Ex.PW71/C to from the other source Ex.PW71/E as per her income tax (D39) return year 200607 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 250 of 364 Sr. Description of Income Amount of Income Proved by Documents No. (Rs.)
10. Income of Raj Kishori Rs.87,533/ PW71 Ex.PW71/A, during AY 20062007 P.N. Kaushik Ex.PW71/C to from the other source Ex.PW71/E as per her income tax (D39) return year 200506
11. Income of Sh. S.K. Rs.827932.63p PW22 K.M. Ex.PW22/A Kaushik and his family Vaid (D26) members through various scheme of UTI in the year 200209
12. Income of Sh. S.K. Rs.49,81,711/ PW18 Ex.PW18/A Kaushik and his family Bhupinder (D37) members through Singh various scheme of LIC in the year 200710
13. Income through sale Rs.18,00,000/ PW23 Navin Ex.PW93/A, property no. 1004 and Kumar Ex.PW93/A4, 1005 situated at Block Ex.PW93/A5, no. NN at Naiwal PW24 Manish Ex.PW23/A, Karol Bagh, ND in the Kumar Ex.PW24/A, year 1998. (D20 PW93 Naveen Admitted) Gandas
14. Income from the sale Rs.20,00,000/ PW60 Daulat Ex.PW60/A deed executed on Ram Kashyap (D20 17.01.2005 by Smt. Raj Admitted) Kishori for the property bearing municipal no. 1002 and 1003 situated at Block No. NN, Shivaji Street, Faiz Road Naiwal, Karol Bagh, ND in the year 2004.
15. Income from the sale of This income has Nil Admitted property no. A84, already been Palam Extension ND included in the IT through the General return for the year Power Attorney 200910 executed between Smt. Santosh Kumari and Smt. Titixa Rajora CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 251 of 364 Sr. Description of Income Amount of Income Proved by Documents No. (Rs.) executed on 03.02.2010.
16. Income from post office Rs.4,70,419/ Nil Admitted i.e. form PPF accounts, (interest from PPF) MIS account term + Rs.88,899 deposit accounts etc. (interest from TDR during check period. and MIS) = Rs.5,59,318/
17. Income accrued from Rs.12,862/ + Nil Admitted interest in bank Rs.11,626/ + account of etc during Rs.2,875/ check period. =Rs.27,363/
18. Loan obtained in Rs.43,000/ PW 31 Ex.PW31/A, B policy no. 330664577. Dheeraj & C (D40) Chhabra
19. The income declared Rs.2,28,734/ Ex.P105 by Santosh Kaushik Admitted (D65) and Pulkit Kaushik through letter dated 07.12.2011 for financial year 199192 to 199394
20. The income provided Rs.1,68,744/ PW22 K.M Ex.PW22/E, by the letter no. Vaid Ex.PW22/E1 to UT/23/VC13/201112 E5 (D75) dtd 02.03.2012 sent by KM Ved, Vice President (Vig.) UTI Mutual Fund, Mumbai during 2007 to 2008.
21. The income of Raj Rs.1,58,000/ Nil Ex.P102 Kishori for the period Admitted (D69) 199192 to 199394 as declared by S.K. Kaushik in his letter dated 02.03.12 during 199194
22. The income of Miss Rs.2,875/ Nil Ex.P101 (D68) Divya Kaushik that has been received through CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 252 of 364 Sr. Description of Income Amount of Income Proved by Documents No. (Rs.) cash rewards as declared by S.K. Kaushik in his letter dated 2.03.12 as on 199194.
23. Income of SK Kaushik Rs.7,200/ PW 84 D. Ex.PW36/A & B through is investment Ganesh (D73) made in Infotech Ltd.
as declared in the let of D Ganesh in his letter dated Aug32011 during check period.
24. Income from Kusal Rs.3,25,000/ PW42 Rajesh Ex.PW42/A & B Jwellers received after Jain (D77) sale of jwellery in January 2008 during check period.
25. The income of Divya Rs.20,788/ PW92 Vikas Ex.PW68/A, B, Kaushik through RD Pathak C & D (D67) A/c no. 329685 in the post office of Paschim Vihar, ND as per the letter of Asstt. Post Master, Paschim Vihar as on 2007.
Total Rs.1,64,24,435.63p Expenditure of accused Surender Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik and their family during check period (according to the prosecution along with the details of the evidence adduced):
Sr. Particulars of Amount of Proved by Documents/ No. expenditure expenditure in Exhibit (Rs.)
1. Kitchen expenditure Rs.7,79,056.66 P IO As per law taken @ one third of the salary income minus GPF deduction of the accused during check period.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 253 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount of Proved by Documents/ No. expenditure expenditure in Exhibit (Rs.)
2. Locker charge for the Rs.7,600/ PW2 Sudha Ex.PW69/F to locker no. SS01591 Kapoor Ex.PW60/H maintained in the Punjab (D42) National Bank fire PW69 A.K. station Rajender Nagar Mahajan during 10.03.1987 to 09.03.2010.
3. Locker charge for the Rs.2,700/ PW9 Ex.PW2/A to locker no. 428 in the H.C. Doria Ex.PW2/F name of Santosh Kaushik (D43) maintained in the UCO Ex.PW91/F, Bank Punjabi Bagh, ND Ex.PW91/G on 13.01.2010. (D44)
4. Payment to the Aakash Rs.74,326/ PW21 P.N. Ex.PW21/A, institute for coaching of Arora Ex.PW21/B & Divya Kaushik during PW85 Santosh Ex.PW21/B1 & 200708. B2 (D45)
5. Expenditure incurred by Rs.4,00,779/ PW86 Ex.PW49/B & S.K. Kaushik for Purnima Ex.PW49/C educating Pulkit Nagia (D46) Kaushik, Divya Kaushik PW49 Jai and Hardik Kaushik in Malhotra the Hansraj Model school during the period 1995 to 2010.
6. Payment made to the Rs.3,40,352/ PW41 Manju Ex.PW41/A Manav Rachna college Chadha Ex.PW87/A & of Engineering for PW87 G.L. B. (D48) education of Pulkit Sagar Kaushik 27.08.06 to 19.05.2010.
7. Payment made to Rs.85,250/ PW35 S.K. Ex.PW35/A, B, Maharaj Surajmal Narwal, C, D (D49) institute of Technology PW82 Sushma for coaching of Divya Darbu Kaushik 20092010.
8. Payment of telephone Rs.94,202/ PW34 Ex.PW34/A & B bill no. 25912844 which Bhagmal Ex.PW5/A, B is installed at the and C residence of Sh. SK (D51) CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 254 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount of Proved by Documents/ No. expenditure expenditure in Exhibit (Rs.) Kaushik situated at D PW5 V.K. 183, Karampura, ND Sharma during 01.09.2000 to 18.05.2010.
9. Payment made to the Rs.58,980/ PW16 Payal Ex.PW16/A, B BSES towards electricity Sethi and C (D53) consumption for the PW91 Anil residential premises at Arora D183, Karampura, ND 31.05.2002 to 07.05.2010.
10. Payment made to the Rs.11,803/ PW55 Pawan Ex.PW55/A, B IDEA towards payment Singh and C (D54) of bill for mobile no.
9911019242 during 15.11.2008 to 16.05.2010
11. Payment made to the Rs.66,99,287.7p PW31 Mrs Ex.PW31/A, B LIC towards payment of Dheeraj and C (D40) premium in favour of the Chhabra family members during 20012010.
12. Expenditure made Rs.3,66,113/ PW22 K.M. Ex.PW22/A (D towards various UTI Vaid 26), Ex.PW22/B, policies by SK Kaushik. PW70 MRV B1 to B5 Subramanium (D27), Ex.PW22C, C1 to C4,(D28), Ex.PW22/D and D1 (D29), Ex.PW22/E, E1 to E5 (D75), Ex.PW70/A, B & C (D88).
13. Expenditure of SK Rs.1,84,444/ PW 8 Lalit Ex.PW38/A, A1 Kaushik made towards Kushik to A21 (D72) his house rent for the residential premises no.
D183, situated at karampura, Ne as CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 255 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount of Proved by Documents/ No. expenditure expenditure in Exhibit (Rs.) admitted by him during 20012010.
14. Expenditure of Rs.1,85,000/ PW47 Krishan Ex.PW25/A, Smt.Santosh Kaushik Kumar Ex.PW77/A, while purchasing the Ex.PW47/A property at A82, Palam (D16) Extension, ND from Narendra Nath Bali during 2001 to 2010.
15. Expenditure of Smt. Raj Rs.4,50,000/ + PW93 Naveen Ex.PW93/A1 to Kishori while purchasing Rs.36,000/ Gandas A5, Ex PW13A, the property bearing B, Ex.PW24/A Municipal no. 1002 and and Ex.PW23/A 1003 situated at Shivaji and Ex.PW60/A Street, Faiz Road, (D19) Naiwala, ND from Suresh Chand Mathur dated 30.12.2004.
16. Expenditure of Smt. Rs.4,50,000/ + PW93 Naveen Ex.PW93/A1 to Santosh Kaushik while Rs.36,000/ Gandas A5, purchasing the property Ex.PW13A & B, bearing Municipal no. Ex.PW24/A, 1002 and 1003 situated Ex.PW23/A & at Shivaji Street, Faiz Ex.PW60/A Road, Naiwala, ND from (D19) Suresh Chand Mathur dated 17.11.1995.
17. Expenditure of Surender Rs.12,10,000/ (SBI PW72 Lalit Ex.PW72/A, B Kumar Kaushik while Najafgarh Road Kumar Gupta & C, issuing cheques in favour Branch) Ex.PW40/A to of his mother in law and C, Ex.P40 brother in law during (D23) 200809.
18. Expenditure of Surender Rs.1,527/ PW31 Mrs Ex.PW31/A, B Kr. Kaushik while Dheeraj & C (D40) paying installment of Chhabra loan in LIC policy no.
330664577 dated
28.05.2008.
19. Expenditure of Surender Rs.22,612/ PW50 Shri Ex.PW50/A & B
Kr. Kaushik while Ram (D61)
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 256 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount of Proved by Documents/
No. expenditure expenditure in Exhibit
(Rs.)
paying house tax for the
property at WZ 246, B1,
Uttam Nagar, ND dated
30.06.2009.
20. The expenditure Rs.73,768/ PW22 K. M. Ex.PW22/A,
provided by the letter no. Vaid Ex.PW22/A1 to
UT/23/VC 13/201112 PW22/A8,
dtd 02.03.2012 sent by Ex.PW22/B1 to
KM Ved, Vice President B5,
(Vig.) UTI Mutual fund, Ex.PW22/C1 to
Mumbai in the year
C4,
200006.
Ex.PW22/D1,
Ex.PW22/E and
Ex.PW22/E1 to
E5
(D75)
Total Rs.1,15,69,799.66p
(31) It is the case of the prosecution that the assets of the
accused at the beginning of the check period i.e. on or before 19.02.1986 was Rs.45,600/; the total moveable/ immovable assets acquired by the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik in his name, in the name of his wife Smt. Santosh Kaushik and in the name of his sons Pulkit Kaushik, Hardik Kaushik and Divya Kaushik during the check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010, were worth Rs.1,33,37,440/; the assets acquired during the check period comes to Rs.1,32,91,840/; the total income of the accused and his family members was found to be Rs.1,64,24,435.63p; the expenditure incurred by the accused and his family members was Rs.1,15,69,799.66p and the likely savings of the accused was found to be Rs.48,54,635.97p. It is alleged that the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 257 of 364 accused Surender Kumar Kaushik while working as Junior Engineer in the MCD during 1986 to 2010 was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.84,37,204.03p in his name and in the name of his family members, which is about 51.36% disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which he cannot satisfactorily account. Further, as per the allegations most of the immovable properties acquired during the period 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010 were in the name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik W/o S.K. Kaushik who was actively helping him in all the financial transaction and there is no satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate assets acquired by her husband in her name.
(32) It is argued that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) has accumulated enormous wealth in the shape of movable and immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members and is hence liable for punishment under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) has abetted and facilitated her husband to commit offence of criminal misconduct defined under Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2) of the said Act and hence she has committed the offence under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 258 of 364 Case of the accused:
(33) In so far as the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) and Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed his reliance upon the testimony of various Defence Witnesses. According to the accused, their assets prior to the check period were Rs.1,12,000/; their assets at the end of the check period were worth Rs.99,31,512/ and hence the assets acquired by them during the check period comes to Rs.98,19,512/. The accused have further submitted that their income during the check period was Rs.2,78,52,069/; their expenditure during the check period was worth Rs.72,51,163/; his likely savings were worth Rs.2,06,01,506/ and the extent of disproportionate assets comes to Rs.1,07,81,394/ and hence no Disproportionate Asset is made out. (34) The manner in which the accused have calculated their Income is put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused Period Kaushik
1. Net salary of the Rs.23,37,170/ Salary Nil Rs.26,10,037/ Difference accused S.K. Rs.2,72,867/ Kaushik because the CBI did not take into From consideration the 19.02.1986 to arrears of DA May, 2010 salary increment, bonus etc. PW11 (D36)
2. Total income Rs.7,06,815/ Nil Rs.8,45,654/ Difference other than Rs.1,39,939/ salary of because the CBI CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 259 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused Period Kaushik accused S.K. did not take into Kaushik consideration this amount shown in 2002 to 2010 the ITR for the period 199899 to Admitted by 2001 to 2002, prosecution because these were not obtained by the CBI from the Income Tax Department.
These were produced by the accused before the IO during investigation, but not brought on the file by the CBI.
3. Income of Rs.8,53,753/ Rs.10,41,108/ Nil Difference due to Santosh Kaushik 30% rebate for assessment (Rs.187,155/) year 201011 given to the Period 200910 accused by law on the rental income.
PW71 (D55) - This rebate had
Admitted by been added as the
Prosecution same was shown
legal deductions in
the income tax
return, due to the
said rebate on
rental income. The
Details are shown
in the affidavit of
Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
4. Income of Rs.2,84,623/ Rs.4,08,298/ Nil Difference due to
Santosh Kaushik 30% rebate
AY 20092010 (Rs.1,23,675/) on
rental income had
Period 200809 been added into
PW71 (D38) the income shown
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 260 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
Admitted by by the CBI. Details
prosecution are shown in
affidavit of Smt.
Santosh Kaushik.
5. Income of Rs.2,65,806/ Rs.3,37,806/ Nil Difference due to
Santosh Kaushik 30% rebate
AY 20082009 (Rs.72,000/) on
rental income had
Period 2007 been added into
2008 the income shown
by the CBI. Details
PW71 (D55), are shown in
Admitted by affidavit of Smt.
prosecution Santosh Kaushik.
6. Income of Rs.1,72,401/ Rs.2,44,401/ Nil Difference due to
Santosh Kaushik 30% rebate
AY 20072008 (Rs.72,000/) on
rental income had
Period been added into
20062007 the income shown
PW71 (D55) by the CBI. Details
Admitted by shown in affidavit
Prosecution of Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
7. Income of Rs.1,71,908/ Rs.2,43,908/ Nil Difference due to
Santosh Kaushik 30% rebate
AY 20062007 (Rs.72,000/) on
rental income had
Period 2005 been added into
2006 the income shown
PW71 (D55) by the CBI. Details
Admitted by are shown in
Prosecution affidavit of Smt.
Santosh Kaushik.
8. Income of Raj Rs.2,45,070/ Nil Nil Admitted in the
Kishori AY name of Smt. Raj
20082009 Kishori
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 261 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
Period 2007
2008
PW71 (D39)
Admitted by
Prosecution
9. Income of Raj Rs.1,48,691/ ____ ___ Admitted in the
Kishori AY name of Smt. Raj
20072008 Kishori
Period
20062007
PW71 (D39)
Admitted by
Prosecution
10. Income of Raj Rs.87,533/ Nil Nil Admitted in the
Kishori AY name of Smt. Raj
20062007 Kishori
Period 2005
2006
PW71 (D39)
Admitted by
Prosecution
11. Income of S.K. Rs.8,27,932/ Rs.1,32,376/ Rs.6,95,556/ Admitted.
Kaushik & his Both the accused
family through have been shown
various schemes their separate
of UTI income and the
total is the same.
Period 2002
2009 These amount has
been freezed by the
D26, 27, 28, 29 CBI.
& 75 (PW22/A)
12. Income of S.K. Rs.49,81,711/ Nil Rs.24,74,683/ Admitted to the
Kaushik and his extent of
family members Rs.24,74,683/ but
through various there is a
LIC scheme
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 262 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
difference of
Period 2007 Rs.25,07,028/
2010 because the CBI
has taken the
PW31/A (D40) premium paid by
Smt. Raj Kishori in
her life time to the
LIC.
13. Income through Rs.18,00,000/ Nil Rs.18,00,000/ Admitted:
sale of property Rs.17,57,068/
No.10041005,
Naiwala Karol Sale Price:
Bagh, New Rs.18,00,000
Delhi. Cost Price:
Rs.17,57,068
Period 1998 Profit:
Rs.42,932/
D20, 23 & 24 These facts are
(PW93) mentioned in the
ITR for the year
19992000
14. Income from Rs.20,00,000/ Nil Nil Admitted the
sale deed on income of Smt. Raj
17.01.2005 by Kishori of
Smt.Raj Kishori Rs.20,00,000/.
in favour of Raj
Rani Gupta for The property sold
property by Smt. Raj
No.10021003, Kishori in her life
Nai Wala, Karol time and the
Bagh, New money was
Delhi. invested the LIC
schemes.
Year 2004
PW60 (D20)
15. Income from This income Rs.2,12,513/ Nil Profit:
sale of property has already Rs.4,85,000/
No. A84 Palam been included
Extension by in the ITR for Sale Price:
Smt. Santosh to the year 2009 Rs.6,70,000/
Titixa Rajora 2010 ()
executed on Purchase price
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 263 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
03.02.2010 Rs.1,85,000/ =
Profit:
February, 2010 Rs.4,85,000/
D38A affidavit Rs.2,12,513/ to be
of Smt. Santosh added as a
Kaushik. difference of ITR
and actual sale.
Due to the index
inflation benefit
given by the
income tax
department in the
long terms of sale
of the property.
CBI had shown
profit of only
Rs.2,72,187/ as
per D55 whereas,
profit is
Rs.4,85,000/ and
the CBI shown less
Amount of
Rs.2,12,513/
D24 statement of
account of UCO
bank
D14 under the
head of
expenditure as per
charge sheet
16. Income from Rs.4,70,419/ Rs.4,50,600/ Rs.19,819/ Admitted by both
PPF account (interest from the accused as
and various MISPPF) and plus their separate
termed deposit
Rs.88,899/ income.
accounts (interest from The CBI had
TDR and MIS) shown the interest
During check Rs.88,899/ which
Rs.5,59,318/
period interest was
earned by Smt. Raj
PW64 & 67 (D Kishori on TDR
32 & 59)
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 264 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
and MIS scheme of
the post office and
this amount has
been wrongly
clubbed with the
income of the
accused persons
17. Income accrued Rs.12,862/ + Rs.14,186/ Rs.12,862/ Admitted by the
from interest in Rs.11626/ + ING Vasya both the accused
bank account of Rs.2875/ Bank person as per their
etc. Rs.11,626 + interest earned
Rs.27,363/ Rs. 2,875 respectively in the
During check total remains
period same.
18. Loan obtained Rs.43,000/ Nil Rs.43,000/ Admitted by the
on Policy No. accused
330664577
06.12.2007
Ex.PW31/A (D
40)
19. Income declared Rs.2,28,734/ Rs.2,28,734/ Nil Admitted by the
by Smt. Snatosh accused
Kaushik and
Pulkit Kaushik
through letter
dated
07.12.2011 for
financial year
199192 to
199394
P105 (D65)
Admitted by
accused.
20. Income provided Rs.168744/ Nil Rs.1,68,277/ Admitted by the
by the letter No. accused
UT/23/VC13
Period 2007
2008
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 265 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
PW22/E1 to E
5 (D75)
21. Income of Raj Rs.1,58,000/ Nil Nil Admitted in the
Kishori for the name of Smt. Raj
period 1991 Kishori.
1992 to 199394
as declared by
S.K. Kaushik in
his letter dated
02.03.2012.
S.K. Kaushik
disclosed the
income of his
mother as
shown in the
ITR.
1991 to 1994
P102 (D69)
Admitted on
behalf of Smt.
Raj Kishori
22. Income of Ms. Rs.2875/ Nil Nil Admitted in the
Divya Kaushik name of Ms. Divya
that has been Kaushik
received Wrongly clubbed
through cash with the income of
rewards as S.K. Kaushik by
declared by Sh. CBI.
S.K.Kaushik in
his letter dated
02.03.2012
P101 (D68),
PW71
23. Income of S.K. Rs.7200/ Nil Rs.7200/ Admitted by the
Kaushik through accused
his investment
made in 3i
Infotech Ltd. as
declared in the
letter of D
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 266 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Income of Income of S.K. Version of
No. Income and CBI Santosh Kaushik accused
Period Kaushik
Ganesh in his
letter dated Aug.
3, 2011
During check
period
PW36/A (D73)
24. Income from Rs.3,25,000/ Rs.3,25,000/ Nil Admitted in the
Kusal Jwellers name Santosh
received after Kaushik
sale of jwellery
in January,
2008
During check
period
PW41/AB (D
77)
25. Income of Divya Rs.20,788/ Rs.20,788/ Nil Admitted in the
Kuashik through name of Santosh
R.D.A/C No. Kaushik since the
329685 in the RD account was in
post office of the name of Divya
Paschim Vihar, Kaushik and under
New Delhi. guardianship of
Smt. Santosh
Period 2007 Kaushik
PW68/A, B & C
(D67)
(35) According to the accused, the income of accused Smt.
Santosh Kaushik has not been taken into consideration and her independent, separate and different income earned during the check period comes to Rs.1,11,65,956/ details of which are as under:
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 267 of 364 Sl. Description of Source Total Income Version of the accused No. of Income Earned by accused During Check Period
1. Income From Post Rs.10,62,948/ The same are reflected in Office encashment of document D41 i.e. the statement Kisan Vikas Patra, of account of ING Vysa Bank.
Recurring Deposit The CBI did not give the Account, Withdrawal details though D41 document from PPF. has been filed by the CBI
2. Loans taken by the Rs.33,90,000/ The same are reflected in accused from her document D41 i.e. the statement parents, her motherin of account of ING Vysa Bank law, son and daughter The CBI did not give the and Family Friends. details though D41 document has been filed by the CBI
3. Income from UTI Rs.1,87,720/ The same are reflected in dividend, Master Share document D41 i.e. the statement Master Gain of UTI of account of ING Vysa Bank The CBI did not give the details though D41 document has been filed by the CBI
4. Income during the Rs.6,68,200/ Rs.4,77,400/ (Income Less period when the income than Tax Slab) & Standard was less then the deduction 30% u/s.24(a) Taxable slab (ITR was Rs.1,98,800/ not to be filed during the period (198788 to The CBI did not consider 198990) and the income during this period at 199495 to 200405) all and no benefit was given to (ITRs for the year 9192, the accused. However, CBI had 9293, 9394 were filed taken the ITRs for the year 9192, because Income was 9293, 9394.
within the taxable slab.
5. Gift amounting to Rs.1,57,896/ The said fact has been Rs.1,57,896/ given by brought on the file in the the brother in law (Ravi statement of PW92 and the Kaushik) sent on document is marked PW92/DX 13.11.1991 through 58.
Habib Bank, AG Zurich
vide bankers cheque
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 268 of 364
Sl. Description of Source Total Income Version of the accused
No. of Income Earned by accused
During Check
Period
No.62135 while he was The CBI did not consider it
in Switzerland and even though it was shown to the
serving there. IO during investigation.
6. Refund of Security by the Rs.1,37,500/ This amount was given
Managing Committee of towards the booking of a stall
Luv Kush Ram Lila during the Ram Lila but the
Committee on management could not provide
20.12.2007 through this facility so the management
cheque No.130807 refunded this amount.
Inderprastha Sehkari
Bank, shown in D41 The CBI did not consider it
which is the copy of the even though it was shown to the
statement of account of IO during investigation.
ING Vysa Bank.
7. Management of Rs.1,12,500/ Security is refundable by the
CANTABIL gave the accused to the tenant at the time
security of Rs.1,12,500/ of vacating the premises by the
to the accused when they tenant.
took her shop on rent
vide three cheques each The CBI did not consider it
for Rs.37,500/ bearing even though it was shown to the
1.No.362462 IO during investigation.
dt.15.09.2008,
2.No.362588
dt.27.08.2008
3. No.299776
Dt.11.11.2008
Shown in D41
8. Income through rent Rs.27,060/ Part of the rent was paid by
paid by MTNL to the Surender Kumar Narang
accused for the period previous owner of this premises
December, 2008 to because rent was paid by MTNL
February, 2009 as per through cheque in his favour even
document D24 i.e. after he sold the property till the
Statement of account of execution of the Navogation
UCO Bank East Punjabi Agreement between the MTNL
Bagh bearing Cheque and accused.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 269 of 364
Sl. Description of Source Total Income Version of the accused
No. of Income Earned by accused
During Check
Period
No.373772 dated The CBI did not consider it
29.04.2009. even though it was shown to the IO during investigation.
9. Istridhan which the Rs.2,35,000/ The accused received gifts, accused got before and cash, gold and otherwise at the at the time of marriage time of marriage, before dated 09.12.1986 from marriage, and she deposited her parents, inlaws, some of the money in Punjab relatives and friends. National Bank in the year, 1987.
The CBI did not consider it even though it was brought to the notice of the IO during investigation, but the IO took the statement of accounts of the PNB bank from the year 2002 and not earlier.
10. Cash amount and Rs.12,00,000/ The accused has been traditional gifts received receiving cash amount, gold and by the accused from her in the shape of other gifts from parents, relatives and in her three brothers, parents laws on different uncles, aunties and four cousin festivals and occasions brothers on the festivals as viz Bhaiya Dooj, mentioned and the amount came Rakshbandhan, Diwali, to be about Rs.40,000/ per year Dushera birth of the which is multiplied (40,000 X 24) children and their Rs.9,60,000/ birthdays celebrations, DW6 Shiv Kumar (father of marriage anniversary the accused) and DW5 Satish Kumar brother of the accused had deposed these facts.
Uncles and their four sons had also been giving Rs.10,000/ to the accused Santosh Kaushik.
Approx. per year on the occasion of festival mentioned above Rs.10,000/ X 24 = Rs.2,40,000/ CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 270 of 364 Sl. Description of Source Total Income Version of the accused No. of Income Earned by accused During Check Period Total Rs.12,00,000/ The CBI did not consider it even though it was brought to the notice of the IO during investigation.
11. Income Received from Rs.1,87,280/ Purchase price of the shares sale of shares through Rs.1,06,750/ Nisha & Co. Share Sale Price: Rs.2,94,030/ brokers vide credit bills Profit comes to 31.03.1992 which are Rs.1,87,280/ Ex.PW92/DX70 and Original bills are DX71 Ex.PW92/DX70 & DX71 The CBI did not consider it even though it was brought to the notice of the IO during investigation.
12. A. The accused got the A. Rs.22,465,98p Form No.16 Ex.PW92/DX interest on the bonds of 69 shows the deduction.
Oswal Agro which were
purchased on The document
12.11.1989 vide Ex.PW92/DX72 reflects the
Ex.PW92/DX69 dividend of Rs.26,375/.
B. The accused got the The CBI did not consider it
B. Rs.4025/
Dividend of Rs.4025/ even though it was brought to the
from M/s Bindal Agro notice of the IO during
Chem Ltd. investigation.
C. The accused got the
Dividend of Rs.22350/ C. Rs.22,350/ from M/s Oswal Chem & Fertilizer Ex.PW2/DX Total:
72 Rs.48840/
13. The income received Rs.2,58,725/ Sale Price Rs.3,80,000/
from the sale of half Purchase Price
share of property No.A Rs.1,21,275/
44, Palam, Delhi to Udit
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 271 of 364
Sl. Description of Source Total Income Version of the accused
No. of Income Earned by accused
During Check
Period
Sharma to DW37 Profit: Rs.2,58,725/
The CBI did not consider it
even though it was brought to the
notice of the IO during
investigation.
Total income during the Rs.1,11,65,956/ check period (36) According to the accused, the CBI has not taken into consideration the income of Smt. Raj Kishori (mother of accused S.K. Kaushik), details of which are as under:
Sl. Particulars of Income Period as per Income of Smt. Version of the No. CBI Raj Kishori accused
1. Sale of her jewellery to During check Rs.2,50,990/ She declared her M/s Rupal Jewellers period income in the income Karol Bagh New Delhi Tax return which was vide document filed by her legal heirs.
Ex.PW92/DX24 & Ex.PW92/DX25
2. Income during the Check period Rs.2,72,890/ This income was period 20082009. declared in ITR of 20082009 which is Ex.PW92/DX23.
3. Incomes shown in the Eight years Total Income ITRs from 1998 to Rs.19,93,065/ 2006 Rs.16,24,543/ As per Ex.PW92/DX 199899 Rs.1,64,239/ 46 & 47 19992000 Rs.24,459/ 20002001 Rs.4,860/ 20012002 Rs.40,811/ 20022003 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 272 of 364 Sl. Particulars of Income Period as per Income of Smt. Version of the No. CBI Raj Kishori accused 20032004 Rs.45,006/ 20042005 Rs.44,660/ 20052006 Rs.44,487/ . Income/amount she During check Rs.85,000/ KVP purchased by inherited after the period Shri Laxmi Chand death of her husband Ex.PW92/DX9 Shri Laxmi Chand who Rs.29,000/ National Saving expired on 13.03.1996 Certificate which were purchased by Sh.
Laxmi Chand
Ex.PW92/DX10
Rs.55,000/ Indira Vikas Patra
purchased by Shri
Laxmi Chand
Ex.PW92/DX11.
Rs.30,000/ Foreign Gift vide
Ex.PW92/DX55
Rs.50,000/ Foreign Gift vide
Ex.PW92/DX56 sent
by his son Ravi
Kaushik during check
period.
5. Income from DCM During check Rs.3,459/ Vide Ex.PW92/DX41
financial limited period and DX42.
Document D7 of CBI.
6. Income from LIC During check Rs.3,933/ Vide Ex.PW92/DX41
mutual funds warrant. period and DX44.
Document D7 as per
CBI.
Total Rs.27,73,337/
(37) As per the accused, the Total Income of Smt. Raj Kishori
(mother of the accused S.K. Kaushik) comes to Rs.80,08,558/ i.e. Rs.27,73,337/ plus admitted income of Rs.52,35,221/. (38) In so far as the Immovable Assets of the accused are concerned, the details of the same along with the explanation given by CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 273 of 364 the accused are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sl. Description of Value/ Price Owner of the property Version of the No. Assets As per CBI accused
1. Property at Nai Rs.51,00,000/ Admitted Raj Kishori (now Anaj Mandi, stamp duty of Smt. Raj Kishori spent deceased) mother of Filmistan Rs.3,32,500/ Rs.25,50,000/ + Surender Kaushik (Acquired by Total Stamp Duty of spent Rs.25,50,000/ + accused in Rs.54,32500/ Rs.1,66,250/ Stamp Duty November 2007) Rs.1,66,250/ She spent her own money and the accused At the time of S.K. Kaushik did not purchase ICICI bank spend any money. was already tenant and had been paying the rent to the purchasers i.e. Smt. Santosh Kaushik and Smt. Raj Kishori
2. Residential Flat Rs.1,35,000/ Cost of construction CBI had illegally WZ244/B1, + Cost of not admitted. and unlawfully shown Uttam Nagar, New construction the cost of Delhi (Acquired by Rs.8,53,120/ Smt. Santosh Kaushik construction accused on purchased this builtup Rs.8,53,120/ 24.02.1989) property with her own money Rs.1,35,000/. This property S.K. Kaushik has not was also given on rent spent any money. to M/s Furniture It was a residential Bhandar and after in property so its price the month of was less as not sold by November 2008 that the seller as a the CANTABIL was commercial. the tenant and the purchaser was earning rent from this property
3. Double Storey Admitted Smt. Santosh Building, Harijan Rs.2,31,000/ Kaushik took a loan of Basti Palam (A Stamp duty of Smt. Santosh Kaushik Rs.2,35,000/ from her
44) Palam Rs.11550/ purchased this builtup father Shiv Kumar Extension, New property with her own Sharma Delhi money Rs.2,42,550/ (Acquired by and accused S.K. CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 274 of 364 Sl. Description of Value/ Price Owner of the property Version of the No. Assets As per CBI accused accused in Kaushik has not spent This property September 2004) any money was fetching rent also the same was shown in ITR for assessment year 200506
4. Himalya Cottage Rs.1,92,000/ Accused S.K. Kaushik This house was Mussoorie paid on inherited the property got booked by Sh.
(Acquired by 11.07.1997 in the year, 2008 after Laxmi Chand in the accused in stamp duty of the death of his mother year 1994 and paid the December 2008) Rs.45,500/ by virtue of her Will. installments of Accused S.K. Kaushik Rs.1,63,200/ till his has not spent the cost death i.e. 13.03.1996 of the house but only and last installment of spent stamp duty of Rs.28,800/ was paid Rs.45,500/ by Smt. Raj Kishori in 1997 and she expired on 14.02.2008.
5. Property in Rs.50,000/ + This property was Accused S.K. Vill.Rangpuri, Stamp Duty purchased by Smt. Raj Kaushik became Tehsil Mehrauli, Rs.10,400/ Kishori in her name owner by virtue of Will New Delhi and paid all the cost of his mother Smt. Raj (Acquired by from her own personal Kishori.
accused in August savings and income
1991) and S.K. Kaushik has Property has
not spent any money been acquired by the
for this property Govt. 1997 by
notification.
6. Property No.F Rs.2,30,000/ Admitted The property was
265, 2nd Floor, + Stamp duty This property was also on rent and the
(undivided half Rs.4600/ purchased by Smt. same was shown in the
portion) Sudershan Santosh Kaushik in her ITR of Smt. Santosh
Park, New Delhi name with her own Kaushik in the year
(Acquired by income and money of 20092010.
accused in Rs.2,34,600/ and
November 2009) accused S.K. Kaushik
has not spent any
money for this property
7. Property No.10, Rs.20,50,000/ Admitted At the time of
2nd floor, Paschimi + stamp duty This property was purchase MTNL had
Enclave, New Rs.82000/ purchased by Smt. already affixed tower
Delhi Santosh Kaushik in her on the roof and was
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 275 of 364
Sl. Description of Value/ Price Owner of the property Version of the
No. Assets As per CBI accused
(Acquired by name with her own paying rent about
accused on money Rs.21,32,000/ Rs.10,000/ per month
08.12.2008) and accused S.K. has been shown in
Kaushik has not spent ITR.
any money for this
property.
(39) Further, in so far as the Movable Assets of the accused are
concerned, they have provided their explanation with regard to the same, which are put in the tabulated form as under:
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused No. Acquisition As per CBI as per CBI
1. A/c in Bank of Baroda 30.05.2010 Balance: Nil Karampura branch, Delhi Nil of Smt. Santosh Kaushik
2. A/c in Bank of Baroda 01.06.2010 Rs.1,134/ Account holder is the son Karampura branch, Delhi of Santosh Kaushik and of Pulkit Kaushik S.K. Kaushik. It is his personal saving
3. A/c in Bank of Baroda 01.06.2010 Rs.2,23,504/ Account holder is the Karampura branch, Delhi Daughter of Santosh of Divya Kaushik Kaushik and S.K. Kaushik. It is her personal saving given by parents maternal grandfather and mother and other relatives.
4. A/c in Bank of Baroda 01.06.2010 Rs.2,387/ Account holder is the Son Karampura branch, Delhi of Santosh Kaushik and of Hardik Kaushik S.K. Kaushik. It is his personal saving
5. A/c in Bank of Baroda 01.06.2010 Rs.2,223/ Account holder was the Karampura branch, Delhi mother of the accused of Smt.Raj Kishori Surender Kaushik and the savings were her personal saving.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 276 of 364 Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused No. Acquisition As per CBI as per CBI
6. A/C in the State Bank of 01.06.2010 Rs.42,884/ Admitted since the India, Najafgarh Road account belongs to Branch in the name of accused Surender Kumar accused Surender Kumar Kaushik
7. A/C UCO Bank Punjabi 01.06.2010 Rs.43,215/ The bank account is in the Bagh in the name of Santosh name of Smt. Santosh Kaushik & Surender kaushik and it is her own Kaushik personal saving exclusively and the name of S.K. Kaushik is only for the locker of this bank.
8. A/C ICICI bank Punjab 01.06.2010 Rs.3,766/ Admitted Bagh Branch in the name of The bank accounts Accused Surinder Kumar pertains to Surinder Kaushik. Kumar Kaushik and it is his own personal saving exclusively.
9. UTI Policy 30.03.2007 Rs.1,00,000/ Admitted No.509200592641 of The same pertains to S.K. S.K.Kaushik Kaushik No.of Units 10000
10. UTI Policy 30.10.2006 Rs.25,000/ Admitted No.509195714875 of Santosh Kaushik The same pertains to Smt. No. of Units 2500 Santosh Kaushik
11. UTI Equity Tax Saving plan 12.12.2006 Rs.48,000/ Admitted Folio No.10921796581 S.K.Kaushik The same pertains to S.K. Kaushik
12. UTI Folio 30.10.2006 Rs.25,000/ Admitted No.509195716162 S.K.Kaushik The same pertains to 2500 Units S.K.Kaushik
13. UTI Folio No.50917263291 12.12.1986 Rs.5000/ Admitted in the name of Sh. S.K. Kaushik The same pertains to S.K. Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 277 of 364 Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused No. Acquisition As per CBI as per CBI
14. UTI Folio No.50917260870 19911995 Rs.19,000/ Admitted in the name of Sh. S.K. Kaushik The accused Surinder Kumar Kaushik did not spend any money.
These units were inherited by S.K. Kaushik from his mother who inherited the same from her husband before his death.
All these have been taken by the CBI under the heading of expenditure also and thus these were calculated in a double way.
15. KVP Regn. 29.05.2010 Rs.3,50,000/ Not admitted
a) No.203833 in the name of Geeta Devi CBI wrongly shown & Pulkit Kaushik the assets of accused S.K. Kaushik and Santosh
b) No.203834 Kaushik.
in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma & Pulkit Kaushik The purchasers Geeta Devi, Shiv Kumar
c) No.203835 Shrama and Lalit Narain in the name of Lalit Naraina are the father, mother and & Pulkit Kaushik brother of Smt. Santosh Kaushik accused
d) No.203836 respectively.
in the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma & Divya Kaushik All these KVP were purchased by the person
e) No.203837 whose name is appearing in the name of Shiv Kumar as first name with their Sharma & Santosh Kaushik own money.
f)No.203838 The accused
in the name of Shiv Kumar persons did not spend any
Sharma & Divya Kaushik
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 278 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
g) No.203839 money for these KVP.
in the name of Shiv Kumar
Sharma & Divya Kaushik
16. KVP Regn. 29.05.2010 Rs.6,00,000/ Admitted
a) No.203776
in the name of Santosh a) No.203776
Kaushik & Divya Kaushik in the name of Santosh
Kaushik & Divya Kaushik
b) No.203777 b) No.203777
in the name of Santosh in the name of Santosh
Kaushik & Divya Kaushik Kaushik & Divya Kaushik
c) No.203778
c) No.203778 in the name of Santosh
in the name of Santosh Kaushik & Divya Kaushik
Kaushik & Divya Kaushik
d) No.203779 d) The investment was
in the name of Pulkit made by the person with
Kaushik & Santosh the first name.
Kaushik
e) The investment was
e) No.203780 made by the person with
(wrongly mentioned as the first name.
20378)
in the name of Divya
Kaushik & & Pulkit
Kaushik
f) The investment was
f) No.203781 made by the person with
in the name of Shiv Kumar the first name.
& Santosh Kaushik
g) No.203797 g) The investment was
in the name of Lalit & made by the person with
Santosh Kaushik the first name.
h) No.203798 h) The investment was
in the name of Lalit & made by the person with
Santosh Kaushik the first name.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 279 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
i) No.203799 i). The investment was
in the name of Geeta Devi made by the person with
& Divya Kaushik the first name.
j) No.203800 j). The investment was
in the name of Geeta Devi made by the person with
& Divya Kaushik the first name.
k) No.203816 k). The investment was
in the name of Geeta Devi made by the person with
& Santosh Kaushik the first name.
l) No.203817 (wrongly l). The investment was
mentioned as 203797) made by the person with
in the name of Geeta Devi the first name.
& Divya Kaushik
17. PPF A/C 13564 in the name 01.06.2010 Rs.13,57,386/ Admitted to the
S.K.Kaushik extent of Rs.2,57,087/
alongwith interest of
Rs.73,676/
PPF A/C 13565 in the name Admitted to the
Santosh extent of Rs.1,35,626/
Kaushik alongwith the interest of
Rs.19819/
The PPF account
PPF A/C 13566 in the name was opened in the year
Pulkit Kaushik 1997 and yearly
subscription was being
deposited by the account
holder which came to be
Rs.2,92,465/ alongwith
interest of Rs.1,16,159/
The PPF account
was opened in the year
1997 and yearly
PPF A/C 13567 in the name subscription was being
Divya Kaushik deposited by the account
holder which came to be
Rs.3,92,161/ alongwith
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 280 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
interest of Rs.1,55,397/
The PPF account
PPF A/C 21099 in the name was opened in the year
Hardik Kaushik 1997 and yearly
subscription was being
(wrongly mentioned as deposited by the account
Pulkit Kaushik) holder which came to be
Rs.2,80,541/ alongwith
interest of Rs.1,05,937/
18. House Hold Inventory 01.06.2010 Rs.1,52,900/ The Accused S.K.
regarding the items found at Kaushik and Santsoh
the time of raid. Kaushik were living in
joint family with his
Cash amount Rs.51,000/ parents and who
purchased most of the
articles/ item which were
lying in the kitchen at
time of raid and a number
of household and other
necessary articles were
given as a gift by the
parents of Santosh
Kaushik at the time of her
marriage and thereafter
regularly on all the
festivals, occasions as per
the family traditions and
thus the accused person
did not spend money upon
the above said articles.
All the items in the
kitchen and house were
purchased by the mother
in law and father in law
of Smt. Santosh Kaushik
and she got a number of
articles in dowry from her
parents at the time of her
marriage.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 281 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
The accused have
admitted only cash
amount of Rs.51,000/
which was withdrawn
from the saving Bank
account in UCO Bank
which amount was kept at
home for emergency
purposes for the accused
persons and their three
children.
The cost of the
articles mentioned as
Rs.1,52,900/ by CBI is
not admitted because the
accused persons did not
spend any money on the
items/ household articles
lying there.
The remaining
amount of Rs.1,01,900/
was wrongly clubbed by
CBI into the income of
accused Surender Kumar
Kaushik
19. Car No.DL2CV0049 06.02.2002 Rs.3,45,239/ Not admitted
Santro
The car was registered in
the name of Lalit Narain
Sharma (PW38) brother
of Smt. Santosh Kaushik
as per document (D72).
The accused never
purchased this car and
they were not the owners
20. Motorcycle Vehicle No.DL 14.08.2008 Rs.62,767/ It is registered in the
9SV8557 name of Pulkit Kaushik
who purchased with his
own money and the
accused did not
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 282 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
contribute any money for
purchasing this vehicle.
21. Shares of different Admitted
companies
All the shares are in the
Oswal Agro Mill, 19882008 Rs.3,19,365/ name of Santosh Kaushik
Oswal Chem. & F.E. and she purchased with
Reliance Cem V.E. her own money.
Oswal Chem & F.E.
22. Monthly Income Scheme 2002 Rs.50,000/ Not Admitted
270292
Opened on 28.08.2002 for These schemes were
Rs.50,000/ purchased by Smt. Raj
Kishori the deceased
mother of S.K. Kaushik
with her own personal
savings.
She nominated her
sons S.K. Kaushik and
Ravi Kaushik for the
schemes
This money is still
lying in the post office
and had not been
withdrawn by nominees
as they were not allowed
by the CBI.
23. Monthly Income Scheme 2002 Rs.50,000/ Not Admitted
270293
Opened on 28.08.2002 for These schemes were
Rs.50,000/ purchased by Smt. Raj
Kishori the deceased
mother of S.K. Kaushik
with her own personal
savings.
She nominated her
sons S.K. Kaushik and
Ravi Kaushik for the
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 283 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
schemes
This money is still
lying in the post office
and had not been
withdrawn by nominees
as they were not allowed
by the CBI.
24. Monthly Income Scheme 2002 Rs.50,000/ Not Admitted
270294
Opened on 28.08.2002 for These schemes were
Rs.50,000/ purchased by Smt. Raj
Kishori the deceased
mother of S.K. Kaushik
with her own personal
savings.
She nominated her
sons S.K. Kaushik and
Ravi Kaushik for the
schemes
This money is still
lying in the post office
and had not been
withdrawn by nominees
as they were not allowed
by the CBI.
25. Monthly Income Scheme 2002 Rs.50,000/ Not Admitted
270295
Opened on 28.08.2002 for These schemes were
Rs.50,000/ purchased by Smt. Raj
Kishori the deceased
mother of S.K. Kaushik
with her own personal
savings.
She nominated her
sons S.K. Kaushik and
Ravi Kaushik for the
schemes
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 284 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
This money is still
lying in the post office
and had not been
withdrawn by nominees
as they were not allowed
by the CBI.
26. Monthly Income Scheme 2006 Rs.36,000/ Not Admitted
205581
Opened on 21.12.2006 for These schemes were
Rs.50,000/. purchased by Smt. Raj
Kishori the deceased
mother of S.K. Kaushik
with her own personal
savings.
She nominated her
sons S.K. Kaushik and
Ravi Kaushik for the
schemes
This money is still
lying in the post office
and had not been
withdrawn by nominees
as they were not allowed
by the CBI.
27. Monthly Income Scheme 2006 Rs.30,000/ Not Admitted
205582
Opened on 21.12.2006 for These schemes were
Rs.50,000/ purchased by Smt. Raj
Kishori the deceased
mother of S.K. Kaushik
with her own personal
savings.
She nominated her
sons S.K. Kaushik and
Ravi Kaushik for the
schemes
This money is still
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 285 of 364
Sl. Description of Assets Year of Value/ Price Version of the accused
No. Acquisition As per CBI
as per CBI
lying in the post office
and had not been
withdrawn by nominees
as they were not allowed
by the CBI.
28. Balance amount in 2010 Rs.15,000/ Admitted
recurring account Nos.
344871, 344872 and The account was opened
344875 in the Post Office, by Smt. Santosh Kaushik
at Paschim Vihar, New with her own money for
Delhi. herself, her son Hardik
and her daughter Divya.
(40) According to the accused, the total assets calculated by the
CBI during the check period are worth Rs.1,33,37,440/ whereas the total assets of the accused Surender Kaushik (A1) are worth Rs.4,24,776/; the assets of accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) are wroth Rs.63,21,063/ and the assets of Smt. Raj Kishori (now deceased) are worth Rs.30,73,673/ and hence, CBI has shown an excess amount of Rs.35,17,928/.
(41) Now coming to the Expenditure of the accused, the accused have provided their explanation with regard to the same, which is as under:
Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused per CBI Kaushik Kaushik
1. Kitchen Rs.7,79,056.66p Rs.60,000/ Rs.4,18,980.66p CBI clubbed the expenditure expenses taken @ one incurred by the third of the parents of S.K. salary income Kaushik i.e. during the Rs.2,40,000/ as CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 286 of 364 Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused per CBI Kaushik Kaushik check period the accused was residing in joint family for the year 19862008 and expenses of Rs.60,056/ by the parents of Santosh Kaushik by way of grains, Ghee and other grocery items.
2. Locker charge Rs.7600/ Rs.7600/ Nil Admitted by for the locker Santosh No.SSo1591 Kaushik maintained in the P.N.B during the period 10.03.1987 to 09.03.2010
3. Locker Rs.2700/ Rs.2700/ Nil Admitted by charges for the Santosh locker No. 428 Kaushik in the name of Santosh Kaushik UCO Bank Punjabi Bagh, Delhi as on 13.01.2010
4. Payment to the Rs.74,326/ Rs. 74,326/ Nil Admitted by Aakash Santosh Institute for Kaushik coaching of The fees paid Divya Kaushik from her account during the in ING Vyas period 2007 Bank as shown 08 in document D 41 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 287 of 364 Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused per CBI Kaushik Kaushik
5. Expenditure Rs.4,00,779/ Rs.3,74,224/ Nil Admitted by incurred by Santosh Surinder Kaushik paid Kumar from her own Kaushik for saving.
educating No documents or
Pulkit Kaushik, witness
Divya Kaushik produced by the
and Hardik CBI to show the
Kaushik in the expenditure of
Hansraj Model Rs.4,00,779/ as
School during mentioned in D
the period 5
1995 to 2010
CBI has shown
the excess
amount of
Rs.26,555/.
6. Payment made Rs.3,40,352/ Nil Rs.1,70,352/ CBI Clubbed the
to the Manav expenses of
Rachna Rs.90,000/
College of incurred by
Engineering maternal
for education grandfather Shiv
of Pulkit Kr. Sharma and
Kaushik expenses
during the Rs.80,000/
period incurred by
27.08.2006 to maternal uncle
19.05.2010 Lalit Narain
7. Payment made Rs.85,250/ Rs.74,250/ Rs.11,000/ Admitted
to Maharaj Jointly paid by
Surajmal both the accused
Institute of from their
Technology for accounts/income
coaching of savings.
Divya Kaushik
during the
period 2009
10
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 288 of 364
Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the
No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused
per CBI Kaushik Kaushik
8. Payment of Rs.94,202/ Nil Nil Telephone
telephone bill connection was
No.25912844 booked by Smt.
which is Laxmi Chand
installed at the and after his
residence of death the
Surinder telephone was
Kumar transferred in
Kaushik the name of Smt.
situated at D Raj Kishori and
183, bill was paid
Karampura, from UCO bank
Delhi during Rajindra Palace,
the period through ECS
01.09.2000 to from her account
18.05.2010 and both the
accused has not
spent any money.
9. Payment made Rs.58,980/ Nil Nil Expenditure
to BSES towards BSES
towards had already been
electricity include 1/3rd
consumption kitchen expenses
for premises as mentioned in
No.D183, D1
Karampura,
Delhi during
the period
31.05.2002 to
07.05.2010
10. Payment made Rs.11,803/ Nil Rs.11,803/ Admitted by the
to the Idea accused
towards
payment of bill
for Mobile of
telephone
No.991101924
2 during the
period
15.11.2008 to
16.05.2010
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 289 of 364
Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the
No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused
per CBI Kaushik Kaushik
11. Payment made Rs.6699287.7 Rs.9,98,468/ Rs.8,31,936/ The CBI has
to the LIC wrongly given
towards the figure of
payment of expenditure to
premium in the LIC of
favour of the Rs.66,99,287.07
family p
members
during the
period 2001
2010
12. Expenditure Rs.3,66,113/ Rs.74,977/ Rs.1,97,000/ CBI has taken
made towards Rs.94,136/
various UTI excess. CBI has
policy of not been able to
Surinder produce any
Kumar document or
Kaushik witness to prove
its Version.
13. Expenditure of Rs.1,84,444/ Rs.1,84,444/ Nil Admitted as per
S.K.Kaushik the rent was paid
made towards by Santosh
the House rent Kaushik to her
for residential brother Lalit
premises D Narain.
183,
Karampura,
New Delhi
during the
period 2001
2010
14. Expenditure of Rs.1,85,000/ Rs.1,85,000/ Nil Admitted
Santosh By accused
Kaushik while Santosh
purchasing the Kaushik
property No.
A84, Palam
Extension,
New Delhi as
on 30.12.2004
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 290 of 364
Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the
No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused
per CBI Kaushik Kaushik
15. Expenditure of Rs.4,50,000/ + Nil Nil Expenses made
Raj Kishori Rs.36,000/ by Smt. Raj
while Kishori, mother
purchasing the of the accused
property S.K.Kaushik in
bearing her life time,
No.10021003 when the father
Nai Karol of the accused
Bagh, New was also alive.
Delhi from
Suresh Chand
Mathur as on
17.11.1995
16. Expenditure of Rs.4,50,000/ + Rs.4,50,000/ + Nil Admitted and the
Santosh Rs.36,000/ Rs.36,000/ same was sold to
Kaushik while Smt. Raj Kishori
purchasing the for amount of
property Rs.4,90,000/ as
bearing the IO was
No.10021003 shown the sale
Nai Karol deed but he has
Bagh, New not excluded
Delhi from from the
Suresh Chand expenditure of
Mathur as on Santosh Kaushik
17.11.1995
17. Expenditure of Rs.12,10,000/ Nil Nil CBI could not
Surinder prove the issue
Kumar of cheque as
Kaushik while mentioned.
issuing cheque
in favour of
mother in law
and brother in
law during the
period 2008
09
18. Expenditure of Rs.1527/ Nil Rs.1527/ Admitted
Surinder
Kumar
Kaushik while
paying the
installment of
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 291 of 364
Sl. Particulars of Amount of Expenditure of Expenditure of Version of the
No. Expenditure expenditure as accused Santosh accused S.K. accused
per CBI Kaushik Kaushik
loan in LIC
Policy as on
28.05.2008
19. Expenditure of Rs.22,612/ Rs.22612/ Nil Admitted
Surender
Kumar
Kaushik while
paying house
tax while
property
No.WZ246,
B/1, Uttam
Nagar, New
Delhi as on
30.06.2009
20. Expenditure Rs.73,768/ Rs.4,977/ spent Nil Rs.40,000/ was
provided by by Smt. Santosh invested by Shri
letter No.UT Kaushik Shiv Kumar and
23/ VC13 Rs.28,790/ was
during the invested by Smt
period 2000 Raj Kishori from
2006 their own
personal income
and savings
Total Rs.1,15,69,899.66 Rs.25,49,578.90 Rs.16,42,583/
(42) According to the accused, the CBI has wrongly shown an
excess expenditure of Rs.43,18,736/ and the DA calculated by the accused is as under:
S. Particulars Amount as per CBI Amount as per No. accused.
1. Assets Prior to check period Rs.45,600/ Rs.1,12,000/
2. Assets at the end of check Rs.1,33,37,440/ Rs.99,31,512/ period
3. Assets Acquired during the Rs.1,32,91,884/ Rs.98,19,512/ check period (21) CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 292 of 364
4. Income During the check Rs.1,64,24,435.63 Rs.2,78,52,069/ period
5. Expenditure during the Rs.1,15,69,799.66 Rs.72,51,163/ check period.
6. Likely saving (45) Rs.48,54,635.97 Rs.2,06,01,506/
7. Extent of disproportionate Rs.84,37,204.03/ Rs.()1,07,81,394/ Assets (36) (43) Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the extent of Disproportionate Assets comes to Rs.()1,07,81,394/ and hence no DA is made out.
Findings of the Court:
(44) I have considered the rival contentions and the manner in which the immovable assets, movable assets, expenditure and income of the accused and his family have been calculated. After having gone through the material placed on record before this Court and the rival contentions made before me, my findings with regard to the case put forth by them is capitulated in a tabulated form as under:
Assets of accused S.K. Kaushik at the beginning of check period:
Sr. Period / Amount, Documents Amount of salary as View of the Court
No. Description of & witness as per per the Accused
Assets prosecution
1. Net Salary Rs.45,600/ That he had The certificate
income of S.K. (During the period worked as JE in issued by Shah
Kaushik from 14.01.1982 to M/s. Shah Construction Company
14.01.1982 to 14.01.1986 @ Construction and dated 23.11.1983
14.01.1986 Rs.1,425/ the accused Co. w.e.f. March, which is Ex.P34 has
(total 48 got total salary of 1981 to January, been issued for the
months). Rs.68,400/ 1986 for five years working of accused
[i.e. 48 X Rs.1,425/ = as the said S.K. Kaushik during
Rs.68,400/ and 2/3 rd company was the period 01.08.1981
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 293 of 364
of the same comes to constructing to 23.11.1983. As per Rs. 45,600/ after Meridian and got the said certificate the deducting 1/ 3rd salary and other monthly salary of the Kitchen Expenses] emoluments. accused was That the IO did Rs.1,425/. The IO has Document Ex.P345 not take calculated the salary at page no. 23 of the Rs.66,400/ the income for the said file D2 (Service total income for period on the basis of Book) only one page the said period and the salary reflected in Ex.P36 of the service the total assets the certificate and the book has been become amounting IO has also calculated admitted by the to Rs.1,12,000/ at the salary beyond the accused S.K. Kaushik. the beginning of date 23.11.1983 till check period. 14.01.1986.
Admitted by accused and hence, no witness The version of was examined by the the accused is prosecution in this accepted and the net regard. salary of S.K. Kaushik from 14.01.1982 to 14.01.1986 is taken as Rs.1,12,000/.
Assets at the end of check period (19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010):
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof
1. A property bearing Rs.51,00,000/ plus Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by no. 8243/14 and Stamp duty of accused the accused 8244/14 (ground Rs.3,32,500/.
floor) at Nai Anaj Total
Mandi near Bara Rs.54,32,500/
Hindu Rao, Near
Filmistan, Delhi in
name of Smt. Santosh
Kaushik and Smt.
Raj Kishori in the
year Nov 2007.
2. A residential flat at Rs.1,35,000/ plus Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by WZ B246/B1 Uttam the accused CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 294 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof Nagar, Main construction for accused Najafgarh Road in the Rs.8,53,120/ name of Smt. Santosh Total Rs.9,88,120/ Kaushik W/o S.K Kaushik in the year 24.02.1989
3. A double storey Rs.2,31,000/ plus Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by building measuring stamp duty of accused the accused 115 Sq. yards at Rs.11,550/ Harijan Basti, Palam, Total Rs.2,43,550/ New Delhi in the name of Smt. Santoshi Kaushik W/o S.K. Kaushik in the year September 2004
4. A residential house at Rs.1,92,000/ paid Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by B4, 1st Floor, on 11.07.1997 plus accused the accused Himalayan Cottage, stamp duty of Mussourie, Rs.45,500/ Uttrakhand owned by Total Rs.2,37,500/ S.K. Kaushik by way of Will dated 23.07.2000 executed by his mother Smt. Raj Kishori Devi in the year December 2008
5. A property at Khasra Rs.50,000/ plus Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by no. 1135, village stamp duty of accused the accused Rangpuri, Tehsil Rs.10,400/ Mehrauli, New Delhi Total Rs.60,400/ owned by S.K. Kaushik in August 1991
6. Property no. F265 II Rs.2,30,000/ plus Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by floor, Sudershan Stamp duty of accused the accused Park, New Delhi in CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 295 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof the joint name of Smt. Rs.4,600/ Santoish Kaushik Total Rs.2,34,600/ and Smt. Vidya Devi in the year November 2009
7. Second Floor with Rs.20,50,000/ plus Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by roof right of property stamp duty of accused the accused no.10, Paschim Rs.82,000/ Enclave, New Delhi in Total the name of Smt. Rs.21,32,000/ Santosh Kaushik in December 2008
8. A/c no. Balance on Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by 21740100014923 in 30.05.2010 as Zero accused the accused the bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, C3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Santosh Kaushik as on 30.05.2010 balance is 0
9. A/c no. Rs.1,134/ Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by 21740100007576 in accused the accused the bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, C3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Pulkit Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
10. A/c no. Rs.2,23,504/ Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by 21740100007575 in accused the accused the bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, C3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Divya CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 296 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
11. A/c no. Rs.2,387/ Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by 21740100012673 in accused the accused the bank of Baroda, Karampura Branch, C3 Karampura Commercial Complex in the name of Hardik Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
12. A/c no. Rs2,223/ Admitted by the The bank account is in 21740100004798 in accused being in the name of Smt. Raj the bank of Baroda, the name of Smt. Kishori and hence, in Karampura Branch, Raj Kishori, the my view, it cannot be C3 Karampura mother of added in the assets of Commercial Complex accused S.K. accused S.K. Kaushik in the name of Smt. Kaushik. and Santosh Kaushik. Raj Kishori as on 01.06.2010
13. A/c no. 10304166876 Rs.42,884/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by in the state bank of the accused India, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110015 in the name of S.K. Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
14. A/c no. Rs. 43,215/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by 023401100007358 in the accused the UCO bank of India, Punjabi Bagh Road no.7, East Punjabi Bagh Market, N D, in the name of S.K. Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik as on 01.06.2010 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 297 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof
15. A/c no. Rs.3,766/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by 015501022795 in the the accused ICICI bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, N D in the name of S.K. Kaushik as on 01.06.2010
16. A/c no. Rs.1,00,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by 509200592641 in the the accused name of S.K. Kaushik through which 10,000 units were purchased on 30.03.2007 by paying Rs.1,00,000/ as on 30.03.2007
17. UTI Folio no. Rs.25,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by 509195714875 in the the accused name of Santosh Kaushik through which 25,00 units were purchased on 30.10.2006 by paying Rs.25,000/ as on 30.10.2006
18. UTI equity tax Rs.48,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by savings plan having the accused Folio no.
10921796581 in the
name of S.K. Kaushik
through which
1609.658 units were
purchased on
12.12.2008.2006 by
paying Rs.48,000/ as
on 12.12.2006
19. UTI Folio no. Rs.25,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by
509195716162 in the the accused
name of S.K. Kaushik
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 298 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
through which 25,00
units were purchased
on 30.10.2006 by
paying Rs. 25000/ as
on 30.10.2006
20. UTI Folio no. Rs.5,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by
50917263291 in the the accused
name of S.K. Kaushik
through which 25,00
units were purchased
on 12.12.1986 by
paying Rs. 5000/ as
on 12.12.1986
21. UTI Folio no. Rs.19,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by
50917260870 in the the accused
name of SK Kaushik
through which 19,00
units were purchased
during 199195 by
paying Rs. 19000/ as
on 199195
22. KVP Registration no. Rs.8,00,000/ These KVP's Shiv Kumar
203835 issued in have been in the Sharma is the father in
favour of Lalit joint name and law of accused S.K.
Narayan and Pulkit purchased by the Kaushik (A1) and
Kaushik as on persons whose father of accused
29.05.2010 name appears Santosh Kaushik (A2).
(Rs.50,000/) first and he paid
the cost of the Geeta Devi is the
KVP Registration no. KVP's and the mother in law of
203817 issued in name of second accused S.K. Kaushik
favour of Geeta Devi person is only (A1) and mother of
and Divya Kaushik mentioned for accused Santosh
the purpose of Kaushik (A2).
as on 29.05.2010
any eventuality Lalit Narayan is (Rs.50,000/) in future. the brother in law KVP Registration no. (Sala) of accused S.K. These KVP's do Kaushik (A1) and 203798 issued in not belong to the brother of accused CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 299 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof favour of Lalit accused S.K. Santosh Kaushik (A2).
Narayan and Kaushik or his
Santosh Kaushik as wife Smt. The statement of
on 29.05.2010 Santosh account of accused S.K.
(Rs.50,000/) Kaushik. Kaushik which is
Ex.PW72/C confirm
KVP Registration no. transfer of
203834 in the name of Rs.10,00,000/ from the
Shiv Kumar Sharma account of accused S.
and Pulkit Kaushik K. Kaushik to the
as on 29.05.2010 account of Smt. Geeta
(Rs.50,000/) Devi on 17.04.2008 vide
cheque no. 563419
KVP Registration no. reflecting debit entry
203836 issued in dated 17.04.2008 and
favour of Shiv Kumar there is a corresponding
and Divya Kaushik credit entry dated
17.04.2008 in the
as on 29.05.2010
passbook Ex.DW6/DX
(Rs.50,000/)
1 of Smt. Geeta Devi.
KVP Registration no.
203837 issued in The evidence on
favour of Shiv Kumar record confirms that the
KVPs in question were
and Santosh Kaushik
prepared thereafter on
as on 29.05.2010
29.05.2010 in joint
(Rs.50,000/)
names of in laws of
accused S.K. Kaushik /
KVP Registration no.
paternal family of
203838 issued in
accused Santosh
favour of Shiv Kumar Kaushik.
Sharma and Pulkit
Kaushik as on The said KVPs
29.05.2010 were found in
(Rs.50,000/) possession of accused S.
K. Kaushik and Smt.
KVP Registration no. Santosh Kaushik and
203839 issued in there is no explanation
favour of Shiv Kumar by the accused persons
Sharma and Santosh in this regard, which is
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 300 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
Kaushik as on incriminating qua them.
29.05.2010
(Rs.50,000/) The accused have
not produced any
KVP Registration no. legally admissible
203781 issued in evidence to show that
favour of S.K. the amounts of KVPs
Kaushik and Santosh were not paid them or
Kaushik as on that the amount was
29.05.2010 paid by the persons in
(Rs.50,000/) whose name they stand
and hence the said
amount is liable to be
KVP Registration no.
attributed towards their
203833 in the name of
movable assets
Geeta Devi and
acquired by them.
Pulkit Kaushik as on
29.05.2010 In so far as the
(Rs.50,000/) KVP in the name of
KVP Registration no. Lalit Narayan is
203797 issued in concerned, perusal of
favour of Lalit the passbook
Narayan and Pulkit Ex.DW6/DX1 clearly
Kaushik as on shows that on
29.05.2010 29.05.2010 no amount
(Rs.50,000/) was withdrawn to
prepare the KVP to the
KVP Registration no. tune of Rupees One Lac
203800 issued in or of Rupees Fifty
favour of Geeta Devi Thousand for
and Divya Kaushik preparation of KVP
as on 29.05.2010 along with his sister
(Rs.50,000/) Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
KVP Registration no. In respect of the
203816 issued in three KVPs
favour of Geeta Devi Ex.PW28/T3,
and Santosh Kaushik Ex.PW28/M and
as on 29.05.2010 Ex.PW28/N (total
(Rs.50,000/) amounting to
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 301 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
Rs.1,50,000/, there is
KVP Registration no. no corresponding entry
203799 issued in in the passbook of Lalit
favour of Geeta Devi Narayan to show that
and Divya Kaushik the amount of the said
as on 29.05.2010 KVPs have been
(Rs.50,000/) withdrawn from the
passbook either in cash
KVP Registration no. or through cheque
203779 issued in which has been paid to
favour of Pulkit the postal authorities.
Kaushik and Santosh
Kaushik as on The KVPs in the
29.05.2010 name of Shiv Kumar &
(Rs.50,000/) Others which are
Ex.PW28/T2,
KVP Registration no. Ex.PW28/T4,
203780 issued in Ex.PW28/T5,
favour of Divya Ex.PW28/T6,
Kaushik and Pulkit Ex.PW28/T7 and
Kaushik as on Ex.PW28/L (total
29.05.2010 amounting to
(Rs.50,000/) Rs.3,00,000/) are in
joint name of Shiv
Kumar Kaushik with
Pulkit Kaushik, Divya
Kaushik, Santosh
Kaushik. It is evident
from the perusal of the
passbook of Shiv Kumar
Sharma which is
Ex.DW6/DX4 that
there is no entry of
withdrawal of this huge
amount of Rupees Three
Lacs from his account.
In so far as the
KVPs in the name of
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 302 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
Smt. Geeta Devi are
concerned, the same are
Ex.PW28/T1,
Ex.PW28/O,
Ex.PW28/P,
Ex.PW28/Q and
Ex.PW28/R which are
in the joint name of
Geeta Devi with Divya
Kaushik, Santosh
Kaushik for amount of
Rs.2,00,000/. Perusal
of the passbook of Smt.
Geeta Devi which is
Ex.PW6/DX1 shows
that there was no
withdrawal of this huge
amount of Rupees two
lacs from the account,
thereby proving that
they have not purchased
these KVP's.
The explanation
put forth by the accused
falls flat in view of the
testimony of S.R.
Aggarwal (PW28) who
was the agent of the
post office and has
proved that all the said
KVPs were purchased
by accused S. K.
Kaushik and Smt.
Santosh Kaushik
through him, as they
have provided the cash
amount to him for
purchase of KVPs and
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 303 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
also provided the
documents of the
persons in whose name
the amounts invested in
these KVPs. He has
also proved that he is
not known to any
person by the name of
Smt. Geeta Devi
(mother in law), Lalit
Narayan Sharma
(brother in law) and
Shiv Kumar Sharma
(Father in law).
Therefore, it is
evident that the accused
S.K. Kaushik and Smt.
Santosh Kaushik have
invested such a huge
amount from their ill
gotten money and while
accepting the version of
the prosecution, the
amount of Rupees Eight
Lacs is accepted.
23. KVP Registration no. Rs.1,50,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by
203776 in the name of the accused
Santosh Kaushik and
Divya Kaushik as on
29.05.2010
(Rs.50,000/)
KVP Registration no.
203777 in the name of
Divya Kaushik and
Santosh Kaushik as
on 29.05.2010
(Rs.50,000/)
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 304 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
KVP Registration no.
203778 issued in
favour of Santosh
Kumar and Divya
Kaushik as on
29.05.2010
(Rs.50,000/)
24. PPF account no. Rs.13,57,386/ Admitted by the Accepted as admitted by
13564 in the name of accused the accused
S.K. Kaushik.
PPF account no.
13565 in the name of
Santosh Kaushik.
PPF account no.
13566 in the name of
Pulkit Kaushik.
PPF account no.
13567 in the name of
Divya Kaushik.
PPF account no.
21099 in the name of
Pulkit Kaushik total
balance as on
01.06.2010.
25. Household inventory Rs.1,52,900/ Accused has The prosecution
items found available admitted only has conceded that the
at the residence of the Rs.51,000/ benefit of Rs.1,01,900/
accused during the found during the be given to the accused
course of house search of the persons since the
search including cash residence of the accused might have
amount of Rs. accused and received the said
51,000/during the cash belongs to household from their
check period. accused Smt. relatives.
Santosh Kaushik Therefore, in my
who has kept view the asset of the
this amount at accused comes to
the house for Rs.51,000/.
emergency
purposes and all
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 305 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
other items
which were lying
in the house and
kitchen, these
were purchased
and late Sh.
Laxmi Chand
and Late Smt.
Raj Kishori of
the accused and
the household
articles, she got
from her parents
at the time of her
marriage and
after marriage
till the date of
raid.
26. Vehicle no. DL2CV Rs.3,45,239/ This vehicle was The accused has
0049 of Santro make purchased by Sh. not produced any
found at the residence Lalit Narain evidence on record to
of the accused during Sharma (brother show the income of
the house search as in law of Lalit Narayan Sharma
on 06.02.2002. accused S.K. and the trail of amount
Kaushik) with paid by him to the
his own money agency from where the
and was said vehicle / car was
registered in his purchased. The
own name and accused has also not
hence accused produced any evidence
persons had in support of his
noting to do with explanation.
it. Perusal of the
passbook of Lalit
Narayan which is
Ex.DW6/DX4 shows
that as on 05.02.2002
the balance amount in
the passbook was
Rs.1,78,979.32p and the
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 306 of 364
Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by
No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of
the Court thereof
car was purchased on
06.02.2002 and there is
no withdrawal from the
account of such huge
amount either by cash
or by cheque.
Therefore, no
satisfactory explanation
is forthcoming by the
accused persons and in
my view this amount
cannot be reduced from
the assets of the
accused persons and the
version of the
prosecution is accepted.
27. Vehicle no. DL9SV Rs.62,767/ This vehicle was Perusal of
8557 of make Pulsar purchased by Sh. statement of account of
Motor Cycle found at Pulkit Kaushik accused which is
the residence of the (son of the Ex.PW72/C shows that
accused during the accused) with the amount of
house search as on his own money, Rs.1,08,000/ had been
14.08.2008. savings and gifts transferred from the he received from account of accused S. his grand K. Kaushik to the maternal parents account of his son and other Pulkit Kaushik on relatives and 31.07.2008 vide cheque was registered in no. 116122 which his own name clearly shows that the and he was filing purchase amount of the Income Tax said motorcycle was Returns in given by accused S. K. 1991292, so Kaushik to his son and accused persons therefore the contention had noting to do that Pulkit Kaushik has with it.
purchased the said motorcycle from his CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 307 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof own income, is unacceptable.
28. The value of the Rs.3,19,365/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by shares that have been the accused purchased by Sh. S.K. Kaushik at different points of time during 1988 to 2008
29. Monthly income Rs.50,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by scheme 270292 the accused opened on 28.08.2002 for Rs. 50000/ as on 2002
30. Monthly income Rs.50,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by scheme 270293 the accused opened on 28.08.2002 for Rs. 50000/ as on 2002
31. Monthly income Rs.50,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by scheme 270294 the accused opened on 28.08.2002 for Rs. 50000/ as on 2002
32. Monthly income Rs.50,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by scheme 270295 the accused opened on 28.08.2002 for Rs. 50000/ as on 2002
33. Monthly income Rs.36,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by scheme 205581 the accused opened on 21.12.2006 for Rs. 36000/ as on 2006
34. Monthly income Rs.30,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by scheme 205582 the accused opened on 21.12.2006 for Rs. 50000/ as on CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 308 of 364 Sr. Description of Assets Amount as per the Case of the Amount determined by No. and Period prosecution accused the Court and view of the Court thereof 2006
35. Balance in RD A/c Rs.15,000/ Admitted Accepted as admitted by nos. 344871, 344872 the accused and 344875 in the Paschim Vihar Post office as on 2010.
Total Rs.1,32,34,317/ Hence, the assets of the accused at the end of the check period are Rupees One Crore, Thirty Two Lacs, Thirty Four Thousand, Thirteen Hundred and Seventeen (Rs.1,32,34,317/).
Income of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) during check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010:
Sr. Description of Amount of Amount as per the Amount determined by the No. Income Income as per accused Court and view of the the CBI Court thereof
1. Net salary Rs.23,37,170/ Rs.26,10,037/ The accused S.K. income of Kaushik has provided the accused S.K. Difference of calculations of the arrears Kaushik during Rs.2,72,867/ of DA paid to him during the check because the CBI the period 15.11.94 to period. did not take into 01.06.94 and 20.02.96 to consideration the November 1999 which fact arrears of DA is mentioned in the service salary increment, book D2.
bonus etc. The total salary of the accused during the check period comes to Rs.24,37,170/; total arrears of DA comes to Rs.1,21,171/ and total amount of Bonus comes to Rs.51,696/.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 309 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount of Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income Income as per accused Court and view of the
the CBI Court thereof
In my view the
submissions of the accused
is accepted. The total
income of the accused from
salary is accepted as
Rs.26,10,037/.
2. The total income Rs.7,06,815/ Rs.8,45,654/ The ITR has been filed
of accused during the check period and
Surender Kr. Difference of 30% rebate under Section
Kaushik which Rs.1,39,939/ 24 (a) of the Income Tax
is other than because the CBI Act has been explained by
salary as did not take into the accused.
declared in his consideration this Therefore, in my view
income tax amount shown in the amount of Rs.1,39,939/
return for the the ITR for the is liable to be added in the
period 2002 to period 199899 to income of the accused and
2010. 2001 to 2002. the submissions of the
accused is accepted.
Hence, the total income is
accepted as Rs.8,45,654/.
3. Income of Raj Rs.2,45,070/ Denied by the This is the income of
Kishori during accused as his own Smt. Raj Kishori, the
AY 20082009 income and claims mother of accused S.K.
from the other it is the Kaushik.
source as per independent In my view the amount
her income tax income of his of Rs.2,45,070/ cannot be
return year mother Smt. Raj added in the income of the
20078 Kishori accused S.K. Kaushik
during the check period.
4. Income of Raj Rs.1,48,691/ Denied by the This is the income of
Kishori during accused as his own Smt. Raj Kishori, the
AY 20072008 income and claims mother of accused S.K.
from the other it is the Kaushik.
source as per independent In my view the amount
her income tax income of his of Rs.1,48,691/ cannot be
return year mother Smt. Raj added in the income of the
20067 Kishori accused S.K. Kaushik
during the check period.
5. Income of Raj Rs.87,533/ Denied by the This is the income of
Kishori during accused as his own Smt. Raj Kishori, the
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 310 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount of Amount as per theAmount determined by the
No. Income Income as per accused Court and view of the
the CBI Court thereof
AY 20062007 income and claims mother of accused S.K.
from the other it is the Kaushik.
source as per independent In my view the amount
her income tax income of his of Rs.87,533/ cannot be
return year mother Smt. Raj added in the income of the
20056 Kishori accused S.K. Kaushik
during the check period.
6. Income of Sh. Rs.8,27,932.63p Admitted Accepted as income
S.K. Kaushik admitted by the accused
and his family S.K. Kaushik
members
through various
scheme of UTI
in the year
200209
7. Income of Sh. Rs.49,81,711/ Admitted Accepted as income
S.K. Kaushik admitted by the accused
and his family S.K. Kaushik
members
through various
scheme of LIC
in the year
200710
8. Income through Rs.18,00,000/ Admitted Accepted as income
sale property admitted by the accused
no. 1004 and S.K. Kaushik
1005 situated at
Block no. NN at
Naiwal Karol
Bagh, ND in the
year 1998.
9. Income from the Rs.20,00,000/ Denied by the This is the income of
sale deed accused as his own Smt. Raj Kishori, the
executed on income and claims mother of accused S.K.
17.01.2005 by it is the Kaushik.
Smt. Raj Kishori independent In my view the sum of
for the property income of his Rs.20,00,000/ cannot be
bearing mother Smt. Raj added in the income of the
municipal no. Kishori from sale accused S.K. Kaushik
1002 and 1003 of the property during the check period.
situated at Block
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 311 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount of Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income Income as per accused Court and view of the
the CBI Court thereof
No. NN, Shivaji
Street, Faiz
Road Naiwal,
Karol Bagh, ND
in the year
2004.
10. Income from Rs.5,59,318/ Admitted Accepted as income
post office i.e. admitted by the accused
form PPF S.K. Kaushik
accounts, MIS
account term
deposit accounts
etc. during
check period.
11. Income accrued Rs.27,363/ Admitted Accepted as income
from interest in admitted by the accused
bank account of S.K. Kaushik
etc during check
period.
12. Loan obtained Rs.43,000/ Admitted Accepted as income
in policy no. admitted by the accused
330664577. S.K. Kaushik
13. The income Rs.2,28,734/ Admitted Accepted as income
declared by admitted by the accused
Santosh Kaushik S.K. Kaushik
and Pulkit
Kaushik through
letter dated
07.12.2011 for
financial year
199192 to
199394
14. The income Rs.1,68,744/ Admitted Accepted as income
provided by the admitted by the accused
letter no. S.K. Kaushik
UT/23/VC13/20
1112 dtd
02.03.2012 sent
by KM Ved,
Vice President
(Vig.) UTI
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 312 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount of Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income Income as per accused Court and view of the
the CBI Court thereof
Mutual Fund,
Mumbai during
2007 to 2008.
15. The income of Rs.1,58,000/ Denied by the This is the income of
Raj Kishori for accused as his own Smt. Raj Kishori, the
the period 1991 income and claims mother of accused S.K.
92 to 199394 as it is the Kaushik.
declared by S.K. independent In my view the sum of
Kaushik in his income of his Rs.1,58,00,000/ cannot be
letter dated mother Smt. Raj added in the income of the
02.03.12 during Kishori. accused S.K. Kaushik
199194 during the check period.
16. The income of Rs.2,875/ Admitted Accepted as income
Miss Divya admitted by the accused
Kaushik that has S.K. Kaushik
been received
through cash
rewards as
declared by S.K.
Kaushik in his
letter dated
2.03.12 as on
199194.
17. Income of SK Rs.7,200/ Admitted Accepted as income
Kaushik through admitted by the accused
is investment S.K. Kaushik
made in Infotech
Ltd. as declared
in the let of D
Ganesh in his
letter dated 3rd
August 2011
during check
period.
18. Income from Rs.3,25,000/ Admitted Accepted as income
Kusal Jwellers admitted by the accused
received after S.K. Kaushik
sale of jwellery
in January 2008
during check
period.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 313 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount of Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income Income as per accused Court and view of the
the CBI Court thereof
19. The income of Rs.20,788/ Admitted Accepted as income
Divya Kaushik admitted by the accused
through RD A/c S.K. Kaushik
no. 329685 in
the post office of
Paschim Vihar,
ND as per the
letter of Asstt.
Post Master,
Paschim Vihar
as on 2007.
Total Income of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1): Rs.1,24,48,356.63p Hence, the Total income of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) is Rupees One Crore, Twenty Four Lacs, Forty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty Six and Sixty Three Paise (Rs.1,24,48,356.63p).
Income of accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) during check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010:
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the Prosecution Court thereof Case
1. Income of Rs.8,53,753/ Rs.10,41,108/ The ITR has been filed Santosh Kaushik during the check period and during AY 2010 Difference of 30% rebate under Section 2011 from house Rs.1,87,155/due to 24 (a) of the Income Tax property as per 30% rebate given Act has been explained by her income tax to the accused by the accused Smt. Santosh return year law on the rental Kaushik.
200910 income.
In my view, a sum of
Rs.1,87,155/ is liable to be
added in the income of the
accused Santosh Kaushik.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 314 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
Hence, the total
income of Smt. Santosh
Kauhik under this head is
Rs.10,41,108/.
2. Income of Rs.2,84,623/ Rs.4,08,298/ The ITR has been filed
Santosh Kaushik during the check period and
during AY 2009 Difference of 30% rebate under Section
2010 from house Rs.1,23,675/due to 24 (a) of the Income Tax
property as per 30% rebate on Act has been explained by
her income tax rental income the accused Smt. Santosh
return year Kaushik.
200809
In my view a sum of
Rs.1,23,675/ is liable to be
added in the income of the
accused Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
Hence, the total
income of accused Smt.
Santosh Kaushik under this
head is Rs.4,08,298/.
3. Income of Rs.2,65,806/ Rs.3,37,806/ The ITR has been filed
Santosh Kaushik during the check period and
during AY 2008 Difference of 30% rebate under Section
2009 from house Rs.72,000/ due to 24 (a) of the Income Tax
property as per 30% rebate on Act has been explained by
her income tax rental income the accused Smt. Santosh
return year Kaushik.
200708
In my view a sum of
Rs.72,000/ is liable to be
added in the income of the
accused Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
Hence, the total
income of accused Santosh
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 315 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
Kaushik under this head is
Rs.3,37,806/.
4. Income of Rs.1,72,401/ Rs.2,44,401/ The ITR has been filed
Santosh Kaushik during the check period and
during AY 2007 Difference of 30% rebate under Section
2008 from house Rs.72,000/ due to 24 (a) of the Income Tax
property and 30% rebate on Act has been explained by
other source as rental income the accused.
per her income
tax return year In my view a sum of
200607 Rs.72,000/ is liable to be
added in the income of the
accused Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
Hence, the total
income of accused Santosh
Kaushik under this head is
Rs.2,44,401/.
5. Income of Rs.1,71,908/ Rs.2,43,908/ The ITR has been filed
Santosh Kaushik during the check period and
during AY 2006 Difference of 30% rebate under Section
2007 from house Rs.72,000/ due to 24 (a) of the Income Tax
property as per 30% rebate on Act has been explained by
her income tax rental income the accused.
return year
200506 In my view a sum of
Rs.72,000/ is liable to be
added in the income of the
accused Santosh Kaushik.
Hence, the total
income of accused Santosh
Kaushik under this head is
Rs.2,43,908/.
6. Income from the Rs.2,72,187/ CBI had shown The difference in the
sale of property This income has profit of only income of Rs.2,12,513/
no. A84, Palam already been Rs.2,72,187/ as cannot be added since the
Extension ND included in the per D55, whereas, ITR for the year 200910
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 316 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
through the IT return for the the actual profit is (D55) filed on 08.12.2010 General Power year 200910 Rs.4,85,000/ and confirms that the accused Attorney the CBI shown less Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) executed amount of has only shown a sum of between Smt. Rs.2,12,513/ Rs.2,72,487/ as her total Santosh Kumari Capital Gains which and Smt. Titixa amount has already been Rajora executed considered by the CBI.
on 03.02.2010.
Hence, in my view the income of the accused Santosh Kaushik under this head is Rs.2,72,187/
7. The income Rs.2,28,734/ Admitted Accepted as income declared by admitted by the accused Santosh Kaushik and Pulkit Kaushik through letter dated 07.12.2011 for financial year 199192 to 199394 Additional Income as of accused Santosh Kaushik (A2):
8. Income from The entires are Rs.10,62,948/ Only the difference in Post Office mentioned in the amount i.e. maturity encashment of statement of amount minus actual Kisan Vikas account amount of the KVP Patra, Ex.PW54/A (D purchased, can be added as Recurring 41). However, income of the accused and Deposit the accused have not the entire amount. The Account, not provided the accused have not been able withdrawal from actual value of to provide the detailed PPF. the KVPs on breakup of the amount which it was invested by them in different purchased and KVPs, RD account, PPF also the maturity account and their difference amount. Hence, amount.
no plausible explanation is CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 317 of 364 Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the Prosecution Court thereof Case offered by the The accused Smt. accused and the Santosh Kaushik has not benefit of the been able to prove whether same cannot be the amount was received given. from the PPF account or encashment of KVPs or Recurring Deposits.
Therefore, in my view no benefit of the same can be given to the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
9. Loans taken by The said amount Rs.33,90,000/ The accused Smt. the accused cannot be added Santosh Kaushik has from her in the additional examined her family parents, her income of the members and relatives / motherinlaw, accused since friends who have orally son and the accused has deposed about the loan daughter and not proved being given to the accused. family friends. having taken the Apart from the friendly loans in statement of accused accordance with Ex.PW54/1 (D41) there is law. Accused no other document to prove Smt. Santosh the said loan transactions.
Kaushik has Neither the accused involved all her Smt. Santosh Kaushik has near relatives to shown these transactions in adjust the ill her Income Tax Returns for gotten money of the respective years nor her her husband Sh.
parents and brother (family S.K. Kaushik in members) who claimed they the shape of have given her a loan have personal loans done so.
with ulterior motive.
The bank passbooks, Statement of Account etc. on which the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) has placed her reliance, do not reflect availability such a CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 318 of 364 Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the Prosecution Court thereof Case huge amount or withdrawal thereof.
Therefore, in my view no benefit of the same can be given to the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
10. Income from The income of Rs.1,87,720/ The accused Smt. UTI dividend, S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik has filed MasterShare his family ITRs for the period 2002 to Master Gain of members have 2009 and had declared her UTI already been income through these ITRs taken into and the Investigating account by the Officer has already given CBI from the the benefit of the total period 2002 to income as shown in the 2009 amounting ITRs.
to Rs.8,27,932.63p The accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik has not However, the specified the UTI Folio entires reflected number under which she is in the statement claiming the dividends as of account her income.
Ex.PW54/A (D
41) may pertain Therefore, in my view
to the UTI this amount cannot be
dividend, Master added as additional income
Share & Master of the accused Santosh
Gain for the Kaushik.
abovesaid period
and hence the
said amount is
included and
cannot be added
in the income of
the accused as
such.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 319 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
11. Income during Admittedly the Rs.6,28,200/ The accused Smt.
the period when accused have not Santosh Kaushik has not
the income was filed the ITRs for filed any documentary
less than the the year 198788 evidence on record to
Taxable slab to 198990 and establish her income of
(ITR was not be 199495 to 2004 Rs.6,68,200/.
filled during the 05 and the ITRs
period 198788 filed during the Though the defence
to 198990) and period 199192, witnesses have deposed that
199495 to 9293 and 9394 Smt. Raj Kishori was
200405 (ITRs have been running a milk dairy and
for the year 91 considered by both Sh. Laxmi Chand and
92, 9293, 9394 the CBI benefit Smt. Raj Kishori had their
were filed of which i.e. independent income from
because Income Rs.2,28,734/ the milk dairy.
was within the has already been
taxable slab) given to the Apart from the oral
accused. testimony of the defence
witnesses, there is no
This income has document on record to
been declared by establish this version of the
accused Santosh accused.
Kaushik and
Pulkit Kaushik Hence, in my view the
vide letter dated amount of Rs.6,68,200/
07.12.2011 cannot be added in the
income of the accused S.K.
Kaushik or Santosh
Kaushik.
12. Gift amounting The said amount Rs.1,57,896/. The accused Smt.
to Rs.1,57,896/ may be added in Santosh Kaushik has placed
given by the the income of the her reliance upon the copy
brother in law accused. of banker's cheque
Ravi Kaushik Ex.PW92/DX58.
send on
13.11.1991 The CBI has also
through Habib conceded that this amount
Bank, AG be added in the income of
Zurich vide the accused.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 320 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
bankers cheque Therefore, in my view
No. 62135 while the benefit of amount of
he was in Rs.1,57,896/ be added in
Switzerland and the additional income of the
serving there. accused.
13. Refund of The amount has Rs.1,37,500/ Sh. Sudhish Kumar
security by the been firstly (DW16) the Field Boy in
Managing invested and Luv Kush Ram Lila
Committee of then refunded to Committee has proved that
Luv Kush Ram the accused and a sum of Rs.1,37,500/ was
Lila Committee hence cannot be paid by the accused but the
on 20.12.2007 added in the management could not
through cheque income of the provide the facility to the
No. 130807 accused. accused and hence the
Inderprastha amount was refunded to
Sehkari Bank, her.
shown in D41
which is the Therefore, the amount
copy of the which was invested by the
statement of accused was later on
account of ING refunded to her and hence,
Vysa Bank it cannot be added in the
income of the accused
Santosh Kaushik.
14. Management of The amount has Rs.1,12,500/ The accused Smt.
Cantabil gave already been Santosh Kaushik has not
the security of included in the shown the security amount
Rs.1,12,500/ to income of the of Rs.1,12,500/ in her ITR
the accused accused in the for the year 20082009.
Santosh Kaushik ITR for the
when they took Assessment Year Therefore, in my view
her shop on rent 200809 as the amount of Rs.1,12,500/
vide three declared by the cannot be added in the
cheques each accused Santosh additional income of the
for Rs.37,500/ Kaushik. accused Smt. Santosh
bearing Kaushik.
1. No. 362462
dt.15.09.2008,
2. No. 362588
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 321 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
dt.11.11.2008
3. No. 299776
dt.11.11.2008
shown in D41
15. Income through The amount has Rs.27,060/ Accused has not
rent paid by already been shown the rent paid by
MTNL to the included in the MTNL to the tune of
accused for the income of the Rs.27,060/ in her ITR for
period accused in the the year 20092010.
December 2008 ITR for the
to February Assessment Year
2009 as per 200910 as Therefore, in my view
document D24 declared by the the amount of Rs.27,060/
i.e. Statement of accused Santosh cannot be added in the
account of UCO Kaushik. additional income of the
Bank, East accused Smt. Santosh
Punjabi Bagh Kaushik.
bearing cheque
No. 373772
dated
29.04.2009
16. Istridhan which No documentary Rs.2,35,000/ The accused Smt.
the accused got evidence has Santosh Kaushik has not
before and at been produced placed on record any
the time of by the accused document to prove the said
marriage dated and only income of Rs.2,35,000/
09.12.1986 from examined her under the head of Istridhan.
her parents, in father Shiv
laws, relatives Kumar Sharma The accused Smt.
and friends (DW6) who has Santosh Kaushik has
orally deposed examined her father Shiv
before this Court Kumar Sharma (DW6) who
only to save the has deposed orally in this
accused from regard.
penal
consequences. Assuming the version
of the accused as correct,
the amount of Istridhan i.e.
Rs.2,35,000/ is added in
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 322 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
the additional income of
accused Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
17. Cash amount No Rs.12,00,000/ The accused Smt.
and traditional documentary Santosh Kaushik has not
gifts received by evidence has placed on record any
the accused been produced document to prove the said
from her by the accused income of Rs.12,00,000/.
parents, and only
relatives and in examined her The accused Smt.
laws on different brother Satish Santosh Kaushik has
festivals and Kumar Sharma examined her uncle Satish
occasions vix (DW5) and Kumar Sharma (DW5) and
Bhaiya Dooj, father Shiv her father Shiv Kumar
Rakshabandhan, Kumar Sharma Sharma (DW6) who have
Diwali, (DW6) who have deposed orally and not
Dushera, birth orally deposed placed on record any
of the children before this Court documentary evidence in
and their only to save the this regard.
birthday accused from
celebrations, penal Therefore, in my view
marriage consequences. the accused has not been
anniversary able to prove her income of
The Rs.12,00,000/.
evidence
produced by the
accused is
without any
substance and
hence
formulated a
flimsy formula
by calculating a
fixed income for
24 years
continuously
which is
amounting to
Rs.9,60,000/
and
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 323 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
Rs.2,40,000/
which is highly
unbelievable.
The witnesses
are interested
witnesses being
the family
members of the
accused and the
averments made
by the accused
are after
thoughts.
18. Income Benefit of the Rs.1,87,280/ The accused has
Received from same may be placed on record the
sale of shares given to the original bills which are
through Nisha accused. Ex.PW92/DX70 &
& Co. share Ex.PW9/DX71.
brokers vide Therefore, in my view
credit bills the amount of Rs.1,87,280/
31.03.1992 is liable to be added in the
which are income of the accused.
Ex.PW92/DX
70 to DX71
19. A. The accused Benefit of the Rs.48,840/ The accused Smt.
got the interest same may be Santosh Kaushik has placed
on the bonds of given to the on record Form 16 which is
Oswal Agro accused. Ex.PW92/DX2 which
which were shows the deduction of
purchased on TDS.
12.11.1989
Ex.PW92/DX The document
69 Ex.PW92/DX72 shows the
dividend of Rs.26,375/.
B. The accused Even the CBI concedes that
got the dividend the benefit of the same be
of Rs.4,025/ given to the accused.
from M/s. Therefore, in my view
Bindal Agro the amount of Rs.48,840/ is
Chem Ltd.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 324 of 364
Sr. Description of Amount as per Amount as per the Amount determined by the
No. Income the CBI/ accused Court and view of the
Prosecution Court thereof
Case
C. The accused liable to the added in the
got the Dividend additional income of the
of Rs.22,350/ accused Smt. Santosh
from M/s. Oswal Kaushik.
Chem &
Fertilizer
Ex.PW92/DX
72
20. The income No legally Rs.2,58,725/ In order to prove this
received from admissible transaction the accused
the sale of half document has have examined Sh. Udit
share of been produced Sharma as DW37.
property No. A by the accused to
44, Palam, prove this I may observe that all
Delhi to Udit transaction. the documents relied upon
Sharma (DW37) by the accused which are
Ex.DW37/A are notarized
and not registered. Even
otherwise the said
documents have not been
proved in accordance with
law since the originals of
the same have not been
produced before the Court
and only the photocopies
have been filed by the
accused.
Therefore, in my view
the benefit of the same
cannot be given to the
accused Smt. Santosh
Kaushik.
Total Income of the accused Santosh Kaushik (A2) = Rs.34,05,458/ (45) Therefore, the income of accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) during check period comes to Rs.1,24,48,356.63p and the income of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 325 of 364 accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) during check period comes to Rs.34,05,458/ and the total Income of accused S.K. Kaushik and his family comes to Rupees One Crore, Fifty Eight Lacs, Fifty Three Thousand, Eight Hundred Fourteen and Sixty Three Paise (Rs.1,58,53,814.63p).
Expenditure of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) and Santsoh Kaushik (A2) during the check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010:
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the Court thereof
1. Kitchen expenditure Rs.7,79,056.66P CBI clubbed the Since the net taken @ one third expenses incurred income of the accused of the salary by the parents of has been determined by income minus GPF S.K. Kaushik i.e. the Court at deduction of the Rs.2,40,000/ as Rs.1,80,29,374.63p and accused during the accused was hence, the 1/3rd kitchen check period. residing in joint expenses of the accused family for the year also stand increased 19862008 and which calculations are expenses of as under:
Rs.60,056/ by the parents of Santosh Rs.1,80,29,374.63 minus Kaushik by way of Rs.1,64,24,435.63 = grains, Ghee and Rs.16,04,939/ other grocery One third of items. Rs.16,04,939/ comes to Rs.5,34,480/ Rs.7,79,056.66p + Rs.5,34,480/ = Rs.13,13,536.66p Therefore, in my view the kitchen expenditure out of the salary income of the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 326 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the Court thereof accused S.K. Kaushik is Rs.13,13,536.66p
2. Locker charge for Rs.7,600/ Rs.7,600/ Accepted as expenditure the locker no. is admitted by the SS01591 accused maintained in the Punjab National Bank fire station Rajender Nagar during 10.03.1987 to 09.03.2010.
3. Locker charge for Rs.2,700/ Rs.2,700/ Accepted as expenditure the locker no. 428 is admitted by the in the name of accused Santosh Kaushik maintained in the UCO Bank Punjabi Bagh, ND on 13.01.2010.
4. Payment to the Rs.74,326/ Rs.74,326/ Accepted as expenditure Aakash institute for is admitted by the coaching of Divya accused Kaushik during 200708.
5. Expenditure Rs.4,00,779/ Rs.3,74,224/ The prosecution incurred by S.K. has proved the fee Kaushik for Admitted by details which are educating Pulkit Santosh Kaushik Ex.PW49/C (D46) Kaushik, Divya paid from her own showing the expenditure Kaushik and saving. to the tune of Hardik Kaushik in No documents or Rs.4,00,779/.
the Hansraj Model witness produced Hence, expenditure school during the by the CBI to show under this head is period 1995 to the expenditure of Rs.4,00,779/. 2010. Rs.4,00,779/ as mentioned in D5 According to the accused, CBI has shown the excess CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 327 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the Court thereof amount of Rs.26,555/
6. Payment made to Rs.3,40,352/ Rs.1,70,352/ The fee details the Manav Rachna Ex.PW87/A (D47) college of CBI Clubbed the reflects that an amount Engineering for expenses of Rs.85,165/ was paid education of Pulkit Rs.90,000/ by Sh. Shiv Kumar Kaushik 27.08.06 to incurred by Sharma through cheque 19.05.2010. maternal No. 685394 dated grandfather Shiv 29.08.2006. Therefore, Kumar Sharma the benefit of the same is and expenses liable to be given to the Rs.80,000/ accused.
incurred by
maternal uncle Also, in so far as
Lalit Narain the amount of Rs.4,835/
deposited in cash is
concerned, the accused
have failed to prove that
the same was not
deposited by them.
The expenditure
under this head is
accepted as
Rs.2,55,187/.
7. Payment made to Rs.85,250/ Rs.85,250/ Accepted as expenditure
Maharaj Surajmal is admitted by the
institute of accused S.K. Kaushik
Technology for
coaching of Divya
Kaushik 2009
2010.
8. Payment of Rs.94,202/ Telephone Initially the
telephone bill no. connection was telephone connection
25912844 which is booked by Sh. was in the name of Sh.
installed at the Laxmi Chand and Laxmi Chand, the father
residence of Sh. SK after his death the of accused S.K. Kaushik
Kaushik situated at telephone was and after his death, it
D183, Karampura, transferred in the was transferred in the
ND during name of Smt. Raj name of Smt. Raj
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 328 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by
No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the
Court thereof
01.09.2000 to Kishori and bill Kishori.
18.05.2010. was paid from Therefore, in my
UCO Bank view the version of the
Rajindra Palace, accused is accepted and
through ECS from the amount of
her account and Rs.94,202/ cannot be
both the accused added in the expenditure
has not spent any of the accused S.K. money. Kaushik.
9. Payment made to Rs.58,980/ Expenditure As per the evidence the BSES towards towards BSES had on record (Ex.PW16/A, electricity already been Ex.PW16/B & consumption for the included 1/3rd Ex.PW16/C) the residential premises kitchen expenses electricity connection at D183, as mentioned in was installed in the Karampura, ND D1 name of Lalit Narayan 31.05.2002 to Sharma at the address 07.05.2010. D/183, Industrial H Colony, New Delhi with which the accused have nothing to do. It is not clear from the record whether the connection is used for commercial or residential purposes.
There is nothing on record to show that the electricity bills were paid by the accused S.K. Kaushik or Smt. Santosh Kaushik.
Therefore, in my view the amount of Rs.58,980/ cannot be added in the expenditure of the accused S.K. Kaushik.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 329 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the Court thereof
10. Payment made to Rs.11,803/ Rs.11,803/ Accepted as expenditure the IDEA towards is admitted by the payment of bill for accused S.K. Kaushik.
mobile no.
9911019242 during
15.11.2008 to
16.05.2010
11. Payment made to Rs.66,99,287.7p The CBI had given The Investigating
the LIC towards totally incorrect Officer has calculated
payment of figures since Smt. the amount of all the
premium in favour Raj Kishori paid LICs taken by Smt. Raj
of the family only Kishori whereas
members during Rs.22,10,000/ to according to the
20012010. the LIC and accused Smt. Raj
Rs.26,58,883/ has Kishori had initially
been wrongly invested Rs.20,00,000/
added by the CBI which she received from
with the said the sale of the property
amount. The and again reinvested
difference of the maturity amount by
Rs.48,68,883.70p purchasing other LIC
as per document policies and therefore,
D40. Accused she had invested
S.K. Kaushik paid Rs.22,10,000/ in the
only Rs.8,31,936/ LIC which have been
to LIC for his own wrongly shown by the
policies and Smt. IO as expenditures of
Santosh Kaushik the accused.
paid Rs.9,98,468/
for her policies Therefore, the case
and her children of accused is accepted
and the CBI has and the total amount of
illegally clubbed expenditure under this
the said amount. head is Rs.18,30,404/
(i.e. Rs.9,98,468/ +
Rs.8,31,936/).
12. Expenditure made Rs.3,66,113/ Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure
towards various accused is admitted by the
UTI policies by SK accused S.K. Kaushik
Kaushik.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 330 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by
No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the
Court thereof
13. Expenditure of SK Rs.1,84,444/ Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure
Kaushik made accused is admitted by the
towards his house accused S.K. Kaushik
rent for the
residential premises
no. D183, situated
at karampura, Ne
as admitted by him
during 20012010.
14. Expenditure of Smt. Rs.1,85,000/ Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure
Santosh Kaushik accused is admitted by the
while purchasing accused S.K. Kaushik
the property at A
82, Palam
Extension, ND from
Narendra Nath Bali
during 2001 to
2010.
15. Expenditure of Smt. Rs.4,50,000/ + Denied by the The said property
Raj Kishori while Rs.36,000/ = accused as Smt. had been purchased by
purchasing the Rs.4,86,000/ Raj Kishori had Smt. Raj Kishori, the
property bearing purchased the mother of the accused
Municipal no. 1002 property out of her S.K. Kaushik and hence,
and 1003 situated own earnings. in my view the amount
at Shivaji Street, of Rs.4,86,000/ cannot
Faiz Road, be added in the
Naiwala, ND from expenditure of the
Suresh Chand accused.
Mathur dated
30.12.2004.
16. Expenditure of Smt. Rs.4,50,000/ + Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure
Santosh Kaushik Rs.36,000/ = accused is admitted by the
while purchasing Rs.4,86,000/ accused S.K. Kaushik
the property
bearing Municipal
no. 1002 and 1003
situated at Shivaji
Street, Faiz Road,
Naiwala, ND from
Suresh Chand
Mathur dated
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 331 of 364
Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by
No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the
Court thereof
17.11.1995.
17. Expenditure of Rs.12,10,000/ Not admitted by The prosecution
Surender Kumar (SBI Najafgarh the accused since has proved the
Kaushik while Road Branch) the CBI could not statement of account of
issuing cheques in produce any accused S.K. Kaushik
favour of his evidence. bearing No.
mother in law and 103044166876 which is
brother in law Ex.PW72/C (D23)
during 200809. which confirms that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ was credited in the account of Smt. Geeta Devi the mother in law of accused S.K. Kaushik on 17.04.2008 through cheque no. 453419 and a corresponding entry is also reflected in the passbook of Smt. Geeta Devi Ex.DW6/DX1.
However, the prosecution has not been able to prove the transaction dated 25.11.2009 for Rs.2,10,000/ by Pulkit Kaushik to Lalit Narayan Kaushik.
In my view the expenditure of the accused S.K. Kaushik comes to Rs.10,00,000/.
18. Expenditure of Rs.1,527/ Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure Surender Kr. accused is admitted by the Kaushik while accused S.K. Kaushik paying installment of loan in LIC policy no.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 332 of 364 Sr. Particulars of Amount as per Amount as per Value determined by No. expenditure CBI accused the Court & view of the Court thereof 330664577 dated 28.05.2008.
19. Expenditure of Rs.22,612/ Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure Surender Kr. accused is admitted by the Kaushik while accused S.K. Kaushik paying house tax for the property at WZ 246, B1, Uttam Nagar, ND dated 30.06.2009.
20. The expenditure Rs.73,768/ Admitted by the Accepted as expenditure provided by the accused is admitted by the letter no. UT/23/VC accused S.K. Kaushik 13/201112 dtd 02.03.2012 sent by KM Ved, Vice President (Vig.) UTI Mutual fund, Mumbai in the year 200006.
Total Rs.63,01,049.66p Hence, the total expenditure of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) and Santosh Kaushik (A2) during the check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010 is Rupees Sixty Three Lacs, One Thousand, Forty Nine and Sixty Six Paise (Rs.63,01,049.66p). (46) In view of my above discussion, the Assets of the accused at the beginning of the check period comes to Rs.1,12,2000/; the assets of the accused during the check period comes to Rs.1,32,34,317/; Total income of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) and Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) comes to Rs.1,58,53,814.63p and the expenditure of the accused comes to Rs.63,01,049.66p.
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 333 of 364 (47) Now coming to the calculation of the Disproportionate Asset of the accused S.K. Kaushik by accepting the version of the accused that his mother Smt. Raj Kishori was having independent income, which calculations are as under:
Sr. Description Amount No. 1. Assets prior to the check period: Rs.1,12,000/. 2. Assets at the end of check period: Rs.1,32,34,317/
3. Assets acquired during the check period (21): Rs.1,31,22,317/ (Rs.1,32,34,317/ minus Rs.1,12,000/)
4. Income during the check period: Rs.1,58,53,814.63p
5. Expenditure during the check period: Rs.63,01,049.66p
6. Likely savings (45) Rs.95,52,764.97p (Rs.1,58,53,814.63p minus Rs.63,01,049.66p)
7. Extent of Disproportionate Assets (36): Rs.35,69,552.03p (Rs.1,31,22,317 minus Rs.95,52,764.97p)
8. % of DA = DA X 100 22.51% Income = 35,69,552.03 X 100 1,58,53,814.63 (48) Now coming to the calculation of the Disproportionate Asset of the accused S.K. Kaushik by accepting the version of the prosecution that Smt. Raj Kishori was not having independent income since the service record of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) shows that he had filed an affidavit which is Ex.PW11/B (D4, page CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 334 of 364
156) before the Department to the effect that his mother Smt. Raj Kishori was entirely dependent upon her, which calculations are as under:
Sr. Description Amount No. 1. Assets prior to the check period: Rs.1,12,000/ 2. Assets at the end of check period: Rs.1,32,36,540/
3. Assets acquired during the check period (21): Rs.1,31,24,540/ (Rs.1,32,36,540/ minus Rs.1,12,000/)
4. Income during the check period: Rs.1,84,93,108.63p
5. Expenditure during the check period: Rs.90,91,251.66p
6. Likely savings (45) Rs.94,01,856.97p (Rs.1,84,93,108.63p minus Rs.90,91,251.66p)
7. Extent of Disproportionate Assets (36): Rs.37,22,683.03p (Rs.1,31,24,540 minus Rs.94,01,056.97p)
8. % of DA = DA X 100 20.13% Income = 34,11,552.03 X 100 1,84,93,108.63 (49) Eitherways, it is evident from the aforesaid that the assets of the accused persons were disproportionate to their known sources of income.
(50) In view of my above discussion, I hereby hold that the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) while working as Junior Engineer in the MCD during 1986 to 2010 was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.35,69,552.03p in his name and in the name of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 335 of 364 his family members which was 22.51% disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he failed to explain satisfactorily.
Allegations under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code:
(51) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) who is the wife of accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) has abetted and facilitated her husband S.K. Kaushik to commit offence of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (e) & Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (52) Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik has never been a Public Servant or Government Servant before her marriage or after her marriage. It is argued that she was married to the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik on
09.12.1986 and not being a public servant, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are not applicable upon her and the CBI has illegally, unlawfully and with malafide intention has made her an accused by applying section 109 Indian Penal Code. It is further argued that the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik has not done any illegal and unlawful act which may attract the provision of Section 109 IPC against her as alleged by the CBI in this case, since she never abetted accused Surender Kumar Kaushik for acquiring any kind of asset movable or immovable in her name by earning any illegal and unlawful gratification during his service while discharging his duties as a public CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 336 of 364 servant and the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik never did any act in the discharge of his duties as a public servant by doing any act or omission which can be said to be against the mandatory provisions of the law which governed him as a public servant. (53) Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik (A1) has submitted the detailed comparative tables with regard to his income, income of his wife, income of his parents, his assets, assets in the name of his wife and assets in the name of his mother Smt. Raj Kishori (now deceased) and also Comparative Expenditure Tables in his name and his wife, and in the name of his mother Smt. Raj Kishori and all these comparative tables clearly shows that the accused was never found in possession of any disproportionate assets as alleged by the CBI in the Tables prepared by them. It is also argued that the abetment of the offence can be said to be made out against the main accused and if the main accused has not committed any offence so the abettor cannot be made liable for abetment and in the present case the main accused Surender Kumar Kaushik has not committed any offence as defined under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of IPC. It is further argued that the prosecution could not point that the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik acquired any property in his name or in the name of his wife or any other person with his own money, or illgotten money as alleged by the prosecution, in fact, the accused Surender Kumar Kaushik did not receive any illgotten money during his service, the CBI has falsely alleged the allegations against CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 337 of 364 him and the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik had also not committed any offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 IPC. (54) I have considered the rival contentions. The question whether private person i.e. wife of accused can be prosecuted and punished under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code for abetting public servant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act is answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nallamal Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2556 : (1999) 6 SCC 559. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the provisions of PC Act of 1988 and PC Act of 1947 in view of the above question and it has been held that:
"...... before dealing with the contentions advanced by the appellants we may point out that Section 4 of the P.C. Act confers exclusive jurisdiction to Special Judges appointed under the P. C. Act to try the offences specified in Section 3(1) of the P. C. Act. To understand the exclusivity of such jurisdiction it is advantageous to extract Section 4(1) of the P. C. Act as under:
Not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in subsection(1) of 3 shall be tried by special Judges only."
(55) The Hon'ble Court further observed that:
"...... It is true that Section 11 deals with a case of abetment of offences defined under Section 8 and CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 338 of 364 section 9, and it is also true that Section 12 specifically deals with the case of abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 11. But that is no ground to hold that P.C. Act does not contemplate abetment of any of the offences specified in Section 13 of the P. C. Act.....
..... It may be remembered that this Court has held in M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad {1992 (4) SCC 45} thus:
An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that it is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law....."
(56) It is further held that "...... Section 13 of the P. C. Act is enacted as a substitute for Sections 161 to 165A of the Penal Code which were part of Chapter IX of that Code under the title "All offences by or relating to public servants". Those sections were deleted from the Penal Code contemporaneous with the enactment of Section 31 of the P. C. Act (vide Section 31 of P.C. Act.) It is appropriate to point out here that in the original old PC Act there was no provision analogous to Section 13(1)(e), but on the recommendation of Santhanam Committee the said Act was amended in 1964 by incorporating Section 5(1)(e) in the old P. C. Act. Parliament later proceeded to "consolidate and amend the law relating to prevention of corruption" and in the Bill troduced for that purpose the following was declared CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 339 of 364 as per the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof:
The prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was amended in 1964 based on the recommendations of the Santhanam committee. There are provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal with public servants and those who abet them by way of the criminal misconduct, there are also provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to enable attachment of illgotten wealth. The Bill Seeks to incorporate all these provision with modifications so as to make the provisions more effective in combating corruption among public servants......"
(57) Thus, one of the objects of the new Act was to incorporate all the provisions to make them more effective. Section 165A of the Penal Code read like this :
"Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 165.Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 161 or section 165, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"
Therefore, the legislative intent is manifest that abettors of all the different offences under Section 13(1)(e) of the P. C. Act should also be dealt with alongwith the public servant in the same trial held by the Special Judge.
There is no force in the contention that the offences under Section 13(1)(e) cannot be abetted by another person. "Abetment" is defined in Section 107 of the Penal Code as under:
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 340 of 364 "107. Abetment of a thing.A person abets the doing of a thing, who First.Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly, Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing"
For the "First" clause (i.e. instigation) the following Explanation is added to the section:
"Explanation 1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing"
For the "Thirdly" clause (i.e. intentionally aids) the following Explanation is added:
"Explanation 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.".
(58) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has adopted the illustrations cited by Sh. Shanti Bhushan to amplify the cases of abetments under Clause 3 of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code vizaviz section 13 (1)
(e) of P. C. Act 1988. The first illustration of the cites is this:
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 341 of 364 "..... If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.
(59) Next illustration is this:
"..... Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.
(60) The last illustration is this:
"........ If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.....
Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P. C. Act can be abetted by nonpublic servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P. C. Act.
The bare perusal of the P.C. Act 1988 shows that there is no provision of abetment of the offence U/s 13(1)(e) of the said act, therefore the Prosecution can definitely fall back upon section 109 of IPC. Under the said CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 342 of 364 section the public servant has to explain and his failure results into the offence for possession of alleged Disproportionate Assets. This opportunity is only with the public servant and private individual has no such opportunity to explain, but this does not lead to the conclusion that except the public servant, nobody / private individual can be tried for having abetted the said offence.
The absence of the provision for abetment of the offence of criminal misconduct falling under section 13(1)(e) of P. C. Act 1988 will lead the conclusion that the legislature did not want to wipe out all the provisions of Indian Penal Code except section 161 to 165A, which are found in the present P. C. Act 1988.
Further, under section 3 of P. C. Act 1988, the Special Judge has powers to try not only the offences punishable under the P. C. Act but also any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any offence punishable under the said act. The offence U/s 13(1)(e) is a distinct offence by itself and therefore the Special Judge has jurisdiction to try not only that offence against that offender who committed the same but also try persons who had either conspired to commit the same or attempted to commit the same or abetted the same......."
(61) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of J. Jayalalitha Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2017 (VI) SCC 263 has held that:
"........ In re the charge of abetment and conspiracy in general, the Trial Court, while dealing with the defence plea that a non public servant could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 IPC in a trial constituted under the Act, relied on the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 343 of 364 decision of this Court in P. Nallammal (supra) to the effect that the acquisition and possession of any property by a public servant is capable of being abetted and that there is neither an express nor implied exclusion of the 1988 Act to deal with such a situation. The Trial Court noted that under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try not only an offence punishable under the said statute but also one for conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of any offence thereunder. The Trial Court thus held that private individuals could be prosecuted by the Special Court under the Act on the ground that they had conspired with and abetted the act of criminal misconduct committed by a public servant within the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act......
.......... The Trial Court held that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and we find that the Trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion relying on the decision of Nallammal (supra), wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that Under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and in our opinion, the Trial Court correctly held in this matter that private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act committed by the public servant......"
(62) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated its judgment in case of P. Nallamal Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police and CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 344 of 364 upheld the conviction of accused private person i.e. Ms. Shashikala. (63) Therefore, it can be concluded from the above that the private individual i.e. wife of the accused can be prosecuted and be punished under section 109 of IPC for abetting the act of criminal misconduct falling under section 13(1)(e) of P. C. Act 1988 committed by the public servant i.e. the accused husband. (64) After having expressed my view on each item, I would like to add further reasons as to why I have rejected the defence version on the point of the item of big values like jewellery, money transactions, etc. First of all, I will refer to the concept of "known sources of income" as employed in Secton 13(1)(e) and explanation appended to it of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. This concept has been very precisely described by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of M. P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta reported in AIR 2004 SC 517, relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under :
"....... Section 13 deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of subsection (1) of the Section is pressed into service against the accused. The same is applicable when the public servant 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 pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 13 corresponds to clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (referred to as 'Old Act'). But there has been drastical amendments. Under the new clause, the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 345 of 364 earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful source, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known sources of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act').
The phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) {old section 5(1)(e)} has clearly the emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labur, or expertise, or property, or investment, and having further a source which may or may not yield aregular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recepient, CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 346 of 364 every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant.
The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance."
(65) The abovequoted proposition of law can be dissected as under:
"Known source of income" should normally be taken as the "remuneration/salary" of the public servant. If there is a "windfall", the burden is upon the public servant to offer explanation to the Investigating Officer/prosecution and thereafter to the court. Such explanation must pass three tests :
(i) The windfalls should be intimated to the department by the public servant.
(ii) There should be plausible explanation as to how he received huge amounts.
(iii) Such explanation must satisfy the court that it is worthy of credence.
(66) Although, the accused persons have examined witnesses and have shown the windfalls in their ITRs and intimated the CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 347 of 364 department but that is not sufficient. It appears to be case where the accused started laundering the unlawful money in a very calculated manner by carefully showing it in the ITRs and by creating the necessary paper work. If a simplistic view is taken, hardly any delinquent public person would be brought to the net, which has been spread by virtue of Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the present case the court cannot ignore that all the joint KVPs were preapred in the names of accused persons and their children along with the inlaws of the accused S.K. Kaushik in very weired way, which are not generally seen in the human relations. Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act permits that court to raise the necessary inference from the facts and circumstances of the case as seen from the angle of normal human conduct. The manner in which huge amount of money is being transferred as reflected in the various entries in the passbook, is a proof that some other activity than which is lawful for a public servant was being carried out by S.K. Kaushik (A1) and Santosh Kaushik (A2).
The relevant entries in the passbooks/ statement of account of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) and Santosh Kaushik (A2) are as under:
Entries in the Statement of Account of S.K. Kaushik (A1) Sr. Particular of Issued by In Favour of Amount Exhibits No. Cheque & Bank
1. Cheque No. 505004 S. K. Kaushik Pulkit Kaushik Rs.27,000/ Ex.P47 dated 28.07.2005 S/o S. K. (D23) SBI Najafgarh Kaushik Road, New Delhi 110015 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 348 of 364 Sr. Particular of Issued by In Favour of Amount Exhibits No. Cheque & Bank
2. Cheque No. 505011 S. K. Kaushik Pulkit Kaushik Rs30,000/ Ex.P50 dated 24.05.2006 S/o S. K. (D23) SBI Najafgarh Kaushik Road, New Delhi 110015
3. Cheque No. 505007 S. K. Kaushik Pulkit Kaushik Rs10,000/ Ex.P51 dated 24.05.2006 S/o S. K. (D23) SBI Najafgarh Kaushik Road, New Delhi 110015
4. Cheque No. 563419 S. K. Kaushik Smt. Geeta Rs.10,00,000/ Ex.PW6/DX1 dated 17.04.2008 Devi SBI Najafgarh The credit Road, New Delhi entry dated 110015 17.04.2008 reflected in Ex.DW6/DX1, i.e. the Passbook of Smt. Geeta Devi and corresponding debit entry is reflected in statement of account Ex.PW72/C of accused S. K. Kaushik as debit entry i.e. 17.04.2008
5. Cheque No. 563404 S. K. Kaushik Smt. Raj Rs 1,10,000/ Ex.P66 dated 08.11.2007 Kishori (D23) SBI Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110015
6. Cheque No. 563406 S. K. Kaushik Smt. Raj Rs 1,50,000/ Ex.P68 dated 03.12.2007 Kishori (D23) SBI Najafgarh Road, New Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 349 of 364 Sr. Particular of Issued by In Favour of Amount Exhibits No. Cheque & Bank 110015
7. Cheque No. 563409 S. K. Kaushik Smt. Raj Rs 1,35,000/ Ex.P75 dated 05.01.2008 Kishori SBI Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110015 Total Rs.14,62,000/ Relevant entires in the statement of account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik (UCO Bank Punjabi Bagh):
Sr. Particular of Issued by In Favour of Amount Exhibits No. Cheque & Bank
1. Cheque No. 144846 Santosh S. K. Kaushik Rs.1,00,000/ Ex.PW9/D3 Kaushik dated 26.11.2009 UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026
2. Cheque No. 144842 Santosh Pulkit Kaushik Rs.2,00,000/ Ex.PW9/D9 Kaushik S/o S. K. Kaushik dated 13.10.2009 UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026
3. Cheque No. 144841 Santosh Divya Kaushik Rs.51,000/ Ex.PW9/D11 Kaushik D/o S. K. Kaushik dated 30.11.2009 UCO Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026 Total Amount (A): Rs.3,51,000/ CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 350 of 364 Relevant entires in the Statement of Account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) of ING Vysya Bank:
Sr. Particular of Issued by In Favour of Amount Exhibits No. Cheque / Reference No. & Bank
1. Entry dated Santosh Pulkit Kaushik Rs.20,000/ Ex.PW54/B 21.08.2008 Kaushik S/o S.K. Kaushik (Statement of pertaining to Account) cheque/ reference No. AF1414822 in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik maintained at ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110015
2. Entry dated Santosh Divya Kaushik Rs.1,20,000/ Ex.PW54/B 21.08.2008 Kaushik D/o S.K. Kaushik (Statement of pertaining to Account) cheque/ reference No. AF1414823 in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik maintained at ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110015
3. Entry dated Santosh Hardik Kaushik Rs.1,50,000/ Ex.PW54/B 22.08.2008 Kaushik S/o S.K. Kaushik (Statement of pertaining to Account) cheque/ reference No. AF1414821 in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik maintained at ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110015
4. Entry dated Santosh Divya Kaushik Rs.2,00,000/ Ex.PW54/B 01.10.2008 Kaushik D/o S.K. Kaushik (Statement of CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 351 of 364 Sr. Particular of Issued by In Favour of Amount Exhibits No. Cheque / Reference No. & Bank pertaining to Account) cheque/ reference No. AF1414824 in account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik maintained at ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110015 Total Amount (B): Rs.5,90,000/ Total Amount (A) + (B): Rs.9,41,000/ (67) The above entires clearly establishes the transfer of huge amounts. Although, the accused have stated that they and Smt. Raj Kishori had huge income but no substantial proof is forthcoming, except what I have admitted as herien above. When they claim that joint KVPs were prepared, they must explain and give a plausible explanation to the huge amounts of KVPs suddenly preapred in the joint names. The details of the various KVPs are as under:
Sr. KVP Number Exhibit No. Name of Amount paid Mode of No. beneficiary Payment
1. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/C Lalit Narayan Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203835, dated and Pulkit 29.05.2010 Kaushik
2. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/R Geeta Devi and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203817, dated Divya Kaushik 29.05.2010
3. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/N Lalit Narayan Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203798, dated and Santosh 29.05.2010 Kaushik CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 352 of 364 Sr. KVP Number Exhibit No. Name of Amount paid Mode of No. beneficiary Payment
4. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/B Shiv Kumar Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203834, dated Sharma and 29.05.2010 Pulkit Kaushik
5. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/D Shiv Kumar and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203836, dated Divya Kaushik 29.05.2010
6. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/E Shiv Kumar and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203837, dated Santosh Kaushik 29.05.2010
7. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/F Shiv Kumar Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203838, dated Sharma and 29.05.2010 Pulkit Kaushik
8. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/G Shiv Kumar Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203839, dated Sharma and 29.05.2010 Santosh Kaushik as on 29.05.2010
9. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/L S.K. Kaushik Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203781, dated and Santosh 29.05.2010 Kaushik
10. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/A Geeta Devi and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203833, dated Pulkit Kaushik 29.05.2010
11. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/M Lalit Narayan Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203797, dated and Pulkit 29.05.2010 Kaushik
12. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/P Geeta Devi and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203800, dated Divya Kaushik 29.05.2010
13. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/Q Geeta Devi and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203816, dated Santosh Kaushik 29.05.2010
14. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/O Geeta Devi and Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203799, dated Divya Kaushik 29.05.2010 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 353 of 364 Sr. KVP Number Exhibit No. Name of Amount paid Mode of No. beneficiary Payment
15. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/J Pulkit Kaushik Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203779, dated and Santosh 29.05.2010 Kaushik
16. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/K Divya Kaushik Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203780, dated and Pulkit 29.05.2010 Kaushik
17. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/I Santosh Kaushik Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203776, dated and Divya 29.05.2010 Kaushik
18. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/H Divya Kaushik Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203777, dated and Santosh 29.05.2010 Kaushik
19. KVP Registration Ex.PW28/I1 Santosh Kaushik Rs.50,000/ Cash no. 203778, dated and Divya 29.05.2010 Kaushik Total Amount: Rs.9,50,000/ (68) It is evident from the documents on record that the above Kisan Vikas Patras totalling Rs.9,50,000/ were purchased in cash. In this regard, the testimony of agent of Post Office Sh. S.R. Aggarwal (PW28) is very clear who has proved that all the said KVPs were purchased by accused S. K. Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik through him, as they have provided the cash amount to him for purchase of KVPs and also provided the documents of the persons in whose name the amounts invested in these KVPs. He has also proved that he does not know any person by the name of Smt. Geeta Devi (mother in law), Lalit Narayan Sharma (brother in law) and Shiv Kumar Sharma (Father in law). The relevant portion of his examination in chief is reproduced as under:
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 354 of 364 "....... I am agent for post office agency work. I know accused S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik, who are present in the court today, as they are one of my depositors and they approached me for investments done in various post office schemes. Whenever, they had desired for some investments, they handed over the amount in cash to me and also hand over the photocopies of the identity documents of the investors, in the name of whom the investments were to be made. On receiving the cash amount and photocopies of the identity documents, I used to fill up the application forms..... ........ I used to submit the applications along with the relevant necessary documents at GPO, New Delhi and from there I used to get the Kissan Vikas Patra in the name of the applicants. The post office used to note my name on the Kissan Vikas Patras and I used to affix my stamp on the back side of the Kissan Vikas Patra.
I have seen seven original Kissan Vikas Patra worth Rs.50,000/ each, in the name of the applicants. These Kissan Vikas Patras were received by me on behalf of the applicants from the GPO, new Delhi and where handed over by me to S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik. The original Kissan Vikas Patras are now Ex.PW28/T 1 to Ex.PW28/T7.
The applicant S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik also used to get the investments done in their PPF account, through me.
I do not know Smt. Geeta Devi or Sh. Lalit Narayan or Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma. I know only Sh. S.K. Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik, who are present in the court today....."
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 355 of 364 (69) Further, the perusal of the statement of account of S.K. Kaushik which is Ex.PW72/C (D23); statement of account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik which is Ex.PW54/A (D41); passbook of Smt. Geeta Devi which is Ex.DW6/DX1; passbook of Sh. Shiv Kumar which is Ex.DW6/DX6 and the passbook of Lalit Narayan which is Ex.DW6/DX4 show that there are no withdrawals of such an amount on 29.05.2010. The source of this huge amount of cash given by S.K. Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik to Sh. S.R. Aggarwal (PW28) for purposes of prepartionof KVP's in joint names has not been explained.
This establishes that the accused S.K. Kaushik and Smt. Santosh Kaushik have invested huge amount from their illgotten money. (70) In so far as the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) is concerned, she claimed that she had taken loans from her parents, her mother in law, son, daughter and family friends which she had repaid as reflected from her Statement of Account Ex.PW45/1 (D41). In this regard, I may observe that the only evidence is the oral testimonies of the witnesses and no document has been placed on record. There are no corresponding entries with regard to the giving of loans by her parents, mother in law and family friends etc. as claimed by her. The Statement of Account Ex.PW45/1 (D41) only confirm one sided transactions (i.e. from Santosh Kaushik to her parental family) but does not confirm the loans given by her parents, mother in law and family friends. The statement of account on which she places her reliance only confirms the transfer of amount from the account of Smt. Santosh Kaushik to the other persons which cannot be taken as her additional income. It is a CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 356 of 364 settled law that when an accused claims that a loan had been taken from the parents or family members, it is necessary for the accused to explain for what purpose she had required huge loan amount and also prove the receipt of the loans and thereafter give a plausible explanation to the huge amounts given by the said persions which according to the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) she had repaid. In the present case, the only explanation given is with regard to the repayment but there is no evidence with regard to the loans and gifts as claimed by her. Hence, in view of my discussion as aforesaid, whatever explanation has been given by the accused for small amounts, the same has been duly accepted by me.
(71) I may also observe that huge amounts as aforesaid are not only to be explained by accused by simply showing ITRs, etc. and calling the witnesses in defence, but they should lead the evidence of such a nature which convinces the court that the said loans were genuine transactions. Where there is a 'windfall', the burden is higher upon the public servant to prove the same convincingly. When there are frequent 'windfalls' occuring to the public servants, the court will have no option but to reject such claims lock, stock and barrel.
(72) The accused have brought on record their Income Tax Returns Income Tax Returns as well as the ITRs of Smt. Raj Kishori, details of which are as under:
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 357 of 364 Income Tax Returns of Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2):
Sr. Assessment year / Amount of Amount from Income from Refund if Documents / No. Date of filing of income House other sources any Exhibit No. ITR claimed property
1. 19911992, ITR Rs.29,750/ Rs.29,750/ Nil Nil Ex.PW92/DX filed on 26.11.1992 59 (colly)
2. 19921993, ITR Rs.51,450/ Rs.51,450/ Nil Nil Ex.PW92/DX filed on 26.11.1992 59 (colly)
3. 19941995, ITR Rs. 65,600/ Rs. 65,600/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX filed on 08.07.1994 59 (colly)
4. 20062007, ITR Rs. 1,73,261/ Rs.1,68,000/ Rs.5,261.00 Nil Ex.P108 filed on 23.11.2007 (D38)
5. 20072008, ITR Rs.1,73,873/ Rs.1,68,000/ Rs.5,873.00 Nil Ex.P107 filed on 23.11.2007 (D38)
6. 20082009, ITR Rs.2,71,026.00 Rs.1,68,000/ Rs. 82,619.00 Nil Ex.P106 filed on 07.08.2008 (D38)
7. 20092010, ITR Rs. 2,93,192/ Rs. 2,88,575/ Rs. 4,617.00 Rs.59,272/ Ex.PW71/A filed on 31.07.2009 (D38)
8. 20102011, ITR Rs.10,23,088/ Rs.4,37,264/ Rs.3,13,337/ Nil Part of filed on 08.12.2010 Long term Ex.PW17/B capital gain: (D55) Rs.2,72,487/ Income Tax Returns of Smt. Raj Kishori:
Sr. Assessment year / Amount of Amount Income from Refund Documents / No. Date of filing of income from House other sources if any Exhibit No. ITR claimed property
1. 19911992 ITR Rs.30,400/ Nil Rs.30,400/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX53 filed on 26.11.1992
2. 19921993 ITR Rs.50,500/ Nil Rs.50,500/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX53 filed on 26.11.1992
3. 19941995 ITR Rs.65,600/ Nil Rs.65,600/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX53 filed on 08.07.1994
4. 20002001 ITR Rs.24,459/ Nil Rs.24,459/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX21 filed on 30.06.2000
5. 20012002 ITR Rs.4,860/ Nil Rs.4,860/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX21 filed on 30.07.2001 CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 358 of 364 Sr. Assessment year / Amount of Amount Income from Refund Documents / No. Date of filing of income from House other sources if any Exhibit No. ITR claimed property
6. 20022003 ITR Rs.40,811/ Nil Rs.40,811/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX21 filed on 22.05.2002
7. 20032004 / Rs.45,006/ Nil Rs.45,006/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX21 (Illegible)
8. 20042005 / Rs.44,660/ Nil Rs.44,660/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX21 (Illegible)
9. 20052006 ITR Rs.44,487/ Nil Rs.44,487/ Nil Ex.PW92/DX21 filed on 26.07.2005
10. 20062007 ITR Rs.87,533/ Nil Rs.87,533/ Nil Ex.PW71/C filed on 26.07.2006
11. 20072008 ITR Rs.1,50,278/ Nil Rs.1,50,278/ Nil Ex.PW71/D filed on 25.07.2007
12. 20082009 ITR Rs.2,72,890/ Nil Rs.2,72,890/ Nil Ex.PW71/E filed on 07.08.2008 (73) In so far as the Income Tax Returns of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) which are Ex.PW18/A (collectively), Ex.PW18/DA, Ex.PW18/DB, Ex.PW18/DC and Ex.PW18/DD are concerned, same are not disputed.
(74) Though the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) claims that his mother Smt. Raj Kishori was having huge source of income and jewellery which she had initially purchased and later on sold, he has not been able to satisfactorily prove the independent income of Smt. Raj Kishori. The Income Tax Returns of the accused Santosh Kaushik (A
2) reflecting huge income are not commensurate to the various transactions as reflected in the tables herein above. Huge jewellery as claimed by the accused belonging to late Smt. Raj Kishori is not worthy of credence. The perusal of the above Income Tax Returns show that CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 359 of 364 the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) has not shown anywhere the alleged loans taken by her from her family members and family friends. Placing the Income Tax Returns on record is not sufficient. The source of money as reflected in the ITRs needs to be explained. [Ref.: J. Jayalalitha Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2017 (VI) SCC 263]. (75) In these circumstances, I hold that the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) had abetted and facilitated her husband S.K. Kaushik (A1) to commit act of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I, therefore, hold her guilty of the offence of abetment punishable under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (e) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(76) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 360 of 364
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (77) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it stands established that the present case was registered on 31.05.2010 against the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) who was posted as Junior Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and his wife Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2). It has also been established that the accused S.K. Kaushik joined services in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Junior Engineer on 19.02.1986. It has also been established and not disputed by the accused that the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) got married to Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A2) in the year 1986 and the couple has two sons namely Pulkit Kaushik and Hardik Kaushik and one daughter Divya Kaushik. The father of accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) namely Sh. Laxmi Chand was working as Supervisor in Folding Department in Swatantra Bharat Mill (sister concern of DC) and took VRS in the year 1990. Sh. Laxmi Chand had expired on 13.03.1996 and his wife Smt. Raj Kishori (mother of accused Surender Kumar Kaushik) had expired on 14.02.2008. The accused has one brother namely Sh. Ravi Kaushik and one sister namely Promila Sharma who are having their own independent sources of income. Further, the Check Period has been CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 361 of 364 taken from 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010. As per the charge sheet, during the check period the assets of the accused at the beginning of the check period i.e. on or before 19.02.1986 were Rs.45,600/; the total moveable/ immovable assets acquired by the accused S.K. Kaushik in his name and in the name of his family members during the check period i.e. 19.02.1986 to 01.06.2010, were worth Rs.1,33,37,440/ and the assets acquired during the check period were Rs.1,32,91,840/; the total income of the accused and his family members was found to be Rs.1,64,24,435.63p; the expenditure incurred by the accused and his family members was Rs.1,15,69,799.66p and the likely savings of the accused was found to be Rs.48,54,635.97p. As per the charge sheet the accused S.K. Kaushik was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.84,37,204.03p in his name and in the name of his family members which was disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account for. (78) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 93 witnesses and in order to rebut the case of the prosecution, the accused have examined 37 witnesses. (79) After considering the testimonies of the various witnesses, documentary evidence and the rival contentions, the version of the accused that his mother Smt. Raj Kishori was having her independent income has been accepted. It stands established that the Assets of the accused at the beginning of the check period were Rs.1,12,2000/; the assets of the accused during the check period were Rs.1,32,34,317/; total income of the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) and Smt. Santosh CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 362 of 364 Kaushik (A2) was Rs.1,58,53,814.63p and the expenditure of the accused was Rs.63,01,049.66p. In the light of the above findings, I hereby hold that the accused S.K. Kaushik was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.35,69,552.03p in his name and in the name of his family members which was 22.51% disproportionate to his known sources of income.
(80) Even otherwise, if the version of the prosecution is accepted to the extent that Smt. Raj Kishori was not having her independent income and totally dependent upon the accused S.K. Kaushik as the accused S.K. Kaushik had given a declaration to his department had his mother Smt. Raj Kishori was totally dependent upon him, the assets of the accused prior to the check period are Rs.1,12,000/; the assets at the end of check period are Rs.1,32,36,540/ and the Assets acquired during the check period are Rs.1,31,24,540/. Further, the Total Income of the accused S.K. Kaushik and Santosh Kaushik during the check period is Rs.1,84,93,108.63p and Expenditure during the check period is Rs.90,91,251.66p and therefore, the accused S.K. Kaushik was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.34,11,552.03p in his name and in the name of his family members which was 20.13% disproportionate to his known sources of income. (81) This being the background, I hold that the accused S.K. Kaushik (A1) while working as Junior Engineer in the MCD during 1986 to 2010 was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 363 of 364 known sources of income to the tune of Rs.35,69,552.03p in his name and in the name of his family members which is 22.51% disproportionate to his known sources of income and I, therefore, hold him guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1)
(e) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(82) Further, I hold that the accused Smt. Santosh Kaushik (A
2) had abetted and facilitated her husband S.K. Kaushik (A1) to commit act of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is, therefore, held guilty for the offence of abetment punishable under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (e) & Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(83) Both the accused are accordingly convicted. (84) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 23.04.2018.
Digitally signed KAMINI by KAMINI LAU
LAU Date: 2018.04.21
18:13:22 +0530
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 21.04.2018 Special Judge (PC Act), CBI01,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CBI Vs. Surender Kumar Kaushik & Anr., RC No. 24(A)/2010 Page No. 364 of 364