Delhi District Court
Vcl/0049 Addressed To Inspector Cbi Mr. ... vs Sh. D. L. Dhawan on 23 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
AC No. 7/11/99
RC No. 73(A)/96
CBI Case (New) No. CBI-38/2106
CNR No. DLKA01-000011-1999
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
VERSUS
Sh. D. L. Dhawan,
S/o Sh. Sri Chand,
Asstt. Director,
AIR (R & D), I. P. Estate,
New Delhi.
R/o H. No. 11/51, Geeta
Colony, Delhi .....Accused
Date of institution: 02.09.1999
Date of judgment reserved: 29.08.2016
Date of judgment: 19.12.2016
JUDGMENT
1 Facts of the case in brief are that the present accused has been sent up for trial, before this Court, for offences under CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page1of 235 Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2 It is case of the prosecution that accused D. L. Dhawan joined service in All India Radio on 30.04.1964 as mechanic. In the year 1991 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused acquired most of immovable and movable properties in his own name and in the name of his family members during the year 1985 to 1996. It is alleged that the accused has invested/mixed up his ill-gotten money in the name of his wife and son. Hence for the purpose of ascertaining disproportionate assets period from 01.01.1985 to 01.08.1996 is taken in consideration.
It is alleged in the charge sheet that the income of the accused from the various sources during the check period comes to Rs.9,12,579.07. It is further alleged that wife of the accused Smt. Devender Dhawan claimed that she was running business of beauty parlor under the name and style of M/s Eliza Beauty Parlor at H. No. CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page2of 235 11/51, Geeta Colony, since 1980 but she could not produce any record in this regard. Hence, her income comes upto Rs.2,49,428.00 during the period 1987-88 to 31.07.1996 from her business of beauty parlor under the name and style of M/s Eliza Beauty Parlor and rental income. The income of four months from April, 1996 to July, 1996 was calculated on the average of the last years. It is alleged that no record was maintained by her of income tax returns of the business as well as income from rent of Flat No. 244-C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi which comes to Rs.88,858.66 from 10.09.1988 to 31.07.1996. However, she had issued rent receipt of Rs. 1,06,300/- to the tenant for the said period. She had also shown purchase of NSC for Rs.4000/- in her income tax return for the year 1989-90 but details of which were not available with Income Tax Department. Hence, she was given benefit of maturity value of Rs.8000/-.
It is alleged that income of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan, son of the accused, comes to Rs.9,144.56 from his business run under the name and style of M/s Eliza Mens' Parlor from H. No. 11/51, Geeta CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page3of 235 Colony, Delhi and other sources like interest, dividends, shares, bank deposits and investments.
Hence, it is alleged that during the check period the total income of the accused is Rs.9,12,579.07, income of wife of the accused Smt. Devender Kaur is Rs.3,54,796.02 and income of son of the accused Sh. Hitesh Dhawan is Rs.91,144.54, which comes to Rs.13,58,519.65 in total.
It is further alleged that during the check period the total expenditure of the accused and his wife Smt. Devender Kaur comes to Rs. 5,77,091.41.
It is further alleged that during the check period the accused and his family members acquired assets both movable and immovable worth Rs.26,08,139.50.
It is further alleged in the charge sheet that the disproportionate assets comes to Rs. 18,26,711.26 which is 134.46% of the total income of the accused and his family members.
It is further in the charge sheet that the sanction for prosecution against accused, being a govt. employee, was accorded CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page4of 235 to by the competent authority.
3 On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance with provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC.
Charge 4 Charges were framed against the accused on 04.03.2004.
Charges for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 framed against the accused.
Prosecution evidence 5 In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses:-
PW1 - Sh. E.Madhavan
PW2 - Sh. Mann Singh
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page5of 235
PW3 - Sh. N.K. Wadhwa
PW4 - Sh. Mangat Ram
PW5 - Sh. Arvind Kumar
PW6 - Sh. C.K. Sharma
PW7 - Sh. A.K.Jain
PW8 - Sh. Vinay Kumar Jain
PW9 - Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
PW10 - Sh. R. Ghosh Dastidar
PW11 - Sh. Raman Bawa
PW12 - Sh. Subhash Chand
PW13 - Sh. G. D. Batra
PW14 - Sh. Laxmi Chand
PW15 - Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta
PW16 - Sh. Sunil Idnani
PW17 - Sh. Mahavir Seth
PW18 - Sh. Ram Prakash Madhur
PW19 - Sh. Naim Das Jain
PW20 - Sh. Gopi Chand
PW21 - Sh. Praveen Kumar
PW22 - Sh. Umesh Gupta
PW23 - Sh. Shyam Sunder
PW24 - Sh. Rakesh Kumar
PW25 - Sh. K. K. Kotnala
PW26 - Sh. Krishnendu Banerjee
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page6of 235
PW27 - Sh. Subhash Chander
PW28 - Sh. Balbir Kumar
PW29 - Sh. Rajpal
PW30 - Sh. B.D. Tyagi
PW31 - Sh. Manohar Singh Rawat
PW32 - Sh. D.K. Popli
PW33 - Sh. L. K. Singh
PW34 - Ms. Sara Menon
PW35 - Sh. AK Mathur
PW36 - Sh. R. S. Dahiya
PW37 - Sh. Triveni Singh
PW38 - Sh. Bala Dutt
PW39 - Sh. Rattan Singh
PW40 - Sh. T.S. Kain
PW41 - Sh. J.K. Sawhney
PW42 - Sh. Suresh M. Nair
PW43 - Sh. Sanjay Kumar
PW44 - Sh. Anil Chopra
PW45 - Sh. S. L. Sabharwal
PW46 - Sh. Rakesh Bisht
PW47 - Sh. A. R. Joshi
PW48 - Sh. S. S. Meena
PW49 - Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta
PW50 - Smt. Krishna Dhawan
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page7of 235
PW51 - Sh. S.K. Jain
PW52 - Sh. S.K. Rastogi
PW53 - Sh. Mohan Purshottam
PW54 - Sh. K.C. Ajit Kumar
PW55 - Sh. S. Kanan
PW56 - Sh. S. C. Chakarborty
PW57 - Sh. Bhagyesh Thakar
PW58 - Sh. Satish Chandra Tewary
PW59 - Sh. Anil Kumar Goel
PW60 - Sh. N.K. Jain
PW61 - Sh. Pankaj P. Shah
PW62 - Sh. B. M. Kapoor
PW63 - Sh. B. K. Laroia
PW65 - Sh. V. K. Dhingra
PW66 - Sh. Bhagwan Singh Verma
PW67 - Sh. Krishan Gopal Rastogi
PW68 - Sh. Hem Chander Gupta
PW69 - Sh. N. Kirubaninthi
PW70 - Sh. Manmohan Kumar Gandhi
PW71 - Sh. A. K. Nigam
PW72 - Dr. Gopal Krishna Prabhu
PW73 - Sh. Parag Deshpande
PW74 - Sh. Prayag Dutt
PW75 - Sh. Giris Pilankar
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page8of 235
PW76 - Sh. M. V. Kutumba Rao
PW77 - Sh. Surender Malik
PW78 - Sh. Madhusudan Parkhi
PW79 - Sh. R. Ramesh Chandra
PW80 - Sh. Rajender Singh Bisht
Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 07.06.2016.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC 6 Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused recorded. In statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused denied all the incriminating material appearing in evidence against him and claimed innocence.
Defence Evidence 7 In his defence, accused examined 11 defence witnesses.
DW1 - Sh. Hitesh Dhawan
DW2 - Smt. Seema Jaggi
DW3- Sh. Mitesh Kumar
DW4- Sh. Shanker Singh
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page9of 235
DW5- Sh. Jagdish Chand
DW6- Sh. Arvind Kumar
DW7- Sh. Vijender Kumar
DW8- Sh. R. K. LSAldhi
DW9- Sh. Amitava Das
DW10- Smt. Harsh Bala
DW11- Sh. Harbans Lal Yadav
Defence evidence in the present matter was closed on 24.08.2016.
Appreciation of Evidence 8 PW1 is a witness from Tribuvan Dass Bhimaji Jewellery, Delhi from 1984, who proved bills Ex. PW1/A to Ex PW1/C for the amounts of Rs. 23,072/-, Rs. 3213/- and Rs. 1281/- respectively. Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged. 9 PW2 deposed that during the year 1995 he was posted as LDC in Sarai Kale Khan State Transport Authority. He proved CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page10of 235 registration of scooter No. DAM 6035 in the name of Hitesh Dhawan, S/o. Sh. D.L. Dhawan, 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The Registration Certificate Ex. PW2/A bears the signature of Sh. R.S. Sharma at point A. He further deposed that the scooter was registered in the name of Sh. Anil Nagpal who sold the same to Hitesh Dhawan as per the papers available in the file Ex. PW2/B of the scooter. During cross-examination, no effective challenge to the testimony of this witness.
10 PW3 was Dy. Director in the Central Government Employees, Welfare Housing Organization, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi where accused applied for allotment of type-C flat and he deposited Rs. 30,500/- and receipt Ex. PW3/A was issued to him against receipt of that payment. Application form is Ex. PW3/B and subsequently accused deposited an amount of Rs. 1,33,200/- vide DD No. 416309 and a receipt was issued to him against receipt of that amount. The receipt is Ex. PW3/C. During cross-examination, it is admitted by PW3 that CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page11of 235 accused had applied for building advance loan and the same was sanctioned for Rs. 1,26,000/-. All the payments were received. 11 PW4 is a witness from Head Post Office, Parliament Street. He testified that letter Ex. PW4/A issued by his Sr. Post Master at that time. The account number is 17503-3 in the name of Devender Dhawan and in that account Rs. 10,000/- was deposited on 10.2.96. This is a PPF account. The deposit slip for Rs. 10,000/- is Ex. PW4/B and the account statement issued by his post office on 21.3.97 is Ex. PW4/C. The photocopy of account opening form is Ex. PW4/D. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 12 PW5 is a witness from Escorts Finance Ltd. who proved Ex PW5/A which bears signatures of Sh. H.R. Aneja at point A. As per the letter issued by Sh. H.R. Aneja FDR of Rs. 15000/- was purchased by D.L. Dhawan. A photocopy of which is Ex.PW5/B and on that FDR an interest of Rs. 2250/- was given to the purchaser of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page12of 235 this FDR.
During cross-examination, witness deposed that the FDR is in the name of Smt. Ravinder Dhawan (However, correct name of wife of accused is Smt. Devender Dhawan) and the accused. 13 PW6 is Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi. He deposed that on that day he filed a complaint with SP, CBI which is Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point A. The complaint was regarding having disproportionate assets against accused. PW6 lodged this complaint on the basis of documents scrutinised by him which was seized in RC No. 66(A)/96.
During cross-examination, PW6 deposed that besides the documents seized by raid officer of the trap case, he had also perused observation memo. He admitted that in the observation memo, there is mention of two beauty parlours named as Aliza Beauty parlour (for women) and Aliza Beauty Parolour (for men).
He further deposed that since the accused has not intimated to him about the earnings of his wife and son, so he did CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page13of 235 not consider that part while preparing his report. 14 PW7 deposed that on 18.09.98 he was posted as Sr. Manager at CDPC, Indian Express Building, Delhi. The letter Mark- PW7/A was seen by him. It was issued by Krishna Nagar Branch. In the month of September, 1998 there was a balance of Rs. 742/- and an interest of Rs. 72/- was paid in that account in the name of Devender Dhawan. The original account opening form produced by Sh. Naresh Chand Sharma, Sub Staff and copy of the same is Ex. PW7/A. The account statement is Ex. PW7/B. Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of the accused.
15 PW8 deposed that on 17.7.96 he was posted as Asst. Manager, Vikas Minar Branch of Central Bank of India. On that day one MMDC was issued in the name of accused. He further deposed that vide voucher slip the amount was deposited in cash and on that basis, MMDC Ex. PW8/A was issued. The photocopy of deposit CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page14of 235 voucher is Ex.PW8/B. (Original seen and returned). The account statement of account No. 7664 in the name of D. L. Dhawan and in this account the last balance as on 27.1.96 was Rs.1520/- and total interest in this account paid is Rs.2128/-. The account statement of this account is Ex PW8/C. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of the accused.
16 PW9 deposed that he had been working in R.R. Financial Consultants Ltd. The letter Ex.PW9/A issued under his signatures and the information vide this letter was given on the basis of record maintained in the office vide record submitted total investment of Rs.70,000/- was made by the accused and his family members. The payments were received through cheques on different dates. Cheques were issued in the name of the company in which the amount were invested as mentioned in the Ex.PW9/A, through his company. Company had received the brokerage on the receipts of those payments.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page15of 235 Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 17 PW10 deposed that during the year 1988 to 1996 - 97 he remained posted as Dy. Director, Officer Chief Engg., R & D, AIR & TV, New Delhi. He was tenant of the accused. The rent of this house was varied from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- pm between these years. The rent was increased Rs.100/- pm of every one year. Maximum rent was upto Rs.1500/- p.m. During cross-examination, it is admitted by PW10 that iron door (safety door) and iron windows with mosquito mash were fitted in the flat.
18 PW11 deposed that on 1.5.97 he was posted in the Group Company of Bajaj Leasing & Finance Ltd. Letter Ex.PW-1/A issued by his company under the signature of Sh. Anil Chopra, Director at point - A. As per this letter, the accused and Ms. Seema Jaggi purchased two FDRs of Rs.15000/- each on which they earned interest of Rs. 2235/- and Rs.2415/- respectively.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page16of 235 Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 19 PW12 deposed that he was owning Scooter No. DAM - 6035 during the year 1989. He sold this scooter to Hitesh Dhawan against an amount of Rs.5200/-. He received the payment in cash from Sh. Hitesh Dhawan.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 20 PW13 deposed that he remained posted in the MGF Ltd. from 1984 to 2001. Letter Ex.PW13/A issued by his company bearing signature of Sh. A. N. Chaddha at point - A. The information given vide this letter is correct on the basis of record maintained by company. As per this letter Mrs. Devender Dhawan purchased one FDR of Rs.15,000/- and an amount of Rs.2415/- was paid as interest on maturity.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page17of 235 21 PW14 deposed that in the year 1955 he was posted as
Asst. Director ((LIG) / NP Housing), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Flat No. 244-C, Trilok Puri, Delhi was allotted to one Ashok Kumar who had deposited initial amount of Rs.17,000/- on 6.2.86. The allottee was liable to make the remaining payment in installments. As per terms and conditions, the allottee could not sell the said flat until entire dues were paid by him to DDA.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 22 PW15 deposed that on 18.03.97 he was posted as Asstt. Manager, SBI, Krishna Nagar Branch, Delhi. He handed over one letter Ex.PW15/A alongwith statement of two accounts in the name of the accused bearing No. 476 and 24719. The accounts statements are the true extract of accounts maintained in their bank and were issued under certificate of Banker's Book Evidence Act. The same are Ex.PW15/B and Ex PW15/C bearing the signature of authorised signatories.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page18of 235 23 PW16 deposed that on 30.04.97 he was working in HCL.
He identified his signature on Ex.PW16/A at point - A by which he was authorized to appear before the IO of CBI in this case. As per certificate issued by Company, FDR No. 58058 and 58059 were purchased by the accused and Devender Dhawan for an amount of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of 12 months. Both the FDRs earned interest of Rs.1608/- each and an amount of Rs.608/- was withdrawn by each purchaser of the FDR and the remaining amount of Rs.1000/- plus capital amount of Rs.10,000/- was reinvested by both the purchasers for a period of 12 months. The certificate of record is Ex.PW16/C. Photocopies of abovesaid FDRs which are Ex.PW16/D1 to Ex PW1/D9.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 24 PW17 deposed that on 19.06.1997, he was working as UDC in the office of Sr. Accounts Officer, East Zone, NPRS, D-block, Vikas Sadan. He proved letter Ex PW-17/A vide which details of payments in respect of Flat No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Trilokpuri, Mayur CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page19of 235 Vihar is given. He identified his signature on this letter at Point A and his senior Accounts Officer signed at point B. The original allottee of this flat was Ashok Kumar and as per the details an amount of Rs 57,513/- was paid by the allottee of DDA during the period August 1988 to August 1996.
During cross-examination, he deposed that transfer of this flat was applied in the allotment section. He further deposed that his department is only concerned with payment by the allottee which can be done by anyone on his behalf.
25 PW18 deposed that on 11.07.1997, he was Assistant Assessor and Collector, Shahdara South Zone. He proved letter Ex. PW18/A which bears his signatures at Point A. The details mentioned there in was prepared from the record. As per the record mentioned in the letter Darshan Lal was the owner of property No. 11/51, Geeta Colony w.e.f 01.04.1968. The house tax paid on this property is Rs 2632/-. Total amount was paid w.e.f 01.04.1986 to 31.7.1996 is Rs 1375/-. As per the record the house tax of Rs CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page20of 235 711365/- was paid towards property No. 11/52 for the period 01.01.1984 to 31.07.1996. He deposed that before this period an amount of Rs 1665.60 was paid for the period 01.04.61 to 31.03.84. The details of house tax calculated of the properties is Ex PW18/B prepared by the bill clerk Sh Santok Singh whose signatures are appended on all the four sheets at Point A, which is identified by PW18. He deposed that for the purpose of calculating house tax zonal inspectors used to visit the area and they submit the report to the Department in respect of any addition made in respect of property. As per form A Pushpa Rani and Davinder Dhawan are the owners of property No. 1152 (It should be 11/52). Whatever additions had been made by him are mentioned by their Zonal Inspectors working at that time in the area in the report Ex PW-18/C which was attested by PW18 under his signatures at Point A. The total dimensions of the covered area is also mentioned in the report Ex PW-18/C at Point B. The file relating to property No. 11/52 is Ex PW-18/D which was maintained in their office at that time. The file of property No. 11/51, Geeta Colony maintained in their office at that CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page21of 235 time and the same is Ex As PW18/E. The inspection form relating to property No. 11/51 prepared by the then Zonal Inspector working in the area. The report is Ex PW18/F bearing his signatures at Point A. The additions made in the property are mentioned in the inspection form by the Zonal Inspector and the dimensions of the additions made by the accused are mentioned at Point B on the basis of which rateable value is fixed for calculating house tax.
During cross-examination, it is deposed by PW18 that carbon copy of assessment order dated 23.04.1997 regarding property no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi in file Ex PW18/E which bears his signatures at point A. The assessment order dated 27.04.1997 is Ex PW18/D1. He further deposed that in the absence of documentary evidence by the accused it cannot be said that the construction could be prior to 1985. He admitted that whenever there is additional construction is made in any building and matter is reported by field staff, rateable value as well as house tax is also increased. However, he clarified that the owner of the building never turns up to inform about additional construction. He further CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page22of 235 proved house tax bills Ex PW18/D2, Ex PW18/D3 and PW18/D4 which was issued by MCD and each bears different rateable value and belongs to property no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He was confronted with his statement recorded by IO which is Ex PW18/D5 and deposed that same was recorded correctly. He confirmed that contents of page no. 2 of his statement have been correctly stated as per record.
26 PW19 deposed that he was working as Administrative Officer in LIC at Branch No. 113, H Block, Cannaught Place, New Delhi on 14.07.1997. He proved letter dated 14.07.1997 as Ex PW- 19/A signed by Sh M. S. Raghav, Branch Manager, LIC at Point A. The said letter along with photo copy of ledger of policy no. 111687603, attested photo copy of policy bond, status report and proposal form, were handed over to Sh Surender Malik, Inspector CBI. Ex PW-19/A 1, Ex PW19/A2 & Ex PW19/A3 attached with this letter have been attested by Sh M. S. Raghav, Branch Manager at Point A on each document. Proposal form Ex PW-19/A-4 was been CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page23of 235 attested by him at Point A. Policy no. 111687603 was issued in the name of Sh Darshan Lal Dhawan, R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Sh Darshan Lal Dhawan had paid Rs 19,920/- to LIC as premium against this policy during the period November, 1994 to August, 1996.
Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged. 27 PW20 deposed that in the year 1997, he was working as Accounts Officer in Chitra Vihar, office of MTNL. He proved letter dated 19.06.97 Ex PW20/A which bears his signatures at point A. Vide this letter he informed CBI that telephone no. 2436621 is working in the name of Smt Devender Dhawan, R/o 1152, Geeta Colony, New Delhi and the subscriber has paid Rs 4721/- to MTNL up to 19.06.97 for this telephone.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 28 PW21 deposed that in the year 1989, he purchased a maruti car DVD 6887 from M/s Bhupendra Enterprises, Nehru Place CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page24of 235 for a sum of Rs 45000/-. After 2-3 days, he sold this car to accused for a sum of Rs 47000/- and registration was got transferred in the name directly from M/s Bhupender Enterprises. Registration Certificate of said car was Ex PW21/A. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 29 PW22 deposed that he is Executive Member of Akashwani Civil Wing, Sehkari Awaz Samiti Limited since 1990. Sh Narender Kumar was treasurer of the samiti. Letter Ex CW-1 bears signature of Shri Narender Kumar Treasurer at Point A. Accused has made payment of Rs 74850/- to samiti for purchase of a residential plot measuring 100 sq. yds during the period 10.4.90 to 26.7.94.
During cross-examination, PW22 deposed that all the payments have been made by accused through cheque as and when demanded by Samiti.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page25of 235 30 PW23 deposed that he had produced details of payment
made by subscriber to MTNL against the telephone bill for the period 01.03.1994 to 16.07.1996 during investigation. Letter Ex PW23/A containing details of payment of telephone bills bears signature at Point A. Telephone no. 2248439 was installed in the name of Accused. Accused has paid Rs 8636/- against the bills of aforesaid period to MTNL. He had also paid an amount of Rs 8000/- as security deposit to MTNL. Accused in total has paid Rs 16636/- against his telephone to MTNL.
During cross-examination PW23 deposed that details of payment was prepared on the basis of computer record. 31 PW24 deposed that during investigation, he had produced letter Ex PW-24/A which contained the detail of policy number, name of the insured etc. Policy no. 120063754 for Rs One lac was issued in the name of accused R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Yearly premium was Rs 7704/-. Upto to the year 1997 Darshan Lal Dhawan has paid six yearly installment of Rs 7704/- to CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page26of 235 LIC. He had paid Rs 46224/- in total against his LIC policy upto the year 1997.
During cross-examination, he deposed that earlier LIC used to reflect deposit in ledger upto year 1997 and thereafter deposit is reflected in computers.
32 PW25 deposed that he was working in Syndicate Bank, I. P. Depot Extension, New Delhi in 1997. He proved letter dated 16/10/1997 of their bank which was signed by the then Branch Manager Sh I. Muthubiran at Point A. Letter was Ex PW-25/A. Along with this letter, he handed over to Inspector CBI, the account opening form pertaining to FDR Account in the name of the Accused R/o 14B, AIR-DD, IP State, New Delhi, FDR of Rs 50,000/- and Deposit receipt thereof. These documents were Ex PW-25/A1, Ex PW25/A2 and Ex PW25/A3.
During cross-examination, he deposed that Ex PW25/A1 is fixed deposit receipt of Rs.15000/- issued by his bank.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page27of 235 33 PW26 proved letter Ex. PW-26/A signed by Sh. S. Ravi
Iyer, Vice President of the company at point A and identified his signatures. He further deposed that he had handed over to CBI inspector Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt no. 001DX00226 in the name of Mrs. Devender Dhawan and the accused for Rs. 4000/- for the period of one year and the receipt is Ex. PW-26/A1 and FD Premature withdrawal voucher is Ex. PW-26/A2.
Cross-examination of this witness was deferred in the year 2007. However, lateron this witness could not be produced for the purpose of cross-examination by the CBI. Therefore, testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon.
34 PW27 deposed that he had purchased H. No. 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi measuring 100 SQ. Yds for the sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- in the year 1989 or 1990. He further deposed that he sold 58 Sq. Yds of this property to wife of the accused. The sale consideration was paid by the wife of accused and has proved the copy of will dated 15.05.90 as Ex. PW-27/A and bears his CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page28of 235 photograph and signature at encircled portion Mark A and his signatures at point B, C, D and E. He further deposed that wife of the accused was present at that time, but he could not identify signatures of the purchaser. The attested copy of receipt dated 15.05.90 is Ex. PW-27/B and bears his signatures and photograph at encircled portion Mark A and his signature at point B. He identified the photograph of the wife of the accused at encircled portion mark C. This document was executed by the wife of the accused and after execution of the documents, the same were handed over to wife of the accused.
During cross-examination, PW27 deposed that when the sale was made, he was neighbour of the accused. The wife of the accused has been running a beauty parlor even prior to the time when the sale of the property was made by him. She is running the beauty parlor even till the date of deposition. Wife of the accused was running the beauty parlor as "ALIZA" from a portion of her house. As on today, some portion of the said beauty parlor also falls within the property sold by PW27. After sale of the property to CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page29of 235 her, she has expanded her beauty parlor and had shifted some of the goods in the property sold by him.
This witness was also re-examined with the permission of the Court and deposed that he has not seen any document with the accused and his wife running beauty parlor. He further deposed he could not say if wife of accused was having any income from beauty parlor or not.
During further cross-examination on behalf of the accused, PW27 deposed that he had seen photographs available on judicial file. The same is Ex PE27/DA and Ex PE27/DB which are photographs of the said beauty parlor at the time he had sold the property to the wife of the accused. He had seen said beauty parlor running for more than last 25 years.
35 PW28 is from the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Nand Nagri , Delhi who brought the original records pertaining to will dated 15.05.90 and receipt dated 15.05.90, registration no. 16105. Copies thereof are Ex PW27/A and Ex PW27/B respectively.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page30of 235 36 PW29 deposed that in the year 1995, he was working as
Postal Assistant in GPO Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He proved pass book of ten year Cumulative Time Deposit Account No. 102613 in the name of the accused Ex. PW-29/A which was issued by GPO Kashmiri Gate and account was opened on 14.12.79 at GPO Kashmiri Gate, Delhi for ten years for subscription Rs. 100/- per month. The said account was closed on 22.12.89 and an amount of Rs. 16,932/- was paid to account holder by Sh. Lakshman Singh, the then Assistant Post Master, GPO, Delhi. Accused had deposited Rs. 12,000/- from 14.12.79 to 20.02.89 @ Rs. 100/- p.m. A sum of Rs. 4932/- is the accrued interest in this account.
During cross-examination, there is no serious challenge to the testimony of PW29.
37 PW30 deposed that in the year 1995, he was working as Postal Assistant in GPO Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and proved Ex. PW- 29/A, the pass book of ten year cumulative term deposit A/c No. 102613 in the name of accused. He further deposed that the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page31of 235 passbook was issued by GPO Kashmiri Gate and was opened on 14.12.79 for ten years for depositing subscription Rs. 100/- p.m. which was closed on 22.12.89 and a sum of Rs. 16,932/- was paid to account holder by Sh. Lakshman Singh, the then Assistant Post Master, GPO, Delhi.
During cross-examination, there is no serious challenge to the testimony of the witness.
38 PW31 deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted as Sr. Accountant in Pay and Accounts Office in All India Radio, Ministry of I & B, AGCR Building, New Delhi and as a senior accountant it was his duty to prepare salaries and salary statements of the employees working in individual running ledger account of research and development wing of All India Radio. Accused used to work in Research and Development Wing of All India Radio. He proved letter dated 30.12.96, signed by Sh. S.C. Chakraborty, Sr. Accounts Officer. The letter is Ex. PW-31/A was prepared by PW31 whereby details of the salary drawn by accused during the period CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page32of 235 25.08.82 to November 1996 is mentioned. He further deposed that details mentioned in Ex PW31/1 was prepared on the basis of entries mentioned in the relevant ledger no. 9855. On the basis of entries contained in ledger no. 9855, he had prepared a detailed statement containing the details of the due and drawn statement of the salary of accused for the period 25.08.82 to November 1996, photocopy of the relevant statement bearing his signatures at point A and the office stamp at point A-1, signatures of Smt. Rama Gupta, Asstt. Accounts Officer at point B and that of Sh. S.C. Chakraborty at point C is Ex. PW-31/B. As per statement Ex. PW-31/B, during April, 1986, the accused had made part final withdrawal of Rs. 43,000/- for the marriage of his daughter and entries to this effect is at point D and another part final withdrawal of Rs. 1,33,200/- from the provident fund account was made by the accused during July, 1996 for the purposes of payment to the CGEWHO, Janpath Bhawan and relevant entry in this regard finds a mention at point E in Ex. PW-31/B. During cross-examination, PW31 deposed that he has CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page33of 235 seen original ledger for the period 25.08.1982 to February 2002 of all the concerning funds of the accused, which has been produced by PW35. He further compared the detailed due an drawn statement of salary of the accused for the period 25.08.1982 to November 1996.
39 PW32 deposed that in September 1998, he was posted in a clerical cadre in post office, Krishna Nagar. He proved letter dated 03.09.98, addressed to the IO, CBI Anti Corruption Office, CGO Complex, New Delhi, whereby information regarding the investments made by Smt. Devender Dhawan was furnished under the signatures of Sh. S.L. Makkar, Sr. Post Master, Krishna Nagar and identified signatures of Sh. S.L. Makkar, Sr. Post Master, and the letter is Ex PW-32/A which bears signatures of Sh. S.L. Makkar at point A thereon. Ex. PW-32/A is photocopy of one document viz. Application form for purchase of additional Saving Certificates (NSC) was sent and the said photocopy was attested by him, under his signatures which appear at point A of Ex. PW-32/B thereon. As per CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page34of 235 Ex. PW-32/B, Smt. Devender Dhawan had preferred application for purchase of NSC for Rs. 8000/- on 20.03.95 and name of the nominee mentioned therein is of accused During cross-examination, testimony of this witness remain unshaken. Moreover, no suggestion has been given that the said NSC was not issued in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan. 40 PW33 deposed that during the year 1997-98, he was posted as Assistant in SBI, DDA Building, Vikas Minar, New Delhi. Letter dated 16.07.1997, issued under the signatures of Rajender Kumar, the then Branch Manager of SBI, DDA Building, Vikas Minar and identified signatures of Sh. Rajender Kumar, and the letter is Ex. PW-33/A which bears signatures of Sh. Rajender Kumar. He further deposed that photocopy of pay-in-slip dated 17.07.1996 was also sent containing a request for deposit of Rs. 15,000/- in the name of accused and for issuance of a fixed deposit receipt in his name. The said photocopy was admitted the accused during admission/denial on 04.04.2002 is Ex. PW33/B and contained his signatures at Point CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page35of 235 A under the word 'Certified'. Photocopy of FDR no. SD/A/30-449561 dated 17.07.1996 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the name of the accused issued by SBI, DDA Building, Vikas Minar branch under the signatures of Sh. RN Mehra, the then Accountant and its photocopy was admitted by the accused during admission/denial on 04.04.2002 and is Ex. PW33/C and he identified signatures of Sh. R. N. Mehra on the same.
During cross-examination, there is no challenge regarding authenticity of this document on behalf of the accused. 41 PW34 is from M/s Thomas Cook India Ltd. She deposed that passport no. S263600 is of the accused is Ex PW34/1 wherein entry is dated 16.01.1985 which is in the handwriting of PW34 and according to it, Travellers Cheques of the value of US $500 under Foreign Travel Scheme (FTS) were issued and delivered to the accused and in token of the said endorsement by her, on behalf of M/s Thomas Cook India Ltd. she affixed the stamp/seal of the company. The relevant entry is Ex. PW34/2 and at CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page36of 235 that time exchange rate for one US $ was about Rs. 12/- or Rs. 13/-.
Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of the accused.
42 PW35 deposed that he was employed as Asstt. Accounts Officer, Pay & Accounts Office(IRLA), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, AGCR Building, New Delhi and have brought with him the original ledger for the period 25.08.1982 to February 2002, concerning Pay & Allowances of Sh. DL Dhawan, Asstt. Director, Research & Development, All India Radio, IP Estate, Ledger Account No. 9855, photocopies of which running into 15 pages were collectively marked as Ex. PW35/1, each page bearing his signatures at Point A and under his signatures and impression of his office seal.
Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page37of 235 43 PW36 deposed that he is posted as Administrative
Officer, in Education Department of Govt. of NCT, Delhi and he remained posted as Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri from 1998 to 2000. Receipt for a sum of Rs.30,000/- received by Sh. Ravi Kapoor S/o Sh. K. K. Kapoor from Smt. Davinder Dhawan wife of the accused. The said receipt was registered on 23.08.1998, vide registration no. 51135, Additional Book no. 4, Volume No. 2096. Said receipt is Ex PW36/1. He further deposed that in the year 1988, General Power of Attorney executed by a person in favour of any attorney can not be registered and therefore instead of getting the said General Power of Attorney registered, people used to get the relevant receipt registered.
During cross-examination, he deposed that no such payment as is reflected in Ex PW36/1 was made in his presence and for this reason therefore, he could not deny nor affirm that the actual payment made was much more than Rs.30,000/- mentioned therein.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page38of 235 44 PW37 deposed that in the year 1994-95, he was working
as Administrative Officer in M/s Bajaj Capital Ltd. Connaught Place, New Delhi. He proved Ex PW37/1 which is acknowledgment receipt no. 522 dated 17.05.1995 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. Connaught Place, New Delhi issued in the name of Devender Dhawan which shows that she had invested sum of Rs.15000/- on 17.05.1995 in M/s CEAT Financial Services Ltd. through SBI cheque no. 429007 dated 17.05.1995 and another sum of Rs.15,000/- on that very date in M/s S. R. F. Ltd. through SBI cheque no. 235003 dated 17.05.1995. The amount of rebate in respect of each investment was Rs.75/- respectively in all amounting to Rs.150/-.
He further proved that Ex PW37/2 is acknowledgment receipt no. 464 dated 13.05.1995 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. Connaught Place, New Delhi issued in the name of the accused which shows that accused had invested a sum of Rs.15000/- in M/s Escorts Financial Services Ltd. through DIR dated 15.05.1995. The amount of rebate in respect of this investment was CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page39of 235 Rs.75/-.
He further proved Ex PW37/3 which is another acknowledgment receipt no. 43 dated 01.04.1995 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. issued in the name of the accused, which shows that accused had invested the a sum of Rs.10,000/- in M/s DCM Financial Services Ltd. through Central Bank of India Cheque no. 129322 dated 29.03.1995, another sum of Rs. 5000/- on 01.04.1995 in M/s Nagaarjuna Finance Ltd. through PNB cheque no. 439843 dated 29.03.1995 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on that very dated 29.03.1995. The amounts of rebate in respect of the said three investments mentioned in Ex PW37/3 were Rs.50/-, Rs.25/- and Rs.50/- respectively.
He further proved Ex PW37/4 which is acknowledgment receipt no. 3863 dated 27.10.1995 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd., issued in the name of the accused. Therefore he had invested a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 27.10.1995 in M/s Bajaj Leasing and Finance Ltd. through SBI cheque no. 429008 dated 27.10.1995 a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 27.10.1995, in M/s MGF Ltd. in CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page40of 235 the name of Devender Dhawan through Central Bank of India cheque no. 145165 dated 27.10.1995, a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 27.10.1995, in M/s Times Guarantee Financial Ltd. in the name of Devender Dhawan through Central Bank of India cheque no. 145164 dated 27.10.1995 in M/s Phoenix International Finance Ltd. in the name of the accused through State Bank of India cheque no. 540570 dated 27.10.1995 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the very date was invested in M/s Ballapur Industries Ltd. through Central Bank of India cheque no. 114635 dated 27.10.1995 in the name of the accused. The amount of rebate in respect of the said five investments mentioned in Ex PW37/4 were Rs.150/-, Rs.75/-, Rs.75/-, Rs.75/- and Rs.50/- respectively in all the amounting to Rs.425/-.
Ex PW37/5 is another acknowledgment receipt no. 3010 dated 01.12.1995 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. Connaught Place, New Delhi issued in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi, 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi, which shows that Smt. Seema Jaggi had invested Rs.15000/- on 01.12.1995 in M/s Bajaj Leasing CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page41of 235 and Finance Ltd. through Central Bank of India cheque no. 152822 dated 29.11.1995, a sum of Rs.15000/- on 29.11.1995 in M/s DCM Financial Ltd. in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi through Central Bank of India cheque no. 152821 dated 29.11.1995, a sum of Rs.15000/- on 01.12.1995 in M/s Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi through Central Bank of India cheque no. 101579 dated 29.11.1995 and another sum of Rs.15000/- on 01.12.1995 in M/s Times Guarantee Financial Ltd. in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi through Central Bank of India cheque no. 101580 dated 29.11.1995. The amounts of rebate in respect of the said four investments mentioned in Ex PW37/5 were Rs.150/-, Rs.75/-, Rs.75/- and Rs.75/- respectively in all amounting to Rs.375/-.
Ex PW37/6 is acknowledgment receipt no. 131 dated 06.11.1995 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. issued in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi. It shows that Smt. Seema Jaggi had invested a sum of Rs.15000/- in M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. through Central Bank of India cheque no. 101578 dated 06.11.1995.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page42of 235 The amount of rebate in respect of this investment was Rs.75/-.
Ex PW37/7 is acknowledgment receipt no. 4162 dated 19.01.1996 of M/s Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. It shows that accused had invested a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 19.01.1996 in M/s Nagaarjun Finance Ltd. through CBI cheque no. 129305 dated 19.01.1996, a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 19.01.1996 in M/s HCL H/P in the name of Devender Dhawan through Central bank of India cheque no. 129306 dated 19.01.1996 and another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 19.01.1996 in M/s HCL H/P in the name of the accused through Central Bank of India cheque no. 129308 dated 19.01.1996. The amounts of rebate in respect of the said four investments mentioned in Ex PW37/7 were Rs.150/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.100/- respectively in all amounting to Rs.500/-.
During cross-examination, there is no challenge regarding documents Ex PW37/1 to Ex PW37/7. It is not case of the accused that these documents are forged and fabricated.
45 PW38 deposed that as per conduct rules each member CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page43of 235
belonging to Group A and Group B services is supposed to file an immovable property return annually. Even in the year 1984, the same practice of filing of said return was in force. He identified accused who was working as Assistant Director in the office of Chief Engineer (R & D), Research Department, All India Radio & Doordarshan. He proved returns dated 01.01.1992, 01.01.1993, 01.01.1994 & 01.01.1995 as Ex.PW38/1 to Ex.PW38/4. It bears signatures of the accused at point A, as identified by PW38. Letter dated 04.02.1998 has already been admitted by accused as Ex.PW38/5. Another letter no. C-15011/3/96-VI dated 03.02.1997 signed by Sh. V. K. Dhingra, Under Secretary, Govt. of India along with Proforma I to VI was sent to CBI and the accused filled up and signed the proforma at point A. The said letter has already been admitted by the accused as Ex.PW38/6 (colly.). He also brought personal file of the accused according to it Ex.PW38/1 to Ex.PW38/4 were filed by the accused vide his application dated 17.12.1997. PW38 deposed that if a government official decides to buy an immovable/movable property, he is supposed to obtain the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page44of 235 permission under CCS Conduct Rules 1964. For the purpose of buying of movable property also a Govt. Servant is governed by same rules. A government servant is also supposed to submit the annual immovable property return in the office on first day of every year. Salary statement of the accused from 25.08.1982 to November 1996 was forwarded vide Ex PW31/1. There is no necessity for submitting any utilization certificate of the withdrawal amount in the department. Ex PW31/B is pay and allowance in respect of the accused and he identified the entry regarding GPF part withdrawal Rs. 43,000/- and the month of April 86 has been mentioned at page 9 from D to D in Ex.PW31/B and the entry in respect of GPF part Final withdrawal of Rs.1,33,200/- in September, 96 has been mentioned at point E to E at the last page in Ex.PW31/B. He further proved letter dated 25/30.9.98 issued by Sh. Dasai Shah Sr. Administrative Officer addressed to CBI. Letter is Ex PW38/7. He identified signature of Sh. Dasai Shah at point A. The accused submitted immovable property return of the year 1992,1993, 1994 and 1995 in the office on 17.12.97.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page45of 235 He further proved letter dated 3.2.97 of Sh. V.K. Dhingra already Ex.PW38/6 alongwith proforma statement no.I to VI submitted by the accused whose signatures are at point A. He confirmed that these proforma statements of immovable property from I to VI were submitted by the accused dated 7.1.97 as he himself has mentioned the date below his signatures as 7.1.97 at point B. He further deposed that the accused has acquired nil property. He deposed that the accused has joined All India Radio in April 1964 as Mechanic and thereafter he was promoted on different dates and went upto the post of Asst. Director AIR R&D. During cross-examination, PW38 deposed that as per service Book for non gazetted period page 9 Ex.PW38/D1 whereupon the details of the family members mentioned therein have been submitted by the accused himself.
At page 45 of service book wherein there is an endorsement from point A to A in the red ink to the effect that LTC for the block years 1978-81 for self and family upto Kanya Kumari with outward journey performed on 17.5.80 was availed by D.L. Dhawan CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page46of 235 which has also been attested by the competent authority at point B. The same is Ex.PW38/D2.
He further proved personal file no.9/208/91-SIII which pertains to the accused. On page 69 of the same is letter dated 10.7.96 written by the accused intimating that the balance amount required to finance the flat in case of failure of his GIC Loan Proposal will be arranged by him from his father and that the required certificate from his father is enclosed. The said letter is Ex.PW38/D3.
He further proved letter dated 20.6.96 submitted by the accused giving information regarding details of cost of flat, earnest money paid, GPF, PPF and HBA from department. The same is Ex.PW38/D4.
He further proved Ex PW38/D5 and Ex PW38/D6 are applications for seeking earned leave by the accused from 7.5.94 to 3.6.94 and 21.3.94 to 6.5.94 respectively.
He further proved Ex PW38/X1 file no.10/53/82-III which appears to be file of DG, AIR S-IV Section. Page 25 of the said file CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page47of 235 contains a photostat copy of one letter dated 7.3.90 whereby the competent authority appears to have forwarded the representation of the accused for sympathetic consideration qua his transfer.
He deposed that page 27 of the said file also contains one letter signed by Sh. D.L. Dhawan wherein he appears to have made a representation for his case to be considered sympathetically for transfer near Delhi. The same is Mark PW38/X2.
He proved personal file of the accused as Ex PW38/D9 (collectively). He admitted that in this noting (9/N) it was mentioned that that accused was residing in his father's house. He admitted that the accused had applied for 32 day's earned leave from 24.8.93 to 24.9.93 for alteration and renovation of his house and the same leave was sanctioned vide order dated 30.9.93 which appears at page 6/N (81 No.10 ( R). He deposed that this leave was sanctioned vide his application placed at page 17/C. The said application is at page no.17/C which is signed by the accused at point A and the same is Ex.PW38/D10 and the order is Ex.PW38/D11. He identified the signature of the accused at point A CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page48of 235 on letter dated 6.5.94 for extension of earned leave which was dealt with on the file as 16 ( R) at page 24 which is Ex.PW38/D12. The same was dealt with vide order dated 17.5.94 and 18.5.94 at page 10/N wherein it is written that the accused wanted to complete the construction of his father's house. The order dated 17/18.5.94 is Ex.PW38/D13.
Ex PW38/D14 is the permission for availing LTC was granted to the accused. He has applied for earned leave for four days from 5.6.95 to 8.6.95 to visit Bombay (Bharat Darshan) and vide order at page 12 dated 4.5.95. The said order is Ex.PW38/D14. Application for leave which is at S.No.19 (R ) at page 30-C in the personal file of Sh. D.L. Dhawan which bears the signatures of the accused at point A. He further proved application made by the accused which is in personal file of the accused and he identified his signatures at points A and B. The same is Ex.PW38/D15. Vide this letter the accused expressed his wish to apply for booking a flat under CBEWHO in Gurgaon Haryana. This application was dealt CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page49of 235 with by PW38 and his recommendation is Ex.PW38/D16 and his initials appears at point A. While recommending so he verified all the particulars of the accused as per the requirement and thereafter accused had applied in the prescribed proforma as per rule 18 Annexure-4 which is at page 39 and 40 of the personal file and which bears signatures of the accused at point A and the particulars filled in that form is also in the handwriting of the accused. The same is Ex.PW38/D17 and Ex.PW38/D18. The said annexure was sent by the accused vide letter at S.No.22 ( R) at page 41C which bears the signatures of the accused at point A and the same is Ex.PW38/D19. The order dated 28.2.96 is Ex.PW38/D20.
Application of the accused dated 24.4.96 bears his signatures at point A and both are Ex.PW38/D21 and Ex.PW38/D22 wherein the accused had given the detailed source of finance to meet the purchase of the flat to the Director General All India Radio as well as to the Chief Engineer which was forwarded subsequently to Director General vide forwarding letter dated 25.4.96 under the signatures of Sh. V.P. Sharma the then Administrative Officer for CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page50of 235 Chief Engineer. The forwarding letter is Ex.PW38/D23 which bears the initials of Sh. V.P. Sharma at point A. The said applications of the accused were dealt with in the file at page no.19/N under the signatures of Sh. V. P. Sharma which appears at point A in Ex.PW38/D24.
He further proved letter Ex PW38/D25 of the accused dated 10.7.96 at page 33 ( R) C-65 which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. V. P. Sharma at point B and letter dated 10.7.96 signed by the accused at point A appearing at page no.67 alongwith its annexure at page 66. The same is Ex.PW38/D26 (collectively). The said letter dated 10.7.96 of Sh. D.L. Dhawan was dealt with by Smt. Pushpa and was endorsed by Sh. V.P. Sharma at page 21/N in the file. He identified the signatures of Smt. Pushpa at point B and that of Sh. V.P. Sharma at point C. The certificate issued by Sh. Shree Chand Dhawan father of Sh. D.L. Dhawan was also considered by the department.
He deposed that in personal file of Sh. D.L. Dhawan bearing no. 9/208/91-S III which is maintained in the office of DG CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page51of 235 AIR wherein all the original documents sent by the department is maintained. The order dated 16.12.96 wherein it is mentioned that this file is required to be sent to CBI. The file is Ex.PW38/D27 (collectively).
He further proved letter dated 10.4.92 at file no.RD (Admn.) 21 (22)/91/6771 which was signed by Sh. N. Srinivasan the then Research Engineer for Chief Engineer R&D wherein clearance of vigilance for issue of no objection certificate was given to the accused. The same is Ex.PW38/D28 which bears the signatures of Sh. N. Srinivasan at point A and that of SO Vigilance at point B. 46 PW39 deposed that letter dated 09.03.98 bearing signatures of PW39 at point A and the letter is Ex. PW-39/1 by which he had deputed Mr. Rajesh Mahajan of Central Bank of India for handing over statement of Account pertaining to Sh. Hitesh Dhawan in respect of A/c No. 12009 running into 5 pages and is Ex. PW- 39/2. He further proved statement of account pertaining to account of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan which used to be maintained at Central Bank CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page52of 235 of India, Patparganj Road Branch, Delhi and attested true copies of the said statement of account duly certified as per banking rules and bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex. PW-39/3. He further proved photocopies of account opening form and specimen signature card of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan duly attested under his signatures. Both the photocopies are collectively marked as PW- 39/Mark A. Statement of account of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan for the period of 28.02.93 to 12.03.94 duly attested and certified as per banking rules and bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex. PW-39/4.
Ex PW39/5 is the forwarding letter dated December, 17, 1997 sent by the then Manager Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road Branch, Delhi addressed to Sh. Surinder Malik Inspector of Police ACB, CBI, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi forwarding the statement of MMDC which is a money multiplier deposit certificate 16/1980 in the name of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan.
He further proved the attested copy of the recurring deposit form relating to account no. 2046 standing in the name of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page53of 235 Hitesh Dhawan. The said attested copy was certified by PW39 after due comparison with the original account opening form and the same is Ex.PW39/6 and his signature is at point A. He further proved specimen signature card of said Hitesh Dhawan relating to account no.2046 which was duly attested by PW39 after due comparison with the original. The same is Ex.PW39/7 and his signature being attesting it as true copy is at point A. He further proved Ex PW39/8 long term deposit slip in the name of Hitesh Dhawan for deposit of Rs. 19,173/- which was duly certified by PW39 and his signature is at point A. He further proved Ex PW39/9, the attested true copy of Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate dated 12.3.94/28.2.94 in the name of Hitesh Dhawan for Rs. 21,163/- which is duly certified by PW39 and his signature on this document is at point A. He further proved certified copy of deposit slip dated 4.3.95 against account no. 12009 in the name of Hitesh Dhawan for Rs. 6163/- which is the part amount of MMDC/16/1980 duly certified by him after comparing with the original and the same is Ex.PW39/10 and his signature is at CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page54of 235 point A. He further proved cash deposit slip relating to MMDC dated 4.3.95 in the name of Hitesh Dhawan duly attested by him after comparing with the original. The same is Ex.PW39/11 and his signature is at point A. He further proved Ex PW39/12 which is the attested true copy of Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate for Rs. 15,000/- dated 4.3.95 due date 28.2.96. He further proved Ex PW39/13 which is certified copy of the deposit slip dated 2.3.96 showing deposit of Rs. 16,557 being amount of MMDC No. 17/2466. He further referred Mark Ex PW39/B which is the photocopy of account opening form of account no. 12009 in the name of Hitesh Dhawan son of the accused, opened in the Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road Branch. He further proved Ex.PW39/2 which is statement of account in the name of Hitesh Dhawan vide HSS Account No.12009 containing five pages of Central Bank of India Patparganj Road Branch, Delhi. All the five pages contains the rubber stamp of the Bank Branch at point B. During cross-examination, PW39 deposed that RDS means Recurring Deposit Scheme and from the record he said that CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page55of 235 Rs.6258/- was transferred on 12.2.92 through Recurring Deposit Scheme Account No. 1655 of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan. In the recurring deposit the depositer used to deposit a certain amount on monthly basis. He deposed that as per record that on 12.12.92 itself out of Rs. 6258/- an amount of Rs. 6000/- was deposited by Hitesh Dhawan in Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate. He deposed that on 21.2.95 Rs.7952/- was deposited in this account from MMDC No.16/1977. He further deposed that on 4.3.95 an amount of Rs. 6163/- was deposited in the account of Hitesh Dhawan through MMDC No.16/1980. He further deposed that on 17.2.96 an amount of Rs. 9261/- was deposited in the account of Hitesh Dhawan by MMDC No. 17/2383 and on 2.3.96 an amount of Rs. 16,557/- was deposited in this account by MMDC No.17/2466. He further deposed that Hitesh Dhawan was a regular customer of the bank and according to the record Hitesh Dhawan was maintaining his account from 8.12.91 to 21.8.96.
He deposed that he certified that Ritesh Dhawan had opened a RDS account on 28.2.93 which was continued till 2.3.96 CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page56of 235 and that Sh. Hitesh Dhawan had opened RDS No.2046 for Rs. 1500/- per month for one year and he was paid Rs. 19,173/- on 12.3.94 and transferred to MMDC Account No.16/1980. PW39 admitted that on 4.3.95 Rs. 15,000/- was deposited in MMDC Account No.17/2466 from MMDC 16/1980 and on 2.3.96 Rs. 16,557/- was deposited in the savings account no.12009 of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan.
47 PW40 deposed that vide letter dated 08.12.97 he had sent photocopies of Income Tax Returns for the annual years 1994- 95 and 1995-96 filed by Smt. Joginder Kaur, Proprietor Charlie Beauty Parlour, Civil Lines, Jhansi and the said letter and photocopies of income tax returns are collectively marked as Ex. PW-40/1 (colly) which bear his signatures at points A on each page thereof.
During cross-examination, there is no substantial challenge to Ex PW40/1.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page57of 235 48 PW 41 deposed that letter dated 24.02.98 as Ex
PW41/1 was written by him under his signatures to Superintendent of police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi which was in response to their letter regarding enquiry pertaining to Airfare applicable in the year 1985 to Malaysia from Delhi and back.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of the accused.
49 PW 42 deposed that he was employed as an Accountant in M/s Tribhuvan Das, Bhimji Zaveri, Delhi Pvt. Ltd. 2, Sindia House, Janpath, New Delhi. He proved three bills Ex PW1/A to Ex PW1/C which were issued on behalf of M/s Tribhuvan Das, Bhimji Zaveri, Delhi Pvt. Ltd. 2, Sindia House, Janpath, New Delhi and the same bears signatures of cashier at point A. He further proved two guarantee cards and identified signatures of Sh. K.D. Parikh at points A and the cards are Ex. PW-42/1 and Ex. PW-42/2 pertains to bill Ex. PW-1/C. CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page58of 235 During cross-examination, PW42 admitted that Ex PW1/A and Ex PW1/C did not bear the first name of Mrs. Dhawan mentioned therein.
50 PW43 that he was working as Company Secretary in M/s Bhagwati Gas Ltd., New Delhi which was earlier known as Bhagwati Gases Ltd., New Delhi. He proved share certificate of his company M/s Bhagwati Gases Ltd. is Ex. PW-43/1. Vide this certificate 100 shares of each of the value of Rs. 10/- were alloted to Sh. Hitesh Dhawan on 19.12.94. M/s Bhagawati Gas Ltd. also charged a premium of Rs. 5/- on each share. Thus, the said shareholder had invested an amount of Rs. 1500/- in their company. He identified letter dated 04.04.97 of their company which was issued under the signatures of the then Company Secretary Sh. Suresh Kumar Soni and the letter is Ex. PW-43/2. Vide the said letter their company had provided information to CBI regarding details pertaining to the aforesaid shares.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page59of 235 During cross-examination, PW43 deposed that in the face of the share certificate Ex PW43/1 and the letter Ex PW43/2, there is a presumption that payment in respect of the shares must have been made by Hitesh Dhawan himself.
51 PW 44 deposed that he was working as Director in M/s Bajaj Leasing and Finance Ltd. Nehru Place, New Delhi in the year 1997. He proved letter dated 01.07.97 as Ex. PW11/A which bears his signatures at point A vide which he had provided information to Insp. CBI regarding deposits made by the accused and Ms. Seema Jaggi with their company. The details of the deposits are mentioned in the letter. Certified photostate copies of Deposit Receipt of Rs. 15,000/- and Application Form of Ms. Seema Jaggi are Ex.PW44/1 and Ex.PW44/2 respectively. He identified his signatures on both the certified copies at points A. He further proved certified photostate copies of Deposit Receipt of Rs. 15,000/- and application Form of the accused are Ex.PW44/3 and Ex.PW44/4 respectively. He identified his signatures at points A on both.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page60of 235 During cross-examination, he clarified that the fact of payment can be ascertained from the cheque number mentioned in the said certificate. As per Form Ex PW44/4, the cheque in question had been issued by the accused.
52 PW 45 deposed that he was posted as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi upto year 2000. He has proved letter, Ex.PW45/1. Vide that letter, a certificate was issued to the effect that an amount of Rs. 681.45/- was paid to Account Holder of A/c No. 13962 towards interest for the period 09.01.1995 to 01.08.1996. That account was maintained in his branch. He deposed that further amount of Rs. 1115/- had been received on account of rent of the locker from the account holder for the period September, 1987 to 1996. Certified photocopy bearing seal of the branch of the bank of account no. 13692 is Ex.PW45/2. That account was in the name of Devendar Dhawan son of the accused, both resident of 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
During cross-examination, PW45 deposed that Ex CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page61of 235 PW45/1 neither in his handwriting nor PW45 could identify the handwritten of a person who wrote this certificate. 53 PW 46 Sh. Rakesh Bisht that he was working as Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-I, Photo Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. On the requisition dated 03.09.1997 of S.P., ACB, CBI to Director, CFSL, he was deputed by his HOD, Late Dr. M. C. Johri to take photographs of some properties under investigation of a case. Accordingly, on 23rd and 24th September, 1997, he was accompanied by Inspector Surender Malik and Sh. Jain, JE with CBI went to Geeta Colony and Mayur Vihar. Two Properties bearing nos. 11/51 and 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi, which were joint, were shown in the area of Geeta Colony by Inspector Surender Malik, where PW46 took 18 photographs of the joint portion of Ground Floors of property nos. 11/51 and 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi wherein one Beauty Parlour was being run. These photographs are Ex.P-1/1 to Ex.P-1/18. In respect of the joint portion of the first floor of the said two properties, 36 photographs were taken, which are Ex.P-2/1 to CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page62of 235 Ex.P-2/34. Two more photographs in this regard already stand proved as Ex.PW27/DA and Ex.PW27/DB. He deposed that from outside, he taken 12 photographs of property no. 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi from various angles. The said photographs are Ex.P- 3/1 to Ex.P-3/12. They went to Mayur Vihar in Flat No. 244 C, Pocket C, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, where he took file photographs and the same was Ex.P-4/1 to Ex.P-4/5. He further proved 71 negatives of the aforesaid photographs, which were placed in a yellow color envelop and the same is Ex.P-5 (colly). From the negative pertaining to the three properties, PW46 got prepared the colored photographs and the same were handed over to CBI and negatives thereof, remained in CFSL.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he visited property situated at Geeta Colony on 23 rd and 24th September, 1997 and accused and Inspector Surender Malik were present on both the dates. Both the properties i.e. 11/51 and 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi are adjoining property and internally connected. There was only one beauty parlor under the name and style of Eliza in property CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page63of 235 No. 11/51, Ground Floor, which is shown in photograph Ex PW27/DB. There w ere two signs Boards of Eliza Beauty Parlor, one on the left side and the other on the right side of property No. 11/51, G. F. which are reflected in photograph Ex PW27/DB.
He had taken photographs of the internal portion of the Beauty Parlor. Photographs Ex P1/2 to Ex P1/6 show separate portions of Beauty Parlor which were meant for women. Photographs Ex P1/7 to Ex P1/13 show separate portions of Beauty Parlor which were meant for men. He admitted that in room Ex P3/8 one machine was lying. He further deposed that photograph taken by him do not reflect the name 'Eliza Products'. Photographs on the both the said dates were taken by him with the help of same camera but the rolls were different.
54 PW 47 that in the year 1997, he was posted as Motor Licensing Officer, South Zone, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. He had proved letter dated 27.02.1997 as Ex.PW47/1. Vide this letter he had provided information regarding registered owner of vehicle no.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page64of 235 DBD 6887 i.e. Maruti Car to CBI. He deposed that the aforesaid
vehicle was registered on 08.09.1986 in the name of the accused. Letter Ex PW47/1 was provided to CBI on the basis of computer record maintained.
During cross-examination, he deposed that in 1995, the records pertaining to all the files were computerized. However, no suggestion has been given to PW47 by the accused that vehicle no. DBD 6887 was not registered in the name of the accused. 55 PW 48 deposed that he was posted as Additional Director of Income Tax (Vigilance), North Zone-II, New Delhi. He was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), New Delhi during the financial year 1997-98 and copy of Income Tax Return running into 16 pages for the assessment year 1996-97 was certified by him under his own signatures at points A on each page as per the office record and the copy is Ex.PW48/1 (colly). The name of the assesse is Sh. Hitesh Dhawan and he had filed his first return for the assessment year 1996-97.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page65of 235 During cross-examination, no suggestion has been given that Ex PW48/1 is not the certified copy of income tax return of Hitesh Dhawan.
56 PW 49 deposed that in the year 1998, he was working as Account Officer (PR-IV), MTNL, DDA Shopping Center, Chitra Vihar, Delhi. He proved letter dated 05.08.1998 as Ex PW49/1 bearing his signatures at point A. Through this letter, he had provided information regarding payments made by subscriber, the accused of telephone No. 2248439 to MTNL for the period 01.03.1994 to 16.07.1996. Ex.PW49/1 was accompanied by details of payments running into 1 sheet, which also bears his signatures at point A. The said enclosure is Ex.PW49/2. The details mentioned in Ex.PW49/2 were reflected on the basis of the original record. Accused had also deposited an amount of Rs.8000/- as security deposit for aforesaid telephone connection on 03.12.1986 and the telephone was installed on 16th June, 1987 at premises No. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page66of 235 During cross-examination, no such challenge on behalf of the accused that the telephone no. 2248439 was not in the name of the accused or the payment was not made by the accused to the MTNL.
57 PW 50 deposed that she was working as Vice Principal in Lovely Public Senior Secondary School, Priya Darshani Vihar, Delhi since 1986. She proved letter dated 10.08.1998, bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW50/1. Vide this letter, she had provided information to CBI regarding fees paid by accused to their School for his sons viz. Master Hitesh Dhawan and Master Gagan Dhawan. Year wise details of the payment of fees are mentioned in Ex.PW50/1 and the same were recorded correctly as per their office record.
During cross-examination, there is no challenge regarding the authenticity of Ex PW50/1.
58 PW 51 deposed that in the year 1998, he was working as CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page67of 235
Manager in Punjab National Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and the letter dated 07.10.1998 as Ex PW51/1 bears his signatures at point A. Vide this letter he had provided to Inspector, CBI certified copy of Account Opening Form of RD A/c. No. 9253, which existed in their Bank and Ledger Sheet thereof. Certified copy of Account Opening Form of A/c. No. 9253 is Ex.PW51/2 and the same has been certified by him under his signatures and seal at point A. He further deposed that the said Account was opened by accused on 06.04.1996. Account Opening Form Ex.PW51/2 bears signatures of Account Holder at point B. Certified copy of Ledger Sheet pertaining to aforesaid RD Account No.9253 is Ex.PW51/3 and the same was certified by him at point A under his signatures. He further deposed that this account was closed on 12.04.1997 and the last balance was Rs.25,601/- but an amount of Rs.25,561/- was paid to Account Holder on closure of the said account after deduction of incidental charges as reflected therein.
During cross-examination, it is deposed that on 20.07.1996, an amount of Rs.8000/-. However, no suggestion has CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page68of 235 been given to the ownership of the account referred in examination in chief.
59 PW 52 deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted as Manager in Punjab National Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the letter dated 18.09.1998 bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW52/1. Vide this letter, he had handed over documents mentioned therein to Inspector, CBI. The documents which were handed over are Account Opening Form pertaining to A/c. No. 32627 in the name of Smt. Devendar Dhawan and statement of Account thereof for the period 27.02.1996 to 18.09.1998. Certified copy of Account Opening Form already stands proved as Ex.PW7/A which bears signatures of PW52 at point A. He further deposed that that he had also worked as Officer in Punjab National Bank, Lal Quarter Branch, Delhi during the period 1993 to 1996. Shri Yogesh Mehra joined this Branch as Sr. Branch Manager in the year 1995-
96. He had worked under him and had also seen him signing and writing and identified signatures of said Shri Yogesh Mehra at point A CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page69of 235 on letter dated 17th March, 1997 and the same is Ex.PW52/2. He further deposed that vide Ex.PW52/2, Statement of Accounts pertaining to A/c. No. 8023 and 16457 in the name of accused D.L. Dhawan and Smt. Devendar Kaur Dhawan of Punjab National Bank, Lal Quarter Branch, Delhi were provided to Inspector, CBI. Certified copy of Statement of Account of A/c. No. 8023 is Ex.PW52/3 (D-41). Certified copy of Statement of Account pertaining to A/c. No. 16457 is Ex.PW52/4.
During cross-examination, no challenge put to certified copies of account as proved by PW52 to the effect that they are not related to the accused or his wife Smt. Devender Dhawan. 60 PW53 that he was working as Dy. Post Master in Ramesh Nagar Head Post Office at Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. He proved search cum Observation Memo, bears his signatures at points A on each page and the same is Ex.PW53/1. It was prepared at the house of accused in respect of the valuation of the articles found therein. He further deposed after going through the Search CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page70of 235 cum Observation Memo Ex.PW53/1 that CBI team took search of House No. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi in his presence. In list of the articles, approximate cost thereof and years of acquisition were mentioned therein. At the time of search accused along with CBI team also reached at the said house. The Observation Memo also bears his signatures at points A on each page thereof and the same is Ex.PW53/2.
He further deposed that the said Observation Memo was prepared in respect of the search of Ground Floor of House No. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The premises where search took place was a Beauty Parlour working under the name & style of Eliza Beauty Parlour. List of the articles, years of acquisition and estimated cost thereof as told by accused were mentioned in Ex.PW53/2.
During cross-examination, PW53 deposed that the house search in question was the first one in which he had ever participated. He did not remember if any other respectable witness from locality was also joined in the said house search or not. He CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page71of 235 cannot say how many CBI officials were present during the search except himself i.e. PW53, his colleague Sh. H. C. Gupta and the IO, wife and son of the accused were present at the time of house search. He has admitted that the wife and son of the accused told him during the search about the articles purchased by them and the estimated costs and years of acquisition thereof. He admitted that raw material of Eliza Cosmetics were lying in Room no. 2 of the Second Floor which was meant for manufacturing of shampoo, cream and hair oil. He admitted that 800 corrugated boxes were also found in Room no. 1 at second floor of the accused. Wife and son of the accused had given their passbooks and Fixed Deposit Receipts to the IO. Whatever values were told by wife and son of the accused were mentioned in Ex PW53/2 and there was no consultation with the members of the team.
61 PW 54 deposed that he was the Managing Director of M/s. Sharex Dynamic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Earlier, name of his company was M/s. Hamco Share Registry Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. He proved letter CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page72of 235 dated 29.03.1997, which bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW54/1. Vide which information was provided to CBI regarding 100 shares each having face value of Rs.10/- of M/s. Hindustan Industrial Chemical Ltd. purchased by the accused in his name. Share Certificate of M/s. Hindustan Industrial Chemical Ltd. (D-15), already stands admitted by the accused and was marked as CW-8. M/s. Hamco Share Registry Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai was the Registrar of M/s. Hindustan Industrial Chemical Ltd.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 62 PW55 deposed that in the year 1997, he was working as Manager in M/s. Karvy Consultants Ltd. The said Company was Share Transfer Agent of M/s. Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd., and vide letter dated 09.04.1997 of M/s. Karvy Consultants Ltd., he had provided the information about Folio Nos. JVDO512727, JVSO384957 & JVSO512727. Folio Nos. JVDO512727 & JVSO512727 were related to accused Darshan Lal Dhawan. He further deposed that vide Folio No. JVDO512727, 100 debentures of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page73of 235 M/s. Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd. had been allotted to the accused on 15th April, 1995 while vide Folio No. JVSO512727, 300 shares of the said company were alloted to the accused on the said date i.e. 15th April, 1995. The aforesaid shares & debentures were alloted against investment of Rs.3,700/-. PW55 further deposed that letter dated 09.04.1997 bears his signatures/initials at points A on both pages and the same is Ex.PW55/1. Three Share Certificates for 100 shares each are Ex.PW55/2 to Ex.PW55/4. Certificate for allotment of 100 debentures is Ex.PW55/5. As per letter Ex.PW55/1, 100 shares of the aforesaid Company were also alloted to Mr. Hitesh Dhawan vide Folio No. JVSO384957 against the investment of Rs.500/-.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged.
63 PW 56 deposed that during the year 1996, he was working as Sr. Accounts Officer in Pay & Accounts Office, IRLA Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. He proved letter Ex.PW31/A which bears his signatures at point A. He had sent CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page74of 235
details of Pay & Allowances in respect of accused D.L. Dhawan for the period 25.08.1982 to November, 1996 to Shri S.C. Sharma, Section Officer, Directorate General, All India Radio, Akashwani Bhawan, New Delhi. PW56 further deposed that details of Pay & Allowances of accused for the aforesaid period, runs into 13 pages is Ex.PW31/B. Each page of Ex.PW31/B bears his signatures at point C. It was prepared on the basis of the record maintained at Pay & Accounts Section.
During cross-examination authenticity of the document have not been challenged by the accused.
64 PW 57 deposed that he was working as Assistant Vice President in HDFC Bank Ltd. Mumbai. He proved letter dated 18.04.1997 bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW57/1. Vide Ex.PW57/1, he had provided information to Inspector, CBI, New Delhi regarding Share Certificate bearing No. 409151, which was allotted to Mr. Hitesh Dhawan, r/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. PW57 deposed that Share CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page75of 235 Certificate No. 409151 is Ex PW57/2 issued by HDFC Bank, Mumbai, was allotted to Mr. Hitesh Dhawan, 100 shares each of Rs.10/- were allotted on 09.05.1995 to Shri Hitesh Dhawan.
During cross-examination, fact of allotment of shares has not been disputed by the accused.
65 PW 58 deposed that in May, 1999, he was posted as a Director (BP & L) in Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India and the order Ex.PW58/1 bearing his signature on it at point A and by this order dated 14.5.1999, he on behalf of President of India accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused working as Assistant Director (Research) AIR, New Delhi. He further deposed that Hon'ble President of India was the appointing and disciplinary authority for the post of Assistant Director on which the accused at the relevant time was working. This Sanction Order has been signed by him on behalf of the Hon'ble President of India. He further deposed that the decision to grant the sanction was taken after perusal of copy of the FIR, statement of the witnesses recorded CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page76of 235 during investigation and the relevant documents seized by the CBI after due application of mind. Sanction Order is running in 12 pages and has been signed by PW58 on every page at point A. The Sanction Order was forwarded to CBI through forwarding letter dated 14.5.99 as Ex PW58/2 by him under his signature at point A. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 66 PW 59 deposed that in the year 1996, he was posted in a company called Alpic Finance Ltd. as Officer Operations. He proved letter dated 16.07.1997 of Shri Sanjiv Vij addressed to Surender Malik Inspector CBI submitted in the office of CBI is Ex.PW59/1 and bears signature of Sh. Sanjiv Vij at point A. Vide this letter it was informed that accused invested a sum of Rs.15,000/ on 20.02.1996 and a sum of Rs.15,000/ on 08.04.1996 each for a period of one year and his company has issued him FDR No. 500142 and FDR No. 501232 respectively. After maturity of FDR No. 500142 he was paid Rs. 2411.32 as interest and the principal amount was invested on 20.02.1997 for further CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page77of 235 one year. He further deposed that on 08.04.1996 he applied for another Fixed Deposit for Rs.15,000/ through cheque no. 145167 payable at Central Bank of India, Patparganj Branch against application no. 422899. Against his application company issued a fixed deposit no. 501232. The said FDR got prematured on 01.11.1996 and Rs. 15,865.15 was paid back to him. On 14.03.1996, the accused applied another FDR for Rs.15,000/ vide cheque no. 145166 payable at Central Bank of India, Patparganj against application no.1090678. The cheque against the said application was bounced. Hence no FDR was issued to him.
During cross-examination, no challenge made on behalf of the accused to the fact of issue of FDRs in his favour 67 PW 60 deposed that he joined CBI as JE in January, 1997 on deputation basis. He being the Civil Engineer has to evaluate the properties and assist the Executive Engineers of CBI in technical matters. Valuation report dated 26.03.1998 is regarding CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page78of 235 three properties of the accused and of his relations in case no. RC- 73(A)/96/DLI situated at 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi; 11/52, Geeta Colony Delhi and one LIG Flat no. 244 C, Pocket C, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi. PW 60 deposed that he had visited all the three properties alongwith IO of the case and measured detailed areas and items related to valuation. During the inspection, accused and his wife were also present. After measurements, he had prepared detailed report on the basis of guidelines issued by CPWD. In this particular case, first two properties were evalauted on the basis of plinth area and cost index method. However, third property's cost was evaluated on the basis of Delhi Scheduled Rates issued by CPWD of the relevant period. He further deposed that the first property i.e. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi is a two storeyed building constructed in three phases- part of which was constructed between Dec. 1965 to April 1967; some part of which was constructed between 1986 to 1987 and then further some part was constructed between 1992 to 1993. The details of these period were ascertained from the records of House tax department files and on CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page79of 235 the basis of information given by the accused in the presence of the IO. The detail break up of cost of this property is given in Annexure A-1 (running in three pages) of his report. The total cost of the building comes out to be 4,74,007/- before deductions of self supervision charges etc @ 7.5%. After deduction the net cost of the said property comes out to Rs. 4,38,850/-. PW60 further deposed that the second property i.e. 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi was initially a two storeyed building purchased by accused and his relations and then raised two more storeyes. The two floors were constructed in two phases- part of which was constructed between Dec. 1992 to Jan. 1995 and some part of which was constructed in Jan. 1995 (mid period). The details of these period were taken on the basis of information given by the accused in the presence of the IO. The detail break up of cost of this property is given in Ann. A-2 (in two pages) of his report. The total cost of the building comes out to be 4,09,767/- before deductions of self supervision charges etc @ 7.5%. After deduction the net cost of the said property comes out to Rs. 3,87,204/-. PW60 further deposed that the third property i.e. CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page80of 235 LIG Flat No. 244-C, Pocket C, Mayur Vihar, Phase II Delhi. The abovesaid built up flat was purchased and then only small work was executed by the accused i.e. providing of MS Door and window with mosquito proof wire mesh. The detail break up of cost of this property is given in Ann. A-3 of his report. The total cost of the building comes out to be 4,986/- before deductions of self supervision charges etc @ 7.5%. After deduction the net cost of the said property comes out to Rs. 4,612/-. He deposed that total cost of above three properties came Rs. 8,88,760/- and after rebate of 7.5% it comes to Rs. 8,30,746/-. The details have been mentioned in his report dated 26.03.1998 sent to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi contained four pages. The same is Ex. PW 60/1 bearing his signatures at point A. Annexures were part of his work file No. 07/JEC(C)/CBI/ACB/ND/4487 and they were also sent alongwith the report. These above mentioned three properties were evaluated in reference to the letter of S.P. CBI bearing no. DLI/AC/CR/73 A/96/7129 dated 21.05.1997.
During cross-examination, PW60 deposed that DPAR CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page81of 235 stands for Delhi Plinth Area Rates while DSR stands for Delhi Schedule Rates - both issues by CPWD from time to time. Reference record and Codal books mean in which rates of material and labour are given for items not covered in DSRs in relevant period.
The first property i.e. 11/51 Geeta Colony , Delhi was under use of residential cum commercial purposes and its area was measured as 900 sq. feet. He deposed that he did not remember at this moment whether the copies of house tax department file and building department file relating to this property were provided. As far as PW60 remembered, the basis of his report that construction was of around 1966 from the fact that the accused being a refugee was alloted a plot in near that year and about other two phases of construction were taken from the records of house tax department.
The IO had shown document pertaining to MCD Assessment and Collection Department already Ex.PW18/E page 33 and 34 of the file already Ex.PW18/D-1. The observation report that construction in part of the ground floor and first floor has been CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page82of 235 carried out in 1986-87 and PW60 had also taken the construction of remaining part of first floor and mumty in the year 1992-93 from Ex.PW18/D-1. He admitted that in the assessment order the property was assessed in the absence of Valuation Report and it was assessed as the reasonable cost of construction @ Rs. 300/- per square feet which comes to Rs. 1,10,400/- keeping in view of the type of construction on the basis of CPWD plinth area rate and the RV upon this at 10% after allowing 15% statutory rebate for maintenance worked out to Rs. 9,390/- per annum as mentioned in the report Ex.PW18/D-1. He admitted that as per notice/inspection note of MCD Tax Department dated 19.10.75 it is mentioned that at the first floor there was one room measuring 14 X 12 one kitchen 4 X 5 with toilet and bath and one store measuring 8 X 7. The said inspection note is at page no.13 of Ex.PW18/E. He clarified that the measurement shown in this inspection note does not match with the inspection note dated 2.5.91 at page 20 of Ex.PW18/E. He further deposed that according to him there was no construction carried out in the year 1975. PW60 further deposed CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page83of 235 that the portion of second floor full and part of third floor was constructed in December, 1992 and January 1995 in property bearing no. 11/52 .
He admitted that accused had shown him the receipts of cash memos of the building material purchased by him in the year 1971 to 1981. The accused had also said that he has no record in his possession which fact has been noted by PW60 in his inspection report same is countersigned by the accused for acceptance of the same. In all these bills neither the name of the accused nor the address of the property was mentioned. He has admitted that beauty parlour was in function in ground floor property no. 11/52 and 11/51, Geeta Colony.
68 PW 61 deposed that he handed over documents through letter dated 25.3.97 which bears his signatures at point A and is Ex.PW61/1(two pages). He had handed over copy of original application form of Sh. Darshan Lal Dhawan pertaining to share application dated 22.12.94 to CBI is Mark 61/A. He had handed over CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page84of 235 the share certificate of 100 shares of PG Foils Ltd which is signed by him as MD of the company at point A and the same is Ex.PW61/2.
Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 69 PW 62 deposed that in the year 1998, he was working as AGM at UTI, Gulab Bhawan, New Delhi. Letter no. UT/NDBO/137/Legal/CBI/98-99 dated 08.08.1998 was addressed by him to Sh. Surender Malik, Inspector CBI and bears his signatures at point A. Same is Ex.PW62/1. Vide this document he informed to CBI regarding ULIP Membership Certificate No. UL-910451803154 favouring Smt. Devender Dhawan. Through this letter he had informed that Mrs. Dhawan has purchased abovesaid certificate in the year 1991 for the amount of Rs.40,000/- with Rs.4000/- as annual installment for ten years. She had deposited 8 installments i.e. for Rs.32,000/- as on 25.02.1998. He further deposed that six installments of Rs.4000/- each for Rs.24,000/- were paid from the year 1991 to 01.08.1996. It was also stated by him that till 08.08.1998 no payment was made to the holder in respect of the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page85of 235 above mentioned certificate. The dividend approved against the above mentioned certificate was re-invested under the ULIP and was payable only at the time of maturity or under pre-mature encashment of the membership.
During cross-examination, no challenge on behalf of the accused to either Ex PW62/1 or membership certificate favouring Mrs. Devender Dhawan.
70 PW 63 deposed that in the year 1989, he was owning one maruti car bearing registration. no. DBD 6887. This car was sold by him through New Delhi Motors in the year 1989 probably. Letter dated 02.09.1997 in Ex PW63/1 is a letter addressed to Mr. Surender Malik, ACB/CBI, New Delhi through he submitted one balance sheet for the year ending 1989-90. He had sold one car bearing no. DBD 6887 on 14.08.1989 for Rs.45,000/- through New Delhi Motors, Main Feroze Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi to the buyer and as per their record this car was sold to Mr. Praveen Kumar, A-82, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi. The letter bears his CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page86of 235 signature at point A. He further deposed that the amount of Rs.45,000/- in respect of motor car is mentioned in serial no. 2 in the balance sheet for the period 1989-90 and same is marked as 'X'. The balance Sheet Ex PW63/2 also bears his signature at point A. During cross-examination, PW63 deposed that Bhupinder Enterprises is his company and this was working for J. K. & Co. He did not remember if that car was purchased by him from Satish Chandra Saxena. He did not know the accused. He did not sell his car directly to the accused.
71 PW 64 deposed that in the year 1995, he was a Director in a company with the name and style of Vasparr Containeurs Ltd. The present name of the company is Yashraj Containeurs Ltd. In the year August 1997 he handed over xerox copy of letter no. VCL/0049 dated 31.03.1997 through a letter dated 16.08.97 bearing reference no. VCL/00116 to Inspector, CBI Mr. Surender Malik. The letter is Ex.PW64/A and bears his signature at point A. The letter dated 31.03.1997 bears reference no.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page87of 235 VCL/0049 addressed to Inspector CBI Mr. Surender Malik. The same was sent by Mr. Jayesh V. Valia and bears his signature at point A. Mr. Jayesh V. Valia is also one of the Director. The same is Ex. PW64/B (part of D-73).
Copy of application form for equity share of Vasparr Containeurs Ltd. bearing no. 0906118 wherein the name of applicant is mentioned as Hitesh Dhawan S/o Sh. D.L. Dhawan R/o 11/51, Gita Colony, Delhi and is Ex.PW64/X (part of D-73).
The share certificate of Vasparr Containeurs Ltd. in the name of Hitesh Dhawan bearing certificate no. 00039717 and also bearing register folio no. HO 1240 and distinctive no. 0003971601- 0003971700 for 100 shares of Rs.10/- each (totaling Rs. 1,000/-). It bears his signature at point A and signature of Jayesh Valia at point B and is Ex.PW64/C (Part of D-73).
During cross-examination, he deposed that he knew the bank account number of Hitesh Dhawan.. He has no documentary evidence to show how and when Rs.9000/- was refunded to Hitesh Dhawan.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page88of 235 72 PW 65 deposed that in the year 1997, he was posted as
under Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and he was handed over certain documents to CBI in reference of the accused. Letter dated 04.02.1998 bearing No. C-15011/3/96-Vig addressed to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide which he handed over annual property returns of D. L. Dhawan as on 01.01.1992, 01.01.1993, 01.01.1994 and 01.01.1995. The above mentioned letter bears his signature at point A. The same is Ex.PW38/5. Letter dated 03.02.1997 bearing No. C- 15011/3/96-Vig addressed to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide which he forwarded information in proforma I to VI furnished by the accused. The above mentioned letter bears his signature at point A. The above mentioned letter and its enclosure are Ex. PW38/6 (colly, 12 pages).
During cross-examination, there is no challenge on behalf of the accused to Ex PW38/1 to Ex PW38/4.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page89of 235 73 PW 66 deposed that in August 1998, he was posted as
Chief Post Master, Delhi GPO and D-50 is a letter dated 08.09.1998 bearing no. SBCC/41/1998-99 addressed to Surender Malik, Inspector CBI. It bears the signature of Chief Post Master at point A initials. It also bears the initials of Dealing Assistant at point B and the same are already admitted documents and Ex. PW66/A. The Pass Book Ex. PW29/A (part of D-50) bears the name of the accused. It was maintained in Delhi Post Office, GPO. The same is the Pass Book which was authenticated by their department as genuine through letter Ex. PW66/A. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged. 74 PW 67 deposed that on 15.09.98, he was posted as AGM, State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and handed over attested copy of two account opening forms to CBI. Letter dated 15.09.98 bearing no. PBD/98-99/114 and bears his signatures at point A vide which he handed over attested copy of account opening CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page90of 235 form of PPF account No. 476 and attested copy of saving bank account opening form bearing No. 24719. He deposed that it is mentioned in this letter that PPF A/c No. 476 was opened on 01.08.96 and interest paid upto 01.08.96 is Rs. 90103/- and he also mentioned in this letter that S.B A/c No. 24719 was opened on 12.12.92 and interest paid upto 01.08.96 is Rs. 243/- and the letter is Ex. PW-67/1. Attested copy of SB A/c opening form bearing no. 24719 in the name of the accused and bears his initials with seal of the bank encircled at point A Ex. PW-67/2. Attested copy of the A/c opening form bearing no. 476 (running into 2 pages) in the name of accused and the same was attested by Sh. A.K. Mittal, Dy. Manager and it bears his initials with seal of the bank encircled at point A on both the pages and identified his initials on Ex. PW-67/3 (colly 2 pages).
During cross-examination, it is deposed by PW67 that Ex PW15/B is entry at point X for withdrawal of amount of Rs.11,400/-. It is deposed that at point X on Ex PW15/C, it is withdrawal of Rs.4000/- from SB Account No. 24719.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page91of 235 75 PW 68 deposed that in the year 1996, he was posted as Assistant Superintendent, Lodhi Colony Post Office. On the
directions of his superior officials, he went to CBI Head Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The search-cum-seizure memo is regarding the search of residential premises no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi in occupation of the accused. He further deposed that in this search, he and one of other independent witness namely Sh. Mohan Purshottam was also associated with the CBI team. The search started at 9.45 pm on 01.08.1996 and concluded at 2 am on 02.08.1996. PW68 further deposed that during the course of search, the accused and his wife Smt. Devender Dhawan remained present. The documents which were seized during the search is mentioned in ExPW68/1 (from Sl. No. 1 to 5) bearing his signatures. The personal-cum-search memo dated 01.08.1996 in Ex PW68/2, in RC- 66(A)/96 DLI, of the accused S/o Sh. Shri Chand R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. It bears his signatures at point A and documents which were recovered on personal search are CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page92of 235 mentioned from Sl. No. 1 to 9. These documents were seen by him at the preparation of Ex PW68/2. The other witness namely Mohan Purshottam was also present at the time of preparation of Ex PW68/2. Search-cum-observation memo dated 02.08.1996 in RC- 66(A)/96 DLI which was commenced at 9.45 pm on 01.08.1996 and concluded at 2 am on 02.08.1996. The search of premises no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi-51 was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses i.e. he and Sh. Mohan Purshottam, Assistant in the office of SSPO, South Delhi, New Delhi-3. The articles and their valuation was made during search-cum-observation memo which is mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 126 Ex PW53/1. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A on all the five sheets. The Observation memo Ex PW53/2 in RC- 66(A)/96 DLI is regarding the search proceedings were started at about 2 am and concluded at 5.00 am on 02.08.1996. PW68 and Sh. Mohan Purshottam as independent witnesses participated in search with CBI Team. The articles and their valuation are mentioned in the observation memo in RC- 66(A)/96 DLI from Sl. No. 1 to 77. It bears signatures of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page93of 235 PW68 at points B on all the six sheets.
Share certificate of Star Exim Ltd. in favour of accused which was seized during search. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A and the same is ExPW68/3. Share certificate of Hindustan Industrial Chemicals Ltd. in favour of accused which was seized during search. It bears his signatures at point A and the same is ExPW68/4. Ex PW68/5 is an attested copy of General Power of Attorney running into 2 sheets. It bears his signatures at point A on all the two sheets. Share certificate of Siris Ltd. in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. Same is Ex PW68/6. Share certificate of Star Exim Ltd. in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW68/7. Share certificates of Bhageria Dye Chem Ltd. were in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same were seized during search proceedings. Same bear his signatures at point A and the same are Ex PW68/8 and Ex PW68/9. Share certificate of Prima CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page94of 235 Plastic Ltd. is in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW68/10. Share certificate of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW68/11. Share certificate of Bhagwati Gases Ltd. is in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW43/1. Share certificate of Indusmin Foods Ltd. is in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW68/12. Share certificate of HDFC Bank Ltd. is in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW57/2. Share certificate of Vasparr Containeurs Ltd. in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW64/C. Share certificate of Essar Oil Ltd. in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page95of 235 same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW68/13. Share certificate of Star Exim Ltd. in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW68/14. Share certificate of Bhageria Chem Ltd. in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW68/15. Share certificate of Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd. in the name of Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. Same is Ex PW68/16. Share certificate of Monalisa Multiplast Ltd. in the name of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW68/17. Share certificate of Monalisa Multiplast Ltd. in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW68/18. Share certificate of GIC Housing Finance Ltd. in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page96of 235 proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is Ex PW68/19.
PW68 proved Ex PW68/20 i.e. acknowledgement of ITR alongwith statement of taxable income in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. is in the name of Devender Dhawan. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is already Ex PW37/1. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. dated 13.05.1995 in the name of the accused. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is already Ex PW37/2. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. dated 01.04.1995 is in the name of the accused. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is already Ex PW37/3. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. dated 27.10.1995 in the name of the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page97of 235 accused. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW 68 at point A. The same is already Ex PW37/4. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. dated 01.12.1995 in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi, R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is already Ex PW37/5. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. dated 06.11.1995 in the name of Smt. Seema Jaggi. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears signatures of PW68 at point A. The same is already Ex PW37/6. Acknowledgement receipt of Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Pvt. Ltd. dt. 19.01.1996 in the name of the accused. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures at point A. The same is Ex PW37/7.
This witness was cross-examined by Learned Sr. PP for CBI wherein he denied the suggestion that personal search of the accused was carried out in his presence as the documents mentioned from S. No. 1 to 9 of Ex PW68/2 were seen by him at the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page98of 235 time of preparation of personal search memo.
During cross-examination, PW68 deposed that the estimate and the remarks and the year of acquisition which have been mentioned in Ex PW53/2 were not consented by him. Ex PW53/2 and Ex PW68/1 and Ex PW68/2 were signed by him in CBI office. At the time of their visit, only accused and his wife met them. No one from the neighborhood had visited. He did not notice any billboard of beauty parlor at the house.
With the permission of the Court, PW68 was re- examined by Learned Sr. PP for CBI wherein he denied that he was won over by the accused and he deliberately made statement in favour of the accused.
76 PW 69 deposed that in the year 1997, he was working as Company Secretary in Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. On 27.08.1997, he handed over photocopy of share application form no. 4702965 and original share certificate through a letter. The same was seized during search proceedings. It bears his signatures CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page99of 235 at point A. Same is Ex PW69/1.
PW69 further deposed that photocopy of share application form no. 4702965 for 200 shares of the company in the public issue for which the accused issued a cheque no.492596 for Rs.5000/- of PNB, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Delhi, of the accused R/o 14-B, I. P. Estate, All India Radio and DD, New Delhi. It bears the signatures of the accused at point A. Same is Ex PW69/2 and he handed over this document through Ex PW69/1. He identified signatures of Mr. Aundhe, the then Chairman and Managing Director and Mr. R. S. P. Sinha, the then Director (Finance) at point A and B respectively.
During cross-examination, he deposed that since company has allotted only 100 shares, the entire application money of Rs.5000/- was adjusted against the allotment. Therefore, there was no refund or called for any further payment and paid dividend which is mentioned in Ex PW69/1/. He admitted that application was for 200 shares but allotted only 100 shares to the applicant.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page100of 235 77 PW 70 deposed that in the year June 1997, he was
working as Jr. Clerk in the Office of AFO, Delhi Vidut Board, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Letter bearing IR no. 378658 dated 13.06.97, addressed to Surender Malik, Insp. CBI from Mr. Bishambhar Lal Kamra, AFO, Distt. Krishna Nagar. He identified his signatures at point A and the letter is Ex. PW-70/A. Through this letter Mr. Kamra sent the statement of account of electric connection of K. No. 000- 0130613/DL/R517, K. No. 000-0152013/DL/R517 and K No. 632- 1269328/DL/R517 of the accused, 11/51 Geeta Colony and Smt. Devender Dhawan, 11/52 Geeta Colony w.e.f. July 1985 to September 1996, from March 1993 to September 1996 respectively as desired prior to 1985, the record is not traceable.
He deposed that statement of account of electricity connection (part of D-88) of K. No. 000-0152013 from 14.02.86 to 21.08.96. The consumer paid a sum of Rs. 23,817/- to DESU/DVB. The same is prepared by him on the basis of computer ledger in his handwriting and verified by Mr. Bishambhar Lal Kamra, AFO DVB, CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page101of 235 Distt. Krishna Nagar. The same is Ex. PW-70/B. The consumer paid a sum of Rs. 3,059/- to DESU/DVB. The same is prepared by him on the basis of computer ledger in his handwriting and verified by Mr. Bishambhar Lal Kamra, AFO DVB, Distt. Krishna Nagar. It bears signatures of PW70 at point encircled A. PW70 further deposed that Ex. PW-70/B is also about the total payment received from July 1985 to April 1996 in respect of K. No. 000-0130613 a sum of Rs. 34,226/-, K. No. 000-0152013 a sum of Rs. 23817.90/- and K. No. 632-1269328 a sum of Rs. 3059/-.
Statement of account of electricity connection (part of D-
88) of K. No. 0130613 from 28.10.85 to 21.08.96. The consumer paid a sum of Rs. 34,226/- to DESU/DVB. The same is Ex. PW- 70/C. Statement of account of K No. 000-0130613/DL/R517 (running into three sheets), date of installation 03.04.1967 in the name of the accused is Ex. PW-70/D (colly three sheets). Statement of account of K No. 000-0152013/DL/DM/R517 (running into three sheets), date of installation 17.04.1968 in the name of the accused is Ex PW 70/E. Statement of account of K No. 632-
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page102of 235 1269328DL/R517 date of installation 30.11.1992 in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan R/o 11/52 Geeta Colony, Delhi. The same is Ex. PW-70/F. During cross-examination, PW70 deposed that in the computer, it was feeded that consumer no. 0152013 was misused which was installed in the name of Darshan Lal Dhawan at 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Whatever he had written from Ex. PW-70/B to Ex. PW-70/F is as per the computer ledger. He denied the suggestion that this K.No. 13061/130613 was also misused and notice was sent to the consumer on 20.01.81.
78 PW 71 deposed that in the year 1997, he was posted as GM in Phoenix International Finance Ltd. New Delhi from the year 1993 to 1998. He proved letter dated 01.05.1997 addressed to CBI, ACB, New Delhi which is in his hand-writing, it bears his signatures at point. The same is Ex.PW71/1 (colly 2 sheets). Through this letter he also handed over a form for fixed deposit and bears the signature of applicant. He handed over this document from his company record to CBI and at the time of preparation of this letter CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page103of 235 he also verified the content of this letter from the company record. Through this FDR bearing no. 001DX002185 dated 30.10.1995 accused invested Rs. 15,000/- on 30.10.1995 and same was matured on 29.10.1996 and he was paid Rs. 17,411/- including interest and principal amount as such accused was paid Rs. 2,411/- as interest on 29.10.1996.
During cross-examination, no challenge to the FDR on behalf of the accused.
79 PW 72 deposed that in the year 1997, he was posted at Manipal Institute of Technology, Karnataka as lecturer. He proved letter dated 26.04.97 bearing reference NO. RCB-1/100/97-98 addressed to SP, CBI, New Delhi. It bears signatures of P.V. Bhandary at point 'A'. Same is Ex. PW 72/1. Through this letter late P.V. Bhandhary furnished the information regarding B.E. Student Sh. Gagan Kumar Dhawan son of the accused. In his letter it was informed that the student Sh. Gagan Kumar Dhawan S/o Sh. Dharshan Lal Dhawan paid Rs, 1,47,750/- towards fee.
During cross-examination, there is no challenge to the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page104of 235 fact of payment of fee on behalf of the son of the accused. It is also not stated that any other person had paid fee for the son of the accused.
80 PW 73 deposed that letter dated 26.11.15 as Ex PW73/1 bears his signatures at point A. He further proved letter dated 05.09.97 addressed to CBI ACB New Delhi signed by Mr. Sunil Uthup at point A. Through this letter copies of fixed deposit application form bearing no. 365578 in the name of the accused. The same is Ex. PW-73/2 (colly three sheets).
During cross-examination, fact of fixed deposit by the accused has not been challenged.
81 PW74 proved letter dated 08.09.1997 as Ex PW74/A. This letter is having two annexures i.e. copy of application form for fixed deposit scheme in the joint name of the accused and Mrs. Devender Dhawan and bears signatures of S.K. Jain alongwith Official seal at point A. The same is Ex. PW-74/B. It also contains the Fixed deposit Receipt dated 10.06.96. It also bears the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page105of 235 signatures of S.K. Jain and official stamp at point A. The same is Ex. PW-74/C. During cross-examination, no challenge to the FDR as referred in examination in chief.
82 PW75 proved letter dated 28.08.1997 bearing SH-97/IF addressed to CBI, ACB, New Delhi from Mr. N. Rajshekharan Nair. It bears the signature of Mr. N. Rajshekharan Nair is at point A. The same is Ex.PW75/1. Through this letter Mr. N. Rajshekharan Nair had furnished the information which was required by CBI regarding Certificate No. 00024322 in Folio No. H00180 for 100 shares bearing distinctive no. 2432001-2432100 was alloted to Mr. Hitesh Dhawan resident of 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He also furnished information regarding that Mr. Hitesh Dhawan had applied for 1400 shares paying Rs. 14,000/- but company allotted only 100 shares for Rs. 1,000/- and refunded Rs. 13,000/- by refund order no. 001469-
20. He further furnished information that, no dividend / bonus has been paid to Mr. Hitesh Dhawan. He further furnished information that, 100 shares were still registered in the name of Mr. Hitesh CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page106of 235 Dhawan name under folio no. H00180. He further proved original share certificate no. 00024322 for 100 shares (Rs. 10/-each) total amounting of Rs.1000/-. Shares starting from distinctive no.(s) 02432101 to 02432200. Same is Ex PW68/12.
During cross-examination, there is no challenge to Ex PW75/1 and Ex PW68/12.
83 PW 76 proved letter dated 26.03.97 which is pertaining to payment of dividend of Rs. 200 against the year 1994-95 and Rs.300/- for the year 1995-96 against 100 shares held by Devender Dhawan. The document bears his signatures at point A and is Ex. PW-76/1. The certificate was given on the basis of the documents from Karvy Consultant Ltd. of share application for 100 shares for Rs. 27,500/- of SIRIS Ltd. vide application no.50437 and on the basis of original share certificate bearing no.52650 issued to Devender Dhawan. The said certificate is Ex. PW-68/6. The said share application is Mark PW-76/X1 and letter of Karvy Consultant Ltd. is Mark PW-76/X2.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page107of 235 During cross-examination, there is no challenge to any document or the fact that Mrs. Devender Dhawan was not holding shares as referred in examination in chief.
84 PW77 is the IO of the case he has deposed about investigation and steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He has proved FIR Ex. PW-77/1. He further referred FIR No. RC-66(A)/96DLI dated 01.08.96 U/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 against the accused. The said FIR bears signature of Sh. Anil Kumar, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi which is marked PW-77/X1. He further referred documents which have already proved by witnesses earlier. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he collected the document (Ex. CW-I) which is a letter dated 24.07.97 of Mr. Narender Kumar, Treasurer, Akashvani, Civil Wing Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vide this letter the Samiti had confirmed the total amount paid by the accused against the purchase of a plot from 10.04.90 to 26.07.94. He further deposed that the evaluation of property Nos. 11/51, Geeta Colony, New Delhi; 11/52, Geeta CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page108of 235 Colony, Delhi and LIG flat no. 244-C, Pocket-C, Phase-II, Delhi was got done from the office of Executive Engineer, CBI, HQ, New Delhi and collected the report dated 26.03.98 Ex. PW60/1 of Sh. N. K. Jain, Jr. Engineer (C), CBI, New Delhi.
PW77 further deposed that file in respect of allotment of flat to accused in sector 56, Gurgoan by the CGEWHO Janpath New Delhi. The same is running into 13 sheets and note sheet. The same was obtained by him through a letter dated 12.03.1997 of N K Wadhwa, Deputy Director (Admn.) for Chief Executive Officer, office of CGEWHO. The entire file alongwith note sheet was received through this letter and the same is Ex. PW77/7 (colly whole file) and the relevant page no. 1, 2 and 6 of the file are separately Ex. as PW3/B, PW3/A and Ex. PW3/C respectively. He further proved letter which was addressed to him, was received by him during the course of investigation is Ex. PW 77/9. He further proved letter dated 30.07.1998 from Md. Anjum Khan, of Monalisa Multiplast Limited. Through this letter he had received information in respect of allotment of share and payment thereof, of accused, his wife Smt. CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page109of 235 Devender Dhawan and his son Mr. Hitesh Dhawan. The letter which was addressed to him, was received by him during the course of investigation and the same is Ex. PW 77/10. He further proved letter dated 08.08.1997 through which he had reminded, M/s Star Exim Limited to send the information as requisitioned earlier. It bears his signature at point A and the same is Ex. PW-77/11. He further deposed that letter was sent in the envelope which is now Ex. PW- 77/12 and it was received unserved with the report dated 11.08.1997 that M/s Star Exim Limited has already left the premises has mentioned on the envelope. He further proved letters dated 26.03.1997 and 30.07.1999 from Md. Azam Khan, of Monalisa Multiplast Limited for information in respect of allotment of shares and payments thereof, of accused, his wife Smt. Devender Dhawan and his son Mr. Hitesh Dhawan. Same are Ex. PW 77/9 and Ex PW77/10 He proved letter dated 08.08.1997 through which he had reminded, M/s Star Exim Limited to send the information as requisitioned earlier. It bears signature of PW77 at point A and is Ex. PW-77/11. He further deposed that letter was sent in the envelope CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page110of 235 which is Ex. PW-77/12 and it was received unserved with the report dated 11.08.1997 that M/s Star Exim Limited has already left the premises has mentioned on the envelope. PW77 further proved letter dated 20.10.97. Through this letter he had received information regarding fixed deposit of accused with the company namely M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd. The letter was received from Chief General Manager Finance of the said company. The same was obtained during course of investigation and is Ex. PW-77/13. He further deposed that letter was received from Manager Fixed Deposit of the said company during course of investigation and addressed to ACB CBI with reference to his letter dated 29.04.97. Same is Ex. PW-77/14 (colly 4 sheets). PW 77 further deposed that he obtained the information and document through the letter dated 14.07.97, D-25 from Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Vikas Marg, New Delhi alongwith its annexure and same was addressed to him and is Ex. PW-77/15 (colly 2 sheets). The said information was requisitioned from the bank on the basis of document recovered during search from the house of accused. He further proved Ex.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page111of 235 PW-77/16 & Ex. PW-77/17 respectively. PW77 further proved letter dated 10.11.97, through which he received information with regard to fixed deposit by the accused in the joint name of his son, Hitesh Dhawan. He deposed that he obtained this letter alongwith its enclosures from Mr. A.C. Sharma, CS, Som Datt Finance corporation Ltd. during the course of investigation in response to his letter dated 05.11.97 and same was addressed to him. Same is Ex. PW-77/18 (colly five sheets). PW77 proved letter dated 06.05.1997 of Flex Industries Ltd. for the information alongwith its enclosures with regard to fixed deposit of accused and his son, Hitesh with the company. This letter was sent in response to his letter dated 29.04.97. The same is Ex. PW-77/19 (colly 4 sheets). He deposed that M/s Anagaram Finance Ltd. provided him some photocopies of documents which have been mentioned in letter dated 18.05.97 of Authorised Signatory of the said company regarding investment of accused. The letter alongwith its enclosures are Ex. PW-77/20 (colly five sheets). He further deposed that M/s DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. provided him photocopy of one document through letter dated CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page112of 235 05.09.97 of Sh. Satish Dhar, Asstt. Manager (FD) regarding investment of wife of accused, Smt. Devender Kaur. The letter and its enclosures are Ex. PW-77/21 (colly two sheets). He further deposed that Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Branch, Mr. J.N. Khanna provided statement of account in respect of A/c No. 13962 and all photocopies of vouchers of Rs. 5,000/- and above through letter dated 17.03.97 (D-43). The letter and annexures which are certified copy of statement of A/c No. 13962 in the joint name of accused and his wife. The same is Ex. PW-77/22 (colly three sheets). PW77 further deposed that Senior Manager of PNB, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar, Delhi Branch provided statement of account, duly signed alongwith official seal, in respect of A/c No. 1137 in the name of accused and his wife. The same is Ex. PW 77/23. PW77 further deposed that Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Vikas Minar, Delhi Branch, Mr. M.S. Jassi through V.K. Jain, Assistant Manager of the branch provided him statement of account in respect of A/c No. 7664 in the name of accused through letter dated 15.03.97 (D-45). The letter is Ex. PW-
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page113of 235 77/24. He further deposed that the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, DDA Building, Vikas Minar, New Delhi, provided him statement of account in respect of A/c No. 9367 in the name of accused through his letter dated 18.03.97 (D-48). The letter and annexures which are duly attested copy of statement of A/c No. 9367 is in the name of accused. The same is Ex. PW-77/25 (colly five sheets). PW77 further deposed that Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Patparganj, Delhi Branch, through his letter dated 09.04.97 provided him certified copy of statement of account in respect of A/c No. 6858 in the name of accused (D-49). The letter alongwith statement of account running into six pages is Ex. PW- 77/26 (colly seven sheets). He further deposed that he has been provided a letter dated 31.03.97 by M/s Bhageria Dye Chem. Ltd. for the details of investment in shares by Sh. Hitesh Dhawan S/o accused and Smt. Devender Dhawan W/o accused have been provided by the said company. The letter is running into two sheets and the same is Ex. PW-77/27 (colly two sheets) and vide this letter details of shares and payment thereof in the name of Smt. Devender CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page114of 235 Dhawan W/o accused have been provided by the said company. The letter is running into two sheets and photocopy of application form are Ex. PW-77/28 (colly three sheets). PW77 further deposed that he has been provided a letter dated 04.04.97 of Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Manager, M/s Shree Balaji Computer Services. Vide this letter details of shares and payment thereof in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan W/o accused have been provided by the said company. The letter is Ex. PW-77/29. He further deposed that he has been provided a letter dated 08.04.97 of Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Asstt. Manager, CEAT Financial Services Ltd. Vide this letter details of investment made in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan W/o accused have been provided by the said company. The letter is Ex. PW-77/30 (colly two sheets). PW77 further deposed that he has been provided a letter dated 07.07.97 (D-63) of Mr. S.D. Wagh, Company Secretary, M/s Times Guaranty Financials Ltd. Vide this letter details of investment made in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan W/o accused have been provided by the said company. The letter is Ex. PW-77/31. He further deposed that he has been CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page115of 235 provided a letter dated 07.08.98 of Sh. Rajeev Bhardwaj, FD Section, SRF Ltd. alongwith copy of application form (running into two sheets). The letter is Ex. PW-77/32 and the applications are Mark 77/X1 and Mark 77/X2 respectively. PW77 proved statement of account no. 4454 (D-69) in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan (running into four pages) by Sh. V.K. Bhatia, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road Branch, Delhi. The same is Ex. PW-77/33. PW77 that he has been provided a letter dated 04.04.97 of Sh. B. Giridhar, Asstt. Vice President, MCS Ltd. which is Ex. PW-77/34. PW77 proved production cum seizure memo dated 28.02.97, through which he seized registration file of vehicle no. DAM-6035 in the name of HItesh Dhawan S/o accused from Sh. Man Singh LDC, Transport Authority, Sarai Kalen Khan, New Delhi. It bears his signatures at point A and of Sh. Man Singh at point B and identified the signatures of Sh. Man Singh as he signed in his presence. The registration file is Ex. PW-77/35. PW 77 deposed that he had visited Thomas Cook at Nehru Place and collected a letter dated 03.03.98 written by Sh. Ajay Bhatia, Manager Foreign CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page116of 235 Exchange. Vide this letter, M/s Thomas Cook had confirmed the payment of $ 500 made to accused on 16.01.85. This letter is Ex. PW-77/36 which bears signatures of Ajay Bhatia at point A. PW77 deposed that he had obtained D-98 which are certified true copies of Income Tax Returns from 1992-93 to 1995-96 and Income Tax Return Acknowledgment from 1987-88 to 1991-92 of Smt. Devender Dhawan, Proprietor of M/s Elisa Beauty Parlour alongwith letter no. DTO/Ward 16 (5)/97-98 dated 06/07.05.97 of Sh. SD Narang, ITO addressed to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and ITO/Ward 16(5)/98- 99/101 dated 18.09.98 of Sh. M.C. Gautam, ITO addressed to him. The same are running into 50 sheets and the document (running into 50 sheets) is Ex. PW 77/37 (colly 50 sheets). PW77 deposed that he had obtained letter dated 12.09.98 of Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Vikas Minar, New Delhi through Sh. V.K. Jain, Assistant Manager of the Bank alongwith interest certificate dated 09.09.98 and certified copy of A/c opening form of A/c NO. 7664 in the name of accused. Same (running into 3 sheets) is now Ex. PW- 77/38 (colly three sheets). PW 77 deposed that he had obtained CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page117of 235 letter No. GEN/98/70 dated 14.09.1998 from Branch Manager, SBI, Vikas Minar, New Delhi along with attested copy of account opening form of account number 9367 in the name of accused and the interest paid in this account from 18.02.1993 to 20.01.1997. The same is Ex. PW77/39 (colly 3 sheets). PW77 further deposed that he had obtained letter dated 08.10.1998 from Sh. S. L. Chitkara, Branch Manager, PNB, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar, Delhi along with certified copy of account opening form of account number 1137 in the name of accused and his wife. The same is Ex. PW77/40 (colly 4 sheets). PW 77 deposed that he had obtained letter dated 23.09.1998 from Sh. S.L. Chitkara, Senior Manager, PNB, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar, Delhi along with certified copy of account opening form of account number 16457 and specimen signatures card of account no. 8023 in the joint name of accused & his wife and in the name of accused and the interest certificate in respect of amount paid in both these accounts respectively. The same is Ex. PW77/41 (colly 8 sheets). PW 77 further deposed that he had obtained letter bearing no. BR/H/S/S/292 of Branch Manager, CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page118of 235 Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road, Delhi along with statement showing interest of account number 4454, 6858 and 12009 and certified photocopies of specimen signatures cards of these accounts in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan, wife of accused, accused and his son Hitesh Dhawan respectively. The above mentioned documents obtained by him during the course of investigation and same was addressed to him. The same is Ex. PW77/42 (colly 7 sheets). PW 77 proved production cum seizure memo dated 01.04.1997 through which he seized documents as mentioned in the seizure memo from N.K. Wadhwa, Deputy Director, (Admin), CGEWHO, Janpath, New Delhi. The same is Ex. PW77/43. PW 77 further proved production cum seizure memo dated 11.06.1997 through which he seized documents as mentioned in the seizure memo from Santokh Singh, LDC of Office of Joint Assessor & Collector, MCD, Shahadara, South Zone, Delhi. It bears the signature of Santokh Singh at points encircled A. The same is now Ex. PW77/44. PW 77 further proved production cum seizure memo dated 20.11.1997 through which he seized documents as CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page119of 235 mentioned in the seizure memo from the accused. It bears the signature of the accused at points encircled A. He further deposed that he seized the documents from the accused. He identified his signature as he signed before him. The same is Ex. PW77/45. PW77 further proved production cum seizure memo dated 03.7.1998 through which he seized documents as mentioned in the seizure memo from Anil Kumar, LDC, Office of Sub-Registrar- II, Janak Puri, Delhi. It bears the signature of Anil Kumar at points encircled A. The same is Ex. PW77/46.
During cross-examination, PW77 admitted that in the charge sheet he had written "The father of the accused D. L. Dhawan, Sh. Sri Chand claimed some income which he could not substantiated satisfactorily. Hence, this claim claimed income is not taken into consideration."
PW77 further admitted that the father of the accused informed him that his family included his wife, a daughter and two sons and his brother had also migrated with him. He also informed him that after coming from Pakistan, he used to do ferry on footpath CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page120of 235 at Chandni Chowk and had earning to manage the family.
PW77 further deposed that the father of accused did not inform him that his wife died in the year 1955, his daughter also expired in the year 1956-1957 and his younger son left him in the year 1970. Father of accused had informed him that the accused was married in September 1966 and after that, he had no liability. He further deposed abou documents Mark from PW-77/D-1 to PW- 77/D-7.
He further admitted that accused has availed LTC for two times in block year 1974-1977 and 1978-1981. The accused had not shown the photocopy of order no. RD (AC) 34 (3) 95/ 6567, dated 28/30.06.1995 issued by the Chief Engineer (R & D), Office of All India Radio and Doordarshan, I. P. Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi, LTC availed by the accused in the year 1995 for going to Bombay along with his wife and two sons, the document is Mark PW-77/D-9 (colly, running into 11 pages).
Father of accused did not inform that he had purchased property no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, in the name of his son. PW77 CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page121of 235 clarified that the said house was not related to father of accused and it was purchased by the accused.
He admitted that the accused has applied for a flat under CGEWHO, Gurgoan (Haryana). He had also seen the documents in this regard in the personal file of the accused. He had also seen that the accused had informed his department vide letter Ex PW- 38/D-26 (Colly) that he was arranged loan from his father and he had enclosed the required certificate issued by his father. However he has not disclosed the source of income of his father. PW77 further deposed that Smt. Devender Dhawan claimed before him that she was running the business of Beauty Parlour in the name of M/s Eliza Beauty Parlour since 1980. He admitted that he did not take into consideration her income during the year 1980 to 1987. He admitted that during investigation he found that Smt. Devender Dhawan was an Income Tax Payee since the year 1987 onwards and he found that she had her own independent source of income. He further admitted that Ms. Seema Jaggi is the married daughter of the accused, was having her own income and filing her income tax CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page122of 235 return. He had seen notice mark PW77/D11. He has not seen notice no. 3943 dated 06304.1981/16.04.1981 of Jal Board in respect of water connection at house no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi whereby a clarification was called for using domestic water connection in commercial activities. He had seen the notice mark PW77/D12.
He further deposed that from the income tax return of Smt. Devender Dhawan, he took the figure of business income only. He admitted that during investigation he came to know that Smt. Devender Dhawan had purchased NSC, IDBI deposit and also invested in PPF as a tax saving devise for taking additional rebate in income tax. He admitted that as per chargsheet house no. 11/52 Geeta Colony, Delhi belongs to Smt. Devender Dhawan. He further admitted that Smt. Devender Dhawan is the owner of this flat. He admitted that according to the receipts Smt. Devender Dhawan had purchased jewellery during the year 1992 and 1996 worth Rs. 24,353/- but jewellery was found in the house search. Smt. Devender Dhawan had disclosed during investigation her PNB bank account no. 16457, Krishna Nagar Branch. During investigation, it CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page123of 235 was found that Smt. Devender Dhawan was also having saving bank account no. 4457 in Central Bank of India and she had also a PPF account no. 17509 (sic) 17504.
He further deposed that the credit and debit vouchers which were supplied to him and not relied upon by PW77, can be found in the Malkhana /branch of CBI. He admitted that he has not given benefit to this interest income to the accused of account no. 6858, 12658 and 4454. He admitted that it was found that from this account Hitesh Dhawan invested in JVS Ltd. public issue, EQL public issue, VCL public issue, HDFC Bank public issue, Monalisa Ltd., PDCL etc. and other issues/deposits mentioned in the documents. He admitted that Sh. Hitesh Dhawan had started paying income tax since assessment year 1996-97. He also declared that he had business income from M/s Eliza Mens Parlour. He admitted that he has not computed the amount of Rs. 18,500/- as furniture and fixtures as mentioned in the balance sheet Ex. PW- 48/1. He has further admitted that Hitesh Dhawan gave his income tax on the net profit of Rs. 46867.30, after deducting the expenses CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page124of 235 incurred by him in the said business. He admitted that he had taken deductions of electricity expenses as well as tools and implants as stated by him in the statement of his income and expenditure account.
He further admitted that according to the record the RD A/c No. 2046 was in the name of Hitesh Dhawan was opened on 28.02.93 and he used to deposit Rs. 1500/- p.m. He had gone through the service record of accused and he admitted that this A/c no. 14751 was reflected in his pay slips wherein the salary of D.L. Dhawan used to be deposited. It is correct that the copy of the passbook of PPF A/c no. 476 was also annexed in the service record of Sh. D.L. Dhawan.
He admitted that he had given benefit of GPF Withdrawal of Rs. 43,000/- by the accused at the time of marriage of his daughter. He admitted that he recorded the statement of Smt. Seema Jaggi D/o D.L. Dhawan but he had not annexed it alongwith the documents. He denied the suggestion that the maximum articles have been shown to have been acquired during the check CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page125of 235 period. He did not exclude the cost of the articles which were found in the men's as well as women's parlour and the cosmetic manufacturing machines.
PW78 deposed that he was posted as Company Secretary in GIC Finance Ltd. at Mumbai in the year 1997. He identified signatures of Sh. Santosh Menon at point A on letter dated 14.08.1997 having reference no. GICHF/97 running into two sheets. Letter is Ex PW78/1 (colly 2 sheets) vide which information was furnished regarding allotment of shares in favour of the accused and Smt. Devender Dhawan. They were allotted 100 shares each. The amount of payment, mode of payment date of payment, and other related information is mentioned in the letter.
He further proved letter dated 07.10.1998 having reference no. GICHF/98. It bears signatures of PW78 at point A and the same is Ex PW78/2, vide which information regarding allotment of 100 shares each and refund in favour of the accused and the total amount of share was Rs. 10,000/-. In fact accused and his wife had applied for total shares of Rs. 35,000, out of which shares worth CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page126of 235 Rs.10,000/- were allotted and Rs.25,000/- was refunded to them. The details regarding this allotment of shares and refund is also enclosed with the letter Ex PW78/2 and the enclosure is Ex PW78/3.
He further proved that share certificate in the name of the accused for 100 shares dated 20.02.1995 having register folio No. GHF018867. Same is Ex PW78/4.
During cross-examination, no challenge for the share certificate and maintaining of document which has been referred in examination of the witness.
85 PW79 proved letter dated 03.09.1997 addressed to the CBI in response to its letter dated 17.06.1997 and 18.08.1997 running into two sheets. Same is Ex PW79/1. Vide this letter PW79 furnished details of the fixed deposits placed by the accused and Mrs. Devender Dhawan of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 15000/- respectively with the company for a period of 12 months and one day. The fixed deposits of the accused was made by cheque dated 29.03.1995 under the cumulative scheme. The said deposit CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page127of 235 matured on 31.03.1996 and the same amount was reinvested for a further period of 12 months and one day on 31.03.1997. The company refunded the amount on maturity for Rs.5000/- which under his instructions were invested in the fixed deposit of the sister company namely Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and the balance amount representing the interest of Rs.1676/- was refunded to him.
He further proved that Mrs. Devender Dhawan on 19.01.1996 placed a deposit of Rs.15000/- as cumulative fixed deposit for the period of 12 months and one day, maturing on 20.01.1997 and which deposit was renewed of Rs.17,145/- for further period of 12 months and one day under cumulative deposit scheme which was to mature on 21.01.1998.
He further proved inter office memorandum of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. representing the internal correspondence addressed to its Delhi Branch. The said letter provides details of the part refund orders issued on 29.04.1997 of which refund no. 551717 for an amount of Rs.1676/- pertains to the accused. Same is Ex PW79/2.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page128of 235 He further proved Ex PW79/3 application for deposit of Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which reflects the name of the accused and amount of Rs.5000/- placed for 12 months and duly signed by the accused.
He further proved two applications for FD with Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. which is annexure to the letter dated 30.09.1997. The said applications made for placing fixed deposit by the accused initially for Rs.5000/- in March, 1995 and subsequently for Rs.5750/-. The said applications have been signed by the accused at points A and B. Same are Ex PW79/4 (colly two sheets).
He further proved applications for fixed deposit Ex PW79/5 of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. for FD which is annexure to the letter dated 03.09.1997. The said application was made for placing fixed deposit by Mrs. Devender Dhawan for Rs.17415/- and it bears signatures of Mrs. Devender Dhawan at point A. He further proved application for fixed deposit of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. Ex PW79/6, which is annexure to the letter dated 03.09.1997. Said application was made for placing fixed CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page129of 235 deposit by Mrs. Devnder Dhawan and the accused for Rs.15000/- and it bears signatures of Mrs. Devender Dhawan and the accused at points A and B respectively. Same is Ex PW79/6.
PW79 further proved letter dated 19.09.1997 addressed to Mr. Surinder Malik, Inspedtor CBI, ACB, New Delhi and it bears signatures at point A of Sh. A. A. George, the then AGM (Operation) of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. The said letter furnishes the copy of letter dated 25.06.1997 of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. which runs into two pages. Same is Ex PW79/7.
During cross-examination, PW79 deposed that vide letter dated accused has invested Rs.15,000/- under cumulative deposit scheme FDR bearing no. C121814635 for a period of one year on 21.01.1996 and maturity value was Rs.17,420/- which was paid by the applicant vide cheque no. 129307 dated 19.01.1996.
During cross-examination, validity of documents referred in examination in chief has not been challenged.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page130of 235 86 PW80 proved letter dated 07.08.98 Ex PW77/32
addressed to Sh. Surender Malik, Inspector CBI ACB, New Delhi by which Rajeev Bhardwaj furnished the information in respect of FD No. 501438 dated 22.05.1995 and also renewed FD No. 511413.
PW80 further proved copy of FD application form in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan jointly with accused for the deposit amount of Rs.15,000/-. Application form is already Mark PW77/X-1 and now Ex PW80/1.
Similar application form for the amount of Rs.15000/- in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan jointly with the accused for the deposit amount of Rs.15,000/-. The application form is Mark PW77/X2 and now Ex PW80/2.
During cross-examination, PW80 deposed that refund of the money was paid to Mr. Devender Dhawan. He has admitted that refund order was already released before given the letter Ex PW77/32. However, there is no challenge regarding authenticity of documents referred in examination in chief.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page131of 235 Defence evidence 87 Accused examined his son as DW1 who deposed that he
had studied up to 12th standard and he passed out in the year 1990. Thereafter he started assistance to his mother in her beauty parlour business. He was paid by his mother Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2000/- per month as salary at the instance of his grand father. He had no expenditure because he was residing in his ancestral home and fooding and lodging was free in the house.
He started saving the money in shares, deposits in bank, Recurring Deposits and investment in FDR of different company. His grand father used to reside with the family and was doing his business of fairy in local market and was a very busy person. His grand father used to earn from his business and used to provide them their pocket money as well as all education expenses. Till his death he remained with the accused and was occasionally given PT money on different occasions.
He further deposed that during the raid by the CBI in CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page132of 235 house some of the documents pertaining to him were seized by the CBI officials. He was called by the IO at CBI office and recorded his statement and provided all the documents which IO wanted.
He further deposed that he had started his own beauty parlour in the same premises in the year 1991 onwards. It was named as "Eliza Beauty Parlour For Men". DW1 was managing this beauty parlour with help of workers.
During cross-examination on behalf of CBI, DW1 deposed that Sh. Srichand was his grand father. His grand father had two sons including his father and no daughter. Sh. Girdahr was his uncle (Chacha Ji). His grand father was expired in the year 2000-01. His uncle was not on visiting terms with his grand father. His uncle has three sons and no daughter. No pocket money was being paid to the children of his uncle as they were not living with them. His uncle used to visit to his grand father but he had no knowledge whether his grandfather ever visited to his uncle. His cousins did not visit to his grandfather. He had seen his grandfather since his childhood that he was doing fairy business and was selling CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page133of 235 hosiery items. His grandfather used to visit in different market in fairy business as DW1 accompanied him and used to collect money earned by him. DW1 not able to tell what was the quantum of money earned by his grandfather. His grandfather was not income tax payee. My grandfather was around 70 years old when he was died. His grandfather was doing fairy business on bicycle.
DW1 further deposed that he started work in his mother's beauty parlour after the year 1990. There were around 4-5 female working. He was single male employee there. He was assisting his mother in beauty parlour being helper and when she was busy he used to collect cash. No one objected there about his presence being male employee. DW1 used to remain outside when he was employed in mother's beauty parlour. When she was planting jooda to a customer then he used to supply pin to his mother. He was also used to supply to his mother cosmetic items. No lady customer had ever objected about his presence in the beauty parlour. Outsider gents are not allowed in ladies beauty parlour. He did not know what salary was given by his mother to CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page134of 235 other employees working in the beauty parlour. His mother used to take attendance of the employess of the beauty parlour on paper. he had never written his attendance on any paper. He deposed that he could not bring any such attendance paper before the court. His mother was an income tax payee. He was not having knowledge about the fact mentioning the salary paid by his mother, in her income tax returns. He was having bank account since the year 1992. He was getting salary from his mother in cash. He never executed any receipt for his salary to mother. He denied the suggestion that he had never worked in any beauty parlour or that he had never got any salary from his mother.
He admitted that now a days for share transaction demate account is necessary but it was not required in the year 1992-93. In those days shares were purchased through cash. The cash was lying with him towards purchase of shares. He did not remember whether he had issued cheque from his account for purchase of shares. He denied the suggestion that for purchase of shares in his name, the cash was paid by his father not by him.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page135of 235 He deposed that he used to go to see the movies and for outing with his friends. Around Rs.400/- - Rs.500/- used to spend by him for such purposes. He his bank account no. 12009 was opened in the year 1992 in Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road. He deposed that he would not be able to bring statement of account from 1992 to 1996.
88 Accused examined his daughter as DW2, who deposed that she is running a beauty parlour of her own since 1986. Prior to that she was helping her mother in beauty parlour business. She is an income tax payee. She was never called by CBI.
She identified her signatures at point B on Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that she had purchased 4 pieces of kangan from Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri on 14.03.1996 for Rs. 23,072/- and she had paid cash. She was accompanied with her mother at that time.
DW2 identified Ex.PW68/20 as copy of her income tax return which she had submitted before income tax authorities. She deposed that her ITR used to remain in the beauty parlour.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page136of 235 DW2 further deposed that she had taken a loan of Rs.30,000/- from her mother while purchasing house and subsequently she had paid her back in cash within a year. In the year 1996 she had provided Rs.2 lakhs as dasti loan to her mother as her mother was in need of the money to renovate her beauty parlour and also because she had received bulk order of cosmetic which she was manufacturing. As a security her mother had given DW2 her some FDRs and told that the amount will be received from these FDRs on their maturity, will be reimbursed to her. DW2 paid her that amount after getting cash from these FDRs.
DW2 deposed that her grand father was doing fairy (Teh- bazari) business at local market (day wise local market) and was earning. Since her childhood she had seen her grand father living with them and bestowing and affection on them till his death. He used to pay all her education expenses in school and used to pay pocket money as well as other gifts on occasions.
She admitted that she had not mentioned in her income tax return about the purchase of any jewellery. She admitted that eh CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page137of 235 repayment of loan of Rs.30,000/- is not mentioned in her income tax. 89 DW3 is witness from Durgs Control Department, who brought the summoned record i.e. file no. 1141/COS/DC in respect of M/s Eliza Cosmetic, 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031. Smt. Devender Dhawan w/o Sh. D. L. Dhawan resident of 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi -110031 had applied for cosmetic manufacturing license for the production of category creams/oils and total items are 19 with brand name 'Eliza' was granted to her for manufacture in premises situated at 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi -31. License no. 1141/COS was granted to her on 14.09.1995 for manufacture and sale of the cosmetic. This license was renewed periodically and lastly was renewed on 01.01.2013 which will expire on 31.12.2017. The photocopy of file is Ex.DW3/A (colly)(OSR).
During cross-examination, DW3 admitted that the application regarding taking license / applying license for dated 14.09.1995 is not available in Ex.DW3/A (colly). He admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the same or that whether list of manufacturing equipment are given with the application for license.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page138of 235 Area Drugs Inspector has knowledge about the same. The list of equipment is at page no. 29/C. He has no knowledge about the inspection of manufacturing unit for which license given by the department. He has no knowledge about the duration of inspection of manufacturing unit. Currently the renewal of license is for period of 5 years. He has no record in respect of renewal of license after 14.09.1995.
He admitted that the renewal application for renewal of license after 14.09.1995 is not available in Ex.DW3/A. This witness was re-examined on behalf of the accused wherein he admitted that along with this file he had also brought order sheets running into 4 pages and it is mentioned that main file is not traceable. The copy of the order sheets is Ex.DW3/B (colly) (OSR).
During cross-examiination on behalf of CBI he admitted that these order sheets are not complete and he has no knowledge about remaining part of the order sheets.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page139of 235 90 DW4 identified LIC policy no. 028241963 dated 10.03.1993, the document already Mark PW77/D-F. This policy
pertains to branch unit no. 310 which is at 10, Janpath, Connaught Place, Delhi branch. Since this document does not pertain to his branch, he was unable to produce the record thereof.
Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of CBI.
91 DW5 deposed that the old file relating to registration under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 has been weeded out vide order dated 30.06.2010. He has brought the copy of weeding out order signed by Sh. Rajender Dhar DLC, HQ at point 'A' and Sh. K. R. Verma, DLC (North-West) at point 'B'. The same is Ex.DW5/A (colly 2 pages).
Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged on behalf of CBI.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page140of 235 92 DW6 deposed that he had brought the summoned
record i.e. original sale deed and loan documents in respect of house no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi executed in favor of the accused (3 pages) which was seized by Sh. Surender Malik, Inspector, CBI, ACB vide production cum seizure memo dated 10.03.1997 and deposited in malkhana. The photocopy of sale deed is Ex.DW6/A (colly 3 pages) (OSR).
The photocopy of form no. 6 dated 14.09.1967 (loan document) is Ex.DW6/B (OSR) and letter dated 23.07.1968 of the office of Assistant Housing Commissioner (Loans), New Delhi is Ex.DW6/C (OSR).
No challenge on behalf of CBI to the document proved by DW6.
93 DW7 brought the summoned record i.e. complete file of K. No. 13061 in the name of the accused R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi including of misuse of this disconnection dated 20.01.1981.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page141of 235 Mark PW7/D-11 is a misuse notice issued to the accused R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi -110031, dated 20.01.1981 regarding K.NO. EZ-13061, book no. GTC7 for misusing the domestic connection as commercial by using it for 'Nai ki dukaan'. The document is issued by his department but he could not identify the Meter Superintendent (Reading). He personally made efforts to trace the record of relevant period and the record is not traceable. He had brought the copy of e-mails by which he had tried to trace out the records. The same is Mark DW7/X. He had also brought the certified copy of CA No. 100813533 from 01.07.2002 to 27.07.2016 which is signed at point A on each page and attested by Sh. Nitish Rana, Manager (PS), Krishna Nagar, Delhi running into two pages. The computer generated and certified copy is Ex.DW7/A (colly 3 pages). Presently this meter is used as domestic (residential) and he had brought the attested copy of the bill dated 23.07.2016 wherein due date of payment is 10.08.2016 which is also signed and attested by Sh. Nitish Rana, Manager (PS), Krishna Nagar at point A and the same CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page142of 235 is Ex.DW7/B. During cross-examination on behalf of CBI, DW7 deposed that as per practice of BSES meter reader visits the premises to premises per month for taking readings and if he finds that there is some misuse of any kind i.e. domestic to commercial, any kind of theft and any kind of sub-letting etc, the meter reader informs this fact to his superior in writing. He admitted that he had never seen the said report, therefore, he could not say the existence of the said report or there was any complaint in this regard or there was any notice issued in this regard. He admitted that the proforma Mark PW77/D-11 was in use in DESU, is seems to similar. But he could not verify the contents of mark PW77/D-11. 94 DW8 identified document Mark PW77/D-F dated 10.03.1993. This is a forwarding letter which was sent to policy holder regarding the policy number and the maturity amount sent to the policy holder. He deposed that as per this document the policy number 028241963 in the name of the accused R/o 11/51, Geeta CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page143of 235 Colony, Delhi-31 was sent a cheque number 893020 dated 12.03.1993 for Rs. 10164.50/- drawn on IOB, New Delhi on settlement of maturity. He had brought the attested copy of page of Maturity Claim Intimation Register for the month of March 1993 wherein at serial no. 5930 the above said policy is mentioned. This policy commenced on 12.03.1968 in the name of the accused for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The said copy is attested by Sh. Surender Kumar Tyagi, Manager Administration at point A along with his official seal in his presence. The attested copy is Ex.DW8/A (OT on the mode of proof).
During cross-examination he admitted that he did not have personal knowledge about this file as he have never dealt with it during his discharge of duties.
95 DW9 brought the photocopy of LTC Sanction Order dated 10.05.1995 in favour of the accused to visit Bombay along with his wife and two sons (four tickets) which was issued by the then Administrative Officer, Sh. V. P. Sharma. He also brought the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page144of 235 copy of application form of grant of LTC submitted by the accused wherein name, age and relationship of the persons traveling with him is mentioned. He also brought the photocopy of pay particulars paid by the department to the accused w.e.f. March 1985 to August 1996, running into 11 sheets. He also brought the photocopy of application submitted by the accused on 01.12.1993 for including the name of his father in the CGHS card. DW9 deposed that all the documents were photostat by him from the record maintained in the office and he also brought a forwarding letter signed by Smt. Suman Yadav, Director (E)/Head of Office. The letter was signed by Smt. Suman Yadav at point A and the same is Ex.DW9/A. He also brought the original file no. RD(AC)-34(3)/95 from where he had photostat the application form of grant of LTC submitted by the accused and the same is Ex.DW9/B (OSR), photocopy of the order dated 10.05.1995 is Ex.DW9/C (OSR). The photocopy of application of the accused dated 01.12.1993 is Ex.DW9/D (OSR).
He also brought the original file wherein the order was CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page145of 235 passed for the Leave and Advance Payment of Rs. 10,500/- whereby Rs. 10,500/- was sanctioned to the accused vide order dated 10.05.1995. The photocopy of the note-sheet on which order was passed is Ex.DW9/E (colly 2 sheets) (OSR).
He also brought the original note-sheet wherein the accused was granted LTC bill of Rs. 1260/- to avail LTC for the block year 1990-93 extended upto 30.06.1995 to visit Bombay. The photocopy of which is Ex.DW9/F (OSR).
During cross-examination on behalf of CBI, DW9 admitted that the payment disbursed under LTC only for travel ticket. He admitted that the accused had taken four days earned leave to avail LTC for Bombay. He further admitted that nothing disbursed for accommodation, fooding, lodging and local transport except government transport to the accused during LTC trip for Bombay and that the amount which was disbursed for LTC, was utilized. He clarified that a father considered as dependent if he has no other source of income and fully dependent to the public servant. As far as he recollect, during those days a father of the employee was CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page146of 235 earning below Rs.1,500/-, then he was considered dependent upon the employee. He did not know about the said rule position in the year 1970-75, 1975-80, 1980-85, 1985-1990, 1990-95, 1995-2000. He did not know where the rule of dependent is mentioned. 96 DW10 brought the file of water connection no. 7608 installed at House no. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 31 in the name of the accused including notice of misuse of this connection dated 16.04.1981. He further deposed that in April, 2007 a fire broke out at the revenue office (East-II), Shivpuri. The report of fire incident at Shivpuri office was duly intimated to the police vide FIR no. 336/2007, PS Preet Vihar. The photocopy of FIR is Mark DW10/X. The letter dated 26.07.2007 was sent by the department to the SHO Preet Vihar Police Station and copy thereof is Ex.DW10/A (OSR).
He deposed that notice dated 16.04.1981 already Mark PW77/D-12 issued in the name of the accused R/o 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31. The said connection was being misused for commercial purpose.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page147of 235 During cross-examination on behalf of CBI, DW10 deposed that she has no knowledge about the contents of Mark PW77/D-12.
97 DW 11 brought the Department Order issued by Sh. Arvind Rana, Dy. Commissioner (Industries) dated 24.08.16 to trace out the record of Eliza Cosmetics. DW11 identified his signatures at point A and the order is Ex. DW-11/A. DW11 deposed that upon his direction, Sh. Shyam Sunder, Incharge Data Cell has reported. The report is Ex. DW-11/B and he identified signatures of Sh. Shyam Sunder, Incharge Data Cell at point B. Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged. Arguments 98 Heard arguments advanced by Sh. U. C. Saxena, learned Sr. PP for State and Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Learned counsel for accused. This Court also heard accused. Written arguments also submitted on behalf of the accused wherein it is argued that IO CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page148of 235 has not conducted fair trial in the present case and investigated in a tainted manner. The prosecution has not given the benefit of assets of the accused before the check period. It is argued that prosecution has not been able to prove that the property in possession of wife and son of the accused are the properties possessed by them on behalf of the accused. IO has filed the charge-sheet while suppressing the material facts and documents which were collected during investigation. It is argued that IO has not taken into consideration the income earned by her wife as she claimed to run a beauty parlour under the name and style of M/s Eliza Beauty Parlour. IO has not taken her income for 7 years.
It is stated that family members of the accused were earning throughout the check period hence kitchen expenses should not be deducted only from the salary of the accused.
It is further argued that CBI has not done fair investigation, not calculated the DA correctly. It is all done with a view to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page149of 235 relied upon following judgments:
1. Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 254.
2. DSP Chennai V K. Inbasagar (2006) 1 SCC 420.
3. Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 170.
4. Jastinder Singh v. State (Delhi High Court) (2001) Cri. L. J. 11.
5. Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3275.
6. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97.
7. State of UP v. Ram Swarup and Another AIR 1970 SC 1570 Discussion
99 The cheque period in this case is 01.01.1985 to 01.08.1996 as mentioned in the chargesheet. CBI has given details of movable and immovable assets held in the name of the accused.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page150of 235 In written arguments, following assets have been admitted by the accused, of the details given in annexure A to the charge sheet:
List of admitted Immovable and movable assets in the name of accused D. L. Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount Contention of No. the accused
1. Payment made for the 1990 to 1994 Rs.74850/- Admitted purpose of purchase of plot in Akashwani Civil Wing Samiti, Ghaziabad
2. Payment of purchase of flat in 1996 Rs.163800/- Admitted Central Govt. Employee Welfare Housing Organization, Gurgaon
3. 100 Shares on Indusmin 1995 Rs.1000/- Admitted Foods Ltd.
4. 300 shares of Jindal Vijay 1995 Rs.3700/- Admitted Nagar Steel. 100 shares of debentures of Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel
5. 100 shares of GIC Housing 1995 RS.5000/- Admitted Finance Ltd.
6. 100 shares of Monalisa Multi 1995 Rs.1000/- Admitted Plant Ltd.
7. 100 shares of Star Exim Ltd. - Rs.1000/- Admitted
8. 100 shares of Hindustan 1994 Rs.1700/- Admitted India Chremical Ltd.
9. 100 shares of Hindustan 11.01.95 Rs.5000/- Admitted Organic Chemical Ltd.
10. FDR with M/s Bajaj Leasing 27.10.95 Rs.15000/- Admitted and Financing Ltd.
11. FDR with Phoenix 27.10.95 Rs.15000/- Admitted International Fin. Ltd.
12. FDR Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 27.10.95 Rs.10000/- Admitted CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page151of 235
13. FDR DCM Finance Ltd. 01.04.1995 Rs.5000/- Admitted
14. FDR Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. 01.04.1995 Rs.5000/- Admitted
15. FDR Apple Industries 01.04.1995 Rs.10000/- Admitted
16. FDR Alpic Finance Ltd. 20.02.1996 Rs.15000/- Admitted
17. Premium of LIC Policy No. Nov,94 to July 96 Rs.19920/- Admitted 1111687603
18. Second hand Maruti 800 cc 1989 Rs.47000/- Admitted Car bearing Registration no.
DBD 6887
19. Cash amount recovered - Rs.4779 Admitted during personal search of the accused
20. FDR with Mafatlal Finance 24.05.1996 Rs.15000/- Admitted Ltd. In Joint name with wife Smt. Devender Dhawan
21. FDR with Dabar Finance Ltd. 24.05.1996 Rs.10000/- Admitted In Joint name with wife Smt. Devender Dhawan
22. FDR with Anagram Finance 24.05.1996 Rs.10000/- Admitted Ltd. In Joint name with wife Smt. Devender Dhawan
23. FDR with DCM Sriram 24.05.1996 Rs.10000/- Admitted Industries in joint name with wife Smt. Devender Dhawan
24. Gold Jewellery of 5.85gm 1995 Rs.3213/- Admitted purchased Total Rs.408962/-
100 The above assets of the accused have been admitted by him and therefore there is no requirement for giving findings on such assets. Otherwise, as per discussion herein above CBI has already proved such assets of the accused. On the other hand, CBI has CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page152of 235 also not disputed the such admission made on behalf of the accused.
101 Now, this Court has to look into the items which have been proved by CBI but disputed by the accused.
List of items disputed by accused D. L. Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount Contention of No. the accused
1. Construction of H. No.11/51, 1986 and 1992-93 Rs.425677.6 Spent by father Geeta Colony, Delhi-31 of the accused
2. 100 Shares of PG Foils Ltd. 1995 Rs.3000/- Paid by wife of the accused from her account No. 4454 (D-69)
3. FDR Escorts Finance 1995 Rs.15000/- Paid by cash Services Ltd. jointly with wife
4. FDR Syndicate Bank (EC) 17.07.1996 to Rs.15000/- Paid by father DTC Indraprastha, DTC, 17.10.1998 in cash Depot, New Delhi
5. FDR SBI DDA Building, New 17.07.1996 to Rs.15000/- Paid by father Delhi 17.10.1998 in cash
6. FDR CBI, Vikas Marg, New 17.07.1996 to Rs.15000/- Paid by father Delhi. 17.10.1998 in cash
7. FDR HCL/HP Ltd. 19.01.1996 Rs.10000/- Piad by wife from A/c No. 4454
8. FDR Alpic Finance Ltd. 08.04.1996 Rs.15000/- Paid by son of accused Hitesh from A/c No. 12009
9. Premium of LIC Policy No. Apr, 1992 to April, Rs.38520/- Not proved by CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page153of 235 120063754 1996 prosecution.
Only letter, no supporting documents
10. Cash amount recovered 1.8.96 Rs.108000/- Rs.2 lac loan during house search given by Smt. Seema to her mother against FDRs as security
11. FDR with Som Dutt Finance 20.06.96 Rs.15000/- Paid by Hitesh Ltd. Kin the joint name with from A/c son Sh. Hitesh Dhawan no.12009
12. FDR with Flex Industries Ltd. 20.06.96 Rs.10000/- Paid by Hitesh In the joint name with son from A/c Hitesh Dhawan no.12009
13. FDR with HCL/HP Ltd. Jointly 19.01.1996 Rs.10000/- Paid by wife with Wife Devender Dhawan from her account No.4454
14. Cost of house hold articles - Rs.391829/- Valuation is not observed during searches as correct told by accused before explained in the witnesses excluding the written article computed in evaluation submissions.
report of house under
possession of accused
Total Rs.1087026.6
102 With regard to item no. 1, it is observed that Ex
PW18/D1 is an order passed by Assistant Collector where it is mentioned that an addition in the said house of approximately 267 square feet was carried out, which was an order passed upon the application moved by the accused for rectification of rateable value.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page154of 235 Accused further informed in his application that property is under self residential cum non-residential use. The reasonable cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 145/- per square feet which comes to Rs.46, 545/- on the basis of CPWD plinth area rates.
It is case of the accused that the construction carried out at H. No. 11/15 Geeta Colony, New Delhi in the year 1986-1992/93. The total amount of construction is claimed Rs.156945/-. However, during cross-examination of PW18, there is no such challenge on behalf of the accused. It is further case of the accused that the amount was spent on the construction by the father of the accused. Again there is no such evidence brought by the accused to prove such defence.
In the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it is stated by the accused that property no. 11/51, Geeta Colony was purchased by his father In his name. Thus, it is an admission by the accused that neither the spent amount of Rs. 156945/- for the construction of above mentioned property the period 1986-1992/93 nor by the father of the accused have been proved. From the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page155of 235 testimony of PW60 it comes out that the cost of the construction of H. No. 11/51, Geeta colony comes to Rs.4,38,850/-. 103 Now there is dispute regarding item no. 2 i.e. 100 shares of PG Foils Ltd. It is defence of the accused that the amount for purchase of shares were paid by his wife from account no. 4454 (D-
69). It is not disputed that the shares are in name of accused.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, it is also admitted case of the accused that the shares of PG foils were in the name of the accused.
It is claim of the accused that the amount of those shares were paid by her wife from her account no. 4454. As per Ex PW61/1, the application money was paid by the accused vide cheque no. 0031915 of Rs.6000/- dated 22.12.1994 of Central Bank of Pharganj ( it should be Patparganj). However, the fact remains that in D-59 which is Ex PW77/33 a cheque of Rs.6000/- bearing cheque no. 159 was drawn which was encashed on 05.01.1995 but this cheque was not in the name of PF Foils Ltd. or any other similar corporation. It was a cheque "to Self". Therefore, the version given CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page156of 235 by the accused itself proved wrong by his own document relied upon by the accused.
104 The another disputed raised by learned defence counsel regarding item no. 3 i.e. FDR issued by Escorts Finance Services Ltd. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the amount of Rs. 15000/- for said FDR was paid in cash jointly by accused and his wife.
Perusal of Ex PW5/A and Ex PW5/B shows that the FDR had been issued in the joint name of the accused. The FDR was renewed in the joint name of the accused and his wife. However, perusal of Ex PW5/C i.e. certificate of Escort Finance Ltd. wherein it is mentioned that after maturity, the amount of the FDR was paid to the accused vide Cheque no. 615707 for a sum of Rs.15000/-, after the check period. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC accused has alleged that FDR was purchased in the joint name of accused and his wife but the contribution was made by his wife only. However, as per Ex PW5/A and Ex PW5/B the defence taken by the accused is not proved.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page157of 235 105 The another contention raised by learned defence
counsel with regard to item no. 4 of annexure A regarding FDR which is Ex PW25/A1 for a sum of Rs.15000/-. It is submitted by learned defence counsel that amount was provided by the father of the accused. However the said FDR is proved by PW25 and by perusal of Ex PW25/A1 and Ex PW25/A2 which is account opening form, nothing mentioned that Rs.25000/- was provided by father of the accused. Therefore, this argument does not support the defence of the accused.
The another contention raised by learned defence counsel that the FDR issued by SBI on 17.07.1996 of Rs.15000/-, for which amount was deposited in cash and FDR of Rs.15000/- was issued. FDR is Ex PW33/B which is also an admitted document. However, defence of the accused is that the amount was provided by father of the accused. Said fact could not provided by the accused as no evidence has been brought by the accused.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page158of 235 Another disputed raised by learned defence counsel with regard to FDR mentioned in item no. 6 of the list issued by Central Bank of India on 17.07.1996 and the amount of Rs.15000/- was deposited by cash. This FDR is already admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. Deposit voucher is Ex PW8/B. The only dispute raised by the accused in his written arguments is that the amount was provided by father. However, accused has not proved such fact. Moreover, nothing as such stated by the accused in his statement.
Another contention raised by learned defence counsel regarding a FDR of Rs. 10000/- issued by HCL/HP Ltd. Said deposit has been proved by Ex PW16/C. FDR no. 58058 is admittedly in the name of the accused for a sum of Rs. 10000/-. It is case of the accused that the amount of FDR was paid by Smt. Devender Dhawan, wife of the accused.
Learned defence counsel referred testimony of PW16 wherein there is no such cross-examination. He also referred testimony of PW37 where there is no such defence put by learned CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page159of 235 defence counsel that the amount was paid by Smt. Devender Dhawan. Similarly, he further relied upon testimony of PW68 where there is no such case put up by learned defence counsel that said amount was paid by Smt. Devender Dhawan. In his statement the accused alleged that he had taken amount as a loan from his wife.
Another dispute raised by learned defence counsel regarding FDR of Rs.15000/- issued by Alpic Finance Ltd. In the name of the accused. This FDR was proved by PW59 as Ex PW59/1. It is mentioned in Ex PW59/1 that this FDR was in the name of the wife of the accused. It is the case of the accused that this amount was paid by his son Hitesh Dhawan from his account no. 12009. However, Ex PW59/1 does not reflect as such. Moreover, during cross-examination of PW59, no such challenge has been made by the accused. In his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, the accused has not stated as such and rather stated that it is incorrect.
106 Another dispute raised regarding premium of LIC Policy CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page160of 235
was issued for Rs. 1 lac in the name of the accused. This was from period 1991-2001 and upto to year 1997. Accused has paid Rs. 774/- to LIC. He further totally paid Rs.46,224/- against this LIC policy in the year 1997. It is case of case of the defence that this policy has not been proved but only letter number has been proved. But the fact remains that during cross-examination of PW19 there is no denial or challenge to the policy in the name of the accused and thus this policy is also proved against the accused. Moreover, the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC admitted the fact of the policy.
107 Another dispute regarding cash amount recovered by CBI during house search on 01.08.1996 of Rs.10800/-. It is the argument on behalf of the accused that daughter of the accused Smt. Seema had given loan to her mother against FDRs as security.
In support of his argument, the accused relied upon the testimony of Smt. Seema Jaggi recorded as DW2 who stated in her testimony that she had provided Rs. 2 lac as dasti loan to her CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page161of 235 mother as her mother was in need of money to renovate her beauty parlour. However, she has not given either month or date when she had given Rs. 2 lac as loan to her mother. She has not brought any bank passbook or any document to support that FDRs were given by her mother as security against the said loan in the year 1996. Moreover Rs.2 lac is not a small amount and if the said amount was given as loan then definitely it should be reflected in her ITR.
During cross-examination specific question put to her that since she had not given Rs. 2 lac to her mother as dasti loan and hence it is not mentioned in the ITR for the year 1996-97. She admitted that Rs. 2 lac as deposed by her, is not mentioned in her ITR. Hence, in view of the above, transaction of Rs. 2 lacs between DW2 and her mother has not been proved. Thus, this defence of the accused is not going to help him.
108 Another dispute raised by accused regarding item no. 11 FDR of Rs.15,000/- with Som Dutt Finance Ltd. It is the case of the accused that the FDR is in the joint name of him and his son Hitesh CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page162of 235 Dhawan. It is further argued that the payment was made by Sh. Hitesh Dhawan from his account number 12009. Sh. Hitesh Dhawan appeared as DW1 but in his examination in chief he has not deposed about this FDR in his testimony. Therefore, accused has not been able to prove this defence also.
109 Another dispute raised by accused regarding item no. 12 FDR of Rs.10,000/- with Flex Industries Ltd. It is the case of the accused that the FDR is in the joint name of him and his son Hitesh Dhawan. It is further argued that the payment was made by Sh. Hitesh Dhawan from his account number 12009. However, Sh. Hitesh Dhawan who appeared as DW1, in his examination in chief has not deposed about this FDR. Therefore, accused has not been able to prove this defence also.
110 Another dispute raised regarding FDR of Rs. 10,000/- with HCL/HP Ltd. It is argued that the amount of the FDR was paid CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page163of 235 by wife of the accused from her account no. 4454. From the perusal of Ex PW77/33, it is clear that the said payment has been made from account no. 4454 in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan. 111 Another dispute raised by learned defence counsel regarding cost of house hold articles during searches as taken as Rs.391829 and the said valuation is disputed.
Ex PW53/1 is search cum observation memo regarding house hold of the accused but it is the case of the accused that the valuation is not taken as correct. During cross-examination of PW53, witness deposed that whatever values were told by wife and son of the accused were mentioned in Ex PW53/2 and there was no consultation with the members of the team. A suggestion was given that years which were being told by wife of the accused were not being correctly recorded. However, suggestion is denied. However, there is no challenge that value was incorrectly recorded. It is deposed by PW53 that value of Rs. 391829/- has been correctly mentioned in Ex PW53/2.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page164of 235 List of Additional Assets of accused D. L. Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount No. 1 Balance in account no. 20.07.1996 Rs.10522.08 14751 Total Rs.10522.08 112 With regard to the above asset of the accused, it has come in the cross-examination of PW77 that accused has claimed income of Rs. 16006/- under maturity of MMDC Scheme on 03.12.1982 in account no. 14751. The document is Ex PW77/DE. Document is perused which is a pass book of Punjab National Bank where all such entries are appearing. Hence defence has able to prove the amount of Rs.10522.8 and benefit of the same has to be granted in favour of the accused.
List of Joint Bank account of Accused and his wife Smt. Devender Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount Contention of the No. accused 1 A/c No.8023 in PNB, Lal 11.4.1996 Rs.1985.07 Admitted Quarter Krishna Nagar Branch CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page165of 235
2. A/c No.16457 in PNB, Lal 29.05.1996 Rs.9521.36 IO Admitted that this Quarter Krishna Nagar account belongs to wife Branch of the accused.
3. A/c No.13962 in SBI, Laxmi 23.2.1996 Rs.7623.3 Admitted Nagar Krishna Nagar Branch
4. A/c No.1137 in PNB, Lal Upto Rs.12000 Recurring Deposit of Quarter Krishna Nagar 01.8.1996 wife of the accused.
Branch
Total Rs.31,129.73
113 It is argued by learned defence counsel that account no.
16457 in PNB that IO admitted in his evidence that this account belongs to wife of the accused. However perusal of the evidence of PW77 shows that he has no where deposed that account no. 16457 is only in the name of the wife of the accused. Perusal of Ex PW52/4 further shows that account is in the joint name of the accused and his wife and accordingly accused is also beneficiary of the said account.
114 Another objection raised by learned defence counsel regarding item no. 4 i.e. account no. 1137 in PNB. It is argued that this recurring deposit is of his wife and accused has nothing to do with it. However, Ex PW77/23 shows that account no. 1137 is in the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page166of 235 joint of the accused and his wife. So it is clear that accused is also beneficiary of the said account.
115 Since items mentioned as Sl. No. 1 and 4 of the list are admitted by the accused. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that there is no requirement for giving findings on such admitted items. On the other hand, CBI has also not disputed the admission made on behalf of the accused.
Admitted list of Bank accounts owned by D. L. Dhawan accused Sl. Assets Period Amount Contention of the No. accused 1 A/c No.7664 in CBI Vikas 31.5.1996 Rs.1519.97 Admitted Minar Branch, New Delhi
2. A/c No.476 in PNB, Lal April, 1996 Rs.251303 Admitted Quarter Krishna Nagar Branch
3. A/c No.24719 in SBI, 16.07.1996 Rs.1065 Admitted Krishna Nagar Branch
4. A/c No.9367 in SBI Vikas July, 1996 Rs.1034.1 Admitted Minar Branch
5. A/c No.6858 in CBI July, 1996 Rs.2281.19 Admitted Patparganj Branch
6. CTD A/c No. 102613 with - Rs.4800 Admitted GPO
7. RD A/c No.9253 with PNB Upto Rs.8000 Admitted Gandhi Nagar Branch 01.08.1996
8. Balance in A/c No. 14751 in 20.07.1996 Rs.10522.08 Admitted the name of accused Total Rs.280525.34 CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page167of 235 116 Since item mentioned in the above list are admitted by the accused. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that there is no requirement for giving findings on such admitted items. On the other hand, CBI has also not disputed the such admission made on behalf of the accused.
List of admitted expenditure by accused D. L. Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount Contention of the No. accused 1 Payment of rent of locker Sept, 87 to Rs.1115/- Admitted No. 320 in SBI, Laxmi 1990 Nagar Branch Total Rs.1115/-
117 Since items mentioned in above expenditure list is admitted by the accused. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that there is no requirement for giving findings on such admitted item. On the other hand, CBI has also not disputed the such admission made on behalf of the accused.
List of disputed expenditure by accused D. L. Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount Contention of the No. accused.
1 Payment of House Tax of H. 01.04.1986 to Rs.1375/- Paid by father
No. 11/51, Geeta Colony, 03.07.1996
Delhi
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page168of 235
2. Payment of telephone bill of 25.03.1994 to Rs.16636/- Paid by beauty
phone no. 2248439 26.05.1996 parlour of the wife
3. Month rent of telephone July, 1987 to Rs.11220/- Paid by beauty
no.2248439 as the said February, 1994 parlour of the wife
period showing the
telephone calls is not
traceable
4. Visit to Malaysia and other January, 19585 Rs.11440/- Arranged before
expenses check period
5. Payment of Electricity bills July, 1985 to Rs.33248/- Part of 1/3rd non
of consuming electricity 21.06.1996 verifiable expenditure
vide meter KNo.0130613
installed on 03.04.1967 at
H. No. 11/51, Geeta Colony,
Delhi
6. Payment of Electricity bills July, 1986 to Rs.23025.9 Part of 1/3rd non
of consuming electricity 21.06.1996 verifiable expenditure
vide meter KNo.000-
152013 installed on
17.04.1968 at H. No. 11/51,
Geeta Colony, Delhi
7. Gift to sister-in-law Smt. 1993-94 Rs.10000/- Not proved
Joginder Kaur
8. Loan given by him and his 1991-1992 Rs.30000/- Paid back in cash
wife to their daughter Smt. with in a year
Seema
9. Marriage of Daughter 1986 Rs.43000/- Only spent
Seema Rs.25,000/-
10. Payment of fee of Manipal 1992 to 1995 Rs.147750/- Paid by father of the
Engineering College for accused
Study of Gagan Kumar
11. Payment of School fee for 1985 to 1989- Rs.6980/- Paid by father of the
study of son Sh. Hitesh in 90 accused
Priyadarshini Vihar
12. Payment of school fee for 1985 to 1991- Rs.11384/- Paid by father of the
study of son Gagan in 92 accused
Priyadarshini Vihar
13. Non-verifiable House - Rs.202260.51 As per accused it
Expenses (1/3rd of Salary) comes to
Rs.67420.20
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page169of 235
Total 548319.41
118 It is argued on behalf of the accused regarding item no.
1. that house tax of property no. H. NO. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi from 01.04.1986 to 03.07.1996 of Rs. 1375/- was paid by the father of the accused. However, nothing has been brought on record to prove that this house tax was paid by father of the accused. Even no defence witness has been produced to prove said fact and thus accused is not able to prove that house tax was paid by his father. 119 Dispute raised by learned defence counsel for defence regarding item no. 2 i.e. telephone bill no. 2248439 for the period from 25.03.1994 to 26.05.1996 of Rs. 16636/-. It is case of the accused that this amount was paid by beauty parlour. PW23 already deposed that this telephone was installed in the name of the accused and he had paid Rs. 16636/- against the payment of bill. Similar, testimony has been given by PW49. However, during cross- examination no case has been setup by the accused that the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page170of 235 amount was paid by beauty parlour. Therefore, accused has not been able to prove such defence.
120 It is the dispute raised by learned defence counsel regarding item no. 3 i.e. telephone bill no. 2248439 for the period from July, 1987 to February, 1994 of Rs. 11220/-. It is case of the accused that this amount was paid by beauty parlour. PW23 already deposed that this telephone was installed in the name of the accused and he had paid Rs. 11220/- against the payment of bill. However, during cross-examination no case has been setup by the accused that the amount was paid by beauty parlour. Therefore, accused has not been able to prove such defence. 121 Another objection raised by learned defence counsel regarding item no. 4 i.e. visit to Malaysia and other expenses in January 1985. It is argued that the amount was arranged before the check period. However, accused had visited in January, 1985. PW34 proved that in Ex PW34/1 there is entry dated 16.01.1985, Travellers Cheques of US $ 500 under Foreign Travel Scheme were CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page171of 235 issued and delivered to the holder there i.e. the accused. There is no such challenge to the testimony of PW34. During cross- examination of PW34 no such case has been set up by the accused. Even no evidence has been brought that the amount was arranged by the accused before the check period. Thus, accused has not been able to prove his defence in this regard. 122 Other dispute raised by learned defence counsel regarding item no. 5 i.e. payment of electricity bill for consuming electricity against meter K No.000130613. It is submitted that part of 1/3rd non-verifiable expenditure. This expenditure is proved by PW70. However, no such defence has been setup. During cross- examination, even otherwise, no specific challenge is made regarding non-verifiable expenditure. Nothing has been stated by the accused as such in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. Therefore, the accused is not able to prove this defence.
123 Other dispute raised by learned defence counsel CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page172of 235
regarding item no. 6 i.e. payment of electricity bill for consumption electricity meter K No.000152013. It is submitted that part of 1/3rd non-verifiable expenditure. This expenditure was proved by PW70. However, no such defence has been setup. During cross- examination, even otherwise, no specific challenge is made regarding non-verifiable expenditure. Nothing has been stated by the accused as such in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. Therefore, the accused is not able to prove this defence. 124 Another dispute raised regarding item no. 7 i.e. gift to sister-in-law Smt. Joginder Kaur in the year 1993-94 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. It is argued on behalf of the accused that it is not proved by prosecution. No confirmation letter by Smt. Joginder Kaur. PW40 proved Ex PW40/1 which are letter and photocopies of Income Tax Returns of Smt. Joginder Kaur i.e. sister-in-law of the accused. In the said document there is entry at point X regarding the gift received from the accused. During cross-examination, there is no challenge that this amount was not given by the accused to his CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page173of 235 sister-in-law or PW40 has proved forged and fabricated document. 125 Another objection raised regarding item no. 8 i.e. loan given by accused and his wife to their daughter Smt. Seema Jaggi for a sum of Rs.30,000/- in the year 1991-92. It is argued that this amount was paid back in cash within a year. To prove this contention accused has examined his daughter DW2 in her testimony who deposed that she had taken loan of Rs.30,000/- from her mother while purchasing house and subsequently she paid back this amount to the accused. During cross-examination, she had admitted repayment of Rs.30,000/- is not mentioned in her ITR ending 31.03.1992. Therefore, this transaction of paying back Rs.30,000/- could not prove by Smt. Seema Jaggi. 126 Another dispute raised by learned defence counsel regarding item no. 9 of the list i.e. expenditure of Rs. 43000/- on marriage of daughter Seema which took place in the year 1986. It is argued that he had spent only Rs.25000/-. PW38 proved entry in CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page174of 235 GPF, part of official withdrawal for marriage of his daughter in April, 1986 which is Ex PW31/B. The case of the accused is that he had only spent Rs.25000/-. But the fact remains that as per own document of the accused Ex PW31/B, he has not returned the unutilized loan amount which allegedly spent in the marriage of his daughter Seema. Moreover, no bill of marriage has been proved by the accused to prove the such contention/defence.
During cross-examination, such suggestion has been denied by PW77 and he clarified that as per existing rules of Government of India if the government servant does not submit any statement of account of withdrawal amount, then it is assumed that amount withdrawn has been utilized for the same purpose. PW38 also stated that in absence of any utilization certificate submitted by accused against withdrawal of GPF of Rs.43000/- is to be presumed as spent for the purpose of which it was withdrawn. 127 Another argument raised regarding item no. 11 i.e. payment of fee of Manipal Engineering College for study of Sh.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page175of 235 Gagan Kumar in the year 1992 to 1995 of Rs.1,47,750/-. It is
argument of the accused that this amount was paid by father of the accused. PW77 deposed that father of the accused did not produce any document in support of his claim of his income, no record pertaining to purchase or any document being maintained by him. He even did not disclose to PW77 that from where he arranged this money.
128 DW1 deposed that his grandfather was doing the business of fairy in local market and he was a very busy person. He used to earn from his business and to provide him pocket money as well as all education expenses. He expired in the year 2000-01. However, nothing specifically deposed by DW1 that Sh. Srichand paid Rs.1,47,750/- for the studies of Gagan Kumar Dhawan S/o Mr. Darshan Lal Dhawan in Manipal Institute of Technoloy. Moreover, Rs.1,47,750/- is not a small amount and if that amount was paid b Shri Chand then he must have documentary evidence. Ex PW72/1 mentioned that amount was paid on 09.06.1992 Rs.75,000/-, on CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page176of 235 10.08.1992 Rs. 26,750/-, 05.08.1993 Rs.15,000/-, 13.08.1994 Rs.15,000/-, 25.08.1995 Rs.15,000/- and on 25.08.1995 Rs.1000/- 129 Similar arguments raised by the accused for payment for school fees of Rs. 6980/- of his son Hitesh Dhawan in the year 1985 to 1989 and payment of fee for the studies of son Gagan Dhawan of Rs.11384/- from 1985 to 1991-92.
These are not small amounts and if all these amounts were withdrawn from the bank then there must be entries. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused to prove this argument. Thus this argument does not sustain.
130 It is further argued regarding item no. 13 that the amount of Rs. 2,02,260.51 is non verifiable house expenses i.e. 1/3rd of the salary of the accused. It is argued in the written arguments that accused and his family members were earning members throughout the check period and day-to-day expenses were incurred from the earning of each member. It is argued that the amount of Rs. 2,02,260.51 should be divided in three parts and CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page177of 235 which Rs. 67420.20 comes to the share of the accused.
In this regard it is submitted that there is no evidence on record brought by the accused that individual earning member of the family had contributed in the 1/3rd on the non-verifiable house expenses. In this regard, this court refers decision in Sajjan Kumar v. State of Punjab 1964 AIR 464, in which it has been held by learned Apex Court as under:-
"The appellant's counsel is not in a position to submit that there is evidence on the record which would satisfy the court that the accused has "proved the contrary", that is, that he had not committed the offence with which he was charged.
We have therefore, come to the conclusion that the facts proved in this case raise a presumption under s. 5 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellant's conviction of the offence with which he was charged must be maintained on the basis of that presumption."
List of income of Accused D. L. Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount No.
1. As per charge sheet 01.01.85 to 01.08.96 Rs.912579.07
2. Rs. 43000/- withdrawn from GPF for 1986 Rs. 18000 the marriage of Seema Credited in account no. 14751,PNB, Gandhi Nagar and Drawn only Rs.25000/-
3. MMDC of Rs.10000/- maturity value 03.12.1982 to Rs.16006 of Rs.16006 credited in account no. 05.12.1987 14751, PNB, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page178of 235
4. LIC Policy No. 2824196, matured 1968 to 12.03.1993 Rs.10164.5 value received by DD no. 893026 dated 12.03.1993 of IOB
5. Honorarium received from office 14.06.1996 Rs.2000/-
6. Withdrawal from PPF A/c no. 476 03.10.1992 Rs.11400/-
Total Rs.970149.5 131 Item mentioned at Sl. no. 2 has been already been dealt
with while dealing expenditure mentioned at item no. 9 of the expenditure list. It has already been held by this Court that accused has not produced any document that he had spent the amount of Rs. 43000/- on the marriage of his daughter. It is own contention of the accused that he had spent only Rs.25000/- on the marriage of her daughter and he is seeking benefit of Rs. 18000/-. However at the cost of repetition, it is in the evidence of PW38 and PW77 that as per existing rules of Government of India if the government servant does not require to submit any utilization certificate of the withdrawal amount in the department, in the absence of any utilization certificate, it is assumed that amount withdrawn has been utilized for the same purpose for which it was withdrawn. The accused has claimed the benefit of income of Rs.18000/- as CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page179of 235 withdrawal from his GPF account. The IO has already given the benefit of Rs. 43000/- i.e. amount withdrew from GPF, in the income head and thus total income of accused comes to Rs. 912579.07. 132 Item no. 3 of the list has already been dealt with by this Court in para no. 111 while dealing additional assets of the accused and the benefit of the amount of Rs.16006/- has already been given. 133 Regarding item no. 4 it is observed that defence has been able to prove this amount in the evidence of DW8 that this amount was received by him vide cheque no. 893020 dated 12.03.1993 as settlement of maturity amount. DW8 also proved document Ex DW8/A in this regard. PW77 has also not disputed this fact in his evidence.
134 Regarding item no. 5 i.e. Honorarium of Rs.2000/- received from office. During evidence PW77 has shown Ex PW7/DH which is a sanction order but he deposed that during check CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page180of 235 period it has not come to his knowledge that accused has received honorarium from his department. Accused has not been able to prove that he received this amount from his office or no documentary evidence produced by the defence to prove this defence. Hence, the benefit of the amount of Rs. 2000/- as income is not given to the accused.
135 Regarding item no. 6, it is observed that defence has not been able to substantiate this amount or not been able to produce any documentary evidence in this regard.
136 Thus, the Total Expenditure of the accused is = 549434.41 137 In view of the above discussion, the assets, expenditure and income of D. L. Dhawan are computed alone, then by applying the formula, the DA = Assets + Expenditure - Income:-
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page181of 235 Rs.18,07,643.67 + Rs.5,49,434.41 - Rs.9,38,749.57 = Rs.14,18,328.51 DA in percentage = DA x 100/income = Rs.1418328.51 x 100/938749.57 = 151.08 % List of Immovable and movable assets in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount No.
1. Purchase and construction of H. 1990, 1992-93 and Rs.3,87,204 No.11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi 1995
2. Purchased of DDA Flat No. 244-C, On 23.08.1988 Rs.30,000 Pocket-C,Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi
3. Payment of installment of DDA Flat 19.12.1988 to Rs.57513 No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar- 12.01.1996 @ II, Delhi Rs.535.50 pm
4. Payment of Steel Door and - Rs.4612 Windows of M. S. Grdl installed at DDA Flat No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi
5. 100 Shares of GIC Housing 1995 Rs.5000 Finance Ltd.
6. 100 Shares of Siris Ltd. December, 1994 Rs.27,500
7. 100 Shares of Monalisa Multiplast June, 1995 Rs.1000 Ltd.
8. 100 Shares of Star Exim Ltd. July, 1995 Rs.1000
9. 100 Shares of Bhagria Dyes Ltd. 7th July, 1995 Rs.3200
10. 100 Shares of Prima Plastics Ltd. June, 1995 Rs.1000
11. 100 Shares of Jindal Photofilms 5, April, 1995 Rs.19,500 Ltd
12. FDRs with Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. 19.01.1996 for one year Rs.15000 CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page182of 235
13. FDRs with Nagarjuna Fertilizers 21.01.1996 for one year Rs.15000 and Chemicals Ltd.
14. FDRs with the Motor and General 27.10.1995 Rs.15000 Finance Ltd.
15. FDRs with Ceat Financial Services 17.05.1995 Rs.15000 Ltd.
16. FDRs with SRF Ltd. For one year Rs.15000 17.05.1995
17. NSCS purchased during 1989-90 - Rs.9000 and 1990-91 (as shown in income tax returns)
18. Post Office, Parliament Street, 05.02.1996 Rs.10000 New Delhi A/c No. 17504
19. FDRs with Times Guarantee 31.10.1995 for one Rs.15,000 years
20. UTI Certificates UL-910445180354 - Rs.24000
21. NSCS from Krishna Nagar, Post On 20.03.1995 Rs.8000 Office
22. Gold Jewellery During 1992 and 1996 Rs.24353
23. PNB, Krishna Nagar, A/c No. 3267 - Rs.500 showing balance on 27.02.1996
24. CBI Patparganj Road A/c 4454 July, 1996 9221.25 showing Balance
25. FDR with HCL/HP on 19.01.16 and 19.01.2016 10000/-
payment from her account in CBI
through cheque no. 129306 dated
19.01.2016
Total 722603.25
138 Now, this Court has to consider immovable and movable
assets of Smt. Devender Dhawan, wife of accused. In the above table with regard to item no. 1 i.e. purchase and construction of H. No. 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi, prosecution has examined PW60 CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page183of 235 who deposed that the cost of the building comes out to be Rs.4,09,767/- before deductions of self-supervision charges etc. @ 7.5%. After deduction the net cost of the said property comes to Rs. 3,87,204/-.
During cross-examination of PW60, there is no challenge to this piece of testimony of PW60. No question has been put regarding cost of construction of building. Cash memo Mark DX- 1/1-12 (colly) were produced by the accused regarding purchase of building material but it has come in evidence that those bills do not contain name of the accused nor address of the property.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to question no.161, accused vaguely stated that valuation reports submitted by the witness are incorrect. However, nothing has been brought on record by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC or in his defence to prove that valuation report is incorrect. It is also not the case of the accused that he filed any complaint against the official who has prepared false valuation report regarding property no. 11/52, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Hence, CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page184of 235 defence of the accused is not believable in this regard. PW18 has also corroborated this fact.
139 Regarding purchase of property of DDA Flat No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi by wife of the accused for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, prosecution has examined PW36, who proved receipt Ex PW36/1.
140 Regarding item no. 3 i.e. payment of installment of DDA Flat No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 57, 513/-. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW17, who proved Ex PW17/A i.e. statement of payment of installment by the allottee of the above mentioned flat.
141 Regarding item no. 4 i.e. payment of steel door and windows of M. S. Grdl installed at DDA Flat No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi. In this regard prosecution has examined PW60, who deposed that the total cost of MS Door and Window with mosquito proof wired net comes out to be Rs.4986/- before CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page185of 235 deduction of self-supervision charges etc. @ 7.5%. After deduction the net cost of the said work comes out to Rs.4612/-. During cross- examination of the witness, there is no challenge in this regard. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused has given vague reply that valuation report is incorrect.
142 Regarding item at sl. No. 5 i.e. 100 shares of GIC Housing Finance Ltd, prosecution has examined PW68, who proved Ex PW68/19 which is a share certificate GIC Housing Finance Ltd. Prosecution also examined PW78, who proved Ex PW78/3 which prove that Smt. Devender Dhawan got asset of Rs.5000/- on the purchase of 100 shares.
143 Regarding item at Sl. No. 6 i.e. 100 shares of Siris Ltd, prosecution has examined PW68, who proved Ex PW68/6 which is a share certificate of Siris Ltd. Prosecution also examined PW76, who proved Ex PW76/1 which proved that Smt. Devender Dhawan got benefit of Rs.27500/- on the purchase of 100 shares.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page186of 235 144 Regarding item no. 7 i.e. 100 shares of Monalisa
Multiplast Ltd. To prove this, prosecution has examined PW68 and PW77. PW68 proved Ex PW68/18 which is a share certificate in the name of Devender Dhawan. PW77 also proved Ex PW77/9 and Ex PW77/10. From the perusal of documents proved by the witnesses, it is an admitted fact that wife of the accused got benefit of a sum of Rs. 1000/-.
145 Regarding item no. 8 i.e. 100 shares of Star Exim Ltd., prosecution has examined PW68, who proved the share certficate as Ex PW68/7 in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan. 146 Regarding item no. 9 i.e. 100 shares of Bhagria Dyes Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 3200/-, prosecution has examined PW68 and PW77. PW68/8 and Ex PW68/9 are the share certificates in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page187of 235 147 Regarding item no. 10 i.e. 100 shares of Prima Plastics
Ltd. in the sum of Rs. 1000/-. The share certificate in this regard has been proved by PW68 as Ex PW68/10 in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan. There is no challenge to in this regard to the testimony of PW68.
148 Regarding item no. 11 i.e. 100 shares of Jindal Photofilims Ltd. in the sum of Rs. 19500/-. The share certificate in this regard has been proved by PW68 as Ex PW68/11 in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan. There is no challenge to in this regard to the testimony of PW68.
149 Regarding item no. 12 i.e. FDR with Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd, prosecution examined PW79 who proved Ex PW79/1 which proves that wife of accused and accused had made FDs for a sum of Rs. 17415/- and Rs.15000/- respectively CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page188of 235 with the company for a period of 12 months. Ex PW79/5 and Ex PW79/6 are the applications of accused and his wife for FDs. 150 Regarding item no. 13 i.e. FDR with Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., prosecution has examined PW37 who proved Ex PW37/7 which is an acknowledgment receipt showing that accused had invested a sum of Rs.15000/- on M/s Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. Vide cheque no. 129305 dated 19.01.1996 in the name of his wife.
151 Regarding item no. 14 i.e. FDRs with Motor and General Finance Ltd., prosecution examined PW13 who proved Ex PW13/A wherein it is mentioned that Mrs. Devender Dhawan purchased one FDR of Rs.15,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2415/- was paid as interest on maturity. This investment of Rs. 15000/- has also been corroborated by PW37 in his deposition.
152 Regarding item nos. 15 and 16 i.e. FDRs with CEAT Finance service, prosecution examined PW37, who proved Ex CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page189of 235 PW37/1 showing that Mrs. Devender Dhawan had invested a sum of Rs. 15000/- through SBI cheque no. 429007 dated 17.05.1995. PW37 further deposed that on the very date, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was also invested with SRF Ltd. Vide cheque no. 235003 dated 17.05.1995, by wife of the accused.
153 Regarding item no. 17 i.e. NSC purchased during the period 1989-90 and 1990-91, prosecution has examined PW77, who proved Ex PW77/37 (colly 50 sheets) that wife of accused Smt. Devender Dhawan had invested the amount of Rs.9000/- in NSC and the same has been reflected in the ITR for the assessment year 1993-94 to 1995-96.
154 Regarding item no. 18 i.e. Account no. 17504 in the Post office, Parliament Street, New Delhi, prosecution examined PW4 who proved Ex PW4/A to Ex PW4/D and deposed that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in the said account in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page190of 235 155 Regarding item no. 19 i.e. FDRs with Times Guarantee,
prosecution examined PW37 who proved Ex PW37/4 which showns that Smt. Devender Dhawan invested Rs. 15,000/- on 27.10.1995 vide cheque no. 145164.
156 Regarding item no. 20 i.e. UTI Certificates UL- 910445180354, prosecution has examined PW62 who proved Ex PW62/1 wherein it was informed that Smt. Devender Dhawan purchased the certificate in the year 1991 for the amount of Rs.40,000/-. He also stated that six installments of Rs.4000/- each for Rs.24000/- were paid from the year 1991 to 01.08.1996. 157 Regarding item no. 21 i.e. NSCS from Krishna Nagar, Post Office, prosecution examined PW32 who proved Ex PW32/B which is an application form for purchase of National Saving Certificate by Smt. Devender Dhawan for Rs.8,000/- on 20.03.1995 CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page191of 235 and the name of the nominee mentioned therein is the accused. 158 Regarding item no. 22 i.e. purchase of gold jewellery, prosecution has examined PW1 who proved bill Ex PW1/A to Ex PW1/C in the name of Ms. Dhawan. This witness was not cross- examined by the accused.
159 Regarding item no. 23 i.e. balance of Rs.500/- in PNB Krishna Nagar, prosecution has examined PW7 who proved Ex PW7/A and Ex PW7/B. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused.
160 Regarding item no. 24 i.e. balance of Rs. 9221.25 in Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road, Delhi, prosecution has examined PW77, who proved Ex PW77/33 statement of account of accused of account no. 4454.
161 Regarding item no. 25 i.e. FDR with HCL/HP on CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page192of 235
19.01.2006 payment from her account in CBI through cheuqe no. 129306 dated 19.01.2006 for Rs.10,000/-, prosecution has examined PW37, who proved Ex PW37/7 which is receipt issued by Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Ltd.
162 In view of the above discussion and in view of the deposition of the witnesses, it is proved that the above said financial gain was obtained by Smt. Devender Dhawan, wife of the accused during the check period. Further during cross-examination of the witnesses nor in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, there is any challenge on behalf of the accused.
List of movable assets in the name of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan Sl. Assets Period Amount No.
1. 100 Shares of Bhagwati Gases Ltd. 1994 Rs.1500
2. 100 Shares of Indusmin Foods Ltd. 1995 Rs.1000
3. 100 Shares of HDFC Bank 1995 Rs.1000
4. 100 Shares of Bhagria Dyechemical 1995 Rs.1600
5. 100 shares of Vaspar Containers 18.04.1995 Rs.1000
6. 100 Shares of Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel - Rs.500 Ltd.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page193of 235
7. 100 Shares of Monilisa Multiplast Ltd. - Rs.1000
8. 100 Shares of Essar Oil Ltd. 21.04.1995 Rs.4500
9. 100 Shares of Star Exim Ltd. 24.06.1995 Rs.1000
10. Investment with M/s Kuber Mutual 1995-96 Rs.7200
Benefits
11. Purchased Scooter No. DAM 6035 14.10.1995 Rs.5200
12. Deposit of RD A/c No. 2046 of CBI From 28.02.1993 to Rs.18000 Patparganj Road Branch 12.03.1994
13. Bank A/c no.12009 in CBI, Patparganj In July, 1996 Rs.6914.66 Road Total Rs.50414.66 163 Now this Court has to deal with the movable assets of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan, son of accused. With regard to 100 shares of Bhagwati Gases Ltd., prosecution has examined PW43, who proved Ex PW43/1 which is share certificate of Bhagwati Gases Ltd. in the name of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan purchased in the year 1995. 164 Regarding item no. 2 i.e. 100 shares of Indusmin Foods Ltd., prosecution has examined PW68, who proved share certificates in the name of the Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW68/2. It was seized by the witness during the search proceedings.
165 Regarding item no. 3 i.e. 100 shares of HDFC Bank, CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page194of 235
prosecution has examined PW57, who proved share certificate no. 409151 in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW57/2. 166 Regarding item no. 4 i.e. 100 shares of Bhagaria Dyechemicals, prosecution has examined PW68, who proved share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW68/15. 167 Regarding item no. 5 i.e. 100 shares of Vaspar Containers, prosecution has examined PW64, who proved share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW64/C. 168 Regarding item no. 6 i.e. 100 shares of Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd., prosecution has examined PW55 and PW68. PW55 proved letter vide which he informed details regarding share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan to the IO. PW68 deposed that share certificate was seized by the IO during search in his presence.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page195of 235 169 Regarding item no. 7 i.e. 100 shares of Monilisa
Multiplast Ltd., prosecution has examined PW68, who proved share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW68/17. PW77 also proved letter Ex PW77/10 received by him regarding this share certificates.
170 Regarding item no. 8 i.e. 100 shares of Essar Oil Ltd., prosecution has examined PW68, who proved share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW68/13.
171 Regarding item no. 9 i.e. 100 shares of Star Exim Ltd., prosecution has examined PW68, who proved share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW68/18.
172 Regarding item no. 10 i.e. investment with M/s Kuber Mutual benefits, prosecution has examined PW68, who proved share certificate in the name of Hitesh Dhawan as Ex PW77/34.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page196of 235 173 Regarding item no. 11 i.e. purchase of scooter No. DAM
6035, prosecution examined PW12, who deposed that he had sold scooter to Hitesh Dhawan for a sum of Rs.5200/-. 174 Regarding item no. 11 i.e. deposit of a sum of Rs. 1500/- in account no. 2046 of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan, prosecution has examined PW39, who proved statement of accounts as Ex PW39/3 and Ex PW39/4.
175 Regarding item no. 13 i.e. amount of Rs. 6914.66 in the account of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan, prosecution has examined PW39, who proved Ex PW39/1, letter written by him to the IO and he also proved statement of account as Ex PW39/2 of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan.
List of income of
Smt. Devender Dhawan
Sl. Assets Period Amount
No.
1. Rent of H. no. 244-C, Pocket- From 01.09.1988 to 31.07.1996 Rs.88858.66 C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page197of 235
2. Income from Eliza Beauty from 1987-88 to 1991-92 Rs.85914 Parlour
3. Income of Eliza Beuaty Parlour from 1992-93 to 1995-96 Rs.1,47,235.50
4. Income from Eliza Beauty From 01.04.1996 to 31.07.1996 Rs.16278.50 Parlour on average of last year income
5. Dividend paid on shares of 10.10.1995 Rs.16 GIC Housing Ltd.
6. Dividend paid on shares of 06.11.95 Rs.200 Siris Ltd
7. Interest of FDR of CEAT 19.05.1996 Rs.2250 Financial Ltd.
8. Interest of PPF A/c no.17504 1995-96 Rs.200
9. Brokerage refund by M/s Bajaj 1995 and 1996 for investing Rs.700 Capital through the company
10. Interest of SB A/c no.32627 in - Rs.72 PNB Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
11. Interest SB A/c No. 4457 in - Rs.2836.36 CBI Patparganj Road, Delhi
12. Maturity of NSC shown to 1989-90 Rs.8000 have purchased in I. T. returns
13. Interest of FDR of SRF Ltd. 22.05.1996 Rs.2235 Total Rs.354796.02 176 With regard to item no. 1 i.e. rent income from H. No.244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II, Delhi from 01.09.198 to 31.07.1996 of Rs.888583.66. To prove this, prosecution has examined PW10 who deposed that he was tenant of Mr. D. L. Dhawan from 1988 to 1996-97. The rent of this house was varied from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/-. Hence, from the evidence of PW10, it CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page198of 235 is proved that Smt. D. L. Dhawan got total income of Rs.88858.66. 177 Similarly with regard to item no. 2, 3 and 4, prosecution has examined PW77, who proved income tax return documents of Smt. Devender Dhawan as Ex P W77/37.
178 Regarding item no. 5 i.e. Dividend paid on shares of GIC Housing Ltd., prosecution has examined PW78, who proved Ex PW78/1 wherein there is mention of details of dividend payments of Smt. Devender Dhawan.
179 Regarding item no. 6 i.e. Dividend paid on shares of Siris Ltd., prosecution has examined PW76, who proved Ex PW76/1 wherein there is mention of details of dividend payments of Smt. Devender Dhawan.
180 Regarding item no. 7 i.e. interest of FDR of CEAT Financial Ltd., prosecution has examined PW77, who proved Ex PW77/30 wherein there is mention that Rs.2250/- was paid as CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page199of 235 interest to Smt. Devender Dhawan.
181 Regarding item no. 8 i.e. interest of PPF A/c No. 17504, prosecution has examined PW4, who proved Ex PW4/C which shown the interest of Rs.200/- on deposit of Rs.10000/- during the check period.
182 Regarding item no. 9 i.e. brokerage refunded by M/s Bajaj Capital, prosecution has examined PW37, who proved refund of Rs.700/- by proving Ex PW37/4 and Ex PW 37/7. 183 Regarding item no. 10 i.e. interest of Rs.72/- in SB A/c No. 32627 in PNB, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, prosecution has examined PW7 who proved Ex PW7/A and Ex PW7/B. 184 Regarding item no. 11 i.e. interest of Rs.2836.36/- in SB A/c No. 4457 in Central Bank of India, Patparganj Road, Delhi, prosecution has examined PW77, who proved statement of account as Ex PW77/42.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page200of 235 185 Regarding item no. 12, Maturity of NSC of Rs.8000/-,
since the NSCs for Rs.4000/- were purchased in the year 1989-90 and the same becomes matured in six years. Hence, the benefit of maturity amount is given to the account of wife of the accused. 186 Regarding item no. 13 i.e. interest of FDR of SRF Ltd., prosecution has examined PW77, who proved Ex PW77/32 wherein there is mention that Rs.2235/- was paid as interest to Smt. Devender Dhawan.
List of expenditure of
Smt. Devender Dhawan
Sl. Assets Period Amount
No.
1. House tax of H. No. 11/52, Geeta Paid from 01.04.90 to Rs. 6140/-
Colony, Delhi 31.3.1996
2. Payment of telephone bill of tel. 01.07.95 to 16.07.1996 Rs. 7418/-
no. 2436621
3. Payment of electricity bill of meter March, 1993 to 20.06.1996 Rs.3059/-
installed on 30.11.1992
4. Repairing of H. No. 244-C, 1992 to 1996 Rs.11040/-
Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II
Total Rs. 27657/-
187 Now this Court deals with expenditure claimed for Smt.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page201of 235
Devender Dhawan. Regarding item no. 1 i.e. House tax of H. No. 11/51 Geeta Colony, Delhi paid from 01.04.1990 to 31.03.1996, prosecution has examined PW18 who proved Ex PW18/A and Ex PW18/B. According to which the total amount of Rs.11365/- has been paid from 01.04.1984 to 31.07.1996 as house tax against the said property. On perusal of D-52 i.e. Ex PW27/B, the payment for this property was made on 15.05.1990 in the name of Smt. Devender Dhawan, wife of the accused. Therefore, the amount paid as house tax from the said date onwards till the end of check period has been considered for computation and the same comes to Rs.6140/-.
188 Regarding item no. 2 i.e. telephone bill of telephone no. 2436621 for the period 01.07.1995 to 16.07.1996 for a sum of Rs.7418/-, prosecution has examined PW20, who proved Ex PW20/A and deposed that Smt. Devender Dhawan is the subscriber of above mentioned telephone number and had paid the above sum.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page202of 235 189 Regarding item no. 3 i.e. payment of electricity bill from
March, 1993 to 20.06.1996 of meter installed on 30.11.1992, prosecution has examined PW70, who proved Ex PW 70/B which shown that a sum of Rs.3059/- was paid by Smt. Devender Dhawan in respect of meter K. No. 632-1269328 from 26.04.1993 to 21.08.1996.
190 Regarding item no. 4 i.e. Rs.11040-/ for repairing of H. No. 244-C, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar-II from 1992 to 1996. This amount has been taken as expenditure of Smt. Devender Dhawan for repairing of said house. Perusal of Ex PW77/37 (colly 50 sheets) shows that Smt. Devender Dhawan has claimed rebate of this amount from the rental income in view of the repairing of said house, in her income tax return. On perusal of the ITR this Court observed that this amount is claimed just to gain the rebate of income tax return and this is a notional expenditure. Hence, this amount is not included in the expenditure.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page203of 235 191 Now the total assets, expenditure and Income of Smt.
Devender Dhawan during check period are Rs. 722603.25, Rs.16617/- and Rs.354796.02 respectively.
List of income of
Sh. Hitesh Dhawan S/o Sh. D. L. Dhawan
Sl. Assets Period Amount
No.
1. Income from Eliza Men's Parlour 1995-96 Rs.45162.88
during
2. Income from Eliza Men's Parlour From 01.04.1996 to Rs.15112.43
31.07.1996
3. Maturity of investment with Kuber On 11.03.1996 Rs.7530
Benefits, Delhi
4. Dividend of shares of Bhagwati 1994-95 Rs.56
Gases Ltd.
5. Income of interest of A/c No.2046 28.02.1993 to Rs.22720
and FDRs of CBI Patparganj 02.03.1996
Branch
6. Interest of A/c no. 12009 with CBI - Rs. 563.25
Patpartanj Road, Delhi
Total Rs.91144.56
192 Now, this Court has to deal with the income of Sh. Hitesh
Dhawan i.e. son of the accused.
193 Regarding item no. 1 & 2 i.e. income from Eliza Men's
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page204of 235
Beauty Parlor, prosecution has examined PW48 who proved Ex PW48/1 which is ITR of Hitesh Dhawan. On the basis of income in the said ITR for the year 1995-1996, the average benefit of the business income from 01.04.1996 to July, 1996 has been extended by the Court to Hitesh Dhawan. Hence, the total amount of Rs.60275.31 has been considered as business income from April, 1995 to July, 1996.
194 Regarding item no. 3 i.e. maturity of investment with Kuber Benefit, Delhi, prosecution has examined PW77, who proved Ex PW77/34 which is a certificate regarding investment by Hitesh Dhawan with said company. Ex PW77/34 is accompanied by receipt for a sum of Rs.7530/- in the name of Sh. Hitesh Dhawan and statement of account.
195 Regarding item no. 4 i.e. Dividend of share of Bhagwati Gases ltd., prosecution has examined PW43, who proved Ex PW43/2 wherein it is mentioned that company has paid dividend of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page205of 235 Rs.56/- to Sh. Hitesh Dhawan.
196 Regarding item no. 5 & 6 i.e. income of interest of A/c No. 2046 and FDRs of Central Bank of BI, Patparganj Branch and item no. 6 i.e. income of interest of A/c No. 12009 with CBI, Patparganj Branch, prosecution has examined PW39, who proved Ex PW39/1 to Ex PW39/13 i.e. statement of account and related documents of both the accounts in the name of Hitesh Dhawan at Central Bank of India. The benefit of Rs.23283.25/- credited as interest in this account during the check period has been extended as income.
Prosecution has examined PW39, who proved statement of account of A/c No. 12009.
197 Since the assets and expenditure held in the name of wife of accused, Smt. Devender Dhawan are double to her income, hence in view of this assets and expenditure in her name have been clubbed with the assets and expenditure of the accused.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page206of 235 198 Now the assets, expenditure and Income of accused Sh.
D. L. Dhawan, his wife Smt. Devender Dhawan and son Hitesh Dhawan acquired during check period are clubbed and computed together, which are as under:-
Assets= Rs.2,58,0661.58 (Rs.18,07,643.67 + Rs.7,22,603.25 + Rs.50,414.66) Expenditure = Rs.5,66,051.41 (Rs.5,49,434.41 + Rs.16,617 + Nil) Income = Rs.1,38,4690.15 ( Rs.9,38,749.57 + Rs.3,54,796.02 + Rs. 91,144.56) DA = 31,46,712.99 (Rs.25,80,661.58 + Rs.5,66,051.41) -
Rs.13,84,690.15 = 17,62,022.84.
DA% = 17,62,022.84 X 100/13,84,690.15 = 127.25% 199 In view of the observations made hereinabove, this court reached upon the conclusion that prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is proved that accused being a public servant while working as Asstt. Director, AIR (R & D), IP Estate, New Delhi acquired assets during the period 1961 to July, 1996 to the tune of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page207of 235 Rs.17,62,022.84/- (127.25%) disproportionate to the known source of income and for which he could not satisfactorily account for and therefore accused is held guilty for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted thereunder.
Dictated and announced in (Jitendra Kumar Mishra)
the open Court on 19.12.2016 Special Judge, CBI (PC Act)
East District, KKD Courts : Delhi
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page208of 235
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
AC No. 7/11/99
RC No. 73(A)/96
CBI Case (New) No. CBI-38/2106
CNR No. DLKA01-000011-1999
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
VERSUS
Sh. D. L. Dhawan,
S/o Sh. Sri Chand,
Asstt. Director,
AIR (R & D), I. P. Estate,
New Delhi.
R/o H. No. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi .....Convict
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1 Vide separate judgment dated 19.12.2016, the above-
mentioned convict has been held guilty for commission of offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page209of 235 2 On 21.12.2016 arguments on sentence on behalf of the
convict and CBI have been heard as advanced by Sh. U. C. Saxena, Learned Sr. PP on behalf of CBI and Sh. Rajesh Khanna, learned defence counsel for the convict.
3 Learned Sr. PP alongwith Learned PP for CBI submit that since convict was a Government servant, therefore, punishment should not only be deterent but it should be exemplary, in as much as, to not only meet out the severity of the crime committed by the convict but which should also be an example for any future offender to deter him to commit similar offence. He further submits that as per intention of the legislature, the legislature is very harsh upon such crimes of corruption as the legislature has gone to an extent to enhance the minimum punishment from one year to four years and the maximum punishment has been enhanced from seven years to ten years by amendment in Prevention of Corruption Act though he agrees that the present case has to be governed by Act of 1988 and not by latest amendment in CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page210of 235 view of the constitutional safeguards to the convicts. 4 He further submits that convict should be awarded maximum sentence and fine. He further submits that while considering quantum of fine, this Court has to refer Section 16:
"16. Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine - Where a sentence of fine is imposed under sub- section (2) of section 13 or section 14, the Court in fixing the amount of the fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub- section (1) of section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused persons is unable to account satisfactorily."
5 Learned Sr. PP has relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC 1264, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"The courts should bear in mind that there is a requirement in law that every conviction should be followed by an appropriate sentence within the period stipulated in law.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page211of 235 Discretion in this regard is not absolute or whimsical. It is controlled by law and to some extent by judicial discretion, applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, there is a need for the courts to apply its mind while imposing sentence."
6 CBI has further relied upon judgment Sevaka Perumal, etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
9. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine to public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats.
If he courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.
10. It is clear from the evidence that the accused indulged in illegal business of purchase and sale of ganja. They conspired to entice innocent boys from affluent families took them to far flung places where the dead body could not be identified. The letters were written to the parents purporting to be by the deceased to delude the parents that the missing boy would one day come home alive and that they would not give any report CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page212of 235 to the police and the crime would go undetected. For murder in a span of five years were committed for gain in cold blooded, premeditated and planned way. It is undoubted that if the trial relating to Athiappan murder had taken place and concluded earlier to the trial and conviction of other three murders are not relevant facts to be considered. But in this case the trial of the murder relating to Athiappan and Hariamachandran practically took place simultaneously by which date the appellants were convicted for the murder of Chellaurai and Christodas. Therefore, the reference of conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court to those two cases also are relevant facts. The deceased Harimachandran is no other than the nephew (elder sister's son) of A-1. This would establish his depravity and hardened criminality. No regard for precious lives of innocent young boys was shown.
They adopted the crime of murder for gain as a means of living."
7 He further submits that as per judicial verdict pronounced earlier in various cases that when the statutes provides maximum sentence, it is only for discussion purpose but it should be implemented. He further submits that if the Court is not going to pass maximum sentence, then there must be some strong reasons for not doing so by the Court. He further submits that if statute CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page213of 235 provides maximum sentence then definitely maximum sentence should be awarded as there is no reason for non-awarding of maximum sentence. He strongly objects against leniency towards the convict.
8 He submits that fine be imposed in view of the manner in which the crime was committed. He further submits that the expenses to meet out the investigation and the prosecution should at least be recovered being part of fine and compensation as per Section 357 (1) (a) of CrPC. He further submits that 80 witnesses have been examined who have come from different parts of the country.
9 Ld. Defence counsel for convict submits that convict is about 75 years of age. It is submitted that during trial convict has suffered heart attack on 31.08.2011 and underwent angioplasty with stenting. Two arteries are having major blockage. Three vessels are already dis-functional. It is further submitted that convict is CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page214of 235 suffering from hyper tension, Lowe B. P., suffering from stone in gal- bladder. He has also suffering from kidney problems. Convict is taking medical treatment continuously. It is further submitted that during trial wife and father of the convict left this world. No useful purpose would be served by sending convict behind the bars. Convict has already faced trial for 20 years and he has already suffered a lot. He has already been languished in jail for two years in a trap case and said punishment was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10 It is further submitted that in his childhood convict has suffered a lot as refugee when he came from West Punjab (now Pakistan). He came to Delhi by facing all such sufferings. Thereafter he studied with great difficulties having pain in the mind of that trauma. He studied being a good students at footpath and despite all odds he was through out a brilliant in his studies.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page215of 235 11 It is further stated that except the trap case and pursuant
thereof the present case, he always remained good and law abiding citizen of the society. No other case either has been registered or pending. He enjoyed good reputation in the society as he discharged all the responsibilities as father, husband and citizien of this country. Thus, due to all such circumstances convict has already suffered the severity of punishment. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the convict has referred Surain Singh v. State of Punjab decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.01.2009 and K. Lal v. CBI CA No. 261/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court on 20.05.2013.
12 After considering the rival contentions and law cited by both the parties as well as case law referred, this Court is of the view that being public servant, convict was getting salary out of the tax paid by the citizen of this country. Furthermore, In this case, convict was working as Assistant Director with AIR (R & D), IP Estate, New Delhi.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page216of 235 13 It is a matter of disappointment that an official working at
such a higher post in government sector became greedy person and started earning money beyond the source of his income. 14 In this case, convict instead of satisfying himself within the means of known source of his income involved to generate money which was disproportionate to his means as observed by this court in the judgment.
15 In view of the observations made herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no leniency can be granted to the convict in view of the fact that he disobeyed the duty assigned to him being a public servant.
16 In Madhav Haywadnarao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544 in this regard, our Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"The appellant was beyond economic compulsion of making a living by crimes CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page217of 235 means. It is, therefore, surprising that the Public Prosecutor should have, on behalf of the State, consented to a light sentence of conviction for the grave charges. The administration should view sternly white collar offenders and should not abet them by agreeing to a token punishment. In the present case, the trial court has confused between correctional approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment in serious social offences. Soft Sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents are the potential victims. It is altogether a different thing to insist on therapeutic treatment, hospital setting and correctional goals inside the prision-even punctuated by parole-opportunities of welfare work, mediational normalisation and healthy self- expression , so that a convict may be humanized and on release rehabilitated as a safe citizen. While iatrogenic prison terms are bad because they dehumanise, it is functional failure and judicial pathology to hold out a benignly self-defeating non-sentce to deviants who endanger the morals and morale, the health and wealth of society.
Quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the trial court, where the legislature stepped in a circumscribed and fittered the discretion by direction imposition of a minimum sentence the court can exercise its discretion within the limited sphere left open by the legislature. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page218of 235 offence. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both looses their efficaciousness. One does not deter and other may frustrate by making the offender a hardened criminal.
Cancer of corruption has eaten into the vitals of Indian Society. It has already done immense damage to our society. Through the public servants polices of Govt. are implemented. It is through the honest and incorruptible public servants, welfare society can be ensured. If the public servants are corrupt the whole structure of society would be upset and the policies of Govt., however, beneficial, may be, would adversely effected. Thus a corrupt public servant is a menace to the society. Political corruption is the worst from because its consequences are far reaching. When our leaders, who are the role model of society, whose every action should be above board are themselves corrupt, how can we except honesty and virtue from the public at large. Need of the hour is that cancer of corruption should be immediately checked.
17 This Court has further relied upon Mehkar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, 2011 (3) Crimes 94, (2011) ILR 4 Delhi 656 wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that :-
".......... There was no denial of the fact that the corruption by the public servants and CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page219of 235 particularly the law enforcers like the accused is an alarming menace to the society and which is spreading its tentacles in all walks of life. With regard to the quantum of sentence, nothing specific was pointed out by the learned defence counsel except for praying for leniency in view of the protracted pendency of the case. This was no ground to mitigate the gravity of the offence as per the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reference here can be made only to the case of State of A.P. Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao Manu/SC/0916/2003: (2004) 9 SCC 319.
In the given factual matrix, I am not persuaded to impose the minimum sentence as prayed by the learned defence counsel. In the overall circumstances, while maintaining the conviction as awarded by the learned Special Judge, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by sentencing the accused to two years of rigorous imprisonment on each count. Consequently, the order of sentence stands modified in the sense that the accused shall stand sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment each under section 7 and also under Section 13(2). The rest of the order shall remain unchanged. Both sentences shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off. The accused shall be taken into custody to undergo the imprisonment as awarded. The appeal stands dismissed."
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page220of 235 18 In the case titled Raj Kumar Vs. State of Delhi, Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, 2015 IV AD (Delhi) 280 has held that :-
" 57. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant as let off rather lightly by the learned Special Judge by awarding RI for one year with fine of Rs. 4,000/-, and on failure to pay the same, to undergo SI for four months for the offence under Section 7 of of the P.C. Act; and to further undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 6,000/- and on failure to pay the same, to undergo SI for six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. The appellant, who as a Beat Constable, was found guilty of committing criminal misconduct by exploiting his authority to force the complainant to pay him bribe. An officer entrusted the task of protecting the law, blatantly breached the same. Looking to the rampant corruption prevalent in the society, the sentence should, and could, have been harsher. I am, therefore, not inclined to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall surrender forthwith and undergo the remaining sentence."
19 In the case titled State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 2007 (2) ACR 1428 (SC) has held that :-
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page221of 235 "15. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country.
Large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in MANU/SC/0510/1997, lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics social fabric of efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and untraceably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.
And also in para no. 19 held that :-
..... From the analysis of the above decisions and the concerned provisions with which we are concerned, the following principles emerge:
a) When the court issues notice confining to particular aspect/sentence, arguments will be heard only to that extent unless some extraordinary circumstance/material is shown to the Court for arguing the matter on all aspects.
b) Long delay in disposal of appeal
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page222of 235
or any other factor may not be a ground for
reduction of sentence, particularly, when the statute prescribes minimum sentence. In other cases where no such minimum sentence is prescribed, it is open to the court to consider the delay and its effect and the ultimate decision.
c) In a case of corruption by public servant, quantum of amount is immaterial. Ultimately, it depends upon the conduct of the delinquent and the proof regarding demand and acceptance established by the prosecution.
d) Merely, because the delinquent lost his job due to conviction under the Act may not be a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence, particularly, when the Statute prescribes minimum sentence".
20 In the case titled Shiv Nanda Sahay Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar, Hon'ble High Court of Patna, 2011 (59) BLJR 124 has held that :-
"18. when corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals.
That was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page223of 235 that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand to given signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. If on the other hand any public servant is given the impression that if he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would help him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the case ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout would afford incentive to public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the fine amount through the same means."
21 In the case titled Soman Vs. State of Kerala, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, (2013) 1 SCC 382 has held that :-
"22. ..... 1 Courts ought to base sentence decisions on various different rationales - moth prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.
2 The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint.
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page224of 235
3 In so far as proportionality is
concerned, the sentence must be
commensurate with the seriousness or
gravity of the offence.
4 One of the factors relevant for
judging seriousness of the offence is the
consequences resulting from it.
5 Unintended consequences/harm
may still be properly attributed to the
offender if they were reasonably
foreseeable."
22 In the case titled A.B Bhaskara Rao Vs. Inspector of
Police CBI, AIR 2011 SC 3845 Visakhapatnam, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also relied upon the judgment titled as State of M.P Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar MANU/SC/8623/2006 (Supra). 23 In the case titled Manish Jalan Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3074, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, AIR 2011 SC 3845 has held that :-
12. .....In Hari Singh Vs. Manu/SC/0183/1988: Sukhbir Singh and Ors. 1989 Cril. J. 116, while emphasising the need for making liberal use of the provisions contain in Section 357 Cr.P.C. this court has observed thus:
It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page225of 235 addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed as step forward in our criminal justice system.
However, in awarding compensation, it is necessary for the Court to decide if the case is a fit one in which compensation deserves to be awarded. If the Court is convinced that compensation should be paid, then quantum of compensation is to be determined by taking into consideration the nature of the crime, the injury suffered and the capacity of the convict to pay compensation etc. It goes without saying that the amount of compensation has to be reasonable, which the person concerned is able to pay. It the accused is not in a position to pay the compensation to the injured or his dependents to which they are held to be entitled to, there could be no reason for the Court to direct such compensation. In Sarwan Singh and Ors Vs. MANU/SC/0163/1978, State of Punjab : 1978 Cril. J 1598.
Very recently in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. MANU/SC/1803/2007 : Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2007 Crl. J. 2417 explaining the scope and the purpose of imposition of find and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must be considered having the relevant factors CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page226of 235 therefore in mind. It may be compensating the person in one way or the other. The amount of compensation sought to be imposed, thus, must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of accused to pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, an enquiry in this behalf even in a summary way may be necessary. Some reasons, which may not be very elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the purpose being that whereas the power to impose fine is limited and direction to pay compensation can be made for one or the other factors enumerated out of the same; but Sub Section (3) of Section 357 does not impose any such limitation and thus, power thereunder should be exercised only in appropriate cases. Such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a judge."
24 In the case titled Rekha Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 218 (2015) DLT 1, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that :-
488. .......... The Supreme Court in its decision reported as (2013) 11 SCC 401, Jasvir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab expressed concern on the absence of a sentencing policy in the country and, therefore, cautioned the Courts to calibrate the punishment with due care and upon taking into account the relevant attending circumstances. The Supreme Court quoted CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page227of 235 with approval the luminous observations of English Judge Henry Alfred Mc Cardie which are reproduce hitherto-fore:
"....Trying a man is easy, as easy as falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he has been found guilty.
Chapter 19 of the Delhi High Court Rules deals with sentencing of offenders and throws insights on this aspect.
"1. The award of suitable sentence depends on a variety of considerations - The determination of appropriate punishment after the conviction of an offender is often a question of great difficulty and always requires careful consideration. The law prescribes the nature and the limit of the punishment permissible for an offence, but the Court has to determine in each case a sentence suited to the offence and the offender. The maximum punishment prescribed by the law for any offence is intended for the gravest of its kind and it is rarely necessary in practice to go up to the maximum. The measure of punishment in any particular instance depends upon a variety of considerations, such as the motive for the crime, its gravity, the character of the offender, his age, antecedents and other extenuating or aggravating circumstances, such as sudden temptation, previous convictions, and so forth, which have all to be carefully weighed by the Court in passing the sentence."
The facts of the present case as unfurled by the overwhelming evidence led CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page228of 235 by the prosecution at trial reveal a shocking and spine-chilling state if affairs prevalent in our country. An ingenious employment scam spanning across eighteen (18) districts of State of Haryana was given effect to by persons at the helm of power and the entire bureaucratic machinery fell prey to its satanic influence. Laudably, few individuals who were examined at the trial were forthright in the hour of adversity and did not succumb to the pressures exerted upon them from all quarters. Some individuals, such as PW-14, Dhup Singh, were not even high ranking officers of th Civil Services, but mustered courage to successfully repel the pressure exerted upon them.
It is submitted that the authors of the present crime were essentially public servants; who were duty bound to preserve and uphold the dignity of law. Some had even been administered 'oath' in terms of the Constitution of India. Yet they chose to flagrantly violate the law, betraying the trust reposed in them by the citizens and the Constitution. The very nature of the present crime, its magnitude, ramifications, designed manner of execution and the deleterious impact on the society at large, warrants a strict view, lest, justice be rendered sterile.
Very recently the Supreme Court in its decision pronounced on 06.05.2014 in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 682 while holding section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to be ultravires took CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page229of 235 serious note of malaise of corruption in our country and pertinently observed :
"77 This court in Shobha Suresh Jumani, took judicial notice of the fact that because of the mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight, or because of the ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by a few or because of change of environment in the society by adoption of materialistic approach, there is cancerous growth of corruption which has affected the moral standards of th people and all forms of governmental administration.
XXX XXX XXXX XXXX 80 ...In the supplementing judgment, A.K Ganguly, J. While concurring with the main judgment delivered by G.S. Singhvi, J. observed:
"Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance. It also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Premabular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page230of 235 against corruption....."
81 In balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, this Court observed that corruption was not only a punishable offence but also, "undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes".
82 In R.A. Mehta, the two-Judge Bench of this Court made the following observations about corruption in the society:
"Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the earliest as it shakes "the socio-economic-political system in anotherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society". Liberty cannot last long unless the State is able to eradicate corruption from public life. Corruption is a bigger threat than external threat to the civil society as it corrodes the vitals of our polity and society. Corruption is instrumental in not proper implementation and enforcement of policies adopted by the Government. Thus, it is not merely a fringe issue but a subject-matter of grave concern and requires to be decisively dealt with."
83 ..... It was observed :
"Abuse of public office for private gain has grown in scope and scale and hit the nation badly. Corruption reduces revenue; it slows down economic activity and holds back economic growth. The biggest loss that may occur to the nation due to corruption is loss of confidence in the democracy and weakening of the rule of law.".......
In the celebrated words of Martin Luther CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page231of 235 King, Jr. ; "Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
25 In the case titled Shanti Lal Meena Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (CBI), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision reported as 222 (2015) Delhi Law Times 654 (SC), has held that :-
To quote Friedman, "Generally the philosophy of deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both the individual offender and other members of society from the repetition of crime, or the litigation on the part of others by similar actions" [Law in Changing Society, W. Friedmann, 2nd Edition, P.224]. Unless the Courts award appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence under the PC Act and the status of the public servant at the relevant time, people will lose faith in the justice delivery system and the very object of the legislation on prevention of corruption will be defeated. The Court is the conscious of the statute and hence its judgments should project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should shake the faith of common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The Court has thus a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page232of 235 rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency will sent a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the institutional integrity, affecting the credibility of its verdict. Thus, while awarding sentence in case under the PC Act, the Court should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence".
26 On 21.12.2016, CBI has moved application for confiscation of Disproportionate Assets of the convict. 27 In this regard, as already held in judgment dated 19.12.2016, prosecution has proved that convict has accumulated disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.17,62,022.84 (127.25%) beyond his known sources of income, acquisition of which he could not satisfactorily explain. One of the most effective measure to check the corruption is that corrupt public servants should not be allowed to reap the benefit of the crop of corruption by sowed by them. Therefore, the assets worth equivalent to Rs.17,62,022.84 accumulated by the convict by illegal means are hereby forfeited to CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page233of 235 the State. Convict is directed not to dispose of such assets which are in his possession. (Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of UP AIR 1983 SC 60.) Application of the CBI stands disposed of. 28 After considering all the arguments raised in this court and the fact that disproportionate assets accumulated by convicts by illegal means, Sh. D. L. Dhawan, convict is hereby sentenced to undergo SI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.6 lac ( Six lac only) for offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for one year. 29 All the sentences shall run concurrently. 30 The fine imposed shall be dealt with U/s 357 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., out of the collected fine 25 % shall be applied towards the expenses incurred for the prosecution and is payable to CBI. Rest of the total collected fine amount shall be released to the State as CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page234of 235 compensation, who has suffered pecuniary loss due to the crime committed by the convict.
31 Benefit of Section 428 CrPC, if any, be given to the convict.
32 Convict has been supplied with copy of judgment and order on sentence free of cost separately.
33 While parting, this court appreciates the assistance provided to the court in this case by Sh. U. C. Saxena, Learned Sr. PP for CBI as well as Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Learned Defence counsel towards disposal of this case.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in ( Jitendra Kumar Mishra)
the open Court on 23.12.16 Special Judge, CBI (PC Act)
East District, KKD Courts : Delhi
CBI v. D. L. Dhawan page235of 235