Delhi District Court
C.B.I. vs . S. Malaichamy on 12 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) 01, CBI,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Special Judge (PC Act)
CC No.18/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0181522005
C.B.I. Vs. S. Malaichamy
S/o. Late Sh. P. Solai
R/o. 210, Madhuban, Delhi - 92.
RC No. : DAI2002A0023
u/Ss : 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988
Date of Institution : 09.03.2005
Received by transfer on : 27.09.2011
Arguments Concluded on : 29.11.2012
Date of Decision : 11.12.2012
Appearances:
Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel for accused S. Malaichamy
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 1 of 233
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Page Numbers
1. Chargesheet / FIR 2 to 61
2. Prosecution Evidence 61 to 138
3. Statement of Accused 138 to 157
4. Defence Evidence 157 to 161
5. Arguments 162 to 169
6. Findings 169 to 218
7. Conclusion 218 to 233
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 2 of 233
JUDGMENT
1.0 Accused S. Malaichamy has been tried for the offence u/S. 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 punishable u/S. 13 (2) of the Act for having disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 64,54,524/. FIR 1.1 Pursuant to reliable information, a regular case No. RCDA12002 A0023was registered on 08.04.2002 against Sh. S. Malaichamy, IAS 1971 batch (AGMUCadre), the then posted as Managing Director, Khadi Gram Udyog, Caning Lane, New Delhi by SP CBI ACB New Delhi. The investigation was entrusted to Sh. MS Singhal Dy. SP CBI, New Delhi. The abovesaid regular case was registered on the information that accused while functioning as public servant in various capacities acquired huge assets as detailed below :
1. Property no.1/24, Mall Road, Delhi at a cost of Rs. 1 crore.
2. Flat No. B504, Kedar Apartments, Plot No.15, Sector 9, Rohini at a cost of Rs. 6.5 lakhs approx.
3. C210, Madhuban, Preet Vihar, Delhi including the plot and the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 3 of 233 house at a cost of Rs. 6 lakhs approx.
4. Plot No. B60, Koshambi, Ghaziabad, UP at a cost of Rs. 3.25 Lakhs approx.
5. Plot No. H18D, Anna Nagar, Madurai on which a small structure has been erected at a total cost of Rs. 4 lakhs approx.
6. House in Village Mazhavaravanenthal, Tehsil Manamadurai Distt..Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu at a cost of Rs. 3.50 Lakhs approx.
Besides the abovesaid immovable properties, the accused had also acquired other movable assets including Maruti Zen car no. DES1 (costing Rs. 2.75 lacs approx.), Maruti Esteem car No. DL7SP001 (costing Rs. 4.78 lacs) and huge bank balance and FDRs etc. The accused was also reportedly leading a lavish lifestyle. The preliminary enquiry as indicated from the FIR (Ex. PW141/A) indicated that during the period 1971 onwards when the accused had joined as IAS, the total income of the accused was around Rs. 46 lacs (salary income of Rs. 36 lacs plus rental income of Rs. 10 lacs from property no. C210, Madhuban, Preet Vihar, Delhi). From this income after deducting non verifiable expenditure of around 12 lac, the likely saving of the accused would be to the tune of Rs. 34 lacs. However, the accused was CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 4 of 233 reportedly possessing assets to the tune of Rs. 1.3 crores which was highly disproportionate to his known source of income.
Consequent upon registration of FIR and armed with duly authorisation of the then SP CBI , PW141 Dy. SP MS Singhal conducted the detailed investigation and filed the charge sheet u/S. 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of PC Act 1988.
CHARGESHEET 1.2 Sh. S. Malaichamy joined the IAS in the year 1971 and retired on 31.05.02 after having worked in various capacities. Sh. S. Malaichamy had lost his father early and was brought up by his mother late Smt. Karuppayi Ammal . Sh. S. Malaichamy had also one sister Easwari. S. Malaichamy got married in the year 1974 to Smt. Manju Malaichamy and had two sons from the marriage namely Sendhil M. Solai (born in 1974) and Ilango M Solai (born in 1976). During period of service, Sh. S. Malaichamy remained posted with Government of Delhi, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Govt. of Mizoram and had also a tenure in MCD as Deputy Commissioner and also worked as Managing Director of Delhi Khadi Village Industries Board. The check period was taken as 01.04.85 till 09.04.2002. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 5 of 233
Dy. SP MS Singhal conducted detailed investigation and inter alia reached to the conclusion that accused S Malaichamy has also acquired assets during the check period in the name of members of his family i.e. mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy, both sons Sendhil M. Solai and Ilango M Solai as well as in the name of Solai & Sons (HUF). Investigating Officer discussed in detail the expenditure, assets acquired before the check period, income during the check period and assets at the end of the check period in the name of accused S. Malaichamy and other members of his family.
I. S. MALAICHAMY (A) INCOME :
(a) Income from salary - During the check period, the gross salary of the accused was in the sum of Rs.31,77,829.70 and he received the net salary after deduction in the sum of Rs. 15,69,773.70.
(b) Rental Income from property C210, Madhuban, Delhi - The property acquired and built before the check period, is in the joint name of S. Malaichamy and his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy. Sh. S. Malaichamy and his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy in their income tax return for the period CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 6 of 233 19932002 and 19932001 have shown the rental income in the sum of Rs. 3,25,270/ and 4,71,860/ respectively. IO has taken into account his rental income as shown in the income tax returns, as during the investigation the details of some of the tenants and payment made by them during the check period were not traceable. The benefit of rental income earned by S. Malaichamy during the check period, as per income tax returns is as follows : Rental income of S. Malaichamy 19851986 6,000.00 19861993 1,48,538.00 19932002 3,25,270.00 April 2002 810.00 .........................................................
Total 4,80,618.00 ......................................................... The investigation also revealed that S. Malaichamy had earned the following, "other incomes" during the check period:
INCOME S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Honorarium received as exofficio Managing Director of Delhi Cooperative 16,840.00 House Finance Corporation, 3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi.
2. Income in the form of withdrawals from GPF 5,12,505.00 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 7 of 233 (1985 - Rs. 10, 000 1988 Rs. 62, 505 (for making payment for plot No. H18 D, Anna Nagar, Madurai.) 1999 - Rs. 1,15,000 (for making payment of civil services Officers Welfare Society) 2000 Rs. 30,000 (for the purpose of purchasing Maruti Zen Car) Total Rs. 5,12,505 IO did not take into account the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/ from the GPF in the year 1985 as the same was taken for the purpose of defraying expenses in connection with the marriage of his close relative.
3. Advance taken by Sh. S. Malaichamy for car 40,000.00 (Accused had taken advance for buying car in the year 1986 and the same has also been taken as income. )
4. Income from the sale of car bearing regn.No. DBG 4100 10,000.00 (Accused had purchased a second hand Maruti Car Model 1984, Regn. No. DBG - 4100 from M/s. Banson Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Shivaji Road, Rohtak Road, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 50,000/ in the year 1987 which was sold by him for Rs. 60,000/ to M/s. Hemkunt Service Station Pvt. Ltd. through Chaddha Motors for Rs. 60,000/.
5. Income from the sale of car bearing regn. no. DES1 45,436.00 (Accused purchased another Maruti Car DES 1 (Standard 800 Model) in the year 1988 for an amount of Rs. 79,564/ and sold the same to his brother in law Sh. Durai Kaliarathinam for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ . IO took into account Rs. 55,436/ as income Rs. (10,000 + 45,436) from the sale of the abovesaid cars.
6. Total rental income from rent of property C210 Madhuvan, Delhi. 4,80,618.00
7. Interest income on NSS A/C. No. 2200536 dated 28.03.1995 of Shri S. 27,406.00 Malaichamy received on 21.08.2001 .
Accused S. Malaichamy had also earned the interest, as follows from his different NSS Accounts, saving banks accounts, FDRs Account, PPF Account, IDBI Flexi Bonds, and ICICI Infotech Tax Saving bonds Certificate, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 8 of 233 SBI Mutual Fund during the check period.
1 Interest income on NSS A/C No. 2200170 34,675.00 2 Interest income on NSS A/C No. 1103670 54,183.00 3 Interest income on NSCs No. 11 CC 75532022, 10 EE 90412124, 48,720.00 04DD779203 4 Interest income on SB A/C. No. 2596 in PNB, Madhuban. 16,593.15 5 Interest income from A/c. No. 52036 in SBI, Old Secretariat, Delhi including 25,228.90 the interest on the FDRs.
6 Interest income from PPF A/c. No. 902826 in SBI, Old Secretariat 1,485.43 7 Interest income from SB A/c. No. 6213 in Syndicate Bank 1,736.00 8 Interest on FDR in A/c. No. 6213 held in Syndicate Bank 558.00 9 Interest income from SB A/c. No. 26484 in Canara Bank, Kashmere Gate 4,620.00 10 Interest income from SB A/c. No. 30912 in Canara Bank, Kahmere Gate 51.00 11 Income from interest received from ICICI Infotech Tax Saving Bonds on 1,252.00 30.04.2001 12 Interest income from IDBI Flexi Bonds 6 3,750.00 13 Interest income from IDBI Flexi Bonds 9 44.00 14 Income from dividend received from SBI Mutual Fund (MELS 91) for the 12,395.00 period from 199293 to 199899 including the difference in the investment and redemption amount INCOME FROM LIC POLICIES :
1 Income from LIC Policy NO. 24744353 33,075.60 2 Income from LIC Policy NO. 24744354 33,038.00 3 Income from LIC Policy NO. 42718536 18,480.00 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 9 of 233 DETAILS OF POLICIES LIC Policy Date of Premium Period Amount paid Amount No. commencement Mode by the accused Refunded 24744353 01.04.1978 Half yearly 01.04.78 to 31.03.85 10, 456.60 33075.60 = (paid for 20 01.04.85 to 17.10.97 (52,495 -
years) 19,419.40 19419.40)
24744354 Not available Not available Paid till 31.03.1985 10,456.60 33,038.00=
19,419.40 (52,457.40 -
19419.40)
42718536 Not available Not available Paid till 31.03.1985 5,495.00 18480 =
4,710 (231904710)
The investment made in the abovesaid three policies till 31.03.85 has been taken as assets before the check period.
PROPERTIES IN SOUTH INDIA
1. Agricultural income - The investigation revealed that Solai & Sons (HUF) has been showing agricultural income from land bearing no. 325, 328, 329, 342, 345 and 348 measuring about 15 acres in Laxmipuram Village. The abovesaid ancestral land was divided between Sh. P. Solai (father of accused S. Malaichamy )and his uncle Sh. Kumaran and unregistered document dated 26.01.75 revealed that survey No. 358/3 and 348/4 fell to the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 10 of 233 share of accused. However, the revenue record showed that survey No. 348/4 stands in the name of accused S. Malaichamy and survey no. 358/3 stands in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. The other survey nos. were in the name of other cousins of the accused, who among themselves enjoyed the income from the agricultural yield vide ancestral agricultural land as per the revenue record.
The cultivation records provided by the Village Administrative Officer, Sh. P. Siva Subramaniam indicated that the agricultural income of survey no. 348/4 for the period 198586 to 200102 has been assessed as Rs.3,27,629/ and on the similar basis, agricultural income of survey no. 358/3 has been assessed as Rs.28,968/. The accused had also a joint saving bank A/c. No. 3805 with his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupachetti, which was opened on 20.09.89 and accused had an interest income in the sum of Rs.34,017/ during the period 19942002. The bank could not prove details of the interest income prior to the period 1994.
Investigation Officer also gave benefit of interest income earned on the NSCs for the period of assessment year 198687 to 199293 in the sum of Rs. 59,107.50 on the basis of income tax returns filed by the accused.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 11 of 233
1 Agricultural income from survey no. 348/4 in Lakshmipuram, Vembathur 3,27,629.00
Village, Sivagangai
2 Interest income from various FDRs in SB A/c. No. 3805 in IOB, Tirupachetti 34,017.00
3 Interest income from NSCs purchased during 1985, 1986, 1987 (19861992) 59,107.50
B. EXPENDITURE
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY SHRI S. MALAICHAMY
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Expenditure towards education of Sendhil M. Solai for class VIII to XII in St. 17,697.00
Xavier's school
2. Expenditure towards education of Ilango M. Solai for class VI to XII in St. 21,674.00
3. Expenditure towards education of Shri Ilango M. Solai in Priyadarshini 1,41,000.00
College of Computer Science,
4. Expenditure towards PG Diploma course of Business Management pursued by 1,91,000.00
Shri Ilango M. Solai in Fore School of Management
5. Expenditure on pursuing engineering degree of Sendhil M. Solai in College of 1,98,153.00 Engineering, Badnera, Amravati.
6. Expenditure on house tax paid to MCD in respect of property No. 210. 11,870.00 ( Being joint property half of the 23,740/ has taken as an expenditure)
7. Expenditure towards conversion charges and composition fee paid to DDA in 7,700.00 respect of flat No. 210, Madhuvan.
8. Payment made towards membership No. HS6 of Roshnara Club, Roshnara 26,001.30
9. Payments towards application processing fee, entrance fee and annual 6,900.00 subscription of Membership No. IN212 of Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
10. Expenditure towards membership NO. SD300 in National Sports Club of 11,846.36 India
11. Payment made as member of Massonic Club, Qudsia Garden, Delhi. 42,760.00
12. Expenditure towards membership No.190 of S. Malaichamy in Civil Services 8,000.00 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 12 of 233 Officers Institute.
13. Expenditure towards membership in Indian Council for Cultural Relations, IP 2,000.00 Estate, New Delhi.
14. Expenditure towards membership of Noida Golf Course. 5,000.00
15. Expenditure towards membership of Delhi Gymkhana Club, Safdarjung Road. 5,260.00
16. Expenditure towards time membership of M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts (I) 54,075.00 Ltd., Chennai in the name of S. Malaichamy and Ilango M. Solai.
17. Insurance of Maruti Zen for the period 20002001 paid to National Insurance 15,121.00
18. Insurance of Maruti 800 No. DES 1 paid to United India Insurance Co.. 7,976.00
19. Insurance of Maruti Zen No. DES 1 paid to United India Insurance Co.. 9,331.00
20. Payment of electricity bill towards electric connection K.No.31200459918 1,48,077.00 DX/D009 at 10, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
21. Expenditure towards land cost, share money, water charges, maintenance 13,061.00 charges, etc. paid to Delhi officers Coop House Building Society.
22. Interest and other expenditure incurred towards loan taken from Oriental Bank 43,430.00 of Commerce, Kingsway Camp, Delhi vide loan A/c. No. 37 (The accused had taken a loan from OBC in the year 1989 and the same was repaid in the year 1992)
23. Expenditure on purchase of marble from Jain Marbles, Green Park Extension, 2,00,000.00 New Delhi in March, 2002
24. Expenditure towards dropping of marble 3,000.00
25. Expenditure towards license fee paid in respect of official residence D1/1, 1 18,236.00 Rajpur Road for the period from 01.12.96 to 09.04.2002
26. Purchase of batteries from Shreya Enterprises 9,351.00
27. Payment made towards purchase of US$500 to M/s Transcorp International 21,975.00
28. Payment made towards purchase of Thai Airways Ticket for DelhiBankok 20,200.00 PhuketSingaporeDelhi from M/s. Ritco Travels Ltd.
29. Expenditure on Citi Bank Card No. 4568229359430007 1,67,962.61
30. Expenditure towards servant Kitchen helper 11,200.00
31. Locker rent for locker in PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. 4,910.00
32. Total income tax filed apart from TDS 1,84,392.00 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 13 of 233
33. Property tax paid in respect of plot No. 18D, Anna Nagar, Madurai 11,398.00
34. Expenditure towards visa card No. 45436330 1008 4725 of Canara Bank 14,272.00
35. Expenditure on commission/fees on the sale of car paid to Chaddha motors 750.00
36. Locker rent paid in respect of locker No. 4/34 maintained in SBI, Vinayak 3,015.00 Nagar
37. Expenditure towards transportation of goods from Karaikudi to Mall Road, 34,500.00 New Delhi through Supreme Road Lines Pvt. Ltd.
38. Non Verifiable expenditure 6,84,943.23 (Investigation Officer has also added a sum of Rs. 6,84,943.23/ as non verifiable expenditure on the basis that accused has received a gross salary of Rs. 31,77,829.70/ during the check period, out of which he paid the income tax in the sum of Rs. 6,78,769/ leaving the balance of Rs. 2499060.70/. IO took 1/3rd of this amount 8,33,020.23/ as non verifiable expenditure. Out of this payment of electricity bill towards Electric Connection at 10, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines was Rs. 1,48,077/ which was deducted and therefore non verifiable expenditure in the sum of Rs. 6,84,943.23/ has been taken into account.
Total 23,78,037.7 C. ASSETS
The investigation revealed that accused had following assets at the end of the check period:
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF S. MALAICHAMY S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Investment in Civil Service Officers Welfare Society, Greater Noida 10,19,217.00 (Accused made total payment of Rs. 10,19,217/ during the period from April 1997 to 09.04.2002 towards allotment of plot No. C2, in the societies land (plot No.1, pocket P7, Greater Nodia, UP.) The payments were made through account no. 37241 in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Ilango M. Solai in PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi and from A/c. No. 52036 of Sh. S. Malaichamy in SBI, Old Secretariat, Delhi. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 14 of 233
2. Investment of Plot No. B60, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad in stamp duty and 3,17,426.25 registration charges for Plot No. B60, Kaushambi.
(Payment of Rs. 2,93,726.25 towards plot No. B60 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad plus Rs. 23,700/ towards the stamp duty and registration)
3. Payment towars plot No. H180, Annanagar, Madurai including registration 3,88,804.00 (The plot was allotted by Madurai Housing Unit vide order dated 15.04.88 and sale deed was duly executed in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy. The payments of Rs. 3,70,304/ was made towards plot and sum of Rs. 18,500/ was paid towards stamp duty and registration) (A) MOVEABLE ASSETS
1. Vehicle no. DES1, ZEN VXI. 4,23,655.00 The investigation revealed that as on 09.04.2002, there was a credit balance in the various bank account as mentioned below :
1 Bank Balance in SB A/c. No. 2596 in PNB Madhuban 22,877.31 2 Balance in a/c. No. 52036 in SBI, Old Secretariat 1,38,729.57 3 Balance in PPF A/c. No. 902826 46,485.43 4 Balance in A/c. No. 30913 in Canara Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. 5,121.00 5 Balance in A/c. No. 100639 in Punjab & Sind Bank, Purana Qila Road 3,990.00 INVESTMENTS IN BONDS 1 Investment in Tax Saving Bonds of ICICI Infotech, Mumbai. 10,000 2 Investment in IDBI Flexi Bonds 6 10,000 3 Investment in IDBI Flexi Bonds 9 20,000 4 Investment in IDBI Flexi Bonds 11 20,000 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 15 of 233 FDRs AND CASH 1 FDR in IOB, Tirrupachatti No. RDPS 2/2002 38,693 2 Cash observed at D1/1 MCD Officers Flat 34,400 3 Cash seized at B 504 Kedar Apartments, Rohini, Delhi 12,70,000 OBSERVATION MEMOS 1 Value of the observation memo drawn during the course of search at D1/1 1,14,700 MCD Officers Flat, 10 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. 2 Value of the observation memo drawn during the course of search at C210 2,300 3 Value of the observation memo at B504 Kedar Apartments, Rohini, Delhi 56,950
(i) D1/1, MCD Officers Flat, 10 Rajpur Road, Delhi - The value of the house hold items observed in the course of search at this official residence of Sh. S. Malaichamy falling between the check period is Rs. 2,40,200/. From this amount reducing the amount of the clothing assets and utensils which is Rs.1,05,500/ the amount comes to Rs.1,34,700/ which is being included in his movable assets. Further a cash amount of Rs. 34,400/ was also observed.
A computer was also observed in the study room and investigation revealed that Rs.20,000/ were spent by Sendhil M. Solai for the purchase of the said computer which has therefore not been included in the total amount. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 16 of 233
(ii) B504, Kedar Apartments, Plot No. 15, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi The value of the house hold items as revealed during investigation is Rs. 64,850/. From this deducting the amount of clothing, utensils which is Rs.7,900/ the value comes to Rs.56,950/ which is being included in his movable assets. Further cash amount of Rs.12,70,000/ was also seized from this premises.
(iii) C210, Madhuban, Delhi - Similarly the value of the house hold items falling within the check period observed at this residence is Rs.2,300/ which is included in his movable assets.
The Investigation officer did not take into account H. No. C210, Madhuban, Delhi as the same was acquired and built before the check period. Similarly, property no.1/24, Mall Road, Civil Lines, Delhi was also not found in the name of the accused. However, the investigation revealed that this property was sold to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) for consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs and accused S. Malaichamy and the members of his family had advanced a loan in the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs to Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) which are detailed as below :
1. Smt. Karuppayi Ammal Rs. 5 lacs CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 17 of 233
2. Smt. Manju Malaichamy Rs. 4 lacs
3. Sh. Ilango M. Solai Rs. 2 lacs
4. Solai & Sons Rs. 7 lacs The above amount advanced as loan to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta has been taken as assets separately for the abovesaid persons while discussing their assets.
The Investigation Officer also did not take into account 1266 gm gold recovered from the different lockers as the 1109 grams gold had been declared by the mother of the accused in her wealth tax return and therefore since difference was not much (157 grams), the assets have not been taken into account.
ASSETS OF ACCUSED S. MALAICHAMY
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHECK PERIOD
Movable Cash in Hand 10,000.00
Investment in LIC Policy No. 24744353 10,456.60
Investment in LIC Policy No. 24744354 10,456.60
Investment in LIC Policy No. 42718536 5,495.00
Investment in the NSCs purchased in the
financial year 198485 6,000.00
Value of the household items as observed in the observation memo at different premises during the course of search 42,750.00 Immovable Half share in the property 210 Madhuban, Delhi Total:
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 18 of 233
II. SMT. KARUPPAYI AMMAL The investigation revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had been advancing the short term loan to various private parties and earning an interest on the same.
A. INCOME
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Ramji Lal Rajendra Prasad 10,648.00
2 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. RK Tade Links, 592, Katra 7,350.00
Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi.
3 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Kishori Lal Chander Bhan, 6,244.00
4 Income from the interest on the loan of lakh given to M/s. Kishori Lal 5,843.00
Chander Bhan,
5 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Harbans Lal and Co. 72,797.00
6 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Ram Gopal Hari Ram 4,736.00
7 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Kirori Mal Prem Chand 2,250.00
8 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Chaman Lal & Sons 5,580.00
9 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. Kothari & Sons 7,100.00
10 Income from the interest on the loan given to Chabbra Saree Emporium 2,250.00
The investigation also revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had also taken some loans from the private parties which were not repaid till the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 19 of 233 end of the check period which are as follows : Loan Income :
1 Loan received from M/s. Kalpvriksha Engineers and Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 50,000.00 2 Loan received from M/s. Gauri Leathers Pvt. Ltd. 56,875.00 3 Loan received from Shri MK Tuli 50,000.00 Rental Income B504, Kedar Apartments, Sector15, Rohini, New Delhi The investigation revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had been paying rental income from this property from the financial year 199091 onwards.
However, it was found that the tenant in this property remained only for the period 0.1.2001 to 31.03.2002 and therefore rent receipt from Sh. Sunil Gupta for the part of the premises of B 504, Kedar Apartments, Rohini and the security deposit yet not refunded was taken in the sum of Rs. 73,500/ as income.
1 Rent received from Shri Sunil Gupta for the part of premises B504, Kedar 73,500.00 Apartment, Rohini and the security deposit yet not refunded 2 Rental income from the Chandni Chowk property, which was given on lease to Indian 12,53,574.50 Bank 3 Rental income received by Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in respect of property NO. 119, 4,94,300.00 Karpaga Nagar, K. Pudur, Madurai.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 20 of 233 Interest Income:
The investigation also revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had the following income during the test period :
1 Interest income on NSC No. 10 EE 90571516 2,300.00 2 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 2200535. 22,838.40 3 Agricultural income from survey no. 358/3 in Lakshmipuram, Vembathur Village, 28,968.00 Sivagangai Taluk, Distt. Sivaganga 4 Interest income from RD in IOB, Tiruppachatti 6,307.00 Benefits given on the basis of income tax returns : During the course of investigation, the IO found certain income shown by Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in her income tax returns. However, no evidence in this regard could be gathered. Still the IO gave the benefit of the same on the basis of income tax returns which are as follows :
1. Income from income tax refunds 21,415.00
2. Income from sale of jewellery 1,08,651.00
3. Interest income of SB interest 10,268.50
4. Income from profit of sale of rights of membership in respect to plot of Defence 21,987.00 Officers Cooperative Housing Society, Noida
5. Interest income from Mittal Associates and Aggarwal Aluminium Agency 4,650.00
6. Interest income from various firms (19891990) 31,307.00
7. Interest income from various interest received (19861987) 18,500.00
8. Income from dividend from Delhi Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. 1,500.00
9. Interest income from various interest received (198586) 19,450.00
10. Miscellaneous Income (19871988) 20,000.00 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 21 of 233 Thus, during the check period, Smt. Karupai Ammal was found to have earned an income in the sum of Rs.24,26,926.90.
B. EXPENDITURE
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY KARUPPAYI AMMAL
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Expenditure towards ground rent, property tax and other society expenses in 27,601.00
Gyan Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Ltd.
( Society expense in respect of Flat No. 2804 in Gyan Shakti Cooperative 1 Group Housing Society Ltd., Dwarka) Expenditure towards maintenance charges paid to Kedar Cooperative Group 84,048.00 2 Housing Society in respect of flat No. 504 in the society Property tax paid in respect of property No. 309, Chandni Chowk, Haveli 1,70,000.00 3 Haider 4 Property tax paid in respect of property No. 504, Kedar Apartments, Rohini 33,757.00 5 House Tax paid towards property no. 414, Starlite Coop Group Housing 16,296.00 Expenditure towards allotment and subsequent cancellation of plot in 8,551.00 indrapuram plot Scheme, Ghaziabad {(Smt. Karuppayi Ammal applied for a plot in Indirapuram Plot Scheme in the year 1989) and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,87,923/. Later on she withdrew the application and got a refund of Rs. 3,79,372/ (after deducting Rs. 6 8,551/)} Expenditure incurred towards interest and other charges paid towards loan 34,901.00 taken from Oriental Bank of Commerce vide loan A/c. No. 50 (Smt. Karuppayi Ammal took a loan of Rs. 76,125/ and Rs. 72,188/ in the 7 year 1990) and repaid the same in the year 1992. Payment of Electricity bill towards K.No. 5711223143 installed at B504, 44,960.65 8 Kedar Apartment, Rohini CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 22 of 233 Payment made through application No. 2741 in DDA 12,200.00 (Smt. Karuppayi Ammal applied for AAY89 Scheme of DDA in the year 1989 9 which was pending till the end of the check period.) 10 Total income tax paid a part from TDS 1,38,530.00 11 Total Wealth Tax paid 2,213.00 Expenditure incurred towards building plan approval, road laying fees, 12,130.00 building material fees etc. towards property no. 119, Karpaga Nagar, K. 12 Pudur, Madurai 13 Property tax paid in respect of plot No. 119, Karpaga Nagar, Madurai. 27,285.00 14 House Tax paid for house at Mazhavaranenthal Village 572.00 15 Expenditure made towards the registration of will 200.00 Expenditure made towards land in village Chailera Bangar, District 1,71,164.00 Ghaziabad purchased through Sh. Harish Chand (Smt. Karuppayi Ammal purchased this land in the year 1989 for the sum of Rs. 1,52,089/ and paid an amount of Rs. 19,335/ towards stamp duty and 16 registration charges) Expenditure towards investment in Delhi Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. 1,100.00 (Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had paid an amount of Rs. 1100/ towards membership number 520/568 to Delhi Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd., for allotment of Industrial Plot, however no such plot had been allotted till the 17 end of the check period.) 18 Expenditure towards filing of income tax returns 3,300.00 Total 7,88,808.65 C. ASSETS :
(i) Immovable Assets :
(a) Investment in Shiksha Vihar Awas Samiti : Investigation has revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal applied for membership in Shiksha Vihar Awas CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 23 of 233 Samiti, S11, South Side of GT Road, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad on 04.06.87 and was allotted membership No. 733. Towards this membership number she has made a total payment of Rs. 97,100/ from 1987 to 2001. No land has yet however been allotted by the society to her. The following is the details of the payment made : Sl. No. Mode of Payment Amount (Rs.) Name of the Bank 1 Cash / 04.06.1987 8,100 Cash 2 473897 dt. 23.08.2000 14,000 PNB, Civil Lines 3 473897 dt. 10.09.2000 25,000 PNB, Civil Lines 4 471285 dt. 28.02.2001 50,000 PNB, Civil Lines The payment at Sl. No. 2,3,4 has been made from A/c. No. 29765 of PNB, Civil Lines which is in the joint names of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S. Malaichamy. While the cheque at Sl. No. 4 could not be provided by the bank, the cheques at Sl. No.2 and 3 have been issued under the signatures of Sh. S. Malaichamy.
(b) Investment in Gyan Shakti cooperative Housing Society Ltd. : Investigation revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had applied for membership in the said society Plot No. 7, Sector 6, Dwarka, PhaseI, New Delhi in 1989 and she was allotted flat no. 2804 on 06.06.98 the possession of which was taken by her on 19.03.99. She has made a total payment of Rs. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 24 of 233 1039110/ towards the admission fees, share money and cost of flat and another Rs. 1 lakh towards the car parking space. Therefore, the total investment in this regard comes to Rs. 11,39,110/ . Out of the total payment of Rs. 11,39,110/, Rs. 110 has ben paid in cash and the remaining payment has been made through various cheques of PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi (total No. of cheques being 19). Out of these 12 original cheques have been provided by the bank and the same bears the signatures of Sh. S. Malaichamy. This payment has been made from a/c No. 29765 which is in the joint names of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal.
(c) Investment in Starlite Cooperative Group Housing Society : Investigation revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal applied for membership in Starlite Cooperative Group Housing Society, Kingsway Camp, Delhi in the year 1990 and in the year 1999 flat No. 414, Category C was allotted to her the possession of which was taken by her in the year 2000. She has made a total payment of Rs. 8,17,414/ towards the share money, cost of construction etc. to the society. Further in the application out of the total amount of Rs. 8,17,444/ Out of this, only Rs. 4210 has been paid in cash and the remaining has been paid vide cheques of PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi (total number of cheques being 25) and one cheque of Indian Bank amounting to CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 25 of 233 Rs. 30,000/. 17 original cheques have ben provided by the bank and the same bears the signature of Sh. S. Malaichamy.
(d) Investment in Kedar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Investigation revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had applied for membership in the said society sector 9, Rohini in the year 2989 and subsequently allotted flat no. B 504 in the said society. She has made a total payment of Rs.3,82,774/ towards the construction money for this flat. The payment has been made through cheques of PNB, Civil Lines but since it pertain to the period 198990 and the same being very old thus, the original cheques could not be provided by the bank.
(e) Investment in Haveli Haiderkuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi Investigation revealed that 1/16th portion of the property bearing Municipal No. 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 368, 369 and part of 370 at Haveli Haiderkuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was purchased from Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs vide sale deed dated 16th October 1991. Investigation has also revealed that she has paid a total amount of Rs. 64101 towards stamp duty and registration charges. Therefore, the total investment towards this property is Rs. 8,64,101/. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 26 of 233
(f) Investment in Khasra No. 326, Village Khora, Paragana Loni, Tehsil Dadari, Distt, Ghaziabad : Investigation revealed that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal has purchased land measuring 2 Kham out of Khasra NO. 326, Village Khora, Paragana Loni, Tehsil dadari, Distt. Ghaziabad for an amount of Rs. 45000/ from Sh. Mohar Singh, S/o. Dal Chand R/o. Village Khora, Paragana Loni, Tehsil dadari, Distt. Ghaziabad through General Attoreny Sh. Har Prashad Singh R/o. Ganesh Nagar Extension, Shakarpur, Delhi92. It has further been proved that she has spent an amount of Rs. 5,260/ towards stamp duty and registration charges for the same. Therefore, the total value of the asset is Rs. 45,260/. Further as per the Khasra, Khatuni records the said vacant plot still stands in her name.
SOUTH INDIA :
(g) Property bearing Survey No. 35/2A, Chettiyagram Village, Tambaran Taluk Kancheepuram Distt., Tamil Nadu : Investigation revealed that she had purchased land measuring 5300 sq. ft. consisting of survey no. 35/2A at Chettiyargram Village, Tambaran Taluk, Kancheepuram Distt., Tamil Nadu vide sale deed no. 1353 dated 29.03.2001 for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 27 of 233 further an amount of Rs. 52,000/ was spent by her towards the stamp duty.
The said property was purchased by her from one Sh. Nageshwar Rao S/o. Sh. AN Rao. She has further paid an amount of Rs. 52000/ as stamp duty and Rs. 13,643/ as registration charges. Therefore, the total value of the asset is being taken as Rs. 4,65463/.
(h) Property No. 119, Karpaga Nagar, K.Pudur, Madurai : Investigation revealed that the said property was purchased vide sale deed No. 1067 of 8687 from Sh. Ramanathan, S/o. Chidambaram Chettiyar, R/o. Rangiam Village, Tiruchi Distt. For an amount of Rs. 44,132/. The seller could not be traced during investigation. Further the registration charges and stamp duty charges paid during the purchase are Rs. 454 and 5745/ respectively. Therefore the total value of this asset is being taken as Rs. 50,331/. Investigation has revealed that construction of the said property was carried out between September 1990 and June 1993. On the basis of this period of construction the property was got technically evaluated for the cost of the construction from the CPWD, Madurai. The report mentions the cost of construction as Rs. 6,41,850/ which is included in the assets.
(i) Construction on Survey No. 82/3, Mazhavaranenthal Village, Sivagangai, Taluk, Tamil Nadu : Investigation revealed that Ramaji CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 28 of 233 Ammal, Poochi ammal w/o. Sevagam, Rakkallam w/o. Murugan sold survey no. 82/3, Flower Garden to Smt. Karuppayi Ammal for an amount of Rs. 850/ sale deed no. 970 registered on 05.05.76. Before 1988 this land was in the name of the government and it was only in 1988 vide the proceeding of Tehsildar dtd. 10.12.88 that the above survey no. was assigned to Smt. Karuppayi ammal. During the year 1990 construction was carried out at the said land. The construction was got technically evaluated from CPWD, Madurai and as per the evaluation report the cost of construction at the above said survey number is Rs. 2,39,832/. therefore, this amount is being taken as her asset. Since the check period has been taken from 01.04.85 onwards, the cost of acquisition is not being taken in the assets.
(j) Investigation revealed that in the income tax returns filed for the assessment year 19871988, an amount of Rs. 15,000/ has been shown to have been expended in the purchase of an old car and the said asset also finds mention in the last return available for the assessment year 20012002. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 15,000/ is also taken as her asset on the said count.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 29 of 233
C. ASSETS
(1.) Movable Assets :
(k) Investigation has revealed that Karuppayi Ammal had invested the
following amount in NSC and NSS :
National Saving Certificates (NSC)
NSC Number Amount (Rs.)
14 EE - 914594 to 914596 30,000.00 (Rs.10,000 each)
19 EE 586039 to 586041 30,000.00 (Rs.10,000 each)
NSS
NSS Account No. Year Amount (Rs.)
2200596 1996 30,000.00
2200657 1997 40,000.00
2200725 2000 25,000.00
Above said NSCs and NSS are being taken as the assets of Karupayyi Ammal.
(l) The outstanding loan given to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs is also being counted as an asset.
South India
(m) Investigation has revealed that the value of FDR No. RDP(S) 1/2002 in Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupachetti as on 09.04.2002 is Rs. 56,307/ and is being taken as her asset.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 30 of 233 Assets at the beginning of the check period : Investigation has revealed that the assets as on 01.04.1985 are as follows : Immovable Assets :
1. Land bearing Survey No. 82/3, Mazhavaranenthal Village, Sivagangai, Taluk, Tamil Nadu Movable Assets :
1. Cash in hand Rs. 16,200
2. Deposits Rs. 82,000
3. Jewellery 603 gm.
III. SMT. MANJU MALAICHAMY A. INCOME
CBI after the conclusion of the investigation, found that during the check period Smt. Manju Malaichamy had income of Rs.14,64,017.21 ps and during the check period, she had incurred expenditure in the sum of Rs.94,565/. Smt. Manju Malaichamy acquired the assets during the check period in the sum of Rs.6,29,835.96/.
The investigation also revealed that Smt. Manju Malaichamy had 917 gms of gold jewelery at the beginning of the check period and had also ½ CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 31 of 233 share in property No.C210 Madhuban, New Delhi which was acquired and built up by her and Sh. S. Malaichamy, before the beginning of the check period. Smt. Manju Malaichamy had also cash in hand in the sum of Rs.4,700/ and bank FDR interest in the sum of RS.48,300/ at the beginning of the check period. It was found that Smt. Manju Malaichamy had largely income from loans given by her to the private parties and income earned on NSS and PPF A/c. The details of the interest income from the private parties are as follows :
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Interest received on a loan given to M/s. A.K. Electricals, Than Singh Nagar, 28,000
Anand Parbat, New Delhi.
2 Interest income from Sh. Pradeep Khanna 14,000
3 Income from the interst on the loan given to Harbans Lal &company 8,351
4 Interest income from Sh. Virender Kumar 19982001 37,450
5 Interest income from Rajiv Kumar 19982001 70,000
6 Interest income from Laxmi Traders 19982000 89,500
7 Income from Ramji Lal Rajender Prasad Makhanlal Suresh Chand 19891990 4,790
8 Interest income from Sharan Kumar Anil Kumar 19881989 5,820
Smt. Manju Malaichamy had also earned interest income from NSS and PPF. The details of which are as follows :
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 2200534 18,271.7
2 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 2200171 10,506
3 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 1113547 22,021
4 Interest income from PPF A/c. No. 902832 1,287.51
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 32 of 233
During the check period Smt. Manju Malaichamy had also earned Rs.7,462/ from the sale transaction of the land. The details of which are as follows:
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Income from sale of land measuring 4.16 acres in village Katpadi Katpadi 7,462
Taluk vide sale deed No. 3330/2000 dated 09.08.2000 which was purchased in the year 1989 for an amount of Rs. 1,30,000 and Rs. 18,422 was spent on registration and stamp duty while purchasing in 1989. Smt. Manju Malaichamy had also received gift in the sum of Rs. 1,99,200/ from her mother Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad in the year 2000 vide gift deed and same was duly intimated in her income tax returns.
Smt. Manju Malaichamy being the joint owner of C210, Madhuban, New Delhi had a rental income in the sum of Rs.7,94,730/ from the period 1985 to 2002, as follows :
Rental income of Smt. Manju Malaichamy 19851993 3,18,000 19932001 4,71,860 20012002 4,060 April 2002 810 .........................................................
Total 7,94,730 ......................................................... Smt. Manju Malaichamy had petty cash gift from the period 1985 to 1991 in the sum of Rs.11,800/ and FDR interest for the period 1985 to CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 33 of 233 1990 in the sum of Rs.31,307/ which has also duly been added in her income.
In the year 198889 Smt. Manju Malaichamy also sold some of her jewelery for a sum of Rs.51,921/ to M/s. Kailash Jewelery House, Karol Bagh and this amount has also been added in the income of the accused. It is pertinent to mention here that IO had taken into interest income earned by Smt. Manju Malaichamy from Sh. Virender Kumar, Sh. Rajiv Kumar, M/s. Laxmi Traders, M/s. Sharvan Kumar Anil Kumar and Ramji Lal Rajender Prasad, Makhan Lal Suresh Chand on the ground that the same was declared by her in income tax returns, whereas no other evidence in this regard could be found.
B. EXPENDITURE During the course of investigation, it was found that Smt. Manju Malaichamy had incurred the following expenditure :
1. Investigation revealed that the total house tax paid towards property No. C210 Madhuvan, Delhi is Rs. 23,740/, the half of which i.e. Rs.
11,870/ is being considered as her expenditure.
2. Investigation has revealed that the total income tax paid apart from the TDS from the financial year 198586 to 200001 is Rs.75,040/ which is CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 34 of 233 being counted as her expenditure.
3. Similarly, the Wealth tax filed during the Financial Year 198687 to 199192 is Rs. 4,355/ which is also being counted as her expenditure.
4. Investigation has revealed that she has paid an amount of Rs.3,300/ to M/s. B. Goyal and Associates for filing of the income tax and the wealth tax returns during the check period which is also being included in her expenditure.
C. Assets acquired during the course of check period :
(i) Movable Assets :
1. Investigation has revealed that she has purchased Daewoo Microwave Oven from M/s. Ahuja Electronics during the year 1998 for an amount of Rs.12,800/.
2. Investigation has revealed that the following are the balance in the various NSS accounts and the PPF account as on 09.04.2002 which is being taken as her movable asset.
1 Investment in NSS A/c. No. 2200714 during the year 2000. Rs. 25,000/ 2 Investment in NSS A/c. No. 2200658 during the year 1997 Rs. 20,000/ 3 Balance in PPF a/C. No. 902832 in SBI, Old Secretariat as on 09.04.2002 Rs. 46,287.51 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 35 of 233
3. Investigation has revealed that Smt. Manju Malaichamy had purchased diamond jewellery amounting to Rs. 11872.80/ during the year 198889 from M/s. Lachman Dass and Co., Chandni chowk, Delhi6. This amount is being included in her movable assets on this count.
4. Investigation has revealed that she has given a loan of Rs. 4 lacs to Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) which was still outstanding during the check period and hence is being taken as her assets.
(ii) Immovable Assets :
5. Investment in Shiksha Vihar Awas Samiti :
Investigation has revealed that Smt. Manju Malaichamy applied for membership in Shiksha Vihar Awas Samiti, S11, South side of GT Road, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad on 04.06.87 and was allotted membership No.
734. Towards this membership number she has made a total payment of Rs. 97,100/ from 1987 to 2001. Investigation has revealed that the payment was made during the period 1987 to 2001 vide four cheques of Syndicate Bank amounting to Rs. 8100, Rs. 14,000, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000. The last three cheques have been issued from A/c. No. 6214 in Syndicate Bank under the signatures of Sh. S. Malaichamy. However, the said account is a joint account.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 36 of 233
6. Investment in Swaragpuri Garden Estate, Madras :
During the course of searches documents were seized relating to payment of an amount of Rs.16,775.65 towards plot No. 48, Block 28, measuring 2334 sq. feet at Swaragpuri Garden Estate Madras. As per the documents the said estate was being developed by Ross Muraka (India Ltd.) having its offices at Delhi, Madras, Mumbai, Bangalore. However, the notices/letters to the various addresses of the company returned unserved. Further there is no mention of the said payment or return of the same in the income tax returns. Sh. S. Malaichamy confirmed that the money was stuck up. Therefore, this is being counted as her assets as no proof could be provided that the money has been returned back. Assets at the beginning of check period i.e. on 01.04.1985: Investigation has revealed following assets at the beginning of the check period.
Moveable :
1. Cash in hand Rs. 4,700/
2. Bank FDR with interest Rs. 48,300/
3. Jewellery 917 gm.CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 37 of 233
Immovable :
4. Half share in the property C210, Madhuban, Delhi.
IV. SENDHIL M. SOLAI A. INCOME
During the course of investigation, it was found that Sh. Sendhil M. Solai S/o accused had also been earning interest from loan advances to the private parties as well as income from the bank deposits. The details of the income earned by way of interest are as follows :
Interest Income Loan Name of Parties Period Principal Interest Amount M/s Sriniwas and Co. 198990 Rs.45,000 Rs.2,160 M/s. Kishori Lal Chander Bhan 198990 Rs.50,000 Rs.2,200 M/s. Harbans Lal & Co. 199395 Rs.1,06,000 Rs.24,253 M/s. Mehra Agency 20012002 Rs.7 Lakhs Rs.43,934 Salary Income Investigation has revealed that he has earned an amount of Rs. 90,000/ from 12.05.1995 to 15.01.1997. This payment has been made to him by M/s Surge Systems India Pvt. Ltd. towards executing computerization project for the firm which was a part time job given by the firm to him. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 38 of 233
Investigation has revealed that he has worked in HCL. Technologies Ltd. during the period 02.04.1998 to 31.10.1999 and for the said period the company has paid him a net salary of Rs.2,16,003/ which is also being counted as his income.
Interest Income - Bank Investigation has revealed that he has maintained a SB A/c No. 24240 in UTI Bank, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The said account was transferred in this branch from UTI Bank, Noida on 26.05.2001. The interest income in the account till 09.04.2002 is Rs.177/. Similarly, the interest income from A/c No. 28690 in UTI Bank, Noida from the period 19.12.1998 (date of opening) till 23.05.2001 (date of close) is Rs.996/.
Investigation has revealed that he maintained an account No.P37/17332 in State Bank of India, Badnera, Amravati, Maharashtra. The said account was opened on 23.10.1993 with the initial balance of Rs.2800/. The interest income in the said account till 09.04.2002 is Rs.61/.
Investigation has revealed that Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad, mother of Smt. Manju Malaichamy has gifted an amount of Rs.2 Lakh to Sendhil M. Solai vide a gift deed during the year 20002001 which is also being taken as his income. The said amount has also been duly intimated to the income tax CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 39 of 233 office. Similarly, for the assessment year 199091 an amount of Rs.40,000/ has been given as gift as per the gift documents by Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad and other family members (her sons J. Anant Narayan, Sh. Satya Nararyan and Sh. J.T.N. Prasad) vide four gifts affidavits amounting to Rs.10,000/ each which has been confirmed by Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad and Sh. J. Anantha Narayan. The same is also being counted as his income. Benefits given on the basis of Income Tax Returns:
Investigation revealed that in the balance sheet for the period 198586 bank FDR with interest amounting to Rs.84,293/ was indicated and from the assessment year 198687 to assessment year 199495 a total amount of FDR interest of Rs.28,228.95 has been filed which is being counted as his income. The total amount of petty cash gifts filed in income tax returns from the period 198592 till is Rs.55,000/ which is also being counted as his income.
Interest income from bank interest filed from the assessment year 198595 for which statement of account is not available with the bank but the income has been shown in the income tax return i.e. Rs.23,361.75. The bank indicated in the income tax return is Syndicate Bank and there were CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 40 of 233 accounts of other family members in Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar and Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School Extn. Counter, Civil Lines Delhi.
Similarly an amount of Rs.5009/ as interest accrued from the CTD post office as mentioned in the income tax return is also counted as his income.
Benefits given on interest income
Name of Parties Assessment year Amount (Rs.)
Har Karan Das B. Chand 198990 1,347.00
Premier Auto Mobiles 198990 4,223.49
Rattan Lal Brij Mohan 198990 3,860.00
Rattan Lal Brij Mohan 198889 3,800.00
Rattan Lal Brij Mohan 198788 3,600.00
Rattan Lal Brij Mohan 198687 5,400.00
Rattan Lal Brij Mohan 198586 1,800.00
Since the above said interest income have been indicated in the income tax returns, the total amounting to Rs.24,030.49. The benefit of the same is also being given to him.
(xi) He has also indicated an amount of Rs.15,000/ as other income received during the year 19992000 the benefit of which is again being given.
(xii) An amount of Rs.2887/ accruing from the refund of the income tax paid is also being counted as his income.
In the income tax return file, he has shown a loan of Rs.2 lacs from CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 41 of 233 PNG Pvt. Ltd. which is shown as outstanding but Sh. M.K. Tuli, Director of the firm has denied the same. Therefore, the benefit of this Rs.2 lacs is not given to him.
B. EXPENDITURE : (i) Investigation revealed that he has paid Rs.27,556/ towards
insurance of Maruti Esteem No. DL7SP 0001 during 200102 from United India Insurance, Karampura, Delhi which is being counted as his expenditure.
(ii) Investigation revealed that he has made a payment of Rs.27,584/ towards bills of telephone No.2394671 in his name installed at the premises D1/1, 10, Rajpur Road, Delhi during the period June 2000 to March 2002, which is also being counted as his expenditure.
(iii) Investigation revealed that Sh. Sendhil M. Solai, S/o Sh. S. Malaichamy has applied for built up shops in the year 1998 under SC/ST category to the DDA but he remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots and so an amount of Rs.2000/ was refunded back but the same was received back in the DDA office undelivered. Therefore, this amount is being taken as his expenditure.
(iv) Investigation has revealed that Sendhil M. Solai maintained card CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 42 of 233 No. 4129048395010306 with Standard Chartered Bank and the total amount spent by him through this card and subsequently paid to the bank during the check period is Rs.66,429.34 which is also being included in his expenditure.
(v) On the basis of the income tax returns an amount of Rs.30,000/ is being taken as his investment expenditure in the firm Neural I. Com. during the year 19992000 as the benefit of the income shown in the income tax returns for the said year has also been given. In this it is pertinent to mention that this amount includes the amount of Rs.20,000/ of a computer with Internet connection as indicated in the observation memo of the Rajpur Road premises which is not being totalled in the said observation memo.
(vi) The total amount of income tax paid by him during the check period apart from the TDS is Rs.4321/ and the wealth tax paid during the check period amounting to Rs.413/ is being counted as his expenditure.
(vii) Investigation has revealed that an amount of Rs.3300/ has been paid to M/s B. Goyal and Associates for filing of the income tax and the wealth tax returns during the check period which is also being included in his expenditure.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 43 of 233
C. Assets acquired during the check period: (i) Immovable : Investigation revealed that Sh. Sendhil M. Solai was
member of Central Excise House Building Cooperative Society, Central Revenue Building, Queens Road, Bangalore since 1995 and paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs during the period 23.06.1995 to 02.06.1997 against the allotment of site No. 57 at Kammanahalli, II Phase, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. This amount is being taken as his asset.
(ii) Movable : Investigation revealed that Sendhil M. Solai purchased vehicle No. DL7SP0001, Maruti Esteem LX in the year 1999 from M/s Saya Automobiles Ltd. for a total payment of Rs.4,78,918/ which is also being taken as his asset.
(iii) Investigation has revealed that he spent an amount of Rs.11,200/ in purchasing Akai Music System from M/s. Ahuja Electronics during the year 1998 and the same is being taken as his asset.
(iv) Similarly, one Toshiba Laptop was observed during the house search at the official residence of Sh. S. Malaichamy and the same is mentioned in the name of Sh. Sendhil M. Solai for an amount of Rs.38,000/ and the period of purchase is 1998. The same is also being taken as his movable asset.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 44 of 233
(v) Investigation has revealed that the balance in account No. 24240 in UTI Bank, Shakti Nagar as on 09.04.2002 amounting to Rs.5803.84 and in SBI, Badnera in A/c No. P37/17332 amounting to Rs.608 as on 09.04.2002 is being taken as his asset.
(vi) Deposits in PPF A/c No. 116 in PNB, Civil Lines Delhi from 09.12.1998 to 09.04.2002 is Rs.60,000/ which is also taken as his asset. Assets at the beginning of the check period:
1. Cash in hand Rs.20,000/
2. Bank FDR with interest Rs.84,293/ V. ILLANGO M. SOLAI A. INCOME Interest Income Loan Name of Parties Period Interest Sh. Pradeep Khanna 20002001 Rs.7,000 M/s. Esskay Trading Co. 19992000 Rs.18,690 M/s. Chaman Fruit Centre 199899 Rs.23,625 M/s. Chaman Lal & Sons 199899 Rs.18,900 M/s. Amar Dal Mill 198889 Rs.4,189 M/s. Amar Dal Mill 198990 Rs.2,395 M/s. Harbans Lal & Co. 199395 Rs.28,330 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 45 of 233 Salary Income Name of Firm Period Salary M/s New gen Software Technologies Ltd. April'2001 to 09.04.2002 Rs.1,68,414/ M/s Deepika Agencies (part time) 1995 to 1999 Rs.1,48,000/ M/s Solutions Integrated Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. 2000 Rs.10,000/ (stipend)
2. Investigation revealed that he maintained SB A/c No. 5508 in Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School Extn. Counter, Civil Lines Delhi. The said account was opened on 09.05.1988 and the interest earned in this account till 13.12.1995 is Rs.1,884.50. Investigation has revealed that the interest income on various FDRs in this account is Rs.2,646/ for the period 04.01.1992 to 07.06.1993. Investigation has also revealed that the interest income form A/c No. 7077 in Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar, Delhi from the period March 1987 till May 1988 when the account was transferred in Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School Extn. Counter, Civil Lines Delhi is Rs. 1,409.35.
3. Investigation revealed that Sendhil M. Solai maintained an account No. 28975 in ICICI, G.K. PartI, New Delhi. The interest accured in this account till 09.04.2002 is Rs.159/ which is taken as his income. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 46 of 233
4. Investigation revealed that he had purchased a Hero Honda Std. Motorcycle from M/s Essay Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Karol Bagh for an amount of Rs.40,119/ in the year 1997 and he has further sold the same to one Sh. Kuldeep Singh for an amount of Rs.33,000/ in the year 2001. Therefore, his net income from this transaction is Rs.()7,119/.
5. Investigation revealed that Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad, mother of Smt. Manju Malaichamy gifted an amount of Rs.2 lakh to Sendhil M. Solai vide a gift deed during the year 200001 which is also being taken as his income. The said amount has also been duly intimated to the income tax office.
Similarly, for the assessment year 199091 an amount of Rs. 40,000/ has been given as gift as per the gift documents by Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad and other family members (her sons J. Anantha Narayan, Sh. Satya Nararyan and Sh. J.T.N. Prasad) vide four gifts affidavits amounting to Rs. 10,000/ each which has been confirmed by Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad and Sh. J. Anant Narayan. The same is also being counted as his income. Benefits of income given on the basis of the income tax returns:
6. Sendhil M. Solai indicated an income of Rs.21,500/ in the year 19981999, Rs. 42,000/ in the year 19992000 and Rs.24,500/ in the year CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 47 of 233 200001 as interest income from Sh. Virender Kumar which is also being counted as his income.
7. Similarly, he has shown an income of Rs.40,920/ in the year 19981999, an amount of Rs.93,830/ in the year 19992000 and Rs.12,500/ in the year 20002001 form Sh. Rajender Prasad. Sh. Rajender Prasad could not be traced during the investigation. However, this benefit of total amount of Rs.1,47,250/ is being given to him as he has filed the same in the income tax returns. Similarly, interest income from Sheonath Rai Ram Dham amounting to Rs.510/ and Maruti Ltd. amounting to Rs.1100/ and interest income of Rs.2100 and another Rs.7200/ has been shown in the income tax returns during the check period the benefit of which is also being given to him. The total of this comes to Rs.10,910/ which is counted as his income during the check period.
8. He has filed income tax returns showing petty cash gifts total amounting to Rs.72,030/ from the period 198593 the benefit of which is also being given to him and the same is being counted as his income.
9. A Bank FDR with interest accrued amounting to Rs.48,150/ is indicated in his income tax returns as on 01.04.1985 and the interest accrued from the same till the period 199091 is Rs.25,117.70 which has been CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 48 of 233 indicated misc. income of Rs.15,000/ in the income tax return for year year 20002001, the benefit of which is also being given to him.
10. An amount of Rs.550/ has also been claimed as the refund on the income tax returns during the check period for the returns filed by him from time to time and the same is also being taken as his income.
B. EXPENDITURE (i) Investigation has revealed that he has paid an amount of Rs.1006/
towards insurance of Hero Honda Motorcycle No. DL4SS0001 during the period 19982000 from Untied Insurance Company, Karampura, New Delhi which is being taken as his expenditure.
(ii) Investigation has revealed that he maintained card No. 5546199084475003 issued by Citi Bank on 13.09.2000 and the expenditure made through this credit card from June 2001 to November 2001 is Rs. 4516.29/ which is taken as his expenditure.
(iii) The total amount of income tax paid by him a part from TDS is Rs. 28,066/ during the check period which is being counted as his expenditure and the amount charged by M/s B. Goyal and Associates for the filing of the various returns i.e. Rs.3300/ is also being taken as the expenditure in him CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 49 of 233 name.
C. Assets acquired during the check period (i) Immovable assets: Investigation revealed that Sh. Ilango M. Solai
is member of Central Excise House Building Cooperative Society, Central Revenue Building, Queens Road, Bangalore since 1995 and he has paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs during the period 23.06.1995 to 02.06.1997 against the allotment of site No. 58 at Kammanahalli, II Phase, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. This amount is therefore, taken as his asset on the said count.
(ii) Movable:
a) Investigation has revealed that he had purchased one Daewoo refrigerator from M/s Ahuja Electronics, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi62 vide bill No. 4520 dated 23.06.1998 for an amount of Rs.25,500/ which is being taken as his asset. The same has not been totaled for in the observation memo.
b) During the course of search one Sansui Colour T.V. was observed in the Observation Memo purchased during the period 199899 for an amount of Rs.7000/ which is being included in his assets. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 50 of 233
c) One Canon 50mm Camera purchased from Singapore was also observed for an amount of Rs.10,000/.
d) Investigation has revealed that he has a balance of Rs.885/ in account No. 28975 in ICICI Bank, G.K.I, as on 09.04.2002 and the same is being taken as his asset.
e) Investigation has revealed that the deposits in PPF A/c No. 115 in Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi in the name of Ilango M Solai from 09.12.1998 to 09.04.2002 is R.47,000/ which is also being taken as his asset.
f) Investigation has revealed that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is still outstanding as on 09.04.2002 as the loan given to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) and the same is taken as his asset.
Assets at the beginning of check period: Investigation has revealed that the following are the assets as on 01.04.1985:
1. Cash in Hand Rs.23,300/
2. FDR with bank interest Rs.48,150/ CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 51 of 233 VI. SOLAI AND SONS: A. INCOME Interest Income Loan Name of Parties Year Principal Amount Interest M/s. Mehra Agency 20002001 Rs.4 Lakhs Rs.49,000 M/s. Chaman Lal & Sons 199596 Rs.3 Lakhs Rs.10,530 M/s. Chaman Lal & Sons 199697 Rs.3 Lakhs Rs.21,735 M/s. Harbans Lal & Co. 199394 Rs.6,051 199495 Rs.6,825 Interest Income - Bank Bank Name FDR No. Principal Amount Interest Bank of Madurai, Karol Bagh 34742 Rs.3 Lakhs Rs.9,143 PNB, Civil Lines 37423 Rs.13,771 (interest accrued including FDR Benefits given on the basis of income tax returns:
1. Solai & Sons filed an income tax return showing income of Rs. 1,750/ in the year 199899, Rs.21,000/ in the year 19992000 and Rs.5,250/ in the year 20002001 from Sh. Rajiv Kumar. Sh. Rajiv Kumar could not be traced during the investigation. However, the benefit of this amount totaling CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 52 of 233 to Rs.28,000/ is being given as per the income tax returns for the same has been filed.
2. Similarly, Solai & Sons filed an income tax return of Rs.1,533/ in the year 19981999, Rs.21,197/ in the year 19992000 and Rs.5,250/ in the year 20002001 from M/s Laxmi Traders. Sh. Naveen Mehra of M/s Laxmi Traders though has confirmed that he had taken loan and paid interest to Solai & Sons though, but could not provide the various details. However, the benefit of this amount totaling to Rs.27,980 is being given as the income tax returns with respect to the same have been filed.
3. Similarly, Solai & Sons showed an interest income of Rs.5,280/ form Mannu Gunni Traders, Rs.4,850/ from Sant Lal Kanhiya Lal and Rs. 5,250/ from M/s. Banwari Lal Babu Lal in the year 198889, Rs.3,960/ from M/s. Manohar Lal Desh Deepak, Rs.2,300/ from M/s. Munna Lal and Sons and Rs.2,275/ from M/s Banwari Lal Babulal all in the year 198990. The firms being old had closed down and they could not provide the details as the records being old and since the income has been reflected in income tax returns in respect of the same, the benefit of income was being given. Similarly the interest income as indicated in the income tax returns amounting to Rs.13,500/ in the year 198788, Rs.13,000/ in 198687, Rs.12,000/ in the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 53 of 233 year 198586 was being taken as the income.
4. As per the income tax returns the assets as on 01.04.1985 included bank FDR along with interest amounting to Rs.53,925/. Subsequently, as per the income tax return filed an interest income from FDRs amounting to Rs.19,297.50 from year 198590 and then for the year 199495. Thus the benefit of the same was being given and the same was also being included in the income. Solai & Sons filed an income tax return showing interest income from Syndicate Bank amounting to Rs.11,602.55 from the year 19871996. The Syndicate Bank was not able to provide the old statements of accounts. However, since the income tax returns had been filed the benefit of this income was being given. The income from the income tax refund amounting to Rs.1,570/ in the year 199798 was also being given and the same is counted as income within the check period.
5. In the income tax return filed from the A.Y. 198687 to A.Y. 20012002 the rental income to Rs.18000/ per year has been shown from the parental property at Village. Sh. S. Malaichamy confirmed that he did not have any such income which was also confirmed in investigation. Therefore, no benefit was given.
6. Solai & Sons had filed income tax returns showing total agriculture CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 54 of 233 income of Rs.6,04,903/ during the check period. However, the benefit of the income as revealed in investigation was given separately to Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S. Malaichamy, in whose names the land stands and hence, this benefit is not being given to Solai & Sons.
B. EXPENDITURE (i) The total income tax paid by Solai & Sons a part from TDS during
the check period is Rs.19,418/ and the Wealth tax paid during the check period is Rs.15,055/ and the both are being included in the expenditure. Similarly the amount of Rs.3300/ charged by the Chartered Accountant for the filing of the said returns during the check period is also being including in the expenditure.
C. ASSETS Assets acquired during the check period:
1. Balance in A/c No. 34723 as on 09.04.2002 is Rs.6682/ in PNB, Civil Lines Delhi which is being included in the assets.
2. Loan given to Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gutpa (HUF) is Rs.7 lacs and the same is yet outstanding as on 09.04.2002 and is included in the assets. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 55 of 233 Assets at the beginning of check period: As per the income tax returns the assets as on 01.04.1985 are as follows:
1. Cash in hand Rs.26,200/
2. Deposits Rs.90,000/
3. Bank FDR along with interest Rs.53,925/ VII. JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS
1. Investigation revealed that there is an account No. 6214 in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Smt. Manju Malaichamy in Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School Extn. Counter, Civil Lines, Delhi and the said account was opened on 06.08.1991 and the interest earned from this account till 09.04.2002 is Rs.8,795/. Similarly the interest earned in the various FDR's from time to time in this account during the check period is Rs.2,783/.
Investigation also revealed that the interest income from A/c No. 7079 in Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar, Delhi from March 1987 till 1991 when the account was transferred to Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School Extn. Counter, Civil Lines Delhi is Rs.3,961.80.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 56 of 233
2. Investigation revealed that following joint accounts were opened :
Bank Name Opened on Account No. Joint Names
Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines 01.05.1989 29765 Smt. Karuppayi Ammal & Sh. S.
Malaichamy
Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines 12.01.1996 37421 Sh. S. Malaichamy & Ilango M.
Solai
Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines 12.01.1996 37422 Sh. S. Malaichamy & Sendhil M.
Solai
The interest accrued in the abovesaid accounts during the check period is as follows: Sl. No. Account No. Interest Income including income of interest on FDRs.
1. 29765 in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Rs.21,934/ Ammal in PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi.
2. 37421 in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Ilango M. Solai Rs.22,431/ in PNB, Civil Lines Delhi.
3. 37422 in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Sendhil M. Solai Rs.13,207/ in PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi including the interest on the FDRs amounting to Rs.3781/ which is being taken as income.
3. Investigation revealed that SB A/c No. 8651 in Indian Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi was being maintained in the joint name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S. Malaichamy. The said account was opened on CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 57 of 233 11.03.1995. The interest income in the said account from the date of opening till 09.04.2002 except from the period 03/96 to 02/98 for which the statement of account has not been provided by the bank is Rs.4381/
4. Investigation revealed that A/c No. 19075 was opened on 04.04.1995 in SBI, Old Secretariat in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Sendhil M. Solai and was closed on 19.12.2000. The interest in the said account during this period is Rs.5888.90 which is being taken in income.
5. Investigation revealed that SB A/c No. 6241 at SBI Vinayak Nagar, Madurai is in the joint names of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S. Malichamy. This account was opened on 24.05.1988 with a deposit of Rs. 100 and the total interest income till 09.04.2002 is Rs.10,071.35. The TDR was made on 16.09.1988 for Rs.60,000/ and no records pertaining to the same are available in the bank as the same is old. However, there is an transfer entry for Rs.62,415/ which is being construed as the interest entry for this FDR. Therefore, the total interest accrued vide this account including the benefit of the said FDR is Rs.12,486.35.
6. Investigation revealed that A/c No. 250875 in Canara Bank, Maduarai existed in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S. Malaichamy. Initially it was opened in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 58 of 233 on 05.05.1987 and was converted into joint account on 15.04.1988. The interest in the said account from 05.05.1987 to 30.07.1997 and 01.01.1999 to 09.04.2002 is Rs.16,345.30. The bank could not provide the details for the period 30.07.1997 to 01.01.1999.
7. Investigation revealed that A/c No. 3805 in Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupachetti was opened on 20.09.1989 in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. The interest income from the opening till 09.04.2002 is Rs.2,986.10.
8. Investigation revealed that A/c No. 19075 in SBI, Old Secretariat, Delhi was opened on 04.04.1995 in the name of Sendhil M. Solai and Sh. S. Malaichamy and the interest income in the said account till its closure on 19.12.2000 was Rs.5,888.90.
9. Investigation revealed that account NO. 6081 in Canara Bank, Vellore was opened on 31.05.1989 with an initial amount of Rs.100 and since there was no further transactions the same was closed down by the bank after deducting the service check. Therefore, there is no interest income nor any balance with could be taken as assets on the said account. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 59 of 233
VIII. JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS (ASSETS) Investigation revealed that the following were the balances in the various joint accounts as on 09.04.2002 which has been included in the assets: S. No. Account No./Bank In the name of Balance as on 09.04.2002
1. 6214, Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School Sh. S. Malaichamy and Rs.53,492.10 Extn. Counter, Civil Lines Delhi. Smt. Manju Malaichamy
2. No. 37421, PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. Sh. S. Malaichamy and Rs.2,644.29 Ilango M. Solai
3. No. 37422, PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. Sh. S. Malaichamy and Rs.3,87,639.35 Ilango M. Solai
4. No. 29765, PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. Sh. S. Malaichamy and Rs.1,38,637.75 Smt. Karuppayi Ammal
5. No. 8651, Indian Bank, Chandani Chowk, Sh. S. Malaichamy and Rs.47,705.73 Delhi. Smt. Karuppayi Ammal
6. No. 6241, SBI, Vinayak Nagar, Madurai. Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Rs.12,221.24 Sh. S. Malaichamy
7. No. 250875, Canara Bank, Madurai Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Rs.37,862.30 Cooperation, Madurai. Sh. S. Malaichamy
8. No. 3805, Indian Overseas Bank, Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Rs.1,011.60 Tirupachetti. Sh. S. Malaichamy Rs.6,81,214.36 Conclusion:
1.3 The final values of the income, expenditure and assets of Sh. S. Malaichamy and his family members as per charge sheet is as follows: CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 60 of 233 Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs.
1. Total income of Sh. S. Malaichamy and his family members 94,30,263
2. Total expenditure of Sh. S. Malaichamy and his family members 34,97,696
3. Total likely savings of Sh. S. Malaichamy and his family members (21) 59,32,567/
4. Total assets at the beginning of the check period in the name of Sh. S. 5,39,476/ Malaichamy and his family members.
5. Total assets at the end of the check period in the name of Sh. S. 1,29,25,568/ Malaichamy and his family members
6. Total assets acquired during the check period in the name of Sh. S. 1,23,86,091/ Malaichamy and his family members (54)
7. Disproportionate assets (63) 64,53,524/ The investigation revealed that against a likely saving of Rs.59,32,567/ (including the likely savings of the family members of Sh. S. Malaichamy), the total assets in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy and members of his family, is to the tune of Rs.1,23,86,091/.
CHARGE 2.0 Being a prima facie case, charge u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of PC Act, 1988 was framed against the accused vide detailed order dtd. 9/3/04, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3.0 EVIDENCE Prosecution has examined 141 witnesses in support of its case. The CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 61 of 233 prosecution witnesses have been categorized in the different heads for the proper appreciation of evidence and the same have been discussed herein below under the different heads. Since the evidence has been discussed headwise, there may appear repetition of PWs, however, an attempt has been made that only relevant portion of the testimony has been discussed under the particular head.
A. S. Malaichamy 3.1 Witnesses regarding Salary Income
Prosecution has examined PW1 KS Saklani, PW2 Nand Kishore Singh, PW3 RK Bhatnagar, PW4 MC Jain, PW5 AK Bhatnagar, PW9 Ajai Vatan and PW118 T. Mara. These witnesses have proved the salary details of the accused during the check period and the pay certificates.
PW1 Sh. KS Saklani proved the letter, Ex.PW1/A vide which the salary details of the accused for the period 19/3/99 to 8/11/2000 given in LPC and its annexures Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C were handed over to CBI and during this period, the net salary of accused was Rs. 2,93,945/.
PW2 Nand Kishore Singh proved letter dtd. 10/7/03 Ex.PW2/A vide which salary details of the accused for the period 16/10/78 to July 79, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 62 of 233 April 1980 to October 1980 and April 1986 to October 1988 Ex.PW2/B to D were handed over to CBI and during this period, the net salary of accused was Rs.97,550.80.
PW3 Sh. RK Bhatnagar proved letter Ex.PW3/A vide which salary details of the accused for the period 12/2/86 to 28/2/86 and March 1986 were handed over to CBI and during this period the net salary of accused was Rs.2,352/.
PW4 MC Jain proved letter Ex.PW4/A vide which salary details of accused for the period 9/11/2000 to 31/3/2002 Ex.PW4/A1 to A4 were handed over to CBI and at that time, the net salary of accused was Rs. 2,95,920/.
PW9 Ajai Vatan proved letter dtd. 18/6/03 Ex.PW9/A regarding salary details of the accused for the period 20/9/94 to March 97 Ex.PW9/A1 to A3. The same was handed over to CBI alongwith LPC for the period upto 19/9/94 Ex.PW9/A4, LPC for the period upto 31/3/99 Ex.PW9/A5 and photocopy of PBR mark PW9/X collectively. During this period, the gross salary of accused was Rs. 4,38,849/ and net salary was Rs.2,10,014/. PW9 also proved letter dtd. 21/7/03, Ex.PW9/B regarding salary particulars of accused for the period April 1997 to March 1999 Ex.PW9/B1 & B2 and CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 63 of 233 during this period the gross salary of accused was Rs. 6,28,573/ and net salary was Rs. 3,49,567/.
PW118 T. Mara proved certificate dtd. 4/8/03 Mark PW118/A regarding the salary of the accused for the period 18/7/84 to 11/2/86 which was issued by G. Rime, Under Secretary (Establishment), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. He also proved the photocopy of Register of Pay & Allowance as Mark PW118/B. 3.2 Witnesses of Income under Other Heads PW6 Mohd. Quamer Toheed proved letter Ex.PW6/A vide which information dtd. 20/6/1986 regarding sanctioning of car advance of Rs. 40,000/ to accused and interest repaid by him during May 1987 to August 1991 was handed over to CBI. PW6 proved the detailed calculation regarding the same as Ex.PW6/B . PW6 proved the certified copy of ledger sheets as Ex.PW6/C1 to Ex.PW6/C3 .
PW7 Sh. Kishan Chand proved letter dtd. 5/12/02 Ex.PW7/A vide which information regarding payment of fee of Rs.16,840/ to the accused for the post of Managing Director for the period April 1999 to August 2000 was handed over to CBI.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 64 of 233
PW60 Sh. V. S. Vellaichamy proved the agriculture Income details with respect to survey no. 328/4, 329/4, 324/1, 329/5, 342/2, 343/3A, 343/3B, 345/5B, 384/4, 358/2, 358/3 vide survey report, marked Ex. PW60/A (colly). PW60 stated that these survey report was prepared by him under the directions of the Joint Director Agriculture, Shivagangai District and according to the survey report no.348/4 for the period 19811982 to 20012002 the total income is Rs. 4,14,863/ and for the survey no.358/3 the total income is Rs. 41,891.16/. PW60 further stated that the abovesaid property belongs to accused S. Malaichamy.
3.3 GPF Withdrawals PW8 Sh. SU Khan proved letter Ex.PW8/A vide which the detailed statement of account of the accused from the period 197778 to 200203 running into 5 pages, Ex.PW8/B was handed over to CBI. PW8 also proved total withdrawal of Rs.5,25,205/ from GPF A/c No.AISCR213 pertaining to the accused during the year 19882000. 3.4 Investments PW10 Sh. Naresh Kumar proved application Ex.PW10/A vide CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 65 of 233 which accused purchased NSE No. 11CC755320 to 755322 for Rs.1000/ each, 10EE904121 to 904124 for Rs.10,000/ each and No. 04DD779203 for Rs.5,000/ bearing registration No. 117 of ISBT Post office. Accused made a total investment of Rs.48,000/ on 4/3/94 and on maturity total amount of Rs.96,720/ including interest of Rs.48,720/ vide cheque No. 056851 was received.
3.5 Witness regarding rental income - C210 Madhuban PW11 Dhirender Kumar stated that he paid monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/ for the period November 1993 till October 1999 for the property of ground floor and basement of H.No.C210 Madhuban belonging to the accused and his wife. He further stated that the rent was revised to Rs. 5,000/ for the ground and basement portion of C210, Madhuban and during the period November 1993 to October 1999 PW11 Sh. Dhirender Kumar made a total payment of Rs. 3,40,235/ to accused.
PW37 Sh. Neeraj Kumar stated that during the period Oct., 1996 to Dec. 1999 accused had rented out the 1st Floor, 210 Madhuvan, Delhi92 which was a one bedroom/DD/kitchen/toilet to him through bank at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/ which used to be paid through cheque. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 66 of 233
PW120 Sh. AK Gautam also stated that vide letter, Ex.PW37/B he had informed the CBI about the payment made to Mr. S. Malaichamy from the period 24/2/97 to 10/9/97. He further stated that the bank did not have any rent agreement copy at that time and during this period, a total sum of Rs. 27,500/ was paid to Mr. S. Malaichamy by the bank on account of lease.
PW119 Sh. PR Tanwar deposed regarding letter dtd. 23/5/03, Ex.PW37/C written by him vide which the communication dtd. 23/5/03 is in respect of the detail of rent for residential accommodation rented out by Mr. S. Malaichamy to Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Dy. Manager was sent to CBI. PW119 stated that as per Ex.PW37/C, the bank had paid a sum of Rs.2,500/ per month to S. Malaichamy on account of rent from the period 7/10/97 to 1/12/99, totaling to Rs.67,500/.
It is pertinent to mention here that accused in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. stated that this property was jointly owned by him and his wife and the rental income was also shared accordingly.
3.6 Witness regarding Joint Investments PW12 Sh. Ramesh Babu, Post Master proved letter Ex.PW12/A regarding which the details of NSS accounts, Ex.PW12/B were handed over CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 67 of 233 to CBI. He also proved NSS A/c Nos. 2200536, 2200535, 2200596, 2200725, 2200657, 2200534, 2200714 and 2200658 Ex.PW12/C to Ex.PW12/K at Delhi GPO, belonging to accused S. Malaichamy, his mother Smt. Karupayya Ammal and his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy. PW12 also proved the certified copy of application for opening of NSS Accounts No. 2200170 Ex.PW12/L, NSS A/c No. 2200596 Ex.PW12/M, A/c No. 2200725 Ex.PW12/N, A/c No. 2200657 Ex.PW12/O, A/c No. 2200714 Ex.PW12/P, NSS A/c No. 2200658 Ex.PW12/Q, NSS A/c No. 2200171 and Ex.PW12/R and photocopy of ledger of A/c No. 2200170 and 2200171 Ex.PW12/S and Ex.PW12/T. PW12 stated that accused had opened NSS A/c No. 2200536 on 28/3/95 by investing Rs. 30,000/ on which he had earned an interest of Rs. 27,406 which was paid alongwith principal amount on maturity of the NSS A/c on 21/8/01 and NSS A/c No. 2200170 on 06/3/93 by investing Rs. 49,500/ on which he had earned an interest of Rs. 34,675 which was paid alongwith principal amount on maturity of the NSS A/c on 03/04/98. PW12 proved passbook of NSS A/c No. 1103670, Ex.PW12/V pertaining to accused S. Malaichamy, opened at GPO, Delhi, on 6/3/89 as per which accused had made the following investments:
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 68 of 233
Date Amount invested Interest earned TDS Maturity amount 6/3/89 Rs. 19,000/ 10/4/90 Rs. 23,000/ 19/3/91 Rs. 10,000/ Rs. 83,728/ Rs.29,545/ Rs. 1,18,183/ 30/3/91 Rs. 12,000/ (3/4/98) Total Rs.64,000/ 3.7 LIC PW16 Sh. Kamal Kant Upreti proved letter dated 11.02.03 Ex.PW16/A regarding the premium paid by the accused against the policies No.24744353, 24744354 and 42718536. He also proved the refund and bonus amount received by the accused against these policies in the sum of Rs.
52,495, Rs. 52,457.40 and Rs. 23,190. The details of the policies are as under:
Policy No. Details of premium paid Amount refunded and bonus paid 24744353 Rs. 746.90 (half yearly) for 20 years Rs. 52,495.00 (Total Rs. 29,876/ paid during the period from 1/4/78 to 17/10/97) 24744354 Rs. 746.90 (half yearly) for 20 years Rs. 52,457.40 (Total Rs. 29,876/ paid during the period from 1/8/78 to 9/2/98) 42718536 Rs. 392.50 (yearly) for 26 years Rs. 23,190.00 (Total Rs. 10,205/ paid during the period from 15/11/71 to 6/11/96 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 69 of 233 3.8 Other Income PW36 Durai Kaliyaratnam stated that in the year 2001, accused sold his Maruti Car bearing No. DL9SH 0066 to Smt. Eswari @ Chellam w/o PW36 Durai Kaliyaratnam and PW36 made the payment of Rs.1, 25,000/ through drafts dtd. 4/6/01, 7/6/01 and 8/6/01. 3.9 Agricultural Income PW38 P. Sivasubramaniam proved seizure memo Ex.PW38/A vide which the cultivation record (Adangal) for the period from 1981 to 2003 Ex.PW38/B1 to B11 were seized. The said record reveal as follows :
Survey No. Name of the Owner
328/4 K. Raman & R. Solai Kumar
329/5 Kumaran, Padiva Sgam and five ors.
342/1 Raman & R./ Solai Kumar
342/2 Raman & R./Solai Kumar
343/3A K. Lakshmanan
343/3B K. Packiam
345/5B K. Krishnan
348/4 S. Malaichamy
358/2 K. Padivasagam
358/3 S. Karuppayi Amal
329/4 K. Padivasagam
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 70 of 233
PW39 Dr. K. Lakshmanan cousin brother of accused proved the partition deed dated 26.01.75, Ex.PW39/A, which is in Tamil language.
PW39 stated that said partition deed is regarding partition of their ancestral land, divided between his (PW39's) father and father of accused. PW39 stated that accused had filed a suit in a civil court demanding his half share in the ancestral property which was settled outside the court. However, PW39 stated that he is not aware as to what was income yielded by agriculture and how it was being managed. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of this cultivation record, accused stated that it is a a joint property of his father Late Sh. P. Solai alongwith his father's brother Late Sh. P. Kumaran. However after the death of both of them, his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal was managing the entire properties and she has also died in 2002 and thereafter, still the property is not divided. Therefore, the cultivation record as produced is not correct. Accused further stated that he is entitled to receive ½ of the entire property, as he was the only son of his father and whereas Late Sh. P. Kumaran has left behind 06 children. Accused further stated that his sister Smt. Easwari @ Chellam has already given up her share in his favour.
PW114 Sh. K. Krishnan stated that during 1975, their ancestral CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 71 of 233 property in Pachvri Vembathur, Distt. Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu was partitioned within the father of accused Late Sh. P. Solai and Mr. Kumaran father of PW114 Sh.K. Krishnan. The property which fell to the share of Mr. Kumaran was divided amongst PW114 and his five brothers and the property which fell to the share of Mr. Solai was enjoyed exclusively by accused being the only son. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of the partition accused stated that the partition of immovable properties was done after the death of his father Sh. P. Solai and his uncle Sh. Kumaran. The partition was contested by his mother in the court of law. Finally, there was an agreement between his mother and his eldest cousin. However, he is not aware about the terms of the settlement and unfortunately his mother as well as his eldest cousin are no more.
EXPENDITURE 3.10 Education Expenses PW46 C.S. Kuttan proved letter Ex.PW46/A regarding the fee details in the sum of Rs.1,41,000/paid to Priyadarshini College of Computer Science, Delhi towards B.Tech Course of accused's son Illango M. Solai CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 72 of 233 during the period 10/8/94 to 29/8/97.
PW97 Sh. P.M. Thomas proved letter Ex.PW97/A regarding the details of the payment Ex.PW97/B made towards education of accused's sons Sendhil M. Solai and Illanga M. Solai at St. Xavier's School, Raj Niwas for the period 198788 to 199293 and 198788 to 199394 respectively. PW97 stated that as per the statement, the total amount of fee paid in respect of above said students was Rs.17,967/ and Rs. 21,674/ respectively.
PW53 Sh. V. Muralidharan proved the details of fees Ex.PW53/1 pertaining to Illango M. Solai towards Post Graduation Course as per which total amount of Rs.1,91,000/ was paid by Illango M Solai in the institution.
PW111 Sh. Vijay Tulshiram Ingole proved the statement of accounts, Ex.PW111/A from the year 1993 to 1997 showing the details of total fee of Rs.1,47,260/ paid to the College of Engineering, Badnera now known as Prof. Rammeghe Institute of Technology and Research from the year 1993 to 1997 by Sendhil Solai. PW111 stated that the fee was partly paid in cash and was partly deposited in cash.
3.11 House Tax & Conversion Charges of C210, Madhuban PW47 Sh. Bhagmal Camy proved letter dtd. 19/8/02 Ex.PW47/1, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 73 of 233 vide which from 12/10/87 to 17/9/01, the house tax of Rs.23,740/ for property No. 210, Madhuban Delhi in the name of accused and his wife Manju Malaichamy was paid.
PW89 Sh. Jeet Ram proved letter Ex.PW89/A and copy of challan vide which a sum of Rs.7,682/ on account of conversion charges and Rs.18/ as composition fee was paid to DDA relating to H. No. C210, Madhuban.
3.12 Club Memberships PW55 Sh. Sapan Gomes proved letter dated 11/5/02 Ex.PW55/A, annexures regarding statement of accounts of accused being the Member of the Roshanara club having membership No. HS6 (new No. Z406) and the copy of form of membership. PW55 stated that accused got the membership in the year 1987 on the payment of Rs.500/ and as per record, he had made a payment in the sum of Rs.25,501.30 towards club bills from April 1993 to March 2002 except 1994 to 1995.
PW56 Sh. S.B. Mathur proved letter dated 09.05.02, Ex.PW56/A sent by Mr. ML Dawar the then General Secretary, Masonic Club to SP, CBI regarding the certified copies of membership application and copy of the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 74 of 233 statements of club account. PW56 stated that as per record, accused had paid a total amount of Rs.42,760/ in cash from November 2000 to April 2002.
PW96 Sh. Mohan Lal Dawar stated that Sh. S.Malaichamy, IAS, had applied for membership of the club and the same was granted to him. He proved the certified true copy of the application form, Ex.PW96/A. He further stated that at the request of the CBI, he had issued statement of account of Mr. S. Malaichamy from the time he became member of the Masonic Club till April 2002. He also stated that Mr. S Malaichamy had paid a sum of Rs. 42,760/ during this period as club charges including the tennis subscription and the membership fee.
PW74 Sh. Kulanand Kala, Executive Customer Services with Sterling Holiday Resorts at Chennai stated that accused alongwith his son Illango M. Solai had taken one time membership of Sterling Holiday Resorts in the year 199697 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/ to Rs.55,000/ on account of membership by cheque. It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted to have deposited Rs.50,000/.
PW98 S. Prabakaran stated that accused was the member of Habitat Center bearing membership No. IN212 and he had paid a sum of Rs. 6,900/ till 9/4/02. He proved letter dtd. 9/5/02 Ex.PW98/A in this regard. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 75 of 233
PW99 Sh. Kalu Ram Bansal proved letters Ex.PW99/A and Ex.PW99/B regarding record of payment made by accused S. Malaichamy being the member of NSCI having membership No. SD390. As per record, accused paid a sum of Rs.11,846.36ps from the period 1/4/91 to 1/4/02. PW99 also proved the attested / certified copy of membership letter Ex.PW99/C and certified copy of statement of account Ex.PW99/D. PW103 Sh. Anoop Singh stated that accused S. Malaichamy had applied for membership of NOIDA Golf course in the year 1998 and deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/. He stated that Mr. Malaichamy was registered for membership and was asked to meet the Committee and to complete the formalities but Mr. Malaichmay did not turn up and therefore, application money was refunded to him in the year 2005.
PW115 Retd. Wing Commander O.P. Bhambri proved letter dated 15.05.2002, Ex.PW115/A vide which photocopy of application form, Ex.PW115/B (for membership of Civil Services Officers Institute (CSOI), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi) alongwith cross cheque No. 322659 dtd. 26/12/97 for Rs.3,000/ payable on State Bank of India, Old Secretariat Branch regarding entrance fee and statement of account Ex.PW115/C was sent to CBI. PW115 stated that as per statement of account accused had paid a CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 76 of 233 sum of Rs. 9,750/ from 26/7/97 to 11/4/02 for the facilities availed by him from CSOI.
PW116 Sh. Rajesh Kumar stated that accused applied for life membership of ICCR and in pursuance to his request, he was made a life member of Forum of Friends of ICCR on payment of Rs.2,000/. He proved letter dated 21.12.2002, Ex.PW116/A sent to CBI regarding this.
PW71 Sh. M.A. Shenoy proved letter dtd. 7/8/03 Ex.PW71/A vide which the detail of payment Ex.PW71/B made by accused in respect of visa card No. 4543633010084725 from 19/9/95 to 20/9/02 were handed over to CBI. PW71 stated that the card was issued on 19/9/95 on accused's request and he had spent Rs.11,202/ through cancard and for this period, he had paid a sum of Rs.3,070/ on account of annual fee and service tax. 3.13 Car Insurance Expenses PW45 Sh. Mahender Kumar Kapoor proved letter dated 30.01.2003, Ex.PW45/1 regarding the policy details in the name of S. Malaichamy, I. M. Solai and Mr. S.M. Solai. PW45 stated that vehicle Maruti Zen DES1 Model 1988 was in the name of accused and he had paid insurance premium as follows :
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 77 of 233
Period Amount (Rs.)
20/6/96 to 19/6/97 1,548.00
20/6/97 to 19/6/98 1,548.00
20/6/98 to 19/6/99 1,738.00
20/6/99 to 19/6/00 1,545.00
20/6/00 to 19/6/01 1,597.00
Total 7,976.00
PW57 Sh. Radhey Raman Aggarwal proved letter along with the annexures, Ex.PW57/A regarding the details of insurance of vehicle Maruti Zen make 2000 in the name of accused. PW57 stated that accused had paid an amount of Rs.15,121/ for this insurance vide cheque No.952359 dated 02.08.2000 of SBI and a sum of Rs. 9,331/ for the period 200102 was also paid.
3.14 Electricity Bill PW48 Sh. Pritpal Singh proved letter Ex.PW48/A containing the details of payment, Ex.PW48/A1 made for the period February 1992 to April 2003 amounting to Rs. 1,48,077/ against K No.31200459918 installed at 10 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi in the name of accused. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 78 of 233 3.15 Purchase of Marble PW63 Sh. Srichand Jain stated that around 30 years back, accused S. Malaichamy needed some marble and took around 2,500 to 3000 sq ft. marble from his shop. Witness again stated that this should not be of this much of quantity and he do not remember. PW63 further stated that accused was accompanied with another individual and the marble chosen by Sh. Malaichamy was of Ambaji quality marble in pieces. He further stated that somebody on behalf of Mr. Malaichamy came to take the delivery and the marble was sent through tempo. Witness stated that the tempo might have gone for 78 times to deliver the marble and it also might have gone in scooter etc. Against the delivery of this marble, Mr. Malaichamy had paid a sum of Rs.2 lakh in advance. Witness again stated that when the payment was made, Mr. Malaichamy had come alongwith one another person and he cannot say exactly that who delivered the cash. PW63 stated that at the time of settlement of the bill, another Rs.30,000 40,000/ were also due and the same were also paid.
PW64 Sh. Kabir Khan stated that he used to drive Tata 407 in Delhi and used to be normally stationed at Green Park tempo stand. Witness stated that he took around 56 rounds in transportation of goods from Jain CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 79 of 233 Marbles to Model Town and the above said goods were of one Mr. Malai sahab.
3.16 Licence Fee of Govt. Accommodation PW95 Sh. Charanjit Lal proved letter dated 25.09.2002, Ex.PW95/A pertaining to license fee paid by Sh. S. Malaichamy in lieu of MCD flat No. D1/1, Rajpur Road, New Delhi. PW95 stated that this flat remained alloted to Sh. S. Malaichamy wef 24/3/86 to 9/4/02 and he also paid the license fee, Ex.PW95/B for this period. As per Ex.PW95/A, the detail license fee in the sum of Rs. 36,671/ was paid.
3.17 Purchase of Battery PW68 Sh. Anil Kumar Bindal of M/s. Shreyas Enterprises proved bill Ex.PW68/A regarding purchase of two number of Standard Furkuwwa Battery for a sum of Rs.5,144/ through cheque no.489679 dated 14.12.1998 drawn on Canara Bank, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. PW68 stated that in the year 2000, Mr. S. Malaichamy had again bought two batteries vide invoice no. 18055 dated 02.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.4,387/ and proved the invoice no. 18055 as Ex.PW68/B. Witness stated that the payment of this transaction was CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 80 of 233 made in cash.
3.18 Transportation PW79 Sh. Shiv Chugh of Supreme Roadlines Pvt. Ltd proved letter Ex.PW79/A regarding the transportation of household goods from Karaikudi via Ranipet to Delhi. Witness stated that the goods were transported by truck and Mr. S. Malaichamy paid a sum of Rs.34,500/ against this service.
3.19 Interest on Loan A/c PW65 Sh. Surender Kumar Arora of OBC Bank stated that accused S. Malaichamy had a loan account No.37 in their bank. He proved letter dated 30/6/03, Ex.PW65/A vide which details of loan accounts were sent to CBI. He also stated that Sh. S. Malaichamy had paid an interest in the sum of Rs. 43,430/ in loan account No. 37 as per statement of account Ex.PW65/C. 3.20 ASSETS - S. Malaichamy PW138 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sardana, Accounts Officer in Civil CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 81 of 233 Service Officers Welfare Society stated that Sh S Malaichamy became member of the society on 19.09.1996 on payment of Rs.1000/. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and was alloted a plot to Civil Service Officers Welfare Society. The society alloted two categories of plot i.e. of 500 Sq meters and 300 Sq Meters, to its 150 members out of this plot. PW138 stated that accused was allotted a plot of 500 Sq meters and he paid total sum of Rs.10,19,217/ till 03.06.2001 against the payment of this plot. PW138 proved the photocopy of the ledger as Ex PW138/A (running into two pages), receipts and the photocopy of the receipts as Ex PW138/B to PW138/K. It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted the fact of allotment of plot in Greater Noida and stated that he had duly taken the permission from the department and the transaction was duly intimated to the department.
PW77 SK Saxena from Ghaziabad Development Authority stated that in the year 2002 he was looking after Kaushambi Plot Scheme. He proved the sale deed executed in favour of S. Malaichamy as Ex.PW77/A running into 09 pages. He also proved letter dated 12/7/02 signed by Sh. UN Thakur, the then Secretary, Ex.PW77/B vide which the certified true copies of the receipts issued against the payment made by S. Malaichamy were CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 82 of 233 supplied. He proved the photocopy of the receipts as Ex.PW77/C, Ex.PW77/D, Ex.PW77/E and Ex.PW77/F. PW77 stated that accused S. Malaichamy has paid a total sum of Rs.2,93,726.25 against plot No. B60, Kaushambi. It is pertinent to mention here that accused stated that plot was alloted to him by Ghaziabad Development Authority in the draw of lots. He had duly taken permission from the department and the transaction was duly intimated to the department.
PW78 Sh. K.L. Gupta stated that in the year 2002, he had handed over a letter dated 17/6/02, Ex.PW78/A to CBI regarding a vehicle Zen VXI which was purchased by S. Malaichamy on 29/7/00 for a sum of Rs. 4,23,655/ vide cheque No. 952358 drawn on State Bank of India dated 28/7/00. Witness stated that he had also handed over vehicle invoice copy and the receipt of payment, gate pass and booking order form along with the letter and proved the documents are Ex.PW78/B to Ex.PW78/D. It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted this fact and stated that he had taken withdrawal of Rs.3 lakhs from his GPF.
PW15 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Jain proved letter dtd. 16/8/02 Ex.PW15/A, vide which statement of saving account No.2596 in the name of accused S. Malaichamy from the period 31/1/92 to 14/6/02 Ex.PW15/B, was CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 83 of 233 handed over to CBI. As per statement of account the last balance as on 5/4/02 was Rs. 22,877.31. He also proved letter dtd. 4/9/02 Ex.PW15/C vide which information regarding statement of fixed deposit account No. 1254 and 1092 Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E, were handed over to CBI.
PW13 Sh. BM Wahi, Branch Manager of State Bank of India proved letter Ex.PW13/A vide which the information regarding the saving bank account No.052036 in the name of Sh. S. Malaichamy from the period 20.02.96 to 04.06.2002 was supplied to CBI. PW13 also proved the statement of account as Ex.PW13/B. PW13 stated that statement of saving bank account No.52036 in the name of accused from the period 12.10.88 to 15.02.96 (running int 6 sheets) was also supplied to CBI vide letter Ex.PW13/C and proved the statement of account as Ex.PW13/D. Accused had earned an interest from A/c No. 52036 in SBI, Old Secretariat Delhi including the interest on the FDR in the sum of Rs. 25,228.90 and the last balance as on 6/4/02, was Rs.1,38,729.57. PW13 further proved letter Ex.PW13/F vide which detail of cheques, Ex.PW13/G and statement of PPF account No. 902826, Ex.PW13/H from the period 01.10.01 to 31.05.03 were handed over to CBI. As per statement, Ex.PW13/H, the last balance in PPF A/c No.902826 as on 31.03.2002 was Rs.46,485.43.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 84 of 233
PW25 Mr. M.A. Riyazuddin proved letter No.MSSBEP715 dated 04.09.2002, Ex.PW25/G, vide which certified copy of A/c opening form of SB A/c No.30913 in the name of S. Malaichamy, detail of cheque book issued and statement of A/c for the period 14.10.01 to 31.08.02, Ex.PW25/I, Ex.PW25/J and Ex.PW25/K were supplied to CBI. PW25 also stated that accused had income from interest in the sum of Rs. 51/ in SB A/c No. 30913, Canara Bank and as per statement of account Ex.PW25/J and Ex.PW25/K, the last balance in this account was Rs.5,121/ as on January 2002.
PW28 Sh. Narender J. Singh stated that vide letter Ex.PW28/A information regarding account No.100639 in the name of S. Malaichamy was supplied to CBI. He stated that the account was opened on 21.01.02 and the credit balance in this account on 09.04.2002 was Rs.3,990/. He stated that no interest accrued in this account from the period 31.01.02 to 09.04.02. He proved computer generated statement of account as Ex.PW28/B and true copy of account opening form of A/c No.100639 as Ex.PW28/C. Membership card of Civil Services Officers' Institute of accused S. Malaichamy was proved as Ex.PW28/D. PW121 Sh. MN Kamat proved letter dated 24.11.03, Ex.PW121/A vide which the details regarding investments made in IDBI Flexi Bonds by CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 85 of 233 Sh. S. Malaichamy, Mark PW5/C14 to C16 for the investment of Rs. 50,000, was sent to CBI, which are as follows :
Certificate No. Distinctive No. Face Value Date of Bond Folio No. 6995169952 3307562 - 3307563 Rs. 5,000/ 12/04/99 AIFB 0137183 (FL 6) 9063947 - 9063947 887226 - 887229 Rs. 5,000/ 25/01/2001 9IFB 0860186 (FL 9) 1130607611306076 26228442622847 Rs.5,000/ 21/02/2002 11IFB 2076318 (FL11) It is pertinent to mention here that accused stated that he had purchased IDBI Flexi Bonds as these were tax saving bonds.
PW129 Ms. Shobha Dutta, Dy. SP. CBI on 9/4/02 conducted search of house of accused at D1/1, MCD Officer's Flat, Rajpur Road, Delhi alongwith other team members and proved the observation memo Ex. PW129/A. As per observation memo, Ex.PW129/A, cash of Rs.34,400/ and an inventory of articles amounting to Rs.1,14,700/ were recovered.
PW126 Sh. Brij Kishore stated that in April 2002 he accompanied PW127 Sh. P. Balachandran, DSP and other CBI team in the search of flat No. B504, Kedar Apartments, Plot No. 15, Sector 9, Rohini Delhi. PW126 proved the observation memo dtd. 9/4/02 as Ex.PW126/A. He stated that whatever items was recovered during the search were reflected in the said observation memo. PW126 further stated that on 09.04.02 a search cum seizure memo Ex.PW126/B was also prepared in respect of Flat No.B504, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 86 of 233 Kedar Apartments, Plot No.15, Sector 9 Rohini and whatever was recovered pursuant to the search has been reflected in the search cum seizure memo. He stated that cash amounting to Rs.12,70,000/ was also seized from the premises.
B. Smt. Karuppayi Ammal 3.21 Income
PW26 Ravinder Nath stated that he runs a firm under the name of Ramji Lal Rajender Prasad. PW26 proved a letter dated 22.05.2002, Ex.PW26/A as per which his firm had taken a loan from Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, mother of accused which was returned with interest of Rs. 7,687/ in March 1990 after deducting TDS of Rs. 830/. He also proved the detail of interest and TDS for the period 1/4/89 to 31/3/09 of the firm M/s Ramji Lal Rajender Prasad Ex.PW26/B (collectively). PW26 further stated that from the period 01.04.90 to 31.03.91, M/s Ramji Lal Rajender Prasad took a loan of Rs. 1 lakh through cheque from Smt. Karuppayi Amal and the said loan was returned alongwith interest of Rs. 4,250/ in the same year. PW26 also proved details of loan taken from Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, Ex.PW26/C and Ex.PW26/D from the period 01.04.90 to 30.03.91. PW26 stated that as per CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 87 of 233 document Ex.PW26/D a sum of Rs.459/ was deducted by the firm as TDS.
PW125 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Bansal, dealer of dry fruits and kiryana stated that his firm M/s RK Trade Links had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh from one Smt. Karuppaiyi Amal on 15/10/89 and on this amount, an interest of Rs.7,350/ accrued. PW125 stated that the loan amount was repaid on 27/2/90 vide cheque No. 005530 in the sum of Rs.1,07,350/. PW125 proved letter Ex.PW125/A vide which this information was communicated to CBI. Witness also proved the document regarding confirmation of account as Ex.PW125/B. PW20 Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta of Kishori Lal and Chander Bhan & Co. stated that his firm had taken three loans of Rs.50,000/, Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.1 Lakh from Sh. Sendhil M. Solai S/o accused and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, mother of accused. He stated that the said loan was returned along with interest. PW20 proved the details of loan as Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B. As per Ex.PW20/B the loan was returned back with interest of Rs.7,000/ and Rs.6,580/. He also proved the account statement of Sh. Sendhil M. Solai and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal as Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D and Ex.PW20/E. The said loan was returned alongwith interest of Rs. 2,200/.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 88 of 233
PW59 Sh. Harbans Lal Dhingra of M/s. Harbans Lal & Company stated that he had money transactions with Ilango M. Solai, Mrs. Manju Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and he had taken loan of Rs.1,30,253/ and Rs.3,22,500/ from them through cheques and have also returned back the same with interest of Rs.6,051/ in the year 199394 and Rs.6,825/ in the year 199495. He proved letter Ex.PW59/A vide which details of all the loan transactions were sent to CBI. PW59 stated that all these loan transactions have duly been reflected in his account books and he proved the copy of cash book, ledger and auditors report as Ex.PW59/B1 to Ex. PW59/B5. He also proved letter dated 13.10.2002, Ex.PW59/C regarding interest paid to Sendhil M Solai and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal.
PW14 Sh. Sunil Gadodia stated that in the year 199192 his firm M/s. Ram Gopal Hari Ram had taken loan of Rs.1 lakh from Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and this loan was repaid on 28.09.91 and interest of Rs.2800/ was paid on this amount. PW14 proved letter Ex.PW14/A vide which this information was supplied to CBI. He also proved statement of Karuppayi Ammal as on 31.03.92 as Ex.PW14/B, Ledger as Ex.PW14/C, Journal as Ex.PW14/D and statement of account as Ex.PW14/E. PW14 further stated that in the year 199293 his firm had taken loan of Rs.50,000/ which was CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 89 of 233 repaid on 27.07.92 and interest amount of Rs.2,250/ was paid. PW14 proved letter Ex.PW14/F vide which this information was supplied to CBI. He also proved statement of account as Ex.PW14/F and copy of ledger as Ex.PW14/H. PW14 stated that in the year 199293 M/s. Kirorimal Prem Chand which was a sister concern of his firm had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/ from Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and the said amount was repaid on 27.07.92 and interest of Rs.2,250/ was paid. He proved letter Ex.PW14/J vide which this information was forwarded to CBI. He also proved statement of account as Ex.PW14/K. PW21 Naveen Dhingra of M/s. Chaman Lal Dhingra stated that his firm had taken loan of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs from Sh. Ilango M. Solai and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, respectively. He proved letter Ex.PW21/A vide which the details of loan taken, interest paid and TDS deposited in the bank, Ex.PW21/B were supplied to CBI. He stated that Smt. Karuppayi Amal had advanced a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs to M/s Chaman Lal & Sons in the year 1998 on interest basis and the same was returned in the month of October 1998 alongwith interest of Rs. 5580/ after deducting TDS in the sum of Rs. 620/ as reflected in statement of account Ex.PW21/B. He further stated that his firm had also taken a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from Solai Sons on interest CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 90 of 233 basis on 21.05.96 and the same was repaid on 01.11.96 alongwith interest of Rs.21,735/ after deducting TDS in the sum of Rs.2,415/ and proved letter Ex.PW21/C vide which details of loan taken, interest paid and TDS deposited in the bank, Ex.PW21/D were supplied. PW21 further stated that firm had taken another loan of Rs.5 lakhs in the month of June 1998 from Ilango M. Solai on interest basis and said loan was repaid on 14.10.98. He proved letter Ex.PW21/F vide which the statement of loan, interest paid and TDS deducted, Ex.PW21/E were supplied. The interest paid was in the sum of Rs. 23,625/.
PW44 Sh. Tara Chand Chhabra of M/s. Chhabra Saree Emporium stated that he had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/ from Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in the year 199293 on which interest of Rs.2,250/ was paid and loan was repaid along with interest as detailed in letter Ex.PW44/A. He also proved statement of account Ex.PW44/B. PW44 also proved his statement recorded u/S.164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW44/C. PW58 Sh. MK Tuli, Chairman of M/S P.N.G. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. stated that he had issued one cheque of Rs. 50,000/ to Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, mother of accused S. Malaichamy from the account of M/s Gauri Leathers Pvt. Ltd. as Mr. S. Malaichamy wanted loan of Rs. 50,000/ in the name of his mother but this cheque was never encashed. He proved letter CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 91 of 233 Ex.PW58/A vide which this information was sent to CBI. PW58 also proved letter Ex.PW58/B regarding the information that M/s Gauri Leather Pvt. Ltd. had paid Rs.56,875/ to Mrs. Karuppayi Ammal as loan and this was duly reflected in the balance sheet. However, this cheque was also not encashed. PW58 also proved letter dated 11.08.2003, Ex.PW58/C written by P.N.G. Enterprise Ltd., stating that the company had issued a cheque to Mr. Sendhil M. Solai and Mrs. Karuppayi Ammal, however, this cheque was also not encashed. It is pertinent to mention here that accused in respect of taking loan by his mother stated that he had handed over the cheque to his mother and thereafter, he did not know what happened to it.
PW22 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta stated that he took the office premises on rent in Kedar Apartment from Smt. Karuppayi Amal in February 2001 against security deposit of Rs. 21,000/ and monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/. PW22 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta paid a security vide cheque No. 255754 dtd. 6/2/91 and total rent in the sum of Rs. 52,500/ was also paid by cheque. PW22 proved letter Ex.PW22/A vide which this information was supplied to CBI. He also proved photocopy of his passbook, Ex.PW22/B pertaining to SB A/c No.8099 from 08.02.2001 to 17.04.2002.
PW32 Sh. Brahmpal proved letter dated 06.05.03, Ex.PW32/A CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 92 of 233 regarding the NSC details in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal bearing registration No.3707 vide application Ex.PW32/B vide which an amount of Rs.30,000/ was invested on 17/1/98, letter Ex.PW32/C regarding NSC details bearing registration No.896 dtd. 4/3/94 amounting to Rs.20,000/. This NSC was discharged with the value of Rs. 40,300/ and payment was made vide cheque No. 057224. He also proved application Ex.PW32/D regarding investment of Rs.30,000/ in NSC on 06.03.99 vide registration No.5577 with maturity date on 06.03.05. The details are as follows :
NSC No. Amt invested Date Maturity Date Maturity Amt.
14EE914594 Rs.10,000/
14EE914595 Rs.10,000/ 17/1/98 17/1/04 Rs.60,450/
14EE914596 Rs/10,000/
Smt. Karuppayi Amal had opened NSS A/c No. 2200535 on
27/3/95 by investing Rs.25,000/ on which she had earned an interest of Rs.22,838.40 which was paid alongwith principal amount on maturity of the NSS A/c on 21/8/01. She also opened a NSS A/c No. 2200657 with investment of Rs.40,000/ on 4/4/97 and at the ending of the year 200203, there was a credit balance of Rs. 71,246/.
PW35 C.B. Chaturvedi stated that accused S. Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had opened a joint account in Indian Bank, Chandni CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 93 of 233 Chowk branch bearing account No. 8651 and this account was introduced by Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta. PW35 proved letter Ex.PW35/A vide which the photocopies of bank statement of account No. 8651 for the period 11/3/95 to 4/12/2000, Ex.PW35/B (colly.) was sent to CBI. PW35 also proved the bank statement for the period 10/12/2000 to 15/4/2002, Ex.PW35/C pertaining to this account. PW35 stated that during the period January 1995 to April 2002, the total amount of rent was paid to the beneficiary @ Rs.17,222.68 ps per month and the net amount after deduction of the tax was Rs.14,381.68 ps. He further stated that the total rent of Rs.12,53,574/ was received for the period December 1994 to April 2002 in this account.
PW42 Sh. Sanjay Jain from M/s Kailash Jewelery House stated that on 19.07.88 Smt. Karuppayi Amal had sold gold ornaments of 22 ct weighing 219.100 gms to M/s Kailash Jewellery House vide receipt Ex.PW42/B, for a sum of Rs. 59,157/ which was paid to her through cheque No. 371956 of The Vysya Bank.
PW84 Sh. Shanti Lal stated that in the year 1991, he had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh through cheque from Smt. Karuppaiyee Ammal through one Finance Broker and had returned back the loan amount alongwith an interest of Rs.7,100/. He proved the photocopy of statement of account Ex.PW84/A. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 94 of 233 3.22 Expenditure PW30 Sh. J.P. Manjani proved letter dtd. 8/9502 Ex.PW30/A vide which information regarding membership No. 195 in Gyan Shakti Housing Group Society Ltd., Dwarka in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal.
PW30 stated that she had been allotted flat No. 2804 in the society in the Draw of Lots held by the DDA on 6/6/98 and the possession of the same was handed over to her vide Possession letter No. GSCGHSL/195/2804/010/99 dtd. 19/3/99. She had made payment in the total amount of Rs. 10,39,110/ as admission fee, share money and cost of flat and Rs. 1,27,601/ were paid for car parking, ground rent, property tax, society expenses etc for the period 27/10/89 to 25/6/98 and 16/9/98 to 9/11/2000. PW30 also proved the copy of enrollment application form dtd. 22/10/89 of Smt. Karuppayi Amal Ex.PW30/B, copy of affidavit dtd. 18/11/89 & 23/12/96 by Smt. Karuppayi Amal, the certified copy of allotment letter dtd. 5/3/99 Ex.PW30/C, possession letter dtd. 19/3/99 of Flat No. 2804 Ex.PW30/D, photocopy of detail of amount deposited by Smt. Karuppayi Amal Ex.PW30/E and photocopy of the counterfoils of the receipts of payment made by her as Ex.PW30/F1 to F23. PW30 also stated that Smt. Karuppayi Amal in her CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 95 of 233 application, Ex.PW30/B stated that she is a housewife having monthly income of Rs.3,000/. She has also signed a declaration that she or her spouse does not have any membership or house or member of joint family having house in any society or plot at Delhi. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of this question accused stated that his mother Karuppayi Amal had become the member on behalf of her minor grandson Sendhil M. Solai. Infact, this flat belongs to his son Sendhil M. Solai but financed by his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal. Accused also admitted the fact of allotment letter and possession letter.
PW80 Sh. D.N. Agarwal proved letter dtd. 12/8/02, Ex.PW80/A vide which the detail of maintenance charges 1/10/91 to March 2002 Ex.PW80/B paid by Smt. Karuppaiya Amal of Flat No. B504, membership No. 253 was supplied to the CBI. PW80 stated that as per record, Smt. Karuppaiya Amal had paid a sum of Rs.84,048/ on account of maintenance charges during this period vide receipts Ex.PW80/C. Smt. Karuppayi Amal had paid a total sum of Rs.3,82,774/ towards the said flat.
PW112 Sh. Manohar Lal Khanna stated that Smt. Karuppayi Amal was the coowner of property bearing No. 309, Haveli Haider Puri Chandni Chowk and paid property tax in the sum of Rs.84,000/ by cheque CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 96 of 233 drawn on PNB Civil Lines on 26.03.2001 and further a sum of Rs.86,000/ was paid by Ms. Karuppaiyee Ammal as property tax on 28.02.2002 vide a cheque drawn on PNB Civil Lines vide receipts Ex.PW112/B & PW112/C. He stated that vide letter dated 28.02.2003 Ex.PW112/A the above mentioned detail was handed over to CBI.
PW70 Sh. Ranvir Singh stated that vide letter dated 6/5/03 Ex.PW70/A, the details regarding house tax paid towards property No. B504, Kedar Apartments, Plot No. 15, Sector 9 Rohini in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Amal and certified copy of G8 Mark A (collectively), were handed over to CBI. He stated that as per record, Smt. Karuppaiya Amal had paid Rs. 33,757/ as house tax from 28/10/95 to 9/4/02 i.e., upto the check period. It is pertinent to mention here that accused in respect of the same stated that his mother had become member of the society on behalf of her minor grandson Illango M. Solai i.e. accused's younger son. Infact, this belonged to Illango M. Solai but financed by his mother. She became the member as Illango M. Solai was minor at that time.
PW69 Smt. Shashi Sawhney stated that flat No. 414 Starlite Co operative Group Housing Society, Sector 14 Extn., Rohini was allotted to Smt. Karuppayi Amal and she had paid total house tax upto check period in CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 97 of 233 the sum of Rs. 16,296/. She further stated that the entire information was conveyed to CBI vide letter dated 23/5/02 and proved the same as Ex.PW69/A. She also proved the photocopy of the house tax receipts and the photocopy of the ledger collectively Mark A. PW73 Sh. Prem Raj Singh stated that Smt. Karuppaiya Amal had applied for a plot scheme in Indirapuram in Plot A category on 28/7/87 vide application No. 16673 Ex.PW73/B and had deposited a total sum of Rs. 3,87,923/, after the plot was alloted to her. Smt. Karuppaiya Amal had requested for cancellation of allotment and took the refund of Rs. 3,79,372/ after deducting a sum of Rs.8,551/. PW73 proved letter dated 15/9/03, Ex.PW73/A vide which this information was forwarded to CBI alongwith the details Ex.PW73/C. PW65 Sh. Surender Kumar Arora of OBC Bank stated that Smt. Karippaiya Ammal had a loan account No.50 in their bank. He proved letter dated 30/6/03, Ex.PW65/A vide which details of loan accounts were sent to CBI. He also stated that Smt. Karippaiya Ammal, had paid an interest in the sum of Rs. 34,841/ in loan account No. 50 as per statement of account Ex.PW65/B. PW75 Sh. Srigopal Kabirpanthi stated that vide letter dated CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 98 of 233 20/5/03, Ex.PW75/A, statement of account Ex.PW75/B of electricity connection No. RH5711223143DL as reflected in ledger No. Y319, in the name of Smt. Karuppaiya Amal installed at B504, Kedar Apartment Sector 9 was handed over to CBI. He stated that as per statement of A/c, a sum of Rs. 44,952.65 was paid on this account.
PW76 Sh. Kehar Singh stated that Smt. Karuppaiya Amal had applied under Ambedkar Awas Yojana 89 scheme vide application No. 2741 and deposited a sum of Rs.12,000/. He stated that as per record, the flat was not alloted to the applicant nor is there any document regarding refund of the application money. He further stated that the said information was handed over to CBI vide letter dated 9/5/03. He proved the letter as Ex.PW76/A alongwith the relevant record in this regard Ex.PW76/B collectively.
PW85 Sh. Harish Chand stated that in November 1989, he had executed a sale deed Ex.PW85/A regarding land measuring 03712 pukhta out of Khasra No. 275, 277 and 278 situated in Village Challera, Bangerpur, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP, in favour of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal as General Attorney of Sh. Karma Singh, Dhir Singh and Chattar Singh in the sum of Rs.1,52,089/. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of the same accused stated that infact, this land was purchased from the villagers CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 99 of 233 directly by the group of people but lateron this land was taken over by the Noida Authority and therefore, neither she got the land nor the money back.
PW108 Sh. Virender Chaddha stated that Smt. Karuppaiyee Amal had applied for membership in Delhi Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd., around the year 1986 and was allotted membership No. 568. Ms. Karuppaiyee Amal had paid Rs.1,000/ as share money and Rs.100/ as admission fee. Ms. Karuppaiyee Amal had submitted copy of ration card as residence proof. However, the plot was not allotted to Smt. Karuppayi Amal. He proved letter dtd. 11/2/05 Ex.PW108/A, vide which the said information was handed over to CBI.
PW101 Sh. Randhir Singh stated that in the year 2004, he was posted as Asstt. Assessor and Collector, House Tax Deptt. Rohini Zone, Delhi. On 29.10.2003, vide communication Ex.PW101/A, he had given information regarding flat No. B504, Kedar Apartment, Plot No.15, Sector9 Rohini, Delhi. The informations given in the letter were as per office record and as per record, the above said flat was booked as being let out w.e.f. 01.04.2003. PW101 stated that as per procedure, if the owner of the house had not informed the house tax department about letting out of a property, and during survey the property is found out to be let out, it is booked from the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 100 of 233 beginning of the financial year. Later on, the matter is finally decided on the basis of documents furnished by the owner of the property. 3.23 Assets of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal PW29 Sh. Prem Narayan Srivastav proved the membership No. 733 in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Awas Samiti where she had invested Rs. 97,100/ in the society. The copy of ledger was proved as Ex.PW29/B and photocopy of receipts as Ex.PW29/C1 to C11. PW29 further proved letter No. 245/12 dtd. 20/8/98 Ex.PW29/F vide which land measuring 7.5 acres was allotted / earmarked by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Awas Samiti under the Indirapuram Yojana. The admission form and the declaration letter dtd. 4/6/87 of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal pertaining to Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Awas Samiti was proved as Ex.PW29/H. It is pertinent to mention here that accused in his statement u/s.313 admitted this fact and stated that his mother had applied for membership and had paid sum of Rs. 97,100/ but till date neither the money has been returned back nor the plot has been allotted.
PW30 Sh. J.P. Manjani proved letter dtd. 8/9502 Ex.PW30/A vide which information regarding membership No.195 in Gyan Shakti CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 101 of 233 Housing Group Society Ltd., Dwarka in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. PW30 stated that she had been allotted flat No. 2804 in the society in the Draw of Lots held by the DDA on 6/6/98 and the possession of the same was handed over to her vide Possession letter No. GSCGHSL/195/2804/010/99 dtd. 19/3/99. She had made payment in the total amount of Rs. 10,39,110/ as admission fee, share money and cost of flat and Rs. 1,27,601/ were paid for car parking, ground rent, property tax, society expenses etc for the period 27/10/89 to 25/6/98 and 16/9/98 to 9/11/2000. PW30 also proved the copy of enrollment application form dtd.22/10/89 of Smt. Karuppayi Amal Ex.PW30/B, copy of affidavit dtd. 18/11/89 & 23/12/96 by Smt. Karuppayi Amal, the certified copy of allotment letter dtd. 5/3/99 Ex.PW30/C, possession letter dtd. 19/3/99 of Flat No. 2804 Ex.PW30/D, photocopy of detail of amount deposited by Smt. Karuppayi Amal Ex.PW30/E and photocopy of the counterfoils of the receipts of payment made by her as Ex.PW30/F1 to F23. PW30 also stated that Smt. Karuppayi Amal in her application, Ex.PW30/B stated that she is a housewife having monthly income of Rs.3,000/. She has also signed a declaration that she or her spouse does not have any membership or house or member of joint family having house in any society or plot at Delhi.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 102 of 233
PW83 Sh. Mahender Gupta stated that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had become member of the Starlite Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Rohini, on 10/3/90 and made an initial payment of Rs. 210/ on 23/3/90. He proved the statement of payments as Ex.PW83/A, as per which she had made a total payment of Rs. 8,17,444/ from 20/3/90 to 9/5/02 by cheque as well as in cash. PW83 stated that the flat was allotted to Smt. Karuppayi Amal on 14/3/99 in draw of lots in the raw condition and she had taken the possession of the flat on 16/6/00. At the time of applying for membership, she had shown herself to be housewife with monthly income of Rs. 3,000/.
PW80 Sh. D.N. Agarwal proved letter dtd. 12/8/02, Ex.PW80/A vide which the detail of maintenance charges 1/10/91 to March 2002 Ex.PW80/B paid by Smt. Karuppaiya Amal of Flat No. B504, membership No. 253 was supplied to the CBI. PW80 stated that as per record, Smt. Karuppaiya Amal had paid a sum of Rs.84,048/ on account of maintenance charges during this period vide receipts Ex.PW80/C. Smt. Karuppayi Amal had paid a total sum of Rs.3,82,774/ towards the said flat.
PW81 Sh. Attar Singh Bhandoria proved sale deed Ex.PW81/A vide which PW139 Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta had sold 1/16th share of his property at Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk bearing Municipal No. 308 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 103 of 233 to 311 or 312, to Smt. Karuppayi Amal for a sale consideration of around Rs. 8 lacs. PW81 stated that the expenses of Stamp duty of Rs. 64,000/ were borne by Smt. Karupayi Amal only and the payment of Rs. 8 lakhs was made through cheque.
PW140 Sh. V. Shanmugavel, the then AE, CPWD proved the valuation report Ex. PW140/A of H.No. 119, Karpaga Nagar, K. Pudur, Madurai, Tamil Nadu on the basis of Delhi plinth area rates and Delhi schedule of rates. He proved the calculation of plinth area as Ex. PW140/B and the detail of the rates as Ex. PW140/C. He stated that he had also prepared the brief specification Ex. PW140/D, the site plan of ground floor, first floor and second floor Ex. PW140/D1 to D3 and as per the valuation report Ex.PW140/A, the valuation of the property was Rs. 6,41,850/. PW140 further stated that he had also prepared valuation report Ex. PW140/E of house building property no. 2/116 (old no. 2/380) at Mazhavaranenthal Village District Sivagangar, Tamilnadu on the basis of Delhi plinth area rates and Delhi schedule of rates and proved the calculation of plinth area as Ex. PW140/F and the detail of the rates as Ex. PW140/G. He also proved the brief specification Ex. PW140/H and siteplan Ex. PW140/H1 and H2. He stated that as per valuation report Ex.PW140/E, the valuation was assessed at CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 104 of 233 Rs. 2,39,832/.PW140 stated that valuation reports, Ex.PW140/A and Ex.PW140/E alongwith its enclosures were handed over to CBI vide letter Ex. PW140/K. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of these valuation reports, accused stated that his mother had purchased the plot and raised the construction.
PW82 Sh. S. Gomati Nayagam proved the copy of sale deed No. 1067 dtd 23/6/86 Mark A executed by Sh. Ramnathan in favour of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in respect to plot No. 119, Karpaga Nagar, K. Pudur, Madurai for a sum of Rs. 44,132/, as per which Smt. Karuppayi Amal had paid a sum of Rs.5,670/ as stamp duty and Rs.454/ as registration charges. He also proved will Mark B executed by Smt. Karuppayi Amal in favour of accused and his sons Senthil, Illango and his sister Smt. Easwari w/o Kaliya Ratnam vide document No. 48/1986 registered at Volume 25 book 3 pages 81 to 83.
PW87 Sh. Manu Dutt Sagar proved production cum seizure memo Ex.PW87/A vide which Khasra Khatoni record of khasra No.326 Village Ghoda, Pargana Loni, Teh. Dadri & Distt. Ghaziabad Ex.PW87/B was handed over to CBI. He stated that as per Khasra Khatoni in khasra No. 326 there were many khatas and at the time of issuing of record, khasra no. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 105 of 233 326 was in the name of Samai Allam, which was in abadi area and there was no agriculture on it. Prior to this, the said Khasra was in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Amal.
PW88 Sh. Arumuga Nainar stated that Sh. J.A. Richardson owned a land in Chetiyar Gram Village, Chennai and he executed a power of attorney in favour of A.K. Nageshwara Rao who in turn sold the property to Smt. S. Karuppaiyee Ammal for a consideration of Rs.4 Lakhs vide document No. 1353 of 2001 registered on 29/3/01. The stamp duty was paid @ 13% in the sum of Rs.52,000/. The registration fee of Rs.13,643/ was also paid.
C. Smt. Manju Malaichamy 3.24 Income
PW12 Ramesh Babu stated that Smt. Manju Malaichamy had opened NSS A/c No. 1113547 at GPO Delhi and as per the passbook Ex.PW12/U, she had made the following investments and earned interest in the sum of Rs. 20,371/ :
Date Investment Interest recd. TDS Maturity Amt.
16/4/90 Rs. 15,000/
30/3/91 Rs. 15,000/
30/3/92 Rs. 15,000/ Rs. 37,126/ Rs.16,755/ Rs. 67,021/
30/3/92 Rs. 1650/ (12/3/97)
Total Rs. 46,650/
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 106 of 233
PW59 Sh. Harbans Lal Dhingra of M/s. Harbans Lal &
Company stated that he had money transactions with Ilango M Solai, Mrs. Manju Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and he had taken loan of Rs.1,30,253/ and Rs.3,22,500/ from them through cheques. He proved letter Ex.PW59/A vide which details of all the loan transactions were sent to CBI. PW59 stated that as per Ex.PW59/A, M/s Harbans Lal & Co., had taken a loan of Rs. 36,500/ from Smt. Manju Malaichamy in the year 199394 and the loan amount was returned alongwith interest of Rs. 4,854/ in the year 199394 and Rs. 3,497/ in the year 199495.
PW135 Sh. J. Ananthanarayana Prasad stated that on 28.02.2000, Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad had gifted a sum of Rs. 1,99,200/ in favour of Smt. Manju Malaichamy vide affidavit Ex.PW135/A and Smt. Manju Malaichamy had come in possession of the money by selling of her land. PW135 also stated that Smt. Laxmi Jai Prasad also gave two lacs each to her grandsons Sendhil M. Solai and Sh. Ilango M. Solai. Further, she also gave Rs. 10,000/ each to their grandsons.
PW42 Sh. Sanjay Jain from M/s Kailash Jewelery House stated that on 19.07.88 Smt. Manju Malaichamy sold gold ornaments consisting of CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 107 of 233 four kadas and seven bangles of 22 ct gold weighing 192.300 gms to M/s Kailash Jewellery House vide receipt Ex.PW42/A for a sum of Rs. 51,921/ which was paid to her through cheque No. 371957 of The Vysya Bank. 3.25 Expenditure PW47 Sh. Bhagmal Camy proved letter dtd. 19/8/02 Ex.PW47/1, vide which house tax of Rs.23,740/ in equal share from 12/10/87 to 17/9/01, for property No. 210, Madhuban, Delhi in the name of accused and his wife Manju Malaichamy was paid.
3.26 Assets of Manju Malaichamy PW29 Sh. Prem Narayan Srivastav proved the membership No. 734 in the name of Smt. Manju Malaichamy and stated that she had invested Rs. 97,100/. He proved the photocopy of receipts pertaining to this account as Ex.PW29/C1 to C4 and Ex. PW29/E1 to E4, copy of ledger Ex.PW29/D. PW29 further proved letter No. 245/12 dtd. 20/8/98 Ex.PW29/F vide which land measuring 7.5 acres was allotted / earmarked by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Awas Samiti under the Indirapuram Yojana. The admission form and the declaration letter dtd. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 108 of 233 4/6/87 of in respect of Smt. Manju Malaichamy pertaining to Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Awas Samiti was proved as Ex.PW29/J. PW29 stated that a payment of Rs. 50,000/ was made to Shiksha Vihar Sekhari Awas Samiti vide cheque dtd. 28/2/01 Ex.PW5/D18 under the signatures of S. Malaichamy from A/c No. 6214. It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted this fact and stated that his his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy had applied for membership and had paid sum of Rs.97,100/ but till date neither the money has been returned back nor the plot has been allotted.
PW13 BM Wahi stated that Manju Malaichamy had PPF A/c No. 902832 and as per the statement of account Ex.PW13/J for the period 1/10/01 to 31/5/03, the last balance as on 31/3/02 in this account was Rs. 46,287.51 and interest earned during this period as per statement of account Ex.PW13/J is Rs.1,287.51.
PW90 Anand Kumar Sukhani proved Bill No.327 dated 29.07.88 pertains to M/s. Lachhmandas & Co., Ex.PW90/A. He stated that vide this bill, diamond ornament consisting of one pair of tops and one ring was sold to one Ms. Manju Malaichamy for a sum of Rs.11,640/ + tax of Rs.232.80 ps. and Ms. Manju Malaichamy made the payment of the above said bill by cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 109 of 233
PW100 Sh. G.S. Singh, Income Tax Officer proved the income tax details for the Assessment Year 20012002 & 20022003. PW100 stated that as per balance sheet of AY 20012002, Ex.PW100/B and AY 20022003, Ex.PW100/C, Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) owed an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs to Smt. Manju Malaichamy. He stated that loan of Rs. 4 lakhs in the name of Manju Malaichamy was actually paid vide a cheque dtd. 7/11/2000 Ex.PW5/D17 from A/c No. 6214 Syndicate Bank. PW100 also stated that no interest has been paid to other creditors.
PW50 Sh. Amar Kumar Jain partner of M/s AK Electricals, had taken a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/ from Smt. Manju Malaichamy on 30/6/2000. He stated that the loan was repaid and Smt. Manju Malaichamy earned an interest of Rs. 28,000/ as per document Ex.PW50/1.
PW137 Sh. Lalit Ahuja of Ahuja Electronics at 12, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI proved the bills no. 4520, 4871 and 4872 dated 23.06.1998 and 21.10.1998. He stated that vide bill no. 4871 dated 21.10.1998, Ex.PW137/C a microwave was sold to Ms Manju, 10, Rajpur Road, for a sum of Rs.12800/.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 110 of 233
D. Sendhil M. Solai 3.27 Income
PW41 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan proved letter Ex.PW41/A vide which certified copies of account opening form, Ex.PW41/B and statement of account No.054010100024240, Ex.PW41/C in the name of Sh. Sendhil M. Solai for the period 01.01.99 to 09.08.2002. During the period 26.05.2001 to 09.04.2002, the total amount of interest credited in the said account was Rs. 177/ and on 09.04.2002 the balance in the account was Rs.5,803.84. PW41 also proved covering letter dated 21.05.2001, Ex.PW41/E for considering the transfer of account from Noida Branch to Shakti Nagar branch.
PW59 Sh. Harbans Lal Dhingra proved letter dated 13.10.2002, Ex.PW59/C regarding interest paid to Sendhil M Solian and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. In the year 199394, M/s Harbans Lal & Co., had taken a loan of Rs.1,06,000/ from Sendhil M. Solai which was returned in the year 199495 alongwith interest of Rs. 24,253/.
PW61 Sh. Vinit Mathur, Managing Director of M/s Surge Systems India Pvt. Ltd. stated that the company primarily deals with the installation of sprinkler system and supply of machinery to cut grass for golf courses and sports fields. He stated that Sendhil M. Solai had worked with CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 111 of 233 M/s Surge Systems India Pvt. Ltd. on part time basis from May 1995 to January 1997 for installation of computerization in the said company. He was paid Rs.90,000/, as Rs. 3,000/ per month for three months and then Rs. 4,500/ per month for the remaining period for his part time job. PW61 proved letter Ex.PW61/A vide which this information was handed over to CBI alongwith detail of payments made to Sendhil M. Solai collectively Ex.PW61/B. PW20 Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta of Kishori Lal and Chander Bhan & Co. stated that his firm had taken three loans of Rs.50,000/, Rs.1 Lakh and Rs. 1 Lakh from Sh. Sendhil M. Solai and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. He stated that as per Ex.PW20/B the loan was returned back with interest of Rs. 2,200/.
PW40 Sh. Subash Singhal proved letter Ex.PW40/A vide which copy of account of Sendhil M. Solai, Ex.PW40/B was sent to CBI. PW40 stated that on 03.04.89 an amount of Rs.45,000/ was paid to his firm by cheque No.125935 of Syndicate Bank, St. Xavier's School and the firm had paid an interest of Rs.2,160/ on 06.07.89 and refunded the loan with interest Rs.47,160/ including interest in the sum of Rs. 2160 on 06.07.89 by cheque No.527856, Union Bank of India, Khari Bauli.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 112 of 233
PW117 Sh. Pramod Sukhdev, Branch Manager, SBI, Badnera, Amravati, Maharashtra stated that Sendhil M. Solai had saving bank A/c No. 17332 in the above said bank and as letter dtd. 15/10/03 Ex.PW117/A and statement of account of saving bank account No. 17332 Ex.PW117/B, the last balance as on 1/3/02 was Rs. 583/ and the interest earned on this account was Rs. 61/.
PW52 Sh. Jitender Pratap Singh proved letter dated 16/8/02, Ex.PW52/1 vide which attested copies of the account opening form, form 16, copy of driving license and statement of account of A/c No. 28690 in the name of S.M. Solai were handed over to CBI. PW52 stated that the total interest earned by the account holder vide this account is Rs.996/. 3.28 Expenditure PW31 Sh. Arvind Kumar Manchanda proved letter Ex.PW31/A vide which the payment details of phone No. 23946171 (old No. 3946171) installed in the name of Sendhil M. Solai for the period 28/6/2000 to 16/3/02 Ex.PW31/B, the computer print out of subscriber information Ex.PW31/C, the address detail of the subscriber Ex.PW31/D and the bills for the period 9/4/01 to 15/12/01, 15/1/01 to 15/9/01 and 15/6/02 to 5/2/03 Ex.PW31/E were CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 113 of 233 handed over to CBI. As per bill Ex.PW31/E, the total amount paid till 9/4/02 i.e. due date of the bill dtd. 15/3/02 was Rs. 27,584/. 3.29 Assets PW92 Sh. S.K. Sharma proved letter dated 13.06.2002, Ex.PW92/E vide which documents i.e. copy of invoice No.93961 Ex.PW92/A vide which an Esteem A/C LX was sold to Sh. Sendhil M. Solai , 30.12.99 for a sum of Rs.4,78,918/, receipt Ex.PW92/C & D, copy of delivery satisfactory note Ex.PW92/B were sent to CBI. PW92 stated that Sh. Sendhil M. Solai had also made a cash payment of Rs.4,865/ on account of registration charges and proved the cash receipt as Ex.PW92/F. PW17 J.K. Nagpal deposed that Sendhil M. Solai had PPF Account No. 116 in Punjab National Bank and proved the statement of account for the period 9/12/98 to 20/3/03, Ex.PW17/J. He stated that the last balance as on 30/3/02 was Rs. 73,528/.
PW137 Sh. Lalit Ahuja of Ahuja Electronics at 12, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI proved the bills no. 4520, 4871 and 4872 dated 23.06.1998 and 21.10.1998. He stated that vide bill no. 4872 dated 21.10.1998 Ex.PW137/A one Akai Music System was sold to Sendhil, for a CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 114 of 233 sum of Rs.11200/.
PW91 Sh. HV Shiva Shanker stated that Sh. Sendhil M. Solai was the member of the society since 1995 and he deposited Rs.87,000/ on 21.06.95 vide a demand draft and he further deposited another sum of Rs. 87,000/ on 27.09.95. He also deposited Rs.1,26,000/ vide demand draft on 02.06.97. Sh. Sendhil M. Solai deposited a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs against allotment of Site No.57 Kammana Hallai, 2nd Phase, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. He stated that the certified copy of the extract of the ledger regarding members Sendhil M. Solai and Illango M. Solai were also seized by CBI and proved the seizure memo, Ex.PW91/B the certified copy of the ledgers are Ex.PW91/C and Ex.PW91/D. E. Ilango M. Solai 3.30 Income PW18 Sh. Ved Prakash proved the transfer of Saving bank accounts No.7077 in the name of Mr. Ilango M. Solai and 7079 in the name of Manju Malaichamy from Nirman Vihar Branch to Extension Counter of Sant Xavier School Branch on 04.05.88 and 18.06.91, respectively. As per pass books of this A/c, Ex.PW18/B an interest of Rs. 3,961.08 was earned in CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 115 of 233 this account.
PW19 Sh. N.K. Gupta, the then Asstt. Manager St. Xavier School, Extension Counter, proved statement of FDRs pertaining to SB A/c No.6213, 6214 and 5508 containing the details of FDR, Ex.PW19/D. He stated that as per statement Ex.PW19/D, accused's son Illango M. Solai had earned an interest in the sum of Rs. 2,646/ from FDR in SB A/c No. 5508.
PW21 Naveen Dhingra of M/s. Chaman Lal Dhingra stated that his firm had taken loan of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs from Sh. Ilango M. Solai and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, respectively. He proved letter Ex.PW21/A vide which the details of loan taken, interest paid and TDS deposited in the bank, Ex.PW21/B were supplied to CBI. PW21 stated that firm had taken a loan of Rs.5 lakhs in the month of June 1998 from Ilango M. Solai on interest basis and the same was returned in the month of June 1998 alongwith interest of Rs. 18,900/ after deducting TDS in the amount of Rs. 2100/. PW21 proved letter dated 10/12/02 Ex.PW21/F vide which the statement of loan, interest paid and TDS deducted, Ex.PW21/E were supplied. The interest paid was in the sum of Rs. 23,625/.
PW33 Sh. Manoj Kumar Nandy, Asstt. Manager (Finance) in Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. proved letter dtd. 15/7/03 Ex.PW33/A CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 116 of 233 vide which salary details of Illango M. Solai for the period April 2001 to March 2002 Ex.PW33/B was handed over to CBI. PW33 stated that during this period Illango M. Solai earned a total net salary of Rs. 1,68,414/.
PW43 Sh. Pradeep Khanna stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from accused which was paid in the name of accused's son Illango M. Solai vide cheque No. 852748 dtd. 29/6/2000 and the said loan was repaid with interest of Rs. 7,000/ amounting to Rs. 1,07,000/, out of which Rs. 1 lakh was paid through cheque No.511436 and Rs.7,000/ was paid through cheque No. 184002. PW43 proved letter dated 21.08.02, Ex.PW43/B vide which the detail of account of Illango M Solai Ex.PW43/A was handed over to CBI. PW43 further stated that he had again taken a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs through Naveen Mehra by way of cheque issued by Illango M. Solai in the year 2000 and this amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was returned back with interest of Rs. 14,000/ through cheque No. 51655, Oriental Bank of Commerce.
PW23 Sh. Sushil Kumar from ESS KAY Trading Company stated that in the year 2002, his firm had taken a loan of Rs.1 lac from Sh. Ilango M. Solai on 23.12.99 through A/c Payee Cheque on interest basis and the same was refunded on 12.01.2001 through A/c payee cheque and proved letter Ex.PW23/A containing the detail of loan, interest paid and TDS deposited. He CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 117 of 233 also proved statement as Ex.PW23/B. PW49 Sh. Praveen Gulati proprietor of M/s. Deepika Agencies proved letter Ex.PW49/1 vide which the salary details of Mr. Illango M. Solai, were sent to CBI. PW49 stated that Mr. Illango M Solai was looking after the marketing of pharmaceutical goods in different private hospitals and the total salary drawn by him was Rs.1,48,000/ inclusive of traveling expenses. Mr. Ilango was working as a part time since he was studying also.
PW62 Sh. Gaurav Nakra proved letter dated 26/9/02 Ex.PW62/A vide which statement of account pertaining to A/c No. 002901028975 in the name of accused's son Mr. Ilango M. Solai Ex.PW62/B was handed over to CBI. He stated that as per statement of account, Illango M. Solao had earned an interest of Rs. 159/ and last balance was Rs. 885/.
PW107 Sh. Sanjay Ailawadi stated that Ilango M. Solai had applied for registration of Hero Honda motorcycle in April 1997 after having bought the same from ESSAAY Agency Pvt. Ltd. Karol Bagh and the same was allotted registration No. DL 4 SS 0001 on 04.04.97 in pursuance of which the registration certificate was duly issued. As per record, Sh. Ilango M. Solai sold this motorcycle to one Gurdeep Kumar S/o Mr. Kiran Singh vide form No. 29 & 30 dated 15.06.2001. The transfer of ownership was duly CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 118 of 233 recorded in the motor vehicle department as per law. 3.31 Expenditure PW45 Sh. Mahender Kumar Kapoor proved letter dated 30.01.2003, Ex.PW45/1 regarding the policy details in the name of S. Malaichamy, I. M. Solai and Mr. S.M. Solai. As per Ex.PW45/1, H/Honda motorcycle No.DL4SS0001 was in the name of Ilango M. Solai and he paid insurance premium in the sum of Rs.578/ and Rs.428/ for the period 26/11/00 to 25/11/01.
3.32 Assets PW17 Sh. J.K. Nagpal proved PPF account No.115 in the name of Ilango M. Solai from the period 09.12.98 to 13.10.03 as Ex.PW17/H. He stated that as per statement of account for the period 9/12/98 to 13/10/03, Ex.PW17/H, the last credit balance in this account as on 29/1/2002 was Rs.52,523/.
PW137 Sh. Lalit Ahuja of Ahuja Electronics at 12, Central Market, proved bill no.4520 dated 23.06.1998, Ex.PW137/B vide which one Daewoo Refrigerator was sold to Mr. Ilango M. Solai for a sum of CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 119 of 233 Rs.25,500/.
PW91 Sh. HV Shiva Shanker stated that Sh. Ilango M. Solai was the member of the society since 1995 and he deposited Rs.87,000/ on 23.06.95 vide a demand draft and he further deposited another sum of Rs. 87,000/ on 29.09.95. He also deposited Rs.1,26,000/ vide demand draft on 02.06.97. Sh. Illango M. Solai deposited a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs against allotment of Site No.58 Kammana Hallai, 2nd Phase, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. PW91 proved letter dated 14.05.2002 which was sent to CBI regarding all above said details. He stated that the certified copy of the extract of the ledger regarding members Sendhil M. Solai and Ilango M. Solai were also seized by CBI and proved the seizure memo, Ex.PW91/B the certified copy of the ledgers are Ex.PW91/C and Ex.PW91/D. F. Solai & Sons 3.33 Income PW54 Sh. Ashish Kohli stated that in the year 2003, he was posted as Senior Officer at ICICI Bank, Karol Bagh Branch. He proved letter dated 18/11/03, Ex.PW54/1 vide which details regarding the FDR's were sent to CBI officer. PW54 also stated that alongwith the letter, Ex.PW54/1 the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 120 of 233 certified copy of transfer, credit pay order, transfer voucher cum deposit card, pay order and FDR, were annexed and proved that same as Ex.PW54/2, running into four pages. As per statement of account Ex.PW54/2, M/s Solai & Sons had earned an interest of Rs. 9,143/ on FDR A/c No. 34742. PW54 further stated that as per record, FDR number 34742 for 46 days was issued in the name of Solai & Sons for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/. It was further renewed for further 46 days and the maturity value of this FDR was Rs. 3,09,143/ and it was paid vide pay order No.826740 dated 22/3/96 and an amount of Rs.9,143/ was paid as interest.
PW66 Sh. Rajan Mehra stated that he had taken a loan of Rs.4 lakhs from M/s Solai and Sons in the year 2000 through four cheques of Rs.1 lakh each through Naveen Mehra and repaid the same after around 45 months by one cheque of Rs.4 lakhs drawn on SBI Chawri Bazar and interest in the sum of Rs.28,000/ was also paid through Cheque drawn on SBI Chawri Bazar. He proved letter dated 8.8.2002 Ex.PW66/A vide which this information was sent to CBI.
PW21 Naveen Dhingra of M/s. Chaman Lal Dhingra stated that his firm had taken loan of Rs.3 lakhs from Solai Sons on interest basis on 21.05.96 and the same was repaid on 01.11.96 alongwith interest of Rs. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 121 of 233 21735/ after deducting TDS in the sum of Rs. 2415/ and proved letter Ex.PW21/C vide which details of loan taken, interest paid and TDS deposited in the bank, Ex.PW21/D were supplied.
PW17 Sh. JK Nagpal proved the statement of SB account No. 37423 in the name of Solai and Sons (HUF) from the period 12.01.96 to 01.03.02 as Ex.PW17/C and. As per statement of account for the period 12/2/96 to 1/3/02, Ex.PW17/C, the closing balance as on 1/3/02 was Rs. 6,682/.
PW100 Sh. G.S. Singh, Income Tax Officer, stated that vide letter Ex.PW100/A, on 22.07.2002, he had forwarded certified copy of Income Tax return of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) for the Assessment Year 20012002 & 20022003 to CBI and as per record, the Karta of this HUF was Rajeshwar Nath Gupta. PW100 also stated that as per Computation of Taxable Income, Ex.PW100/B of the year 20012002 (AY), an income of Rs.8,000/ has been shown as income from property No.1/24, Mall Road, Delhi and as per balance sheet of AY 20032004, Ex.PW100/C, a sum of Rs.40,000/ has been spent on the construction of 1/24, Mall Road, Delhi. PW100 stated that as per balance sheet of AY 20012002, Ex.PW100/B, Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) owed the following amount to the following persons : CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 122 of 233
Ellango M. Solai Rs. 2 Lakhs p Manju Malaichamy Rs. 4 Lakhs p Solai & Sons Rs. 7 Lakhs p Karuppayee Ammal Rs. 5 Lakhs p Smt. Arunesh Gupta Rs. 28,813/
He stated that loan of Rs. 4 lakhs in the name of Manju Malaichamy was actually paid vide a cheque dtd. 7/11/2000 Ex.PW5/D17 from A/c No. 6214 Syndicate Bank. He further stated that as per balance sheet of AY 20022003, Ex.PW100/C, Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) owed the following amount to the following persons :
1. Ilango M. Solai Rs. 2 Lakhs
2. Manju Malaichamy Rs. 4 Lakhs
3. Solai & Sons Rs. 7 Lakhs
4. Karuppayee Ammal Rs. 5 Lakhs
5. Smt. Arunesh Gupta Rs. 34,000/
6. Sunil Kumar Gupta Rs. 26,000/ PW100 also stated that as per record, the interest was paid only to Smt. Arunesh Gupta and no interest has been paid to other creditors. 3.34 Expenditure No evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 123 of 233 expenditure incurred by Solai & Sons (HUF). 3.35 Assets PW17 Sh. JK Nagpal proved the statement of SB A/c No.37423 in the name of Solai and Sons (HUF) from the period 12.01.96 to 01.03.02 as Ex.PW17/C and as per statement of account for the period 12/2/96 to 1/3/02, Ex.PW17/C, the closing balance as on 1/3/02 was Rs.6,682/.
PW100 G.S. Singh proved the Income tax returns of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF). He stated that as per the balance sheet of AY 20022003, Ex.PW100/C, Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) owed the following amount to the following persons :
1. Ilango M. Solai Rs. 2 Lakhs
2. Manju Malaichamy Rs. 4 Lakhs
3. Solai & Sons Rs. 7 Lakhs
4. Karuppayee Ammal Rs. 5 Lakhs
5. Smt. Arunesh Gupta Rs. 34,000/
6. Sunil Kumar Gupta Rs. 26,000/ G. Joint Bank Accounts 3.36 PW13 Sh. BM Wahi, Branch Manager of State Bank of India proved the details of saving bank account No.9075 in the name of Sh. Sendhil CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 124 of 233 M. Solai from the period 04.04.95 to 19.12.2000 as Ex.PW13/E. PW13 further proved letter Ex.PW13/F vide which detail of cheques, Ex.PW13/G and statement of PPF account No.902826, Ex.PW13/H from the period 01.10.01 to 31.05.03 were handed over to CBI.
PW24 Sh. S. Mohan proved account opening form of SB A/c No. 01190006241 (Old No.1456) in the name of Karuppayi Ammal and S. Malaichamy. He also proved the statement of this account from the period 24.05.98 to 31.12.02. He proved letter Ex.PW24/1 vide which this information was forwarded to CBI, A/c opening form as Ex.PW24/3 and statement of A/c is Ex.PW24/2. As per statement of account Ex.PW24/2, interest in the sum of Rs. 12,486.35 was earned in this account and the last balance as on 31/1/01 was 12,221.24.
PW17 JK Nagpal proved the statement of SB Account No.29765 in the name of Karuppayi Ammal and S. Malaichamy from the period June 1982 to September 1993 and 27.12.94 to 28.02.02 as Ex.PW17/D and Ex.PW17/E and from the period 13.06.92 to 28.01.95 as Ex.PW17/F. As per statement of account Ex.PW17/D and statement of account for the period 27/12/94 to 28/2/02 Ex.PW17/E, the closing balance as on 28/2/2002 was Rs. 1,38,637.75. In this account, a FD in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh was also made on CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 125 of 233 28/1/97 on which an interest of Rs. 2,154/ was earned.
PW51 B. Chandra Shekharan stated that in the year 2002, he was posted in the Extension Counter at Madurai Corporation Building attached to Canara Bank, Grand Central Madurai and proved letter dated 18/11/02, Ex.PW51/1 sent to the Supdt. Of Police, CBI, New Delhi vide which documents regarding account opening form of account No.50875, in the joint name of Solai Karuppayee Swamy and S. Malaichammy and statement of this account. PW51 stated that this account was initially opened on 5/5/1987 in single name of Solai Karuppayee Swamy and lateron it was converted into joint account. PW51 also proved letter dated 23/6/03, Ex.PW51/2 vide which the details of the interest, Ex.PW51/3, received by the account holder in this account were sent to CBI. PW51 further stated that as per record from the period 5/5/87 to 30/7/97 and 1/1/99 to 9/11/02, total interest of Rs.17,818.30 was received by this account holder. PW51 also stated that at the relevant time, the record for the period 30/7/97 to 1/1/99 was not available and therefore, the details of interest earned during this period by the account holders were not given.
PW17 Sh. JK Nagpal proved the statement of SB account No. 37421 in the name of Ilango M. Solai and S. Malaichamy from the period CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 126 of 233 12.01.96 to 28.02.02 and the statement of SB account No.37422 in the name of Sendhil M. Solai and S. Malaichamy from the period 12.01.96 to 16.03.02 as Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B, respectively. As per, Ex.PW17/A for the period from 12/1/96 to 28/2/02, the closing balance as on 28/2/02 was Rs. 2,644.29, In saving fund account No. 37421, FD of Rs. 5,20,000/ was made on 13/11/94, FD of Rs. 50,000/ was made on 18/1/97, FD of Rs. 3,30,000/ was made on 14/1/97 and FD of Rs. 90,000/ was made on 2/4/97 on which an interest in the sum of Rs. 5,898/, Rs.1,077/, Rs. 3,742/ and Rs. 964/ was earned, respectively.
PW5 A.K. Bhatnagar proved the 16 original cheques, Ex.PW5/D1 to D16 issued from the different accounts of accused bearing A/c No. VIP 36, A/c No. 52036 and A/c No. 19075. PW5 proved the original specimen signature card, Ex.PW5/D24 pertaining to SB A/c No.29765 in the name of accused, original letter addressed to Manager, PNB in the printed format, Ex.PW5/D25, the original account opening form pertaining to SB A/c No. 37423 in the name of Solai & Sons (HUF), Ex.PW5/D26. He also proved the original account opening forms pertaining to SB A/c No. 37422 Punjab National Bank in the joint name of accused and his son Sendhil M. Solai, Ex.PW5/D27 and the original account opening forms pertaining to SB A/c CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 127 of 233 No. 37421 in the joint name of accused and his son Illango M. Solai, Ex.PW5/D28. PW5 stated that accused had issued 46 cheques pertaining to PNB, Civil Lines Ex.PW5/D29 to Ex.PW5/D74 and Ex.PW5/D75 and PW5/D76. PW5 deposed that accused and his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal had joint account No. 3805 in Indian Overseas Bank and proved the certified copy of account opening form, Ex.PW5/D77, nomination form pertaining to the said account, Ex.PW5/D78 and specimen signature card of the said account, Ex.PW5/D79. He also proved the income tax details paid by the accused for the year 198788 to 20012002. PW5 stated that accused had invested in two IDBI Flexi bonds mark PW5/C35 for Rs.10,000/ each on 5/3/99.
PW25 Mr. M.A. Riyazuddin proved account opening form of SB A/c No.26484, Ex.PW25/B opened on 14/6/95, statement of this account, Ex.PW25/C and Master Sheet, Ex.PW25/D and stated that accused earned an interest of Rs. 2,470/ in this account. He also proved letter Ex.PW25/A vide which this information was supplied to CBI. He proved letter No.MSSB929 dated 25.11.2002 vide which 26 pass sheets of SB A/c No.26484 in the name of S. Malaichamy, Ex.PW25/F (Colly.) were supplied to CBI. He further proved letter No.MSSBEP715 dated 04.09.2002, Ex.PW25/G, vide which CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 128 of 233 certified copy of A/c opening form of SB A/c No.30913 in the name of S. Malaichamy, detail of cheque book issued and statement of A/c for the period 14.10.01 to 31.08.02, Ex.PW25/I, Ex.PW25/J and Ex.PW25/K were supplied to CBI. PW25 also stated that accused had income from interest in the sum of Rs. 51/ in SB A/c No. 30913, Canara Bank and as per statement of account Ex.PW25/J and Ex.PW25/K, the last balance in this account was Rs.5,121/ as on January 2002.
PW102 Sh. P.R. Jain proved letters dated 08.07.2002 and 17.07.2002 Ex.PW102/A and Ex.PW102/B vide which the information regarding Saving Bank Account No.6953 in the name of Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta, was sent to CBI. He stated that vide this letter the certified copy of statement of account No.6953 in Union Bank of India, Khari Bawli, Delhi from the period 01.04.2000 to 30.06.2002, Ex.PW102/C were sent to CBI and as per record, in the above said accounts, the following credits were made :
Date Cheque No. / Branch Amount 0 25.10.2000 473898 / PNB Civil Lines Rs. 4 Lakhs 0 08.11.2000 955416 / Syndicate Bank, XAV School Rs. 4 lakhs 0 05.12.2000 852755 / PNB Civil Lines Rs. 2 Lakhs 0 16.12.2000 632294 / PNB Civil Lines Rs. 7 Lakhs 0 26.12.2000 473900 / PNB Civil Lines Rs. 1 Lakhs 0 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 129 of 233
PW106 Sh. Babulal Goyal, Chartered Accountant stated that in April 2002, the Income tax return files of Smt. Manju Malaichamy, Sendil M. Solai, Illango M. Solai, Solai & sons and Karuppaiyee Amal were seized by the CBI vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW106/A and vide letter dtd. 11/4/02, the income tax file of Karuppaiyee Amal (from assessment year 198283 to 200102) and M/s Solai & sons (assessment year 198485 to 200102) were also handed over to CBI. PW106 stated that file (AY8283 onwards) Ex.PW106/B, contains computation of income of Smt. Manju Malaichamy, balance sheets, receipts of ITR, income tax challans, copy of accounts, TDS certificate etc. PW106 also proved file of Sendil M. Solai (AY8485 onwards) Ex.PW106/C contains computation of income of Sendil M. Solai, balance sheets, receipts of ITR, income tax challans, copy of accounts, TDS certificate etc. File of Illango M. Solai (AY 8485 onwards) containing computation of income of Master Illango M. Solai, balance sheets, receipts of ITR, income tax challans, copy of accounts, TDS certificate etc. was proved as Ex.PW106/D. PW106 further proved file of Smt. Karuppaiyee Amal (AY8283 onwards) Ex.PW106/E containing computation of income of Smt. Karuppaiyee Amal, balance sheets, receipts of ITR, income tax challans, copy of accounts, TDS certificate etc. He also proved the file of Solai & Sons CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 130 of 233 (AY 8485 onwards), Ex.PW106/F containing computation of income of Solai & Sons, balance sheets, receipts of ITR, income tax challans, copy of accounts, TDS certificate etc. PW106 stated that Ms. Karuppayi Amal was the Karta of HUF and coparceners were accused and his wife Ms. Manju Malaichamy.
PW109 Smt. Veena Sharma proved file No. M113/76/S1, Ex.PW109/A pertains to property returns of Mr. S. Malaichamy IAS, 1971 batch AGMUT cadre. She stated that the file contains all the intimations regarding acquisition of movable and immovable properties given by Mr. S. Malaichamy to department.
PW113 Sh. R.N. Gupta, Chartered Accountant stated that CBI seized accused's income tax file Ex.PW113/A containing pages 1 to 184 from 199596 to 200203 which was maintained by him in the normal course of business. PW113 stated that the income tax returns are filed on the basis of inputs given by the clients and the truthfulness of the documents are assessed by income tax department.
PW122 Sh. Manish Sareen proved letter dtd. 1/1/04, Ex.PW122/A vide which the certified copy of accused's assessment record of income tax for the year 19992000 Ex.PW122/B was sent to CBI. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 131 of 233
PW123 Sh. Nirmal Nangia proved letter dtd. 12/12/03 Ex.PW123/A, vide which the income tax return for the assessment year 200102 of Solai & sons, HUF, Illango M. Solai, Sendhil M. Solai, Karuppaiyi Amal and Manju Malaichamy, Ex.PW123/B were sent to CBI. 3.37 Witnesses regarding Search at various premises PW27 Sh. R.K. Sharma took part in search of house No.C210 Madhuban, Preet Vihar on 09.04.2002 along with one Sh. JK Jha, Insp. HK Lal and other CBI officials. He stated that the search started at 12:30 pm and concluded at about 1:30 pm and after the completion of the search observation memo, Ex.PW27/A was prepared.
PW130 Inspr. Virender Thakran stated that on 09.04.2002, on the instruction of IO Sh. M.S. Singhal, he alongwith PW131 Om Prakash and PW132 PL Pubbi conducted search at the office of accused at 1, Canning Lane, New Delhi and proved the searchcumseizure memo Ex.PW130/A. He stated that during the searchcumseizure, Assistant Director Sh. R.K. Jajoria was present. However, accused was not present at that time.
PW127 Sh. P. Balachandran, DSP, stated that on 09.04.02 he had conducted a search at B504, Kedar Apartments, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi. He CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 132 of 233 stated that 40 documents/material objects were seized from the said premises and cash amounting Rs.12,70,000/ was also amongst in these seized items.
PW128 Sh. Shravan Kumar Jha, LDC in Excise and Entertainment Department, GNCT, Delhi deposed that during April, 2002 he had joined the search proceedings at C210, Madhuban, Preet Vihar, Delhi along with other CBI officials. He stated that on 09.04.2002, the memo Ex. PW27/A, was prepared in his presence on the spot and it contains all the proceedings conducted thereon.
PW131 Om Prakash and PW132 PL Pubbi took part in search proceedings conducted on 09.04.2002 at 1, Canning Lane, O/o. Sh. S. Malaichamy, IAS.
PW133 Sh. Karan Arya (earlier known as HK Lal) stated that he conducted the search at premises No. C210, Madhuban, Preet Vihar, New Delhi on the instructions of IO.
PW134 Sh. Ramvir Singh had joined the search proceedings with CBI for conducting search at the office of chartered accountants i.e. M/s BL Goyal and Associates and M/s Niwas Gupta & Associates and proved productioncumseizure memo Ex. PW134/A and Ex. PW134/B vide which certain documents were seized.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 133 of 233
PW136 Insp. A. Sathiamoorthy stated that on 23.06.03, he was directed to assist in the investigation conducted by DSP Sh. Madhusudan Singhal in the present case and during the course of investigation, he went to Madurai and other places in Tamilnadu and particularly Mazhavaranendal village, in the state of Tamilnadu. He stated that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and seized certain documents. He also undertook valuation of property at Madurai with the help of CPWD Engineer Sh. Shanmughavel and further did valuation of the property through the same CPWD Engineer in village Mazhavaranendal. Thereafter he handed over the charge of investigation to Mr. M.S. Singhal, the then DSP, the main IO of the case.
PW141 Sh. SP M.S. Singhal was entrusted the investigation of this case after registration of FIR. He proved the registration of FIR, Ex.PW141/A. He formally proved the investigation conducted by him. PW141 deposed that after investigation of the case, it was revealed that accused S. Malaichamy had acquired assets which were disproportionate to the known sources of income as accused had income of approximately Rs. 94 lacs in his name and in the name of his family members and expenditure to the tune of Rs. 35 lacs approximately which results in savings of CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 134 of 233 approximately Rs. 59 lacs, assets revealed in his name and in the name of his family members were to the tune of Rs. 1 crore 29 lacs approximately and thereby, he was in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.64.5 lacs for which he could not offer any satisfactory explanation. 3.38 Miscellaneous Evidence PW34 Sh. M. Subramanian Supdt. Regional Transport Officer from Chennai proved seizure / receipt memo dated 29.08.03 vide which certified copy of RC of Car No. TN10D1541, Ex.PW34/B in the name of Eshwari @ Chellam was seized. PW34 also proved Form 27 i.e. application for assignment of new registration marked to a motor vehicle, Ex.PW34/B1, Form No. 20 i.e. application for registration of a motor vehicle, Ex.PW34/B2, Form No.29 i.e. notice of transfer of ownership of motor vehicle, Ex.PW34/B3, Form No.30 i.e. two sets of report of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, Ex.PW34/B4 and B5, Form No.28 application and grant of NOC in 2 sets, Ex.PW34/B7 & B8 and NOC slip pertaining to vehicle No. DL 9SH 0066 as Ex.PW34/B6. PW34 further proved certified copy of a Family Card for the year 1998 to 2003 in the name of Dorai Kaliayarathinam as Ex.PW34/B9 and certified copy of NOC given by police CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 135 of 233 department as Ex.PW34/B10. He also proved certified copy of RC, declaration, verification report, issuance of NOC, assessment chart regarding vehicle No. DL9S H 0066 as Ex.PW34/B11 to B16.
PW72 Sh. N. Elango Van stated that he is resident of the same village as of accused S. Malaichamy. Sh. S. Malaichamy has a house in the village bearing No. 2/380 old and 2/116 new. The house was constructed after siteplan approval. The house was constructed in the year 1990. Mrs. Karuppaiya Amal mother of Malaichamy has spent the money on the construction of the house. House tax was paid of this house to panchayat board and Mrs. Karuppaiya Amal used to reside in this house.
PW94 Sh. Thirugnanam stated that he had worked for around 10 years as Village Head "Thalayari" which is almost equivalent to Patwari and is an employee of Revenue Deptt. Govt. of Tamil Nadu. He stated that Ms. Karuppaiyee Ammal had constructed a house in village Mazha Veranenthel on a barren land on which there did not use to be any cultivation.
PW139 Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta stated that he was into Cloth trading and had a Cinema Hall under the name and style of Minerva, Kashmere Gate. In the year 2000, he had purchased property no. 24/1, Mall Road, Delhi from Smt. Pushpa Talwar attorney of some Virmani's for a sale CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 136 of 233 consideration of Rs. 15 lacs vide sale deed and he had raised a loan of Rs. 16 lacs to 18 lacs to buy this property and to meet out other incidental expenses from accused's family members. PW139 further stated that accused had given an interest free loan to him in the name of his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy, Ilango M. Solai (sons) and Smt. Karupayi Amal (mother). The loan was also advanced in the name of HUF Solai & Sons. The loan amount was advanced by cheque only. PW139 further stated that no agreement was executed and PW139 has yet not returned the money. It was an interest free loan and PW139 had deposited the loan cheques in his SB account at Union Bank of India, Khari Baori, Delhi.
PW19 Sh. N.K. Gupta, the then Asstt. Manager St. Xavier School, Extension Counter, proved the seizure memos dated 25.08.03 and 11.08.03, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B vide which documents pertaining to SB A/c No. 6214 were supplied to CBI. He also proved statement of FDRs pertaining to SB A/c No.6213, 6214 and 5508 containing the details of FDR, Ex.PW19/D. He stated that as per statement Ex.PW19/D, accused's son Illango M. Solai had earned an interest in the sum of Rs. 2,646/ from FDR in SB A/c No. 5508; accused had earned an interest on FDR in account No. 6213 in the sum of Rs. 558/ on FDRs and Smt. Manju Malaichamy had earned interest CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 137 of 233 income from FDR in A/c No.6214 in the sum of Rs. 2,783/. PW19 stated that vide letter dtd. 6/2/03 Ex.PW19/E, Sh. Chaudhary the then Incharge of Extension Counter, had forwarded the documents to CBI. 4.0 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED S. Malaichamy 4.1 In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. accused stated that investigating agency selected the check period without any basis. In respect of the salary income, accused admitted the same as to be the matter of record. Similarly, accused admitted taking of car advance of Rs.40,000/ in July 1986 and as well the receipt of honorarium in the sum of Rs.16,840/. GPF withdrawals were also admitted by the accused. Accused also admitted to have invested Rs.48,000/ in National Saving Certificate in March 1994 and was paid maturity amount of Rs.96,720/ in March 2000 and thereby earned an interest of Rs.48,720/. In respect of rental income from H. No. C210, Madhuban, accused stated that this property was jointly owned by him and his wife and rental income was shared accordingly. 4.2 In respect of the joint investment, accused also admitted to had NSS CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 138 of 233 A/c No.2200536, 2200535, 2200596, 2200725, 2200657, 2200534, 2200714 and 2200658 along with his mother Karuppayi Ammal and wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy. He also admitted to have earned interest from NSS No.2200536 in the sum of Rs.27,406/ and similarly also admitted to have earned interest in the sum of Rs.34,675/ on NSS A/c No. 2200170. Accused S. Malaichamy also admitted to have opened NSS A/c No. 1103670 at GPO, Delhi in March 1989. In this account, accused made an investment of Rs.64,000/ from the period March 1989 to March 1991 and earned an interest of Rs.54,183/ after the deduction of TDS in the sum of Rs.29,545/. Accused had also 3 LIC Policies bearing No.24744353, 24744354 and 42718536. Accused also admitted to have invested the sum of Rs.29,876/, Rs.29,876/ and Rs.10,205/, respectively and got a refund of Rs.52,495/, Rs.52,457/ and Rs.23,190/ on maturity.
4.3 In respect of the income from sale of car, accused admitted to have sold Maruti car bearing No.DL 9SH 0066 in the year 2001 to his sister Easwari @ Chellam. In reply to the incriminating evidence that as per certified copy of cultivation record from the period 1981 to 2003, Ex.PW38/B1 to B11, only survey No.348/4 was in his name and 358/3 was in CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 139 of 233 the name of his mother Karuppayi Ammal, accused stated that it is a matter of record. However, accused stated that it is a joint property and not formally partitioned amongst the legal heirs. His father Late Sh. P. Solai alongwith his brother Late Sh. P. Kumaran jointly owned all these properties. However after the death of both of them, his mother was managing the entire properties. Now, his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal has also died in 2002 and thereafter, still the property is not divided. Therefore, the cultivation record as produced is not correct. Accused stated that he is entitled to receive ½ of the entire property, as he was the only son of his father and whereas Late Sh. P. Kumaran has left behind 06 children. Accused's sister Smt. Easwari @ Chellam had already given up her share in favour of accused. 4.4 In reply to incriminating evidence relating to the expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period, accused admitted to have made expenditure on the education of his children as shown at Sr. No.1 to 4 in the list Annexure E1. However, in respect of the expenditure on pursuing Engineering Degree of Sendhil M. Solai in the College of Engineering, Badnera, Amravati, the incriminating evidence was only in regard to payment of Rs.1,47,260/ in place of Rs.1,98,153 shown in Annexure E1. The same CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 140 of 233 was also admitted by the accused. Accused also admitted to have paid House Tax in respect of H.No. C210, Madhuban in the sum of Rs.11,870/ and similarly the conversion charges and composition fee of Rs.7,682/ in respect of the same property.
Accused also admitted to have made a payment to Roshanara Club towards his membership No. HS6 in the sum of Rs.26,001.30 during the check period. Accused also admitted to have made payment towards the membership of Habitat Centre (No. IN212) in the sum of Rs.6,900/ during the check period. Accused had also membership in NSCI and admitted to have paid a sum of Rs.11,846.36 during the check period. Accused also admitted to have paid a sum of Rs.42,760/ during the check period to Masonic Club as membership and other charges. Accused was also member of Civil Services Officers Institute, Kasturba Gandhi Marg and admitted to have paid a sum of Rs.9,750/ towards the membership No.190 during the check period.
Accused also admitted to have paid a sum of Rs.2,000/ towards membership in ICCR, a sum of Rs.5,000/ towards membership of NOIDA Gold course and a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards membership of M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts. This membership was in the name of accused S. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 141 of 233 Malaichamy and his son Ilango M. Solai.
4.5 During the check period, accused has also bought insurance of his Maruti Car Zen in the sum of Rs.15,121/ in the year 20002001 and Rs.9,331/ in the year 20012002. Insurance premium for the period 200203 was paid in July 2002 i.e. after check period and therefore, it was not added in the expenditure of the accused. Accused had also paid insurance premium in the sum of Rs.7,976/ of Maruti Car No.DES1 for the period 1996 to 2001. Accused admitted to have paid the same. However, he stated that he sold this car to his sister Esawari @ Chellam in the year 2001 after converting the number of the same to DL 9SH 0066. Accused also admitted to have paid electricity bill towards the electric connection installed at 10, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines in the sum of Rs.1,48,077/ during the check period. Accused denied to have purchased any marble from Jain Marbles in the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs and similarly to have paid any payment towards the transportation. However, accused admitted to have paid licence fee in respect of official residence D1/1, Rajpur Road for the period December 96 to April 2002 in the sum of Rs.36,676/. Accused admitted to have purchased batteries in the sum of Rs.9,351/ during the check period. Accused also admitted to have CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 142 of 233 paid a sum of Rs.34,500/ towards the transportation charges of household goods from Karaikudi via Ranipet to Delhi.
4.6 In respect of the assets of the accused during the check period, accused admitted to have paid a sum of Rs.10,19,217/ towards allotment of plot of 500 sq. mtr. being member of Civil Services Officers Welfare Society. However, accused stated that he had duly taken permission from department and transaction was also duly intimated to the department. Accused also admitted to have paid a sum of Rs.2,93,726.25 towards the plot No. B60, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. However, accused stated that the plot was alloted to him by Ghaziabad Development Authority by draw of lots and he has taken due permission from the department and transaction was duly intimated to the department. Accused also admitted to have bought a vehicle Zen VXI in July 2000 for a sum of Rs.4,23,655. However, accused stated that he had taken withdrawal of Rs.3 Lakhs from his GPF. Accused also admitted to have bought IDBI flexibonds in the April 1999, January 2001 and February 2002 in the sum of Rs.5,000/.
Smt. Karuppayi Ammal 4.7 In respect of the interest income of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 143 of 233 accused did not dispute the same. However, he stated that his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had her independent income from agricultural and rent and was an Incometax assessee in Delhi and had been filing her income tax returns regularly. Accused stated that PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta used to look after the affairs of his mother and therefore, he is not aware of the same. Accused stated that most of the times, he used to be out of Delhi on his postings.
4.8 Accused also admitted that his mother had sold gold jewellery to M/s Kailash Jewellery House and payment was duly received by cheque. In respect of the expenditure incurred by Smt. Karuppayi Ammal towards the payment of ground rent, property tax and other society expenses relating to Gyan Shakti Housing Group Society Ltd. Accused stated that his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had become the member on behalf of her minor grandson Sendhil M. Solai i.e. elder son of accused. Accused stated that infact, this flat belongs to his son Sendhil M. Solai but financed by his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal. Accused admitted that his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in her application stated she is a housewife having monthly income of Rs. 3,000/ and also signed a declaration that she or her spouse does not have any membership or house or member of joint family having house in any CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 144 of 233 society or plot at Delhi. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record that his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had paid interest in the sum of Rs.34,841/ in loan account No.50 at OBC. Accused also admitted that his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had paid a sum of Rs.84,048/ towards the maintenance charges to Kedar Cooperative Group Housing Society in respect of H.No. B504, Kedar Apartments. He also admitted that his mother Karuppayi Ammal had made a payment of Rs.3,82,774/ towards the cost of the above said flat. Accused also admitted that his mother had made payment of Rs. 1,70,000/ on account of property tax. Accused also admitted that his mother paid a payment of Rs.33,757/ in respect of property tax of property No. B504, Kedar Apartments and paid a sum of Rs.16,296/ towards house tax of property No.414, Starlite Cooperative Group Housing Society. In respect of the flat No.414, accused stated that his mother had become member of the society on behalf of her minor grandson Ilango M. Solai i.e. younger son of accused. Accused stated that infact, this flat belonged to Ilango M. Solai but financed by his mother. She became the member as Ilango M. Solai was minor at that time.
4.9 Accused admitted it to be a matter of record that his mother had applied for a plot scheme in Indirapuram in July 1987 and deposited Rs. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 145 of 233 3,87,923/ and after the plot was alloted to her, Smt. Karuppaiya Amal got it canceled and got refund of Rs. 3,79,372/ after the deduction of Rs.8,551/, which was added in the expenditure of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. Accused also did not dispute the payment made by his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in the sum of Rs.44,952.65 on account of electricity bill installed at B504 Kedar Apartments. Nor did the accused dispute the payment of Rs.12,000/ under Ambedkar Awas Yojana89. Accused also did not dispute the expenditure of Rs.1,100/ towards the investment in Delhi Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. Accused also admitted that in November 1989, PW85 Sh. Harish Chand had executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Karuppaiyee Amaal in respect of a land at Village Challera for a sum of Rs.1,52,089/. However, accused stated that this land was purchased from the villagers directly by the group of people, but lateron this land was taken over by the Noida Authority and therefore, neither his mother got the land nor the money back.
4.10 In respect of the assets in the name of his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal, accused admitted that his mother has made a total payment of Rs. 8,17,444/ towards the membership of Starlite Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Accused also admitted it to be a matter of record that at the time of CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 146 of 233 applying for membership, his mother Karuppayi Ammal had shown herself to be housewife with monthly income of Rs. 3,000/. Accused also admitted that PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta had sold 1/16th share of his property at Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk to his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal for a sale consideration of around Rs.8 lacs and besides this her mother also paid stamp duty of Rs. 64,000/.
In respect of property H.No.119, Karpaga Nagar, K. Pudur, Madurai, Tamilnadu, accused stated it to be a matter of record that as per valuation report, value of this property was found to be Rs.6,41,850/. Accused stated that his mother had purchased the plot and raised the construction. Similarly, in respect of house building property No.2/116 (old No.2/380) at Mazhavaranenthal Village District Sivagangar, Tamilnadu. Accused stated it to be a matter of record that as per valuation report, the value of this property was assessed at Rs. 2,39,832/. Accused however, stated that his mother had purchased the plot and raised construction. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record that his mother Karuppayi Ammal bought land in Chetiyar Gram Village, Chennai from one Sh. A.K. Nageshwara Rao, attorney of Sh. JA Richardson, in March 2000 for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on which stamp duty and registration fee in the sum of Rs.52,000/ CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 147 of 233 and Rs.13,643/, respectively was paid. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record regarding payment of Rs.50,331/ paid by his mother Karuppayi Ammal towards the registration charges, stamp duty relating to H.No.119, Karpaga Nagar, Madurai. In respect of the investment made in Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti and investment of Rs.97,100/, accused stated that his mother had applied for membership and had paid sum of Rs. 97,100/ but till date neither the money has been returned back nor the plot has been allotted. Similarly, in respect of the investment in Gyan Shakti Housing Group Society Ltd., accused admitted that his mother Karuppayi Amal had paid a sum of Rs. 10,39,110/. However, he stated that his mother had become the member on behalf of her minor grandson Sendhil M. Solai i.e. elder son of accused. Accused also admitted the investment of Rs.60,000/ by his mother in NSCs. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record that his mother had given a loan of Rs.5 lakhs to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta.
Smt. Manju Malaichamy 4.11 In respect of the income earned by Smt. Manju Malaichamy, accused did not deny the same and stated that it is a matter of record and all the investments are tax saving plans. Accused also admitted the gift paid by CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 148 of 233 Smt. Laxmi Jaiprasad to his wife Manju Malaichamy. In respect of the investment made by Smt. Manju Malaichamy in Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Awas Samiti, accused admitted the same and stated that his wife had applied for membership and had paid sum of Rs. 97,100/. however, he stated that neither the money had been returned back nor the plot has been allotted. Accused was also not sure about the refund of money. Accused was confronted with the fact that a payment of Rs.50,000/ was made to Shiksha Vihar Sekhari Awas Samiti vide cheque dtd. 28/2/01 Ex.PW5/D18 under the signatures of accused from A/c No. 6214 and accused admitted the same to be matter of record. Accused was also confronted that loan of Rs.4 lakhs in the name of Smt. Manju Malaichamy was actually paid vide a cheque dtd. 7/11/2000 Ex.PW5/D17 from A/c No. 6214 Syndicate Bank under the signatures of accused to which accused stated that it is a matter of record. However, he stated that cheque was issued from the joint account. In respect of the loan advanced to M/s. AK Electricals by Smt. Manju Malaichamy in which she earned an interest of Rs.28,000/, accused stated that it is a matter of record and he had no knowledge of the same. In respect of the Microwave purchased by Smt. Manju Malaichamy for a sum of Rs.12,800/, accused stated that it is a matter of record and he has no knowledge.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 149 of 233 Sendhil M. Solai 4.12 In respect of the income earned by Sendhil M. Solai, accused broadly stated that it is a matter of record and he has no knowledge about the same. Similarly, in respect of the expenditure made by Sendhil M. Solai, accused stated that it is a matter of record and he has no knowledge about the same. In respect of the investment / assets in the name of Sendhil M. Solai, accused that his son became member of the Custom and Central Excise House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. and paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Accused also admitted that his son Sendhil M. Solai had purchased Maruti Esteem No. DL7S P0001 for a sum of Rs.4,78,918/ in December 99. Accused stated that his son had taken a loan from MGF and it was repaid in due course. Accused also admitted that his son Sendhil M. Solai had PPF A/c No.116 in PNB and as on 30.03.2002, the last balance in this account was Rs.73,528/. Ilango M. Solai 4.13 In respect of the income of Ilango M. Solai, accused broadly stated that it is a matter of record and he has no knowledge about the same. In respect of the assets / investment in Custom and Central Excise House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. in the sum of Rs.3 Lakhs by Ilango M. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 150 of 233 Solai, accused stated that it is a matter of record and he has no knowledge about the same. Similarly, in respect of the loan given to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs by Ilango, accused stated that it is a matter of record and he has no knowledge about the same. Accused also expressed his ignorance about PPF A/c No.115 in the name of Ilango M. Solai. Accused also expressed his ignorance about purchase of Daewoo Refrigerator by his son Ilango and Akai Music System by his son Sendhil M. Solai.
Solai & Sons (HUF) 4.14 In respect of the question regarding income of Solai & Sons (HUF), accused stated the same to be matter of record. Accused admitted that M/s. Solai & Sons had advanced a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta. Joint Bank Accounts 4.15 Accused admitted it to be matter of record that there was a joint account in his name with his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy bearing No.7079, Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar in which there was an interest income in the sum of Rs.3,961.08. He also admitted regarding the interest income of Rs. 2,783/ from the joint account No.6214 in his name and in the name of his CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 151 of 233 wife. Accused was confronted that out of this joint account No.6214, the cheques were issued to Shiksha Vikas Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta HUF, Ritco Travels, Transcorp International Ltd. and Solai & Sons, to which accused stated that it is a matter of record. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record regarding the joint account No.37422 with his son Sendhil M. Solai, in which there was a balance of Rs. 3,87,634.39 as on March 2002. Accused had also admitted it to be matter of record that he had joint account No.3805 alongwith his mother Karuppayi Ammal. Accused also admitted the joint account No.11705 alongwith his son Sendhil M. Solai and joint account No.37421 with his son Ilango M. Solai. Accused had another joint account No. 01190006241 (old No. 1456) alongwith his mother Karuppayi Ammal in State Bank of India, Madurai, in which there was a last balance in the sum of Rs.12,221.24/. Accused had another joint account with his mother Karuppayi Ammal bearing No.8651 in which there was a last balance of Rs.47,705.73. Accused had another joint account with his mother Karuppayi Ammal bearing No.29765 in which there was a last balance in the sum of Rs.1,38,637.75. Accused was confronted that an account No.50875 was initially opened in the name of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in May 1987 and later on it was converted into joint account by CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 152 of 233 adding the name of accused, in which interest in the sum of Rs.17,818.30 was earned to which accused did not dispute. Accused was confronted with certain documents issued from his VIP 36, A/c No.2596 to which accused stated it to be matter of record. Accused was confronted that he had saving bank A/c No. 6213 in Syndicate Bank, SB A/c No. 30913 in Canara Bank, saving bank A/c No. 26484 in Canara Bank, saving bank A/c No.29765 in PNB to which accused stated that it is a matter of record. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record that saving bank A/c No.37423 was opened in the name of Solai & Sons (HUF), showing accused as karta and Sendhil M. Solai and Ilango M. Solai has coparceners. Accused was also confronted with 46 cheques signed by him from different bank accounts to which accused stated that it is a matter of record.
Accused admitted it to be matter of record that he had authorized the bank to honour all cheques or drafts drawn on saving bank account No. 7135 if signed by Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta, Sh. VD Sethi and Sh. Navin Pandey.
Loans 4.16 In respect of the loan advanced to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta, accused CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 153 of 233 was confronted that as per balance sheet of AY 20012002, Ex.PW100/B, Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (HUF) owed an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to Ilango M. Solai, Rs.4 Lakhs to Smt. Manju Malaichamy and Rs.7 Lakhs to Solai & Sons and Rs.5 Lakhs to Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. Accused was also confronted that a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in the name of Smt. Manju Malaichamy was actually paid vide a cheque dtd. 7/11/2000 Ex.PW5/D17 from A/c No. 6214 Syndicate Bank to which accused stated that it is a matter of record. Accused was also confronted that above said loan cheques were duly deposited in the saving bank A/c No.6953 in the name of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta. Observation Memo 4.17 In respect of the observation memo prepared during the search of flat No. B504, Kedar Apartments, Ex.PW126/A, accused stated that it is a matter of record. Similarly, accused admitted it to be matter of record regarding the recovery of Rs.12,70,000/ from the flat No. B504, Kedar Apartments. Accused also admitted the search of his house at D1/1, MCD Officer's Flat, Rajpur Road, Delhi and preparation of observation memo Ex.PW129/A as a matter of record. Accused also admitted it to be matter of record regarding the search of his office at 1, Canning Lane, New Delhi and CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 154 of 233 search of office of his chartered accountants i.e. M/s BL Goyal and Associates and M/s Niwas Gupta & Associates. Accused admitted it to be matter of record that Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta had purchased property no. 24/1, Mall Road, Delhi from Smt. Pushpa Talwar attorney of some Virmani's for a sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs for which he raised a loan of Rs. 16 lacs to 18 lacs to buy this property and accused had given an interest free loan to Rajeshwar Nath Gupta in the name of his wife Smt. Manju Malaichamy, son Ilango M. Solai and mother Karuppayi Ammal and for these loans no agreement was executed, it was an interest free loan and these cheques were deposited in the SB account of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta at Union Bank of India, Khari Baori, Delhi, to which accused stated that it is a matter of record. Agricultural Income 4.18 In respect of the agricultural income relating to survey report No. 348/4 from the period 198182 to 20012002 in the sum of Rs.4,14,863/ and for survey report No.358/3 in the sum of Rs.41,891.16, accused stated it to be incorrect and further stated that the same has been assessed on mere whims without any proper rationing.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 155 of 233 General defence taken by the accused 4.19 Accused stated that it is a false case. In his 35 years of career there was not even a single complaint against him. In the year 2002, he was Election Commissioner, Delhi. MCD Elections were to be held. Accused stated that his political superiors wanted him to function in a particular manner, which he refused. Accused gave in writing that their directions cannot be carried out in view of the High Court order, which was not to their liking. Accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Most of the time, he used to be away on postings and his mother used to run the family from her agricultural income. Accused stated that his mother was managing the entire affair of agriculture and she used to bring her share and from this agricultural income, she was managing all the affairs. Accused further stated that his mother Karuppayi Ammal was the only daughter of her parents and her father i.e., maternal grandfather of accused, was an Accounts Officer in British Tea Estate at Sri Lanka. Accused stated that infact his mother is the daughter of his father's elder sister and she had brought lot of wealth with her in the marriage. In village, she used to advance the loan to the farmers and she was also running Pawn Broker business. Accused further stated that she was also managing the Mango and Coconut Plantation and had CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 156 of 233 sufficient money from the agricultural income. Accused stated that every year he used to file his property return and had disclosed all his properties and income other than salary in the same.
5.0 DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 In their defence evidence, accused examined DW1 S. Thasarathan who stated on oath that he knew the accused and his family including Karuppayi Ammal for last about 3540 years. DW1 stated that Karuppayi Ammal had around 30 acres of fertile agricultural land and also having a huge ancestral house. She was having about Rs. 50,000/ income per acre per year and was also doing the business of money lending and used to earn interest on the same. Witness stated that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal was also a wealthy lady and was also having jewellery and gold worth lakhs of rupees. Witness stated that he was the advisor to Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. He also stated that his mother and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal were close friends. In the cross examination, DW1 stated that he has not brought any document to substantiate his statement regarding agricultural income of the mother of the accused.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 157 of 233 5.2 DW2 Sh. J. Satyanarayana Prasad i.e. brotherinlaw (brother of wife of accused) stated on oath that accused S. Malaichamy got married to his elder sister and she knew his mother Smt. Karuppayi Amal. Witness stated that Karuppayi Ammal sold some of her agricultural land to purchase the property in Delhi for her grandsons. Witness also stated that in 2001, Karuppayi Ammal had sold her agricultural land in Vellore and received huge cash which was brought by her to Delhi to invest the same in real estate for the benefit of her grand children. In the cross examination, witness admitted that he has not brought any document to substantiate his statement regarding the agricultural income of the mother of the accused. 5.3 Accused moved an application u/S 21 of POC Act, 1988 r/w Sec. 315 Cr.PC requesting that he be called as a witness. The application was allowed and thereupon, accused appeared as defence witness and examined himself in court as DW3. Accused stated that he joined Central Government Service in the year 1967 as Transmission Executive in All India Radio. In the year 1969, he joined IRS (customs and central excise) and subsequently, joined IAS in the year 1971 UT (now known as AGMU). Accused stated that CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 158 of 233 he was posted first in Pondicherry then he came to Delhi, thereafter he was posted in Arunachal Pradesh and again came to Delhi, after that he was transferred to Mizoram and finally transferred to Delhi and retired on 31.05.2002 from Delhi only as Development Commissioner. Accused stated that in his 35 years of Central Government Service, there was not even a single complaint against him nor any memo or show cause notice or charge sheet from authorities was issued against him. Accused stated that public at large also did not file any complaint against him. Accused reiterated that his mother late Smt. Karuppayi Amal was a wealthy lady having brought lot of wealth in her marriage including cash and gold on which she was running money lending business and pawn broking in the village. Accused also stated that Smt. Karuppayi Amaal was managing an estate in the village containing more than 100 coconut trees as well as mango trees. Accused stated that he is member of the joint family consisting of his father and elder brother of his father. Accused had only one real sister whereas his uncle had 8 sons and 2 daughters. The joint family owned around 15 acres of wet land in which normally paddy, sugarcane and banana used to be cultivated. Father of the accused used to manage the entire agricultural operation as his uncle (brother of his father) was village head. Accused stated that his father used to get 50% CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 159 of 233 of the income out of the sale of paddy and other cash crops. Accused lost his father in the year 1962 even before he completed his graduation. Thereafter, his uncle also died and Smt. Karuppayi Amaal took over the agricultural operations. Accused stated that entire land was mutated in his mother's name and same was duly intimated to income tax department and wealth tax department. Accused stated that his mother had been filing individually the income tax and wealth tax returns showing her agricultural income and assets and he had also been declaring his annual property return to the department as well filing the income tax returns declaring agricultural income. Accused also placed on record photocopy of annual property returns filed with the department for the last around 15 years, Ex. DW3/A (colly). Accused stated that the same were duly accepted by the State Government and forwarded to the Central Government.
Accused further stated that his two sons are qualified Engineers and had their independent income and expenditure and he made no contribution of any nature in their assets at any point of time. Accused stated that similarly his mother and wife were having their respective individual assets and he had no concern or contribution in the same.
Accused stated that his mother had a plot at Vellore gifted by his CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 160 of 233 inlaws and after few years, his mother sold it out and brought the money to Delhi for further investment for the benefit of her grandchildren i.e. sons of the accused. Accused stated that he has nothing to do with the cash and he was not aware of the existence of the cash at her residence at the time of search. Unfortunately, after some time his mother also expired without telling him anything about the same. Accused stated that 7 years out of the check period, he remained posted in North East which was a disturbed area at that time. During that period, his mother was looking after his family from her source of income. Accused also stated that his mother died in February 2002 and therefore, there was no question of interrogating her by the IO. Accused stated that his wife remains sick and she never comes out of the house and therefore she was also not interrogated by the IO. CBI also did not seek any explanation from both of his sons and he was also not given an opportunity to offer explanation. Accused reiterated that he was implicated falsely at the instance of his political seniors/ administrative seniors.
In the cross examination, accused admitted that CBI has taken into account his entire service tenure from the year 1967 to 31.05.2002. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 161 of 233 6.0 ARGUMENTS Defence 6.1 Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that his client has been charged for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of PC Act primarily on the allegations that during the check period on 01.04.85 to 01.04.2002, accused acquired assets and was found in possession of pecuniary assets in his name and in the name of members of his family namely Karupayi Ammal (mother), Manju Malaichamy (wife), Sons Sendhil M. Solai and Ilango M. Solai and HUF to the extent of Rs.1,29,25,568/. Out of these assets, the assets in the sum of Rs.64,54,524/ were disproportionate to the known source of income. Accused was tried on the basis of this charge. Along with chargesheet various tables were filed showing the income, expenditure and assets acquired by Sh. S. Malaichamy and members of his family during the check period. Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel invited the attention of this court towards the Annexure "T" which in the tabular form has shown the disproportionate assets allegedly acquired by accused S. Malaichamy and other members of his family during the check period. Sh. SC Jain submits that as per Table "T", accused has acquired the assets in the sum of Rs.28,65,761/ CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 162 of 233 and other disproportionate assets were belonging to the members of the family of the accused and the liability of the same cannot be fastened upon the accused. Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel submitted that the necessary ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) PC Act as mentioned in judgment M. Krishna Reddy Vs. Dy SP Hyderabad, AIR 1993 SC 313 are missing and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the offence. Sh. Jain, Ld. Counsel submitted that Section 13 PC Act specifically provided that a case u/S.13(1)(e) PC Act cannot be investigated without the order of a Police Officer below the rank of SP. Ld. Counsel submitted that IO in this case PW141 Dy SP MS Singhal has admitted that he had not taken any such order and therefore, in absence of such order of SP, the case of the prosecution is liable to be failed. Taking the arguments further, Sh. Jain submitted that the prosecution has falsely taken a plea in this case that no sanction u/S.19 PC Act was required. Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel submitted that FIR was lodged in 08.04.2002. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, a raid was conducted on 09.02.2002 and since the accused retired on 31.05.2002, the sanction u/S.19 PC Act was required in this case.
Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel submitted that as per RC 141/A, CBI received a reliable information that accused while functioning as a public CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 163 of 233 servant in various capacities, acquired huge assets. Sh. Jain submitted that during the entire trial, CBI has not produced the source of this reliable information and therefore, the root itself is weak in nature. Furthermore, Sh. S. Malaichamy has declared the entire properties listed at No.2 to 6 in the FIR to his department in accordance with the rules. As far as property No.1/24, Mall Road @ Rs.1 crores (listed at Sl. No.1) is concerned, CBI itself has not been able to substantiate this, therefore, is not part of the chargesheet. Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel submitted that the case was registered against his client with ulterior motive in order to take revenge and therefore, the property of Mall Road was attributed to the accused, which at no point of time belonged to him. As far as other properties mentioned in the FIR are concerned, Ld. Counsel submitted that these are admittedly the properties of the accused and have been declared by the accused to his department and same have been taken on record by his department without any objection. The source of acquisition of these properties have also been declared by the accused time to time, as per rules. Sh. SC Jain, Ld. counsel further submitted that bare reading of Section 13(1)(e) would indicate that accused has to be given an opportunity to satisfactorily account for the possession of the properties. However, IO intentionally did not give any such opportunity to the accused to explain / CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 164 of 233 account for the possession of assets and therefore, the investigation conducted in this case is also defective and therefore, the end product of the investigation i.e. chargesheet is nothing but a bundle of erroneous facts. Ld. Counsel emphasized that the chargesheet and tables filed alongwith the chargesheet are only an estimate of the investigating officer and that too without any basis. Simply on the basis of some estimate arrived at on by the IO, accused who had served as an IAS officer for more than 3 decades cannot be punished. Ld. Counsel submitted that as far as properties in South are concerned, accused has led defence evidence to show that these properties were duly acquired out of the funds attributed by his mother Smt. Karupayi Amaal. Sh. Jain submitted that accused has inherited huge properties from his mother, Ms. Karupayi Amaal (since expired), mother of the accused was a rich lady and had huge properties and cash in her possession. Sh. SC Jain submitted that alleged recovery of Rs.12 lakhs 70 thousand, during the course of search of B504, Kedar Appartment, Rohini, has also not been proved by the CBI. CBI cannot be presumed to have discharge of it's onus of proving this recovery from the accused merely by proving the seizure memo. The recovery of properties have not been proved in the court and therefore, in absence of the same, the recovery cannot be taken into consideration. Ld. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 165 of 233 Counsel submitted that none of the witness examined by the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge leveled against the accused and therefore, the accused is liable to be discharged.
Prosecution 6.2 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP has submitted that there is a sufficient compliance of Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Sh. DK Singh submits that perusal of the FIR itself indicates that the then SP Kamal Kant had entrusted the investigation to IO, Dy SP Sh. MS Singhal. It has further been submitted that the sanction u/S.19 PC Act was not required as accused S. Malaichamy had already retired at the time of filing of charge sheet. Ld. PP further submitted that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required at all. In support of its contention, Ld. PP cited Nani Gopal Mitra Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1636.
In respect of recovery of money, Ld. PP submits that the huge amount of Rs.12,70,000/ was recovered during the search at flat no. B504, Kedar Apartments, Delhi. Sh. DK Singh submits these are the currency which are in control and possession of the CBI and have duly been deposited in the nationalized bank. It has been submitted that nobody had come CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 166 of 233 forward to claim the same.
Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP in his further arguments submitted that recovery of Rs.12,70,000/ has duly been proved by the IO and he has specifically denied the suggestion that this money belonged to Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. In respect of the selection of the check period, Ld. PP invited the attention of this court to the chargesheet filed by the CBI, in which it has been specifically stated that the check period has been fixed from 1985 to April 2002 on the premises that most of the assets were acquired by the accused and the members of his family during this period. This fact has also been reiterated by the IO in his statement made before the court on oath on 06.07.2012. Ld. PP submitted that the check period was not fixed at random and there were substantial reasons to fix this check period. In respect of the explanation offered by the accused, Ld. PP submitted that IO has made a specific statement on oath that accused failed to offer any satisfactory explanation regarding the disproportionate assets. Ld. PP submitted that in statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., accused in most of the answers to the questions has admitted the same to be matter of record. Ld. PP submitted that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363, it was for the accused to put an explanation CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 167 of 233 which is satisfactorily in nature. Since the accused has failed to explain the same, he is liable to be convicted. Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP concluded his arguments by saying that prosecution by way of cogent and creditworthy evidence has proved the income, expenditure, likely saving and disproportionate assets in the name of accused and the members of his family acquired during the check period.
6.3 In rebuttal, accused S. Malaichamy has stated that all the properties acquired by him or members of his family were duly accounted for and prime source of this acquisition was largely the income of his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal. Accused stated that he had duly informed about the annual agricultural income of his mother to his department and the same has been acknowledged by the department. Accused submitted that CBI with ulterior motive did not take into account the agricultural income and wrongly assessed the disproportionate assets without any basis. Accused submitted that CBI has miserably failed to prove his case and he is entitled to be discharged. Sh. S. Malaichamy also stated that during the check period, he has been sent to University of Manchester (U.K.) by the Govt. of India for a 9 months course. This course was offered by the British Council. During this CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 168 of 233 period, he could save his entire salary and in addition to this, also got some payment from the British Council.
7.0 FINDINGS 7.1 Accused has been charged for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of PC Act, 1988. The ingredients of offence u/S.13(1)(e) PC Act, 1988 are as follows :
1. The accused is a public servant.
2. The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property are found in his possession.
3. His known sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution.
4. Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Once the aforesaid ingredients are proved by the prosecution, the burden of proof shifts on the accused to show satisfactorily that the prosecution case is not correct. Reference can be made to M. Krishna Reddy Vs. Dy SP Hyderabad, AIR 1993 SC 313.
The requirement of law is that prosecution is required to prove that CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 169 of 233 accused is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his know source of income. Once this is proved by the prosecution, the accused is expected to explain satisfactorily by way of dependable evidence that the amount seized from him and, which has to be held disproportionate to his known source of income, has been acquired by him by honest means. The onus on the accused is not as strict as the initial onus on the prosecution which has first to establish the disproportionate between the properties held by the accused and the known source of his income.
7.2 While discussing "known source of income" under old provision, the Supreme Court in CSD Swami Vs. The State, AIR 1960 SC 7 inter alia held that the expression "known source of income" must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused within the meaning of Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution can only lead evidence to show that the accused was known to earn his living by service under the Government during the material period. In the case of the Govt. servant, the prosecution would naturally infer CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 170 of 233 that his "known source of income" would be his salary earned by him during this active service. The source of income of particular individual would depend upon his position in life with particular reference to his occupation or avocation in life. If the prosecution has failed to disclose all the sources of income of the accused persons, it is always open to him to prove other sources of income which have not been taken into account or brought into evidence by the prosecution. This judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Puinjab, AIR 1964 SC 464, wherein it was reiterated that "known source of income" cannot be deemed to be sources known to the accused. It would be "sources known to the prosecution". The prosecution cannot be expected to disprove all possible sources of income, which remain within the special knowledge of the accused. The prosecution cannot in the very nature of the things be expected to know the affairs of the public servant found in possession of the resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income i.e. salary. In respect of "known source of income" in the amended Act, for a source of income to qualify as a known source of income, it is required to satisfy the following two conditions:
1. it should be a lawful source of income; and, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 171 of 233
2. the receipt of income from such a source should have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the concerned public servant.
As a natural corollary, it would mean:
1. any income received from a source which is not lawful cannot be considered for inclusion in the expression "known source of income", even if such income was actually received by the public servant;
2. any income even though received from lawful source cannot likewise be considered if the receipt of such income has not been intimated n accordance with the provisions of law applicable to the concerned public servant.
7.3 In the present case, the Investigation Officer has been quite liberal regarding computation of the income of the accused. IO has even taken into account the income regarding which no evidence was available except that it was shown in the income tax return by the accused or members of his family.
Largely, the income of the members of the family of the accused were from the interest earned from the private loan advanced to the private parties. The source of such huge cash with the members of the family of the accused has not come forth. I consider that if a property has acquired from CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 172 of 233 wealth, source of which is unexplained, the income derived there from cannot be added to the income of the accused. In order to arrive at a correct conclusion, the pecuniary known source of income which must not be illegal also, should be ascertained and from that the expenditure may be deducted to reach to the likely saving of the accused.
The case in hand, is largely based on the documents. CBI has produced large number of documents and also proved the same in accordance with the law. This court has made an endeavour to appreciate the oral evidence in conjunction with the documentary evidence. 7.4 In the present case, the known source of the income of the accused was his salary or other service benefits received from the department. The prosecution in their evidence has not been able to fully prove the income of the accused and other members of his family as stated in the charge sheet. However, I consider that it would be unfair if the court takes into account the income, only which has been proved by the prosecution, or to say regarding which the evidence has been led by the prosecution. CBI has filed the charge sheet with a particular figure shown as an income of the accused or other members of his family. It was for prosecution to prove the income of the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 173 of 233 accused or other members of his family and if they withheld this evidence, it cannot be read against the accused. The income shown by the CBI becomes the basis of calculating the disproportionate assets. If the accused takes a plea that his income is more than shown in the charge sheet, the accused may lead evidence to this effect.
7.5 It is pertinent to mention here that in this case, prosecution has examined 141 witnesses. An effort has been made to discuss all the witnesses in the earlier part of the judgment. The statement of the accused u/S.313 Cr.P.C. has also been discussed in detail. Keeping in view the volume of the case, I propose to give the findings on the basis of the evidence discussed already and the response of the accused in his statement. It is also relevant to mention here that accused primarily has taken a two fold defence, firstly, that he had declared his entire assets to his department in accordance with the conduct rules and secondly, the prime source of acquisition of the properties, in the name of his mother and other members of his family, is the agricultural income and other income of his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal.
Firstly, I propose to give the findings on income, expenditure and assets as alleged by the prosecution in the name of the accused and other CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 174 of 233 members of his family and thereafter, I would be dealing with the question that whether the other properties have been acquired independently by members of family of accused, or these properties were actually acquired by Sh. S. Malaichamy in the name of other members of his family.
A. S. MALAICHAMY
Income
In the chargesheet, CBI has shown the income of S.
Malaichamy as Rs.34,13,217.28, however, CBI proved the income only in the sum of Rs.32,17,182.15. After the conclusion of the evidence, CBI has proved the following income :
INCOME OF SHRI S. MALAICHAMY S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant PW No. shown in the way of chargesheet evidence (Rs.)
1. Net salary of S. Malaichamy for the period April 15,69,773.70 15,69,773.70 PW1, PW2, 1985 to 09.04.02 PW3, PW4, PW5, PW9 & PW118
2. Honorarium received as exofficio Managing 16,840.00 16,840.00 PW7 Director of Delhi Cooperative House Finance Corporation, 3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi.
3. Income in the form of withdrawals from GPF 5,12,505.00 5,12,505.00 PW8 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 175 of 233
4. Advance taken by Sh. S. Malaichamy for car 40,000.00 40,000.00 PW6
5. Income from the sale of car bearing regn.No. DBG 10,000.00 Not proved 4100
6. Income from the sale of car bearing regn. no. DES1 45,436.00 Not proved
7. Total rental income from rent of property C210 4,80,618.00 Admitted Madhuvan, Delhi.
8. Interest income on NSS A/C. No. 2200536 dated 27,406.00 27,406.00 PW12 28.03.1995 of Shri S. Malaichamy received on 21.08.2001
9. Interest income on NSS A/C No. 2200170 34,675.00 34,675.00 PW12
10. Interest income on NSS A/C No. 1103670 54,183.00 54,183.00 PW12
11. Interest income on NSCs No. 11 CC 75532022, 10 48,720.00 48,720.00 PW10 EE 90412124, 04DD779203
12. Interest income on SB A/C. No. 2596 om PNB, 16,593.15 16,593.15 PW5 Madhuban.
13. Interest income from A/c. No. 52036 in SBI, Old 25,228.90 25,228.90 PW5 Secretariat, Delhi including the interest on the FDRs.
14. Interest income from PPF A/c. No. 902826 in SBI, 1,485.43 Not proved Old Secretariat
15. Interest income from SB A/c. No. 6213 in Syndicate 1,736.00 1,736.00 PW5 Bank
16. Interest on FDR in A/c. No. 6213 held in Syndicate 558.00 558.00 PW19 Bank
17. Interest income from SB A/c. No. 26484 in Canara 4,620.00 2,470.00 PW25 Bank, Kashmere Gate
18. Interest income from SB A/c. No. 30912 in Canara 51.00 51.00 PW25 Bank, Kahmere Gate
19. Income from interest received from ICICI Infotech 1,252.00 Not proved Tax Saving Bonds on 30.04.2001
20. Interest income from IDBI Flexi Bonds 6 3,750.00 Not proved
21. Interest income from IDBI Flexi Bonds 9 44.00 Not proved CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 176 of 233
22. Income from dividend received from SBI Mutual 12,395.00 Not proved Fund (MELS 91) for the period from 199293 to 199899 including the difference in the investment and redemtion amount
23. Income from LIC Policy NO. 24744353 33,075.60 22,619.00 PW16
24. Income from LIC Policy NO. 24744354 33,038.00 22,581.40 PW16
25. Income from LIC Policy NO. 42718536 18,480.00 12,995.00 PW16
26. Agricultural income from survey no. 348/4 in 3,27,629.00 Admitted Lakshmipuram, Vembathur Village, Sivagangai
27. Interest income from various FDRs in SB A/c. No. 34,017.00 Not proved 3805 in IOB, Tirupachetti
28. Interest income from NSCs purchased during 1985, 59,107.50 Not proved 1986, 1987 (19861992) Total 34,13,217.28 32,17,182.15 The court cannot take the income of the accused lower than what has been shown in the chargesheet. Accused has faced the trial on the basis of income shown by the prosecuting agency. Therefore, though CBI has not been able to prove the income cited by them in the chargesheet. But on account of the deficiency of the CBI, accused cannot be put to disadvantage.
On the similar line, the income cannot be taken more than this because accused has not proved the same. Therefore, the income as shown in the chargesheet of accused is taken as it is.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 177 of 233 Expenditure CBI has lead detailed evidence in respect of the expenditure made by the accused. As per chargesheet, accused S. Malaichamy has made an expenditure of Rs.23,78,037.70ps. However, in evidence the prosecution has only been able to prove the following expenditure regarding which evidence has already been discussed in the previous part of this judgment.
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY SHRI S. MALAICHAMY
S.No. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant
shown in evidence PW
the
chargeshee
t
(Rs.)
1. Expenditure towards education of Sendhil M. Solai for class 17,697 17,697 PW97
VIII to XII in St. Xavier's school
2. Expenditure towards education of Ilango M. Solai for class 21,674 21,674 PW97
VI to XII in St.
3. Expenditure towards education of Shri Ilango M. Solai in 1,41,000 1,41,000 PW46
Priyadarshini College of Computer Science,
4. Expenditure towards PG Diploma course of Business 1,91,000 1,91,000 PW53
Management pursued by Shri Ilango M. Solai in Fore School of Management
5. Expenditure on pursuing engineering degree of Sendhil M. 1,98,153 1,47,260 PW111 Solai in College of Engineering, Badnera, Amravati. In the chargesheet, the expenditure has been shown on this account in the sum of Rs.1,98,143/. However, the prosecution could lead the evidence in this regard only in the sum of Rs.1,47,260/.
6. Expenditure on house tax paid to MCD in respect of 11,870 11,870 PW47 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 178 of 233 property No. 210.
7. Expenditure towards conversion charges and composition 7,700 7,682 PW89 fee paid to DDA in respect of flat No. 210, Madhuvan. In the chargesheet, the expenditure has been shown on this account in the sum of Rs.7,700/. However, the prosecution could lead the evidence in this regard only in the sum of Rs.7,682/.
8. Payment made towards membership No. HS6 of Roshnara 26,001.3 26,001.3 PW55 Club, Roshnara
9. Payments towards application processing fee, entrance fee 6,900 6,900 PW98 and annual subscription of Membership No. IN212 of Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
10. Expenditure towards membership NO. SD300 in National 11,846.36 11,846.36 PW99 Sports Club of India
11. Payment made as member of Massonic Club, Qudsia 42,760 42,760 PW56 & Garden, Delhi. PW96
12. Expenditure towards membership No.190 of S. Malaichamy 8,000 12,750 PW115 in Civil Services Officers Institute.
In the chargesheet, the expenditure on this aspect has been shown to be Rs.8,000/ but in evidence the prosecution witness has stated the expenditure on this aspect to be Rs.12,750/. Therefore, this being so proved has been taken as expenditure.
13. Expenditure towards membership in Indian Council for 2,000 2,000 PW116 Cultural Relations, IP Estate, New Delhi.
14. Expenditure towards membership of Noida Golf Course. 5,000 5,000 PW103
15. Expenditure towards membership of Delhi Gymkhana 5,260 Not proved by Club, Safdarjung Road. evidence
16. Expenditure towards time membership of M/s. Sterling 54,075 50,000 PW74 Holiday Resorts (I) Ltd., Chennai in the name of S. Malaichamy and Ilango M. Solai.
The prosecution has shown that accused had paid a sum of Rs.47,075/ on account of time membership of M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts. However, in the evidence, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 179 of 233 prosecution witness PW74 Kula Nand stated that a sum of Rs.50,000 - 55,000 was paid on account of this membership by way of cheque. Accused admitted to have deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/ and therefore, in all fairness expenses in the sum of Rs.50,000/ is taken.
17. Insurance of Maruti Zen for the period 20002001 paid to 15,121 15,121 PW57 National Insurance
18. Insurance of Maruti 800 No. DES 1 paid to United India 7,976 7,976 PW45 Insurance Co..
19. Insurance of Maruti Zen No. DES 1 paid to United India 9,331 9,331 PW45 Insurance Co..
20. Payment of electricity bill towards electric connection 1,48,077 1,48,077 PW48 K.No.31200459918DX/D009 at 10, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
21. Expenditure towards land cost, share money, water charges, 13,061 Not proved maintenance charges, etc. paid to Delhi officers Coop House Building Society.
22. Interest and other expenditure incurred towards loan taken 43,430 43,430 PW65 from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kingsway Camp, Delhi vide loan A/c. No. 37
23. Expenditure on purchase of marble from Jain Marbles, 2,00,000 2,00,000 PW63 Green Park Extension, New Delhi in March, 2002 In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW63 Srichand Jain who specifically made a statement on oath that accused alongwith some other individual had come to his shop and chosen Ambaji Quality Marble in pieces. Witness specifically stated that Mr. Malaichamy paid a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs in advance. It also came in evidence that somebody on behalf of Mr. Malaichamy came to take the delivery and the marble was sent through tempo. Prosecution also examined PW64 Kabir Khan who had transported the marble to the accused. Sh. Kabir Khan also stated that above said goods were of one Mr. Malaichamy. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the payment was made Mr. Malaichamy CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 180 of 233 had come alongwith one another person.
PW63 & PW63 made a consistent statement. Both the witnesses have stood the test of cross examination. There was no reason for PW63 to make a false statement against the accused. However, as far as the expenditure is concerned, I consider that a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs has rightly been added. However, I consider that Rs.3,000/ has not been proved in accordance with law.
24. Expenditure towards dropping of marble 3,000 Not proved
25. Expenditure towards license fee paid in respect of official 18,236 36,671 PW95 residence D1/1, 1Rajpur Road for the period from 01.12.96 to 09.04.2002 The prosecution in his chargesheet has shown the licence fee in the sum of Rs.18,236/. However, vide document Ex.PW95/A & Ex.PW95/B, it has specifically been proved that licence fee in the sum of Rs.36,671 was paid by the accused and accused has admitted the same to be matter of record in his statement of accused. Therefore, a sum of Rs.36,671 is taken as expenditure.
26. Purchase of batteries from Shreya Enterprises 9,351 9,351 PW68
27. Payment made towards purchase of US$500 to M/s 21,975 21,975 PW5 Transcorp International In regard of this expenditure, prosecution has placed on record 2 cheques issued by accused S. Malaichamy from his account No.6214, Syndicate Bank. On 17/7/99 in the sum of Rs.21975 in favour of Transcorp International Ltd.
This fact of issuance of cheque was specifically put to accused in his statement of accused vide Q.166 and accused admitted it as a matter of record.
28. Payment made towards purchase of Thai Airways Ticket 20,200 20,200 PW5 for DelhiBankokPhuketSingaporeDelhi from M/s. Ritco Travels Ltd.
In regard of this expenditure, prosecution has placed on record 2 cheques issued by accused S. Malaichamy from CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 181 of 233 his account No.6214, Syndicate Bank. On 17/7/99 in the sum of Rs.20,00 in favour of Ritco Travels.
This fact of issuance of cheque was specifically put to accused in his statement of accused vide Q.166 and accused admitted it as a matter of record.
29. Expenditure on Citi Bank Card No. 4568229359430007 and 16,7962.61 Not proved card
30. Expenditure towards servant Kitchen helper 11,200 Not proved
31. Locker rent for locker in PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. 4,910 Not proved
32. Total income tax filed a part from TDS* 1,84,392 5,74,342 PW5 PW5 proved the income tax returns of the accused from the Assessment year 198788 to 20012002. The prosecution did not explain any basis for putting the sum of Rs.1,84,392 in the chargesheet
33. Property tax paid in respect of plot No. 18D, Anna Nagar, 11,398 Not proved Madurai
34. Expenditure towards visa card No. 45436330 1008 4725 of 14,272 14,272 PW71 Canara Bank
35. Expenditure on commission/fees on the sale of car paid to 750 Not proved Chaddha motors
36. Locker rent paid in respect of locker No. 4/34 maintained in 3,015 Not proved SBI, Vinayak Nagar
37. Expenditure towards transportation of goods from 34,500 34,500 PW79 Karaikudi to Mall Road, New Delhi through Supreme Road Lines Pvt. Ltd.
38. Non Verifiable expenditure** 6,84,943.23 6,84,943.23 Total 23,78,037.5 25,15,629.89 * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * ** **** * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * ** *** * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * ** **** * * * * * * ** * * * ** *tax details Assessment year Taxable Income Income Tax paid Refund 198788 Ex.PW5/D112 Rs. 26,280/ Rs. 2,134/ 198889 Ex.PW5/D108 Rs. 68,930/ Rs. 17,660/ CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 182 of 233 198990 Ex.PW5/D107 Rs. 41,230/ Rs. 6,620/ 199091 Ex.PW5/D106 Rs. 42,330/ Rs.6,600/ 199192, Ex.PW5/D96 Rs. 71,700/ Rs. 7,048/ 199293 Ex.PW5/D97 Rs. 52,265/ Rs.3,000/ 199394, mark PW5/C31 Rs. 1,07,585/ Rs. 10,434/ 199495 mark PW5/C48 Ex.PW67/A Rs. 1,28,524/ Rs.27,417/ 199596 Ex.PW5/D89 Rs. 1,74,890/ Rs. 32,955/ 199697 Ex.PW5/D88 Rs. 2,02,853/ Rs. 43,140/ 199798 Ex.PW5/D85 Rs. 2,12,566/ Ex.PW5/D86 and Ex.PW5/D87 Rs. 46,168/ 140/ 199899 Ex.PW5/D117 Rs. 3,04,290/ Rs. 54,599/ 312/ 1999 2000 Ex.PW5/D83 Rs. 5,87,931/ Rs. 1,38,272/ 1893/ 200001 Ex.PW5/D82 Rs. 3,87,690/ Rs. 84,279/ 341/ 200102 Ex.PW5/D80 Rs.3,73,090/Ex.PW5/D81 Rs. 94,016/ 12,201/ Total Rs. 5,74,342/ 14,887/ **Non Verifiable expenditure In the chargesheet, IO has also added a sum of Rs.6,84,943.23ps as non verifiable expenditure. The formula adopted by the IO for reaching this is as follows :
Gross Salary : 31,77,829.70
() Total Income tax paid 6,78,769.00
24,99,060.70
IO took 1/3rd of above said amount as non verifiable expenditure which comes out to Rs. 8,33,020.23. IO make a deduction of electricity expenditure of Rs.1,48,077.00 out of this. Therefore, the net verifiable expenditure comes to Rs.6,84,943.00 (Rs.8,33,020.23 - Rs.1,48,077.00).
I consider that IO has taken a very reasonable view. It has been a consistent view that 1/3 rd of the income can be taken as non verifiable expenditure. The premises for this is that every persons spend a specific amount of money on day to day living i.e. particularly for his bread and butter. There are also another expenses which cannot be quantified. Thus, such expenses can reasonably be taken as 1/3rd.
Since this court has taken the income of the accused as suggested in the chargesheet, therefore, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 183 of 233 the formula taken by the IO is accepted and non verifiable expenditure is taken as Rs.6,84,943.23ps. Assets CBI led detailed evidence in respect of the expenditure made by the accused. As per chargesheet, accused S. Malaichamy had Assets in the sum of Rs.39,43,348.56ps, at the end of the check period. However, prosecution proved the following assets:
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF S. MALAICHAMY S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No. shown in the way of PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.)
1. Investment in Civil Service Officers Welfare Society, 10,19,217 10,19,217 PW138 Greater Noida
2. Investment of Plot No. B60, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad in 3,17,426.25 2,93,726.25 PW77 stamp duty and registration charges for Plot No. B60, Kaushambi.
In the chargesheet the prosecution has claimed the assets in the sum of Rs.3,17,426.25, But PW77 has only made the statement regarding payment of Rs.
2,93,726.25ps only
3. Payment towards plot No. H180, Annanagar, Madurai 3,88,804 Not proved including registration
4. Vehicle no. DES1, ZEN VXI. 4,23,655 4,23,655 PW78
5. Bank Balance in SB A/c. No. 2596 in PNB Madhuban 22,877.31 22,877.31 PW15
6. Balance in a/c. No. 52036 in SBI, Old Secretariat 1,38,729.57 1,38,729.57 PW13
7. Balance in PPF A/c. No. 902826 46,485.43 46,485.43 PW13
8. Balance in A/c. No. 30913 in Canara Bank, Kashmere 5,121 5,121 PW25 Gate, Delhi.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 184 of 233
9. Balance in A/c. No. 100639 in Punjab & Sind Bank, 3,990 3,990 PW28 Purana Qila Road
10. Investment in Tax Saving Bonds of ICICI Infotech, 10,000 Not proved Mumbai
11. Investment in IDBI Flexi Bonds 6 10,000 10,000 PW121
12. Investment in IDBI Flexi Bonds 9 20,000 20,000 PW121
13. Investment in IDBI Flexi Bonds 11 20,000 20,000 PW121
14. FDR in IOB, Tirrupachatti No. RDPS 2/2002 38,693 Not proved
15. Cash observed at D1/1 MCD Officers Flat 34,400 34,400 PW129
16. Cash seized at B 504 Kedar Apartments, Rohini, Delhi 12,70,000 12,70,000 PW126 during the course of
17. Value of the observation memo drawn during the course of 1,14,700 Not specifically proved search at D1/1 MCD Officers Flat, 10 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
18. Value of the observation memo drawn during the course of 2,300 Not specifically proved search at C210
19. Value of the observation memo at B504 Kedar 56,950 Not specifically proved Apartments, Rohini, Delhi Total 39,43,348.56 33,08,201.56 7.6 The defence has argued that the accused had intimated the entire income of his department in accordance with the provision of law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The question is that would the mere intimation would grant immunity to the accused against any action under PC Act. The explanation added to Section 13(1)(e) makes it clear that the income received should be from a lawful source. If the source of the income is undisclosed and only the income or the assets acquired from CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 185 of 233 such undisclosed source of income is intimated, it would not clothe any such transaction, an attire of legality. If the department has mechanically taken on record the intimation regarding acquisition of property, it would not prevent the law from taking its own course.
As per chargesheet, the prosecution had alleged that accused S. Malaichamy had following assets at the beginning of the check period :
Movable Cash in Hand 10,000.00
Investment in LIC Policy No. 24744353 10,456.60
Investment in LIC Policy No. 24744354 10,456.60
Investment in LIC Policy No. 42718536 5,495.00
Investment in the NSCs purchased in the financial year 198485 6,000.00
Value of the household items as observed in the observation memo at 42,750.00
different premises during the course of search Immovable Half share in the property 210 Madhuban, Delhi In view of the discussion made herein above, the income, expenditure and assets at the end of the check period of the accused are as follows :
Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at Assets acquired Disproportiona Savings beginning of end of the during the te Assets check period check check period period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) 34,13,217 25,15,630 8,97,587 42,408 33,08,202 32,65,794 23,68,207 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 186 of 233 B. SMT. KARUPPAYI AMMAL Income As discussed earlier, I propose to take the income of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in the sum of Rs.24,26,926.90ps as shown in the chargesheet whereas, the prosecution has only proved the following income of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in the sum of Rs.17,03,436.90ps:
INCOME OF SMT. KARUPPAYI AMMAL S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No. shown in the way of PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Income from the interest on the loan given to 10,648 10,648 PW26 M/s. Ramji Lal Rajendra Prasad 2 Income from the interest on the loan given to 7,350 7,350 PW125 M/s. RK Tade Links, 592, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi.
3 Income from the interest on the loan given to 6,244 6,244 PW20 M/s. Kishori Lal Chander Bhan, 4 Income from the interest on the loan of lakh 5,843 5,843 PW20 given to M/s. Kishori Lal Chander Bhan, 5 Income from the interest on the loan given to 72,797 72,797 PW59 M/s. Harbans Lal and Co.
6 Income from the interest on the loan given to 4,736 4,736 PW14 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 187 of 233 M/s. Ram Gopal Hari Ram 7 Income from the interest on the loan given to 2,250 2,250 PW14 M/s. Kirori Mal Prem Chand 8 Income from the interest on the loan given to 5,580 5,580 PW21 M/s. Chaman Lal & Sons 9 Income from the interest on the loan given to 7,100 Not proved M/s. Kothari & Sons 10 Income from the interest on the loan given to 2,250 2,250 PW44 Chabbra Saree Emporium 11 Loan received from M/s. Kalpvriksha Engineers 50,000 Not proved and Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
12 Loan received from M/s. Gauri Leathers Pvt. 56,875 56,875 Ltd.
13 Loan received from Shri MK Tuli 50,000 50,000 PW58 14 Rent received from Shri Sunil Gupta for the part 73,500 73,500 PW22 of premises B504, Kedar Apartment, Rohini and the security deposit yet not refunded 15 Interest income on NSC No. 10 EE 90571516 20,300 20,300 PW32 16 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 2200535. 22,838.4 22,838.40 22,838.40 17 Rental income from the Chandni Chowk 12,53,574.5 12,53,574.5 PW35 property, which was given on lease to Indian Bank 18 Rental income received by Smt. Karuppayi 4,94,300 Not proved Ammal in resepct of property NO. 119, Karpaga Nagar, K. Pudur, Madurai.
19 Income from sale of land measuring 3.81 acres () 12,262.50 Not proved in Katpadi village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellure sale deed No.3329 dated 9.8.2000 sold at Rs.
1,52,000 the purchase cost of which was Rs.
1,45,260 and Rs.19,402.50 was spent on stamp duty and registration charges CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 188 of 233 20 Agricultural income from survey no. 358/3 in 28,968 Not proved Lakshmipuram, Vembathur Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Distt. Sivaganga 21 Interest income from RD in IOB, Tiruppachatti 6,307 Not proved 22 Income from income tax refunds 21,415 Not proved 23 Income from sale of jewellery 1,08,651 1,08,651 PW42 24 Interest income of SB interest 10,268.5 Not proved 25 Income from profit of sale of rights of 21,987 Not proved membership in respect to plot of Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society, Noida 26 Interest income from Mittal Associates and 4,650 Not proved Aggarwal Aluminium Agency 27 Interest income from various firms (19891990) 31,307 Not proved 28 Interest income from various interest received 18,500 Not proved (19861987) 29 Income from dividend from Delhi Cooperative 1,500 Not proved Industrial Estate Ltd.
30 Interest income from various interest received 19,450 Not proved
(198586)
31 Miscellaneous Income (19871988) 20,000 Not proved
Total 24,26,926.90 17,03,436.90
Expenditure
The prosecution by way of evidence as discussed above, has proved the following expenditure incurred by Smt. Karuppayi Ammal : CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 189 of 233
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY KARUPPAYI AMMAL S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No. (Rs.) way of PW evidence 1 Expenditure towards ground rent, property tax and 27,601 1,27,601 PW5 other society expenses in Gyan Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Ltd.
In the chargesheet CBI has claimed expenditure in the sum of Rs.27,601 whereas as per document Ex.PW30/E, a payment of Rs.1,27,601 has been made. It seems to be a typographical mistake. Hence, a figure of Rs.1,27,601 is taken. It is also pertinent to mention here that payment to Gyan Shakti have been made vide cheques Ex.PW5/D29 to D40 under the signatures of accused S. Malaichamy from different accounts.
These cheques have duly been proved on record by PW5) 2 Expenditure towards maintenance charges paid to 84,048 84,048 PW5 Kedar Cooperative Group Housing Society in respect of flat No. 504 in the society It is pertinent to mention here that payment to Kedar Cooperative Group Housing Society have been made vide cheques Ex.PW5/D10, Ex.PW5/D12, Ex.PW5/D14 under the signatures of accused himself from VIP 36, A/c no.52036 and A/c No.19075.
3 Property tax paid in respect of property No. 309, 1,70,000 1,70,000 PW112 Chandni Chowk, Haveli Haider As per receipt Ex.PW112/B and Ex.PW112/C, the cheques have been issued from account No. 29765 (in the name of accused) and 37422 (in the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 190 of 233 name of accused and Sendhil M. Solai).
4 Property tax paid in respect of property No. 504, 33,757 33,757 PW70 Kedar Apartments, Rohini 5 House Tax paid towards property no. 414, Starlite 16,296 16,296 PW69 Coop Group Housing The cheque in this case have also been issued from account No.29765 under the signatures of accused.
6 Expenditure towards allotment and subsequent 8,551 8,551 PW73 cancellation of plot in indrapuram plot Scheme, Ghaziabad {(Smt. Karuppai Ammal applied for a plot in Indirapuram Plot Scheme in the year 1989) and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,87,923/. Later on she withdrew the application and got a refund of Rs.
3,79,372/ (after deducting Rs. 8,551/)} The cheque in this case have also been issued from account No.29765 under the signatures of accused.
Expenditure incurred towards interest and other 34,901 34,841 PW65 charges paid towards loan taken from Oriental Bank of Commerce vide loan A/c. No. 50 (Smt. Karuppai Ammal took a loan of Rs. 76,125/ and Rs. 72,188/ in the year 1990) and repaid the 7 same in the year 1992.
8 Payment of Electricity bill towards K.No. 44,960.65 44,952.65 PW75 5711223143 installed at B504, Kedar Apartment, Rohini 9 Payment made through application No. 2741 in 12,200 12,200 PW76 DDA (Smt. Karuppai Ammal applied for AAY89 Scheme of DDA in the year 1989 which was pending till the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 191 of 233 end of the check period.) 10 Total income tax paid a part from TDS 1,38,530 Not proved 11 Total Wealth Tax paid 2,213 Not proved 12 Expenditure incurred towards building plan 12,130 Not proved approval, road laying fees, building material fees etc. towards property no. 119, Karpaga Nagar, K. Pudur, Madurai 13 Property tax paid in respect of plot No. 119, 27,285 Not proved Karpaga Nagar, Madurai.
14 House Tax paid for house at Mazhavaranenthal Not proved Village 572 15 Expenditure made towards the registration of will 200 Not proved 16 Expenditure made towards land in village Chailera 1,71,164 1,52,089 PW85 Bangar, District Ghaziabad purchased through Sh. Harish Chand (Smt. Karuppai Ammal purchased this land in the year 1989 for the sum of Rs. 1,52,089/ and paid an amount of Rs. 19,335/ towards stamp duty and registration charges) Witness PW85 stated that 17 Expenditure towards investment in Delhi 1,100 1,100 PW108 Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd.
(Smt. Karuppai Ammal had paid an amount of Rs.
1100/ towards membership number 520/568 to Delhi Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd., for allotment of Industrial Plot, however no such plot had been allotted till the end of the check period.) 18 Expenditure towards filing of income tax returns 3,300 Not proved Total 7,88,808.65 6,85,435.65 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 192 of 233 Assets ASSETS IN THE NAME OF SMT. KARUPPAYI AMMAL S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No. (Rs.) way of PW evidence 1 Investment in Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti, 97,100 97,100 PW29 S11, South Side of GT Road, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad PW29 proved the payment of Rs.97,100/ on behalf of Karuppayi Ammal and proved the various documents received on behalf of her. It is pertinent to mention here that out of Rs.97,100/ payment of Rs.89,100/ was made by cheque. The prosecution also proved two cheques Ex.PW5/68 and Ex.PW5/69 duly signed by accused S. Malaichamy himself. In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., accused has admitted the same.
2 Investment in Gyan Shakti Cooperative Group Housing 10,39,110 10,39,110 PW30 Society Plot No.7, Sector6, Dwarka towards flat No. 2804 Prosecution examined PW30 in order to prove this fact. Smt. Karuppayi Ammal in her application dated 22.10.89 to the society, Ex.PW30/B claimed herself to be a housewife with monthly income of Rs.3,000/. She also declared that neither she nor any of her dependent relation is member of any cooperative housing society functioning in UT. Flat No.2801 was alloted to Ms. Karuppayi Ammal vide letter Ex.PW30/C and the possession was also duly handed over. Interestingly, the payment was made through cheques (Ex.PW5/D29 to D41 and Ex.PW5/D76) and all the cheques were issued under CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 193 of 233 the signatures of accused S. Malaichamy himself. Most of the payment was made through A/c No. 29765 and few of the cheques were also issued from A/c No.37421 (joint account of S. Malaichamy and Ilango M. Solai). In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C, accused stated that her mother had become member on behalf of his son. This admission itself shows that accused himself had been investing in the name of his mother.
3 Investment in Starlite Cooperate Group Housing 8,17,444 8,17,444 PW83 Society, 2307 Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi towards flat No. 414 CategoryC, Sector14 Extension Prosecution examined PW83 to prove the investment in Starlite CGHS in the name of Karuppayi Ammal. In application for membership dated 10.03.90, Ex.PW83/B, Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had shown herself to be housewife with a monthly income of Rs.3,000/. Interestingly the payments were again made from A/c No.29765 through cheques Ex.PW5/D42 to D59 and Ex.PW5/D74, and all the cheques were signed by accused S. Malaichamy himself. In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. again accused admitted the same. 4 Investment in Kedar Cooperative Group Housing 3,82,774 3,82,774 PW80 Society PW80 proved the payment against the allotment of this flat. During the course of evidence the prosecution proved that cheques Ex.PW5/D10, D12 and D14 in favour of Kedar CGHS were made by cheques signed by the accused himself. The accused admitted the same in his statement.
5 Property at Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 8,64,101 8,64,101 PW81 in the name of Karuppayi Ammal purchased in 1991 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 194 of 233 and the stamp duty and registration charges for the above property (Rs. 8,00,000 + Rs. 64,101/) The prosecution proved sale Deed Ex.PW81/A being executed by PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta in favour of Karuppayi Ammal regarding sale of 1/16th undivided share of three storied freehold building situated at Haveli Haider Kuli for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs. This transaction shows an unholy nexus between the accused and PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta. Large sum of money is being given to PW139 without any interest on non returnable basis. The pattern of transaction with PW139 speaks louder about the accumulation of assets by the accused in the name of members of his family.
6 Property measuring 2 Khan at Khasra No.326, Village 45,260 Not proved Khora, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. Ghaziabad, including stamp duty of Rs. 5,000/ Prosecution examined PW87 Manu Dutt Sagar who proved the record of Khasra No.326. The record show Karuppayi Ammal as coowner of the khasra however, the prosecution did not produce any evidence to prove the value of this land. Hence, this stands not proved.
7 Property measuring 2 khan at Khasra No. 326, Village 4,65,463 4,65,463 PW88 Khora, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. Ghaziabad, including stamp duty of Rs. 5,000/.
Prosecution examined PW88 Arumuga Nainar to prove this transaction. Accused has not raised any dispute towards the same.
8 Registration charges, stamp duty, etc. paid by Smt. 50,331 50,331 PW88 Karuppayi Ammal towards property NO. 119, Karpaga Nagar, Madurai.
Prosecution examined PW88 Arumuga Nainar to CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 195 of 233 prove this transaction. Accused has not raised any dispute towards the same.
9 Cost of construction of 119, Karpaga Nagar, Kpurdur, 6,41,850 6,41,850 PW140 Madurai.
Prosecution examined PW140 Sh. V. Shanmugavel to prove the value of H.No.119 Karpaga Nagar, Madurai. As per valuation report, Ex.PW140/A, the valuation has been assessed at Rs.6,41,850/. The witness specifically stated that he has done the valuation on the Delhi plinth area rate and Delhi schedule of rates. The accused merely gave the suggestion that valuation has been done mechanically. The accused did not examine any defence witness or proved any report to contradict this valuation. Mere suggestion have no evidentiary value hence, the valuation as claimed by the prosecution stands proved. It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted in his statement that his mother had purchased the plot and raised the construction.
10 Cost of construction of residence at village 2,39,832 2,39,832 PW140 Mazhavaranenthal land as per valuation report of CPWD Prosecution examined PW140 Sh. V. Shanmugavel to prove the value of H.No.2/116 (old No.2/380) , Mazhaveranenttal village, Distt. Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu. As per valuation report, Ex.PW140/E, the valuation has been assessed at Rs.2,39,832/. The witness specifically stated that he has done the valuation on the Delhi plinth area rate and Delhi schedule of rates. The accused merely gave the suggestion that valuation has been done mechanically. The accused did not examine any CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 196 of 233 defence witness or proved any report to contradict this valuation. Mere suggestion have no evidential value hence, the valuation as claimed by the prosecution stands proved. It is pertinent to mention here that accused admitted in his statement that his mother had purchased the plot and raised the construction.
11 Investment towards NSC No. 14EE914594, 14 EE - 30,000 30,000 PW32 914595 and 14EE914596 Prosecution examined PW32 who proved letter Ex.PW32/A dated 06.05.03 regarding investment in NSC in the sum of Rs.30,000/. These NSCs were matured after the expiry of check period. Accused has admitted the same to be matter of record in his statement.
12 Investment towards NSC Nos. 19EE 586039, 19 EE - 30,000 30,000 PW32 586040 and 19EE - 586041 Prosecution examined PW32 who proved letter Ex.PW32/C dated 06.05.03 regarding investment in NSC in the sum of Rs.30,000/. These NSCs were matured after the expiry of check period. Accused has admitted the same to be matter of record in his statement.
13 Investment in NSS A/c.No. 2200596 40,000 40,000 PW12 Prosecution proved document Ex.PW12/E and Ex.PW12/M which proved that an investment of Rs.
40,000/ in NSS account No.2200596 and the last credit balance was Rs.79,083.50ps as on 200203. 14 Investment in NSS A/c. No. 2200725 25,000 25,000 PW12 Prosecution proved document Ex.PW12/F and Ex.PW12/N which proved that an investment of Rs.
25,000/ in NSS account No.2200725 and the last CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 197 of 233 credit balance was Rs.32,596.60ps as on 200203. 15 Investment in NSS A/c No. 2200657 40,000 40,000 PW12 Prosecution proved document Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW12/O which proved that an investment of Rs.
40,000/ in NSS account No.2200657 and the last credit balance was Rs.71,246 as on 200203.
16 RD in Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupachatti no. 13/2000 56,037 Not proved Prosecution has not led any evidence in this regard. 17 Investment towards loan given to Shri Rajeshwar Nath 5,00,000 5,00,000 PW139 Gupta The income tax record of PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta indicated that Karuppayi Ammal had advanced a loan of Rs.5 lakhs and this loan was outstanding in the balance sheet of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta for the AY 20022003, therefore, this amount was not received back till the end of the check period. This amount was paid through cheques Ex.PW5/D60, D61 from A/c No.29765 under the signatures of accused S. Malaichamy. It is pertinent to mention here that PW139 deposed on oath that S. Malaichamy had given him the loan in the name of his mother. This loan was interest free loan and has not yet been repaid. This transaction again shows the unholy nexus between PW139 and accused.
18 Old Car purchased in the year 198687 15,000 Not proved 53,79,302 52,63,005 Assets at the beginning of the check period Prosecution has also proved that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had assets CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 198 of 233 in the sum of Rs.98,200/ besides jewelery (603 gms.) and land at Tamilnadu (survey No.82/3 Mazhaverenthal village).
Thus, on the basis of discussion made herein above, the summary of the assets of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal is as under :
Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at Assets Disproportionate Savings beginning of the end of acquired Assets check period the check during the period check period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) 24,26,927 6,85,436 17,41,491 98,200 52,63,005 51,64,805 34,23,314 C. SMT. MANJU MALAICHAMY Income S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No. shown in the way of PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Interest received on a loan given to M/s. A.K. 28,000 28,000 PW50 Electricals, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, New Delhi.
2 Interest income from Sh. Pradeep Khanna 14,000 Not proved 3 Income from the interest on the loan given to 8,351 8,351 PW59 Harbans Lal & company 4 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 2200534 18,271.7 18,271.70 PW12 5 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 2200171 10,506 10,506 PW12 6 Interest income on NSS A/c. No. 1113547 22,021 20,371 PW12 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 199 of 233 7 Interest income from PPF A/c. No. 902832 1,287.51 1,287.51 PW13 8 Income from sale of land measuring 4.16 acres in 7,462 Not proved village Katpadi Katpadi Taluk vide sale deed No. 3330/2000 dated 09.08.2000 which was purchased in the year 1989 for an amount of Rs. 1,30,000 and Rs. 18,422 was spent on registration and stamp duty while purchasing in 1989.
9 Income from gift from Smt. Lakshmi Jaiprasad 1,99,200 1,99,200 PW135
10 Total rental income from C210 Madhuvan, Delhi 7,94,730 7,94,730 Admitte
1985 to 2002 d
11 Interest income from Sh. Virender Kumar 37,450 No evidence produced
19982001
12 Interest income from Rajiv Kumar 19982001 70,000 No evidence produced
13 Interest income from Laxmi Traders 19982000 89,500 No evidence produced
14 Income from petty cash gifts 19851991 11,800 No evidence produced
15 Income from FDR interest 19851990 31,307 No evidence produced
16 Income from sale of jewellery 19881989 51,921 51,921 PW42
17 Income from Ramji Lal Rajender Prasad 4,790 No evidence produced
Makhanlal Suresh Chand 19891990
18 Interest income from Shraan Kumar Anil Kumar 5,820 No evidence produced
19881989
Total 14,06,417.21 11,32,638.21
Though the prosecution by way of evidence proved the
income of Smt. Manju Malaichamy in the sum of Rs.11,32,638.21ps.
However, in their chargesheet the prosecution has claimed the income in the sum of Rs.14,06,417.21ps. I consider that for non production of evidence CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 200 of 233 on behalf of the prosecution the accused cannot be denied the benefit of income. It is a settled proposition that one who claims the fact, onus is upon him to prove the same.
Expenditure
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY MANJU MALAICHAMY
S. Particulars Amount Proved Relative
No. shown in the by way of PW
chargesheet evidence
(Rs.)
Expenditure towards payment of house tax for 11,870 11,870 PW47
1 C210 Madhuvan.
2 Income tax paid a part from TDS 75,040 Not proved
3 Wealth tax deposited 4,355 Not proved
Expenditure towards filing of the Income tax 3,300 Not proved
4 returns
Total 94,565 11,870
Here again, though the prosecution has claimed that Manju Malaichamy has spent a Rs.94,565 during the check period however, they could produce the evidence only for the sum of Rs.11,870/. Since, the prosecution failed to bring the evidence regarding remaining expenditure, the same cannot be taken against the accused. Therefore, only expenditure in the sum of Rs.11,870/ is taken.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 201 of 233
Assets
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF MANJU MALAICHAMY
S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant
No. shown in the way of PW
chargesheet evidence
(Rs.)
Investment in Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti, 97,100 97,100 PW29
S11, South Side of GT Road, Industrial Area,
Ghaziabad.
PW29 proved the payment of Rs.97,100/ on
behalf of Manju Malaichamy and proved the
various documents received on behalf of her. It is pertinent to mention here that out of Rs.
97,100/ payment of Rs.89,100/ was made by cheque. The prosecution also proved two cheques Ex.PW5/68 and Ex.PW5/69 duly signed by accused S. Malaichamy himself. In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., accused has admitted 1 the same.
Investment towards plot no. 48, Block 28 16,775.65 Not proved measuring 2334 sq. ft. at Swarnpuri Garden Estate 2 Madras made to Rose Muraka India Ltd.
3 Investment in NSS A/c. No. 2200714 25,000 25,000 PW12 4 Investment in NSS A/c. No. 2200658 20,000 20,000 PW12 5 Balance in PPF A/c. No. 902832 46,287.51 46,287.51 PW13 6 Purchase of Daewoo Microwave Oven from M/s. 12,800 12,800 PW137 Ahuja Electronics The prosecution has proved bill dated 21.10.98, CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 202 of 233 Ex.PW137/C vide which microwave was sold to Mrs. Manju Malaichamy.
Expenditure towards purchase of jewellery 11,872.8 11,872.80 PW90 The prosecution has duly proved on record the bill Ex.PW90/A dated 29.07.88 vide which the 7 jewelery in the sum of Rs.11,872.80 was sold.
Investment towards loan given to Shri Rajeshwar 4,00,000 4,00,000 PW139 Nath Gupta The income tax record of PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta indicated that Manju Malaichamy had advanced a loan of Rs.4 lakhs and this loan was outstanding in the balance sheet of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta for the AY 20022003, therefore, this amount was not received back till the end of the check period. It is pertinent to mention here that PW139 deposed on oath that S. Malaichamy had given him the loan in the name of his mother. This loan was interest free loan and has not yet been repaid. This transaction again shows the unholy nexus 8 between PW139 and accused.
Total 6,29,835.96 6,13,060.31 Assets at the beginning of the check period The prosecution has claimed that Smt. Manju Malaichamy had assets in the sum of Rs.53,000/ besides 907gms gold jewelery and 1/ 2 share in property No.210, Madhuvan Delhi.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 203 of 233
Thus, on the basis of discussion made herein above, the summary of the assets of Smt. Manju Malaichamy is as under :
Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at Assets Disproportionate Savings beginning of the end of acquired Assets check period the check during the period check period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) 14,06,417 11,870 13,94,547 53,000 6,13,060 5,60,060 8,34,487 D. SENDHIL M. SOLAI Income S. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No. shown in the way of PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. 2,160 2,160 PW40 Srinivas & Co. Naya Bazar, Delhi.
2 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. 2,200 2,200 PW20 Kishori Lal Chander Bhan, Naya Bazar, Delhi. 3 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. 24,253 24,253 PW59 Harbans Lal and Col., New Fruit Market, Azadpur.
4 Income from the interest on the loan given to M/s. 43,834 Not proved as no
Mehra Agency evidence produced
5 Payment received from M/s. Surge Systems India 90,000 90,000 PW61
Pvt. Ltd. towards executing computerisation project 6 Payment received from M/s. HCL Technologies, 2,16,003 No evidence CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 204 of 233 Noida produced 7 Interest income from A/c. No. 24240 in UTI Bank, 177 177 PW41 Shakti Nagar 8 Interest income from A/C. No. 28690 in UTI Bank, 996 996 PW52 Noida 9 Income from gift from Smt. Lakshmi Jaiprasad 2,00,000 2,00,000 PW135 10 Interest income from A/c. No. P37/17332 in SBI, 61 61 PW117 Badnera.
11 Income from income tax refund (19982001) 2,887 No evidence produced 12 Interest income from FDRs (19851994) 28,229.95 No evidence produced 13 Income from petty cash gifts (19851994) 55,000 No evidence produced 14 Income from bank interest including Syndicate 23,361.75 No evidence Bank (19851995) produced 15 Income from cash gifts as per gift documents 40,000 No evidence (19891990) produced 16 Interest income from various firms (19851990) 24,030.49 No evidence produced 17 Interest income from CTD post office 5,009 No evidence produced 18 Other income as indicated in income tax return 15,000 No evidence (19992000) produced Total 7,73,202.19 3,19,847 In the case of Sendhil M. Solai also the prosecution has presented their case showing income in the sum of Rs.7,73,202.19ps. However, they CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 205 of 233 did not produce the evidence to prove the same. The accused also did not bring any evidence to show that his income was more than Rs.7,73,202.19ps and therefore, the income as claimed by the prosecution in the chargesheet is taken as such.
Expenditure EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY SENDHIL M. SOLAI S. Particulars Amount Proved Releva No. shown in the by way of nt PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Insurance of Maruti Esteem No. DL7S P0001 paid to 27,556 27,556 PW45 United India Insurance Co.
PW45 proved the insurance premium paid by the accused and other members of his family by way of document Ex.PW45/1.
2 Payment made towards telephone bill of telephone no. 27,584 27,584 PW31 23946171 Prosecution examined PW31 to prove this expenditure and the accused has not raised any dispute regarding the same.
3 Investment made by Shri Sendhil M Solai towards 2,000 Not proved DDS application for built up shops in SC/ST category 4 Payment made towards credit car No. 66,429.34 Not proved 4129048395010306 5 Income tax paid a part from TDS 4,341 Not proved 6 Wealth Tax Paid 413 225 PW5 PW5 produced the wealth tax return and income tax CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 206 of 233 return which are Ex.PW5/D141 and D142.
7 Investment in Neural I. Com. 30,000 No evidence
produced
8 Expenditure towards filing of returns of income tax 3,300 No evidence
produced
Total 1,61,623.34 55,365
Assets
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF SENDHIL M. SOLAI
Sl. Particulars Amount Proved Relevant
No shown in by way of PW
the evidence
chargesheet
(Rs.)
1 Investment in Central Excise House Building Co 3,00,000 3,00,000 PW91
operative Society Ltd.
Prosecution examined PW91 to prove this
investment for allotment of the plot. The
witness was not cross examined. In his
statement also, accused did not dispute the
same.
2 Maruti Esteem LX DL7SP0001. 4,78,918 4,78,918 PW92
PW92 proved the purchase of car by Sendhil
M. Solai. The accused in his statement merely
stated that his son had taken a loan from
MGF but did not prove anything beyond this.
The loan, if any, was to be proved by the
accused which he failed.
3 Expenditure on purchase of Akai Music System 11,200 11,200 PW137
from M/s Ahuja Electronics
The prosecution has duly proved on record
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 207 of 233
the bill vide which the Akai Music System was
purchased
4 One Toshiba Laptop as mentioned in the 38,000 Not specifically
observation memo proved
5 Balance in A/c No.24240 in UTI Bank, Shakti 5,803.84 5,803.84 PW41
Nagar
6 Balance in A/c No. P37/17332 maintained in 608 583 PW117
SBI, Badnera
7 Deposit in PPF A/c No.116 in PNB Civil Lines, 60,000 73,528 PW17
Delhi
The prosecution has examined statement of
account, Ex.PW17/J, as per which the last
balance on 30.03.2002 was Rs.73,528. There
seems to be a clerical error on behalf of IO.
Therefore, the assets are taken as Rs.73,528/.
Total 8,94,529.84 8,70,032.
84Assets in the beginning of the check period The prosecution has claimed that Sendhil M. Solai had an assets in the sum of Rs.1,04,293 at the beginning of the check period.
Thus, as per the discussion made herein above, the summary of the income, expenditure and assets is as follows :
Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at Assets Disproportionate Savings beginning of the end of acquired Assets check period the check during the period check period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) 7,73,202 55,365 7,17,837 1,04,293 8,70,033 7,65,740 47,903 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 208 of 233 E. ILANGO M. SOLAI Income INCOME OF SHRI ILANGO M. SOLAI Sl. Particulars Amount Proved by Relevant No shown in the way of PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Income from the interest on the loan of Rs.1 Lakh given to Shri Pradeep Khanna 7,000 7,000 PW43 2 Income from the interest received on the loan given to M/s Ess Kay Trading Company 18,690 18,690 PW23 3 Income from the interest received on the loan given to M/s Chaman Fruit Centre 23,625 23,625 PW21 4 Income from the interest received on the loan given to M/s Chaman Lal & Sons 18,900 18,900 PW21 5 Interest Income from M/s Amar Dal Mill 6,584 No evidence produced 6 Income from the interest on the loan given to Harbans Lal & Company by Sh. Ilango M. Solai (199495) 28,330 28,330 PW59 7 Salary income of Shri Ilango M. Solai received from M/s Newgen Software Technologies 1,68,414 1,68,414 PW33 8 Income from salary received from M/s Deepika Agencies 1,48,000 1,48,000 PW49 9 Stipend received from M/s Solutions Integrated Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd., No evidence produced Nehru Place 10,000 10 Interest Income from SB A/c No.5508 in Syndicate Bank, St. Xaviers School, No evidence produced Extension Counter, Civil Lines 1,884.5 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 209 of 233 11 Interest Income from A/c No. 7707 in Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar 1,409.35 1,409.35 PW18 12 Interest on FDR in A/c No. 5508 maintained in Syndicate Bank 2,646 2,646 PW19 13 Interest income from A/c No. 28975 in ICICI No evidence produced Bank, GK1 159 14 Income from Sale of Motorcycle No. DL 4SS0001 to Shri Kuldeep Kumar in 2001 for an amount of Rs. 33000 which was No evidence produced purchased in the last year 1997 for an amount of Rs. 40119. 7119 15 Income from gift from Smt. Lakshmi Jaiprasad 24.1.2000 2,00,000 2,00,000 PW135 16 Interest income from Sh. Virender Kumar No evidence produced 19982001 88,000 17 Interest income from Sh. Rajender Prasad No evidence produced 19982001 1,47,250 18 Income from petty cash gifts 19851992 72,030 No evidence produced 19 Interest income from FDR 19851990 25,117.7 No evidence produced 20 Income from gifts as per gift deeds No evidence produced 19891990 40,000 21 Misc. Income as indicated in income tax No evidence produced return 20002001 15,000 22 Interest income from Sheonath Rai Nath Dham, Maruti Ltd and other interest No evidence produced 19851990 10,910 23 Income from income tax refund 550 No evidence produced Total 10,27,380.55 6,17,014.35 Though the prosecution has proved the income to the extent of Rs.6,17,014.35, but since the prosecution did not bring the evidence regarding remaining income. The accused cannot be prejudiced for the same. Hence, the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 210 of 233 income is taken as Rs.10,27,380.55.
Expenditure EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ILANGO M. SOLAI Sl. Particulars Amount Proved Relevant No. shown in the by way PW chargesheet of (Rs.) evidence 1 Insurance of Hero Honda Motorcycle No. DL 4SS0001 paid to United India 1,006 1,006 PW45 2 Expenditure towards filling of returns of No evidence income tax 3,300 produced 3 Payment made towards Citi Bank credit card No evidence No. 55461 99084475003 4,516.29 produced 4 No evidence Income tax filed a part from TDS 28,066 produced Total 36,888.29 1,006 Assets ASSETS IN THE NAME OF ILANGO Sl. Particulars Amount Proved Relevant No. shown in by way PW the of chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Investment in Central Excise House Building 3,00,000 3,00,000 PW91 Cooperative Society Ltd.
Prosecution examined PW91 to prove this investment for allotment of the plot. The witness was not cross examined. In his statement also, accused did not dispute the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 211 of 233 same.
2 Expenditure on purchase o Daewoo Refrigerator 25,500 25,500 PW137 from M/s Ahuja Electronics It is pertinent to mention here that payment of this was made by Sh. S. Malaichamy from his account No.52036 vide cheque No.319909 dated 03.07.88 (Ex.PW5/D11) 3 One Sansuai color TV as observed in the 7,000 Not proved observation memo during house search at D1/1, MCD Officers Flat, 10 Rajpur Road, Delhi 4 One Canon 50mm camera as observed in the 10,000 Not proved observation memo 5 Balance in A/c No. 28975 in ICICI Bank, G.K.1 885 885 PW62 6 Deposit in PPF A/c No. 115 in PNB Civil Lines, 47,000 47,000 PW17 Delhi 7 Investment towards loan given to Shri Rajeshwar 2,00,000 2,00,000 PW139 Nath Gupta The income tax record of PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta indicated that Ilango M. Solai had advanced a loan of Rs.2 lakhs and this loan was outstanding in the balance sheet of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta for the AY 20022003, therefore, this amount was not received back till the end of the check period. The loan was paid by cheque duly signed by accused S. Malaichamy, Ex.PW5/D62 from A/c No.37421 It is pertinent to mention here that PW139 deposed on oath that S. Malaichamy had given him the loan in the name of his son. This loan was interest free loan and has not yet been repaid. This transaction again shows the unholy nexus between PW139 and accused.
Total 5,90,385 5,73,385 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 212 of 233 The prosecution has claimed that Ilango M. Solai had assets in the sum of Rs.71,450/ at the beginning of the check period.
Thus, in view of the discussion made herein above, the summary of income, expenditure and assets is as follows :
Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at Assets Disproportionate Savings beginning of the end of acquired Assets check period the check during the period check period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) 10,27,381 1,006 10,26,375 71,450 5,73,385 5,01,935 ()5,24,440 F. SOLAI & SONS Income INCOME OF SOLAI AND SONS Sl. Particulars Amount Proved Relevant No. shown in by way of PW the evidence chargesheet (Rs.) 1 Income from interest on the loan given to M/s.
Mehra Agency 49,000 Not proved
2 Income from interest on the loan given to M/s
Chamman Lal & sons 32,265 32,265 PW59
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 213 of 233
3 Income from interest on the loan given to
Harbans Lal & Company 12,876 12,876 PW59
4 Interest on FDR in A/c No. 34742 maintained in Bank of Madura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 9,143 9,143 PW54 5 Interest income from A/c No.347423 in PNB Civil Lines, Delhi 13,771 Not proved 6 Interest income from Sh. Rajeev Kumar PW8 28,000 28,000 PW8 7 Interest income from M/s Laxmi Traders 27,980 Not proved 8 Interest income from various firms (19981990) 8,535 Not proved 9 Interest income from various firms (19881989) 15,380 Not proved 10 Interest income from FDRs (19851994) 19,297.5 Not proved 11 Income from income tax refund (19871988) 1,570 Not proved 12 Income from SB interest including Syndicate 11,602.55 Not proved Bank (19871995) 13 Interest received in the year 198788 13,500 Not proved 14 Interest received in the year 198687 13,000 Not proved 15 Interest received in the year 198586 12,000 Not proved Total 2,67,920.05 82,284 Though the prosecution has proved the income to the extent of Rs.82,284/, but since the prosecution did not bring the evidence regarding remaining income, the accused cannot be prejudiced for the same. Hence, the income is taken as Rs.2,67,920.05.
Expenditure Prosecution has failed to prove any expenditure in respect of Solai & Sons.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 214 of 233
Assets
ASSETS IN THE NAME OF SOLAI & SONS
Sl. Particulars Amount Proved Relevant
No. shown in the by way of PW
chargesheet evidence
(Rs.)
Balance in A/c No. 34723 in PNB, Civil Lines,
1 Delhi 6,682 Not proved
Investment towards loan given to Shri
2 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta 7,00,000 7,00,000 PW100
Total 7,06,682 7,00,000
The prosecution has claimed assets of Solai & Sons (HUF) in the sum of Rs.1,70,125 at the beginning of the check period.
Thus, in view of the discussion made herein above, the summary of assets of Solai & Sons (HUF) is as follows :
Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at Assets Disproportionate Savings beginning of the end of acquired Assets check period the check during the period check period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) 2,67,920 0 2,67,920 1,70,125 7,00,000 5,29,875 2,61,955 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 215 of 233 G. JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS (INVESTMENTS) JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS (INCOME) Sl. Particulars Amount Proved by Releva No shown in way of nt PW the evidence chargesheet (Rs.) 1 Interest income from SB A/c No. 6214 in 8,795 8,795 PW19 Syndicate Bank, St. Xavier School Extension Counter, Civil Lines, Delhi in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Smt Manju Malaichamy 2 Interest income from FDRs in SB A/c No. 6214 2,783 2,783 PW19 in Syndicate Bank, St. Xavier School Extension Counter, Civil Lines, Delhi in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Smt Manju Malaichamy 3 Interest income from A/c No. 7079 in Syndicate 3,961.8 3,961.8 PW18 Bank, Nirman Vihar in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Smt. Manju Malaichamy 4 Interest income from A/c No. 29765 in PNB, 21,934 21,934 PW17 Civil Line, Delhi in the joint names of Smt. Karuppayi ammal and Sh. S. Malaichamy including the interest of Rs. 2154 on the FDRs in the said account 5 Interest income from A/c No.37421 in the joint 22,431 22,431 PW17 names of Sh. S Malaichamy and Sh. Ilango M.Solai in PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi including the interest of Rs. 11681 on various FDRs 6 Interest income on account No.37422 in the joint 13,207 No evidence name of S. Malaichamy and Sendhil M. Solai in produced PNB Civil Lines, Delhi including interest of Rs.
3781 on FDR CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 216 of 233 7 Interest income in SB A/c No. 8651 in Indian 4,381 4,381 PW35 Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Smt Karuppayi Ammal 8 Interest income in SB A/c No. 250875 at Canara 17,818.3 17,818.3 Bank, Madurai in the joint names of Smt Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S. Malaichamy 9 Interest income from SB A/c No. 19075 in SBI, 5,888.9 5,888.9 PW13 Old Secretariat, in the name of Sh. Sendhil M. Solai and S. Malaichamy 10 Interest income in SB A/c No. 6241 maintained 12,486.35 12,486.35 at SBI Vinayak Nagar, Madurai in the joint names of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and S. Malaichamy, including the interest of Rs. 2415 on FDR Interest income is SB A/c No.3805 in Indian 2,986.1 No evidence Overseas Bank, Tirupachati in the joint names of produced 11 S. Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal Total 1,16,672.45 1,00,479.35 JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS (ASSETS) Sl. Particulars Amount Proved by Releva No shown in the way of nt PW chargesheet evidence (Rs.) 1 Balance in SB A/c No. 6214 in Syndicate Bank, St. Xavier School Extension Counter, Civil Lines, Delhi in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Smt. Manju Malaichamy 53,492.1 53,492.10 PW19 2 Balance in SB A/c No. 37421 in PNB Civil Lines, Delhi in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Sh.
Ilango M. Solai 2,644.29 2,644.29 PW17 3 Balance in SB A/c No. 37422 in PNB Civil Lines, Delhi in the joint names of Sh. S. Malaichamy and Sh. Sendhil M. Solai 3,87,639.35 3,87,639.35 PW17 CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 217 of 233 4 Balance in SB A/c No. 29765 in PNB Civil Lines, Delhi in the joint names of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and Sh. S.Malaichamy 1,38,637.75 1,38,637.75 PW17 5 Balance in SB A/c No. 8651 in Indian Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi in the joint names of S. Malaichamy and Smt. Karuppayi Ammal 47,705.73 47,705.73 PW17 7 Balance in SB A/c No. 6241 maintained at SBI Vinayak Nagar, Madurai in the joint names of Smt. Karuppayi Ammal and S. Malaichamy 12,221.24 12,221.24 PW17 8 Balance in State Bank A/c No.3805 in Indian Overseas Bank, Triupachati in the joint name of S. 1,011.60 No evidence produced Malaichamy & Karuppayi Ammal Total 6,43,352.06 6,42,340.46 CONCLUSION:
8.0 Court can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to further the cause of justice, within the available range and forge new tools for the said purpose, if necessary to chisel hard edges of the law. On the basis of discussion made herein above, the cumulative summary of the income, expenditure, assets at the beginning of the check period and assets at the end of check period in the name of the accused and members of his family would be as follows :
8.1 The evidence on record indicates that the accused had acquired disproportionate assets and he had been making huge investments in his name CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 218 of 233 Names Income Expenditure Likely Assets at the Assets at the Assets DA Saving beginning of end of check acquired the check period during the period check period 1 2 3 (12) 4 5 6 (54) 7 (63) S. Malaichamy 3413217 2515630 897587 42408 3308202 3265794 2368207 Smt. Karuppayi Ammal 2426927 685436 1741491 98200 5263005 5164805 3423314 Sendhil M. Solai 773202 55365 717837 104293 870033 765740 47903 Ilango M. Solai 1027381 1006 1026375 71450 573385 501935 524440 Manju Malaichamy 1406417 11870 1394547 53000 613060 560060 834487 Solai & Sons 267920 0 267920 170125 700000 529875 261955 Joint Bank A/cs 116672 0 116672 0 642340 642340 525668 9431736 3269307 6162429 539476 11970025 11430549 5268120 and in the name of members of his family. The material on record, taken as a whole, would indicate certain patterns which proves culpability or misconduct on the part of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused miserably failed to explain the source of income. The defence taken by the accused is sham, frivolous and after thought.
8.2 Source of cash flow :
The evidence on record would indicate that accused and members of his family had huge inflow and outflow of cash. They had been advancing the loans in huge amount to the private parties and earning interest on the same. The investigation officer took pains in going through the documents CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 219 of 233 minutely, and has also been fair in extending the benefit to the accused or members of his family in respect of the income, for which even documents were not available. Even if the income of the accused and all the members of his family are taken together, this would not justify the possession of such huge amount of cash in possession of the accused. The accused took a plea that his mother had sold some ancestral property or had got huge cash from her parents but beyond bald statement, the accused did not bring any material on record to prove the same. The accused was required to prove this fact by way of positive evidence. However, he miserably failed to prove the same. The accused failed to explain the source of principal amount, which was used in advancing the loans to the private parties. 8.3 Acquisition of Immovable properties The prosecution duly proved that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had three flats in Cooperative Group Housing Society in Delhi besides share in a property in Haveli Haider Kuli. Similarly, Smt. Manju Malaichamy, Illango M. Solai and Sendhil M. Solai had also acquired certain properties, which were entirely disproportionate to their source of income. Regarding these properties, it came on the record that certain payments were made by the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 220 of 233 cheque under the signatures of the accused. The accused had been maintaining numerous bank accounts from which he had been issuing the cheques. It has not been explained that from where this money came. The accused only took a plea that her mother had sold some immovable properties. But beyond this nothing has been brought on the record. I consider that mere statement is not sufficient to displace the case of the CBI. Secondly, the prosecution also proved on record that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had been saying that she is a housewife and has a monthly income of Rs.3,000/. This fact also falsifies the plea of the accused. It is also interesting to note that accused in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. stated that his mother had acquired these flats for his sons which again shows that actually these properties were of accused. The law regarding Benami Transactions is very well clear.
It is a settled proposition that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of the fact. In Jay Dayal Poddar Vs. Bibi Hazara, AIR 1974 SC 171, the Supreme Court laid down the following test to CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 221 of 233 determine that whether a particular transaction is benami:
(1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any between the claimant and the alleged benamidar;
(5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and, (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale."
In Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 796, relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused also, it was inter alia held as under:
"It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unofter, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 222 of 233 for proof."
In Valliammal Vs. Subramaniam, AIR 2004 SC 4187, the Supreme Court while discussing the question that whether the particular sale is benami or not, inter alia held that this question is largely one of fact and following six circumstances can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction:
(1) The source from which the purchase money came; (2) The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar;
(5) The custody of the title deeds after the sale; and, (6) The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.
The evidence on the record shows beyond any shadow of doubt that it was actually the accused who was owning this property and was making payments through cheque under his signatures. The major fact to ascertain that who actually owns the property is that who paid for it. In the present CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 223 of 233 case, in majority of the transactions, cheques have been issued under the signatures of the accused. It is also pertinent to mention here that accused stated in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. that his mother Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had bought these flats for her grandsons i.e. Sendhil M. Solai and Ilango M. Solai. The accused did not bring any evidence even worth of name, to show that Smt. Karuppayi Ammal had source to acquire this much of th properties. The source of income of Smt. Karuppayi Amal and Smt. Manju Malaichamy has also not been proved.
8.4 Numerous number of bank accounts The accused had been maintaining numerous number of bank accounts either in his name or joint accounts with members of his family. Though, there is no restrictions for an individual and one can have as many as bank accounts as he wish. However, while appreciating the evidence on record, the court has to take into account the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accused was a public servant. His known source of income was salary only. Though, accused took a plea that his mother had huge agricultural land or the income from sale of ancestral properties but the same has not been proved in accordance with law. For such a person, maintaining CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 224 of 233 number of bank accounts, would certainly raise a suspicion. The transaction of these bank transaction also attributes misconduct towards the accused. The evidence as led by the prosecution indicates that accused had issued the following cheques under his signatures:
Cheque No. & Date A/c No. & Account Name Amount
Holder (Rs.)
476442 dt. 01.07.1998 37421 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 79,000/
Ex. PW5/D29 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Illango M. Solai
580814 dt. 15.06.1995 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D30 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
580816 dt. 29.06.1995 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D31 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
580813 dt. 04.04.1995 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D32 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353694 dt. 10.04.1996 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D33 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
582128 dt. 14.01.1997 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 1,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D34 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
582122 dt. 12.07.1996 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 1,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D35 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
582135dt. 05.12.1997 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 60,000/
Ex. PW5/D36 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473899 dt. 09.11.2000 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 20,086/
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 225 of 233
Ex. PW5/D37 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473889 dt. 16.02.2000 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 4,310/
Ex. PW5/D38 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473891 dt. 03.03.2000 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 3,205/
Ex. PW5/D39 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
476444 dt. 14.09.1998 37421 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 1,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D40 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Illango M. Solai
353689 dt. 09.02.1996 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D41 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353686 dt. 21.11.1996 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 20,000/
Ex. PW5/D42 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
582126 dt. 25.09.1996 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 40,000/
Ex. PW5/D43 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
582139 dt. 15.03.1998 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 30,000/
Ex. PW5/D44 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
582127 dt. 14.01.1997 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D45 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353690 dt. 09.02.1996 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 20,000/
Ex. PW5/D46 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473893 dt. 24.03.2000 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 60,000/
Ex. PW5/D47 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473888 dt. 16.02.2000 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 47,834/
Ex. PW5/D48 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 226 of 233
582123 dt. 23.08.1996 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 25,000/
Ex. PW5/D49 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353691 dt. 08.03.1996 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 20,000/
Ex. PW5/D50 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353695 dt. 01.05.1996 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 25,000/
Ex. PW5/D51 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473884 dt. 09.09.1998 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 45,000/
Ex. PW5/D52 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353683 dt. 09.11.1995 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 10,000/
Ex. PW5/D53 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353684 dt. 28.11.1995 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 25,000/
Ex. PW5/D54 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353681 dt. 13.09.1995 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 90,000/
Ex. PW5/D55 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
353682 dt. 13.09.1995 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 10,000/
Ex. PW5/D56 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
580815 dt. 15.06.1995 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 37,500/
Ex. PW5/D57 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
580808 dt. 17.12.1994 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 12,900/
Ex. PW5/D58 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
580817 dt. 20.07.1995 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 10,000/
Ex. PW5/D59 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
473900 dt. 23.12.2000 29765 Rajeshwarnath Gupta HUF 1,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D60 S. Malaichamy &
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 227 of 233
Karuppayi Amal
473898 dt. 22.10.2000 29765 Rajeshwarnath Gupta HUF 4,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D61 S. Malaichamy &
Karuppayi Amal
852755 dt. 04.12.2000 37421 Rajeshwarnath Gupta HUF 2,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D62 S. Malaichamy and
Illango M. Solai
632294 dt. 14.12.2000 37423 Rajeshwarnath Gupta HUF 7,00,000/
Ex. PW5/D63 Solai & Sons (HUF)
476454 dt. 24.12.1998 37421 Civil Service Officers Welfare Society 60,000/
Ex. PW5/D64 S. Malaichamy and
Illango M. Solai
563116 dt. 04.07.1997 37421 Civil Service Officers Welfare Society 1,40,000/
Ex. PW5/D65 S. Malaichamy and
Illango M. Solai
808159 dt. 28.02.2002 37422 Municipal Corporation of Delhi 86,000/
Ex. PW5/D66 S. Malaichamy and
Sendhil M. Solai
471287 dt. 26.03.2001 29765 Municipal Corporation of Delhi 84,000/
Ex. PW5/D67 S. Malaichamy &
Karuppayi Amal
473897 dt. 10.09.2000 29765 Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd. 25,000/
Ex. PW5/D68 S. Malaichamy &
Karuppayi Amal
473896 dt. 23.08.2000 29765 Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. 14,000/
Ex. PW5/D69 S. Malaichamy &
Karuppayi Amal
563110 dt. 03.04.1997 37421 Essaay Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd. 40,119/
Ex. PW5/D70 S. Malaichamy &
Illango M. Solai
580819 dt. 12.08.1995 29765 State Bank of India A/C. Income Tax 29,195/
Ex. PW5/D71 S. Malaichamy &
Karuppayi Amal
580818 dt. 12.08.1995 29765 State Bank of India A/C. Income Tax 6,589/
Ex. PW5/D72 S. Malaichamy &
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 228 of 233
Karuppayi Amal
632292 dt. 17.07.2000 37423 Smt. Karuppai Ammal 2,50,000/
Ex. PW5/D73 Solai & Sons (HUF)
582132 dt. 15.05.1997 29765 M/s. Starlite Cooperative Group Housing 75,000/
Ex. PW5/D74 S. Malaichamy & Society Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
563111 dt. 15.04.1997 37421 Civil Service Officers Welfare Society 70,000/
Ex. PW5/D75 S. Malaichamy &
Illango M. Solai
582134 dt. 04.07.1997 29765 Gyan Shakti Coop. Group Housing Society 50,000/
Ex. PW5/D76 S. Malaichamy & Ltd.
Karuppayi Amal
The perusal of above said detail indicates that it was accused only who had actually been into the transaction in the name of members of his family.
8.5 Whether mere intimation to the Department absolve an employee from the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act Under Service Rules as applicable to the service to which the accused belongs, every employee is under an obligation to intimate his department regarding the acquisition of immovable properties or movable properties beyond a certain amount. However, mere intimation would not absolve the accused from the provisions of PC Act, if it is found that these properties are disproportionate to his income. There may be a possibility that CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 229 of 233 the department out of carelessness or mechanically had been accepting such intimations without taking any action. Thus, this plea of the accused that he had been intimating to the department would not cut much ice. It also cannot be forgotten that in this case, accused was a very senior IAS officer and therefore, there may be a possibility that the person to whom such intimations were given, being his subordinate had been taking the same without creating any fuss.
The conduct of the accused in this case, shows that he had been making huge investments in his name and in the name of members of his family without any fear.
The Court is required to evaluate the facts in a manner which should answer the needs of the law and the society. It is a right time when the Court has to take a call and must peep into the facts thoroughly so as to find out the truth behind it.
8.6 It is really surprising to note that close family of a senior public servant had been advancing cash loans to the private persons and earning interest income on them. I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The defence taken by the CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 230 of 233 accused has not been able to inspire any confidence. It largely seems to be an afterthought and without any basis. CBI has done thorough investigation to unearth the offence.
The prosecution by way of cogent and creditworthy evidence has proved on record its case. The defence of the accused that assets in the name of the other members of his family cannot be clubbed, is worth to be rejected. CBI has done a meticulous job. The Investigation Officer took into account, rather liberally, income of the members of the family of the accused. If we have a glance on the income of Smt. Karuppayi Amal, the major source of income was interest on the loans advanced and the rental income. Similarly, Smt. Manju Malaichamy had also major portion of her income coming from interest on the loan advanced, interest on the deposits / FDR and rental income. Similarly, Sh. Sendhil M. Solai and Sh. Illango M. Solai, except small portion of income coming from the salary, had a major portion from the interest income on the loans. In the same fashion, HUF Solai & Sons had also been earning interest on the loans advanced to the parties. The accused has stated that he had been intimating his entire income and assets to the department. However, there is no mention about intimation regarding the income and assets of HUF. CBI has emphasized that though transaction as CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 231 of 233 member of HUF may not require prior permission but such transaction should be included in the annual property return and must be informed to the prescribed authority. The prosecution proved by way of reliable evidence its case of disproportionate assets. The CBI discharged its initial onus of proving the fact that accused was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. However, the accused failed to account for such resource or property. The accused failed to place on record any satisfactory explanation regarding such income and assets. It is pertinent to mention here that there is not even an iota of material produced on record by the accused that from where did the money come in the hands of the members of the family of the accused which was used for giving frequent loans to the private parties. The prosecution also proved on record that the loan given to PW139 Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta by cheque were duly signed by the accused himself. The transactions between the accused and PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta gives a reason to the court to have a doubt about the conduct of PW139 Rajeshwar Nath Gupta also. It is surprising that somebody has been given huge sum of money without any interest.
The argument taken by the Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding the sanction and irregularities in the investigation does not hold any force. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 232 of 233
Before parting with, I record my appreciation for Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Defence Counsel for their able assistance.
9.0 In view of the discussion made herein above, the court is of the considered view that accused had acquired huge disproportionate assets in his name and in the name of members of his family. The accused has failed to present satisfactorily explanation by way of dependable evidence which could justify the acquisition of such huge properties. Therefore, I hold accused S. Malaichamy guilty for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in RC No.DAI2002A0023.
Announced in open court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma) Today on 11.12.2012 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01 Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 233 of 233 IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) 01, CBI, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Special Judge (PC Act) CC No.18/11 Unique Case ID No. 02401R0181522005 C.B.I. Vs. S. Malaichamy S/o. Late Sh. P. Solai R/o. 210, Madhuban, Delhi - 92.
RC No. : DAI2002A0023 u/Ss : 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 Judgment announced on : 11.12.2012 Date of order on sentence : 12.12.2012 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present : Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Counsel for the convict.
Convict S. Malaichamy produced from JC.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 234 of 233 1.0 Sh. S. Malaichamy, former IAS officer has been convicted for the offence u/S 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 for having found in possession of disproportionate assets in the sum of Rs.52,68,120/ in his name and in the name of the members of his family.
1.1 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that the sentencing is the exclusive domain of this Court. However, he submits that as per the instructions from his department, maximum punishment may be imposed upon the convict. He also submits that the disproportionate assets which had been acquired by the convict by illegal means be also confiscated to the State. 1.2 Per contra, Sh. SC Jain, Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that this is a fit case where a lenient view should be taken. Ld. Counsel submits that convict is 72 years of age. His previous record is absolutely neat and clean. The convict is the sole help to his seriously ill bed ridden wife. Both sons of the convict Illango M. Solai and Sendhil M. Solai are living separately in Bangalore. Ld. Counsel invited the attention of the Court towards the conduct, behaviour and cooperative attitude of the convict during the trial. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 235 of 233 Ld. Counsel submitted that convict has already faced 9 years of trial. He had served in very senior positions and the allegations against him were primarily motivated. Ld. Counsel submits that prayer of the CBI regarding confiscation of the property is unjust and may not be accepted.
2.0 While this country is making a sincere effort for achieving new heights and is rightly being recognized as an important stake holder in the global scenario, the only stumbling block in the same is corruption. Unfortunately, corruption in this country is spreading like cancer and it is effecting the common man the most. The corruption by the public servants directly affects the citizen of this country. The citizen of this country have a high expectation from the top brass of this country. The Indian Administrative Service, to which the convict belongs, is the premier service of this nation. The Union Public Service Commission recruits the best of the talent and such officers are given the senior most positions in the government. Practically, every department is being controlled by the IAS officers. With such a position, the expectation of the people of this Country and the system, from such officers, also increases manifold. The corruption at this level not only stalls development, it also undermines social progress and undercuts CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 236 of 233 confidence in the fairness of public administration. The corruption if done at this level impedes good governance and erodes the rule of law. 2.1 Most of the trial in this case has been conducted before this Court and there is no doubt that convict had been very regular and he had been cooperative and at no point of time disturbed the trial in any manner. The age of the convict or the illness of the wife of the convict has also not been disputed.
3.0 The job of sentencing the accused after the conviction is a very delicate task. On one hand, the mitigating circumstances of an individual are pleaded and on the other hand, the interest of the society at large is placed. In cases involving corruption by the public servants, the common man of this country looks upon for the response of the justice delivery system in such situation. The court has to balance the interest of an individual and interest of the society at large. In such like cases, the Court is required to deliver an appropriate sentence, which must have deterrent effect on the society. 3.1 The convict in this case has been held to have amassed huge CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 237 of 233 properties in his name and in the name of the members of his family. The conduct of the convict was apparently dare devil, where his close family was openly indulging themselves in advancing loans to the private parties. I consider that in such facts and circumstances, rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 10 lakhs in default of payment of fine, SI for 01 year, shall meet the ends of justice.
3.2 The CBI has also prayed for the confiscation of the property. It has been submitted that properties acquired by the convict were from the ill gotten money and they be also confiscated to the State. The defence has opposed the same and submitted that properties may not be confiscated as the same were acquired by the members of the family of the convict from their own sources. However, this Court has already held that the properties acquired in the name of the members of the family of the convict, actually belonged to the convict only.
In Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 60, the bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.V.Chandrachud, the then Chief Justice of India inter alia held that in a disproportionate assets case CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 238 of 233 under Prevention of Corruption Act, the Special Judge has jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation. The power to confiscate was challenged by the convict, however, the apex court rejected the contention and inter alia held as under: "It is clear from this provision that in so far as the offences under laws other than the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply in their full force subject to any specific or contrary provision made by the law under which the offence is investigated or tried. Therefore, what we have to ascertain is whether the Code of Criminal Procedure confers the power of confiscation, and secondly, whether tehre is anything in the Prevention of Corruption Act which militates against the use of that power, either by reason of the fact that the latter Act contains a specific provision for confiscation or contains any provision inconsistent with the power of confiscation conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the first of these questions, S.452 of the Code provides by subsection (1), in so far as material, that if the trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of property by confiscation. This power would, therefore, be available to a Court trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless that Act contains any specific or contrary provision on the subject matter of confiscation. None of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act provides for confiscation or prescribes the mode by which an order of confiscation may be passed. The Prevention of Corruption Act being totally silent on the question of confiscation, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in their full force, with the result that the Court trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would have the power to pass an order of confiscation by reason of the provisions contained in Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of confiscation cannot, therefore, be held to be without jurisdiction.
If we were to accept the above submission of Mr. Bana, it would lead to starting results. If, for example, a person is convicted for taking a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he could always say that since he has already taken the bribe and the money which forms the subject matter of the bribe belongs to him, no order of confiscation of that amount can be passed. CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 239 of 233 A person who is found guilty of accepting the bribe is not only liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence of bribery, but the amount which he has taken by way of bribe is liable to be confiscated by reason of the powers of confiscation conferred by Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the extent that the said provisions apply."
4.0 I consider that it is a fit case, where an order regarding confiscation of properties is required to be made in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances, I consider that following properties be confiscated to the State:
1) Plot No. B60, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad;
2) Flat No. 2804, Gyan Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Society, Plot No.7, Sector6, Dwarka;
3) Flat No. 414, Starlite Cooperate Group Housing Society, 2307 Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi;
4) Flat No B504, Kedar Cooperative Group Housing Society; and,
5) Property measuring 2 khan at Khasra No. 326, Village Khora, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. Ghaziabad.
Besides this, during the course of arguments, it has been admitted by the convict that Rs. 17 lakhs advanced to Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta has CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 240 of 233 also not been returned. I consider that since it has been held that convict failed to explain the source of huge cash, the loan given to Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta was also part of the disproportionate assets. Thus, the cash in the hands of Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta in the sum of Rs. 17 lakhs be also confiscated.
CBI is directed to initiate proceedings for taking back Rs. 17 lakhs from PW139 Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta. The cash recovered from B504, Kedar Cooperative Group Housing Society, during the search in the sum of Rs. 12,70,000/ be also confiscated to the State. 5.0 A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
6.0 File be consigned to RR.
Announced in open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
Date: 12/12/2012 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CBI Vs. S. Malaichamy CC No.18/11 Page 241 of 233