Delhi District Court
Discussion Before The Apex Court In ... vs . on 27 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE-03, CBI
NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 59/2011
Case ID No. 02403R0190302004
RC No. 76 (A)/2000/CBI/ACB/ND
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
V. K. SINGHAL
S/O S. K. SINGHAL
R/O RA-107, 1ST FLOOR,
INDERPURI, NEW DELHI
Date on which charge sheet was filed - 30.06.2004
Date on which charges were framed - 07.09.2005
Date on which judgment was reserved- 16.04.2012
Date on which judgment was pronounced- 21.04.2012
APPEARANCES:-
Mr. A.K.Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. O. P. Malviya, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
21.04.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Accused V. K. Singhal S/o Sh. S. K. Singhal has been arraigned for trial by the State (CBI) on the charge that during the check period 01.04.1981 to 10.11.2000 employed with DDA in different capacities viz., Deputy Director (Planning) in DDA from period 01.04.1981 to 1997; and on promotion to the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.1/70 2 post of Director (Housing) -II, till February 1995, and subsequently posted as Director (Nazarat) from August 1995 to February 1997 and while posted as Director (Land Management) from February 1997 onwards with dual charges of Director Housing -II and Director (Nazarrat) in DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, he acquired immovable and movable assets to the tune of Rs. 25,41,468.54 in his name and in the name of his wife Mrs. Sarojini Singhal besides son Ankur Singhal and daughter Pragya as per the details given in the charge sheet as against his income and that of family members totalling Rs.18,71,29.50 with expenditure of Rs. 14,23,867.60 and thereby found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.20,94,306.65 that could not be satisfactorily accounted for and thereby committed an offence u/s 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 13 (2) of the said Act. The charge was put to the accused on 07.02.2005 and the accused pleaded not guilty and hence this trial.
FACTS
2. Briefly stated, on a complaint by PW- SI Surender Malik, Inspector, CBI, New Delhi the present FIR dated 29.29.12.2000 (D-8) was recorded. The case of the CBI is that State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.2/70 3 the official residence of the accused A-8, DDA Staff Quarter, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was raided on 10.11.2000 during which several household items and documents were seized in presence of independent witnesses namely PW1 Sudarshan Singh besides finding cash amount of Rs.1,57,600/- and jewellary items weighing about 160 gms valued for Rs. 1,73,000/- vide memos Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B out of which cash of Rs.1,50,000/- was seized. During the search it was found that accused was residing with his wife Smt. Sarojini Singhal who was working as a lecturer in Janki Devi Memorial College, Delhi University and his son Ankur Singhal and daughter Pragya besides mother in law Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel were financially dependent upon him. Later two lockers were searched on 12.11.2001, first bearing no. D-580 with Canara Bank, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi maintained jointly by accused with his wife Smt. Sarojini Singhal unearthing cash amount of Rs.1,57,500/- and gold jewellary and ornaments weighing about 60 tolas apart from silver items weighing about 3 K.G., vide memo Ex. Pw 3/A Another locker in the same bank No. D-98 maintained jointly in the name of Smt. Sarojini Singhal with his mother Smt. Damyanit Devi besides cash amount of Rs.2,05,000/- and gold State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.3/70 4 jewellary and ornaments weighing about 500 gms apart from silver coins and items were recovered vide memo Ex. PW2/A.
3. The case of the prosecution is that during the investigation it was found that accused had not given any intimation to his department regarding possessing any immovable or movable assets before joining the services and during the service he merely intimated about acquisition of flat AO-6, in TCPO Housing Society at Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi which was acquired on 04.10.1987 besides sale and purchase of 2 Fiat Cars and he only intimated about two bank accounts no. 2457 with SBI, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and Account No. 2321 with Central Bank of India at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi besides NSC and UTI of Rs.10,000/-. The investigation revealed that the following assets were found at the end of the check period:
Assets of Sh. V. K. Singhal at the end of check period:
TABLE NO. A S. Name of the property / assets Value No .
1. Investment in TCPO House, Rs.208,175.00 Shalimar Bagh,Delhi
2. Investment in plot no. D-93, Swarn Rs.435,127.00 Jayanti Puram, Ghaziabad
3. Investment in shares and bond Rs.355,888.00
4. Cash found in house search and Rs.516,770.00 operation of locker State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.4/70 5
5. Assets as per observation memo Rs.530,950.00
6. Bank balance as on 10.11.2000 Rs.238,595.97
7. Investment in FDs of banks Rs.115,778.00
8. Investment in Morepan Lab Rs.10,000.00
9. Investment in IDBI deep discount Rs.12,750.00 bond in the name of his daughter
10. Balance in account 7853 of Ankur Rs.29,506.07 Singhal, son
11. Investment in ICICI bond Rs.91,000.00 Total assets at the end of check Rs.25,44,540.04 period
4. The case of the prosecution is that during the investigation it was found that accused, his wife and mother in law had made heavy investments in about 85 companies in the form of shares and debentures. The accused and his family members were found to be operating 21 bank accounts which as per Annexure-I was having credit balance of Rs.5,92,793.50 with interest of income of Rs.89,912.35 and the credit balance as on 10.11.2000 attributed to accused V. K. Singhal was assessed about Rs.2,38,595/- besides investment of Rs. 91,000/- in ICICI bonds; and accused and his family members were also found in possession of 16 FDRs at the end of check period as per Annexure -II with the charge sheet totalling about Rs.4,52,840/- but the amount attributable to accused is Rs. 91,000/- in ICICI Bonds. So far as recovery of cash amount of Rs.5,16,770/- is concerned, the prosecution case is that neither State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.5/70 6 the wife nor the mother of the accused had any surplus of funds so as to indicate that the assets acquired belonged to them and, therefore, amount of Rs.5,16,770/- has been considered as ill gotten wealth of the accused.
5. Income of accused V. K. Singhal during the check period was arrived at Rs.18,71,2950 as follows:
Income acquired during the check period by accused V.K. Singhal TABLE NO. B S. Head of Income Amount No.
1. Rental income from TCPO flat Rs.338,400.00
2. House loan obtained from DDA Rs.125,000.00
3. Income from share/bonds Rs.65,311.57
4. Income from interest on SB Rs.23,989.97 Accounts in banks
5. Interest on FD in Ceat Finance Ltd. Rs.1,504.00
6. Income from investment made by Rs.17,633.00 Sarojini Singhal on behalf of Ankur
7. Income from FD in Morepan Rs.1,608.00
8. Car advance obtained from Rs.20,000.00 department
9. Income tax refund Rs.5,267.00
10. Salary income Rs. 12,32,780.15
11. Interest income from a/c no. 7416 of Rs.34,254.01 Ankur
12. Interest income from a/c no. 7853 of Rs.5,281.80 Ankur Total income during the check Rs.18,71,029.50 period
6. During the investigation total expenditure of about Rs. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.6/70 7
14,23,867.61 pertaining to the check period was worked out as under :
Expenditure of accused V.K. Singhal TABLE NO. C S. Head of Expenditure Amounts No.
1. Expenditure incurred for TCPO house Rs.6,000.00 repair
2. Property tax paid for TCPO house Rs.40,111.00
3. Flat booked in Kanak Durga Housing Rs.270,110.00 Society
4. Educational expenditure of Pragya Rs.68,560.97 Singhal in JSS Academy
5. Technical education of Pragya in Sahil Rs.12,000.00 Study Circle
6. Education of Ankur Singhal in Rs.6235.00 Cambridge School
7. Education of Ankur Singhal in Bal Bharti Rs.30,990.00 Public School
8. Education of Ankur Singhal in Malegaon, Rs.1,51,127.00 Engineering College
9. Payment of Income Tax Rs.45,316.00
10. Bills found during house search Rs.4,588.61
11. LIC Policy Premium (Policy NO. Rs.48,615.00 112577376)
12. LIC Policy Premium (Policy NO. Rs.1,07,290.00 3300078000)
13. Payment made to Neha Travels Rs.1,200.00
14. Insurance payment for DD 9098 Fiat Car Rs.7,866.00
15. Insurance premium for house hold goods Rs.1,848.00
16. Electricity payment Rs.73,891.00
17. Non verifiable expenses Rs.4,78,178.00
18. Pragya Singhal's education in Spring Rs.69,942.00 Dales School Total expenses Rs.14,23,867/-State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.7/70 8
7. It is further the case of the prosecution is that during the investigation it was found that accused made investment in Kanak Durga Housing Society in which payment of installments to the tune of Rs.2,70,110/- were made from SB account no. 7853 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi while membership of the said flat was jointly acquired in the name of his mother in law Smt. Damyanti Devi and Ankur Singh who was not having any independent source of income. The prosecution gave credit of income tax deduction of Rs.45,316/- and deducted non- verifiable assets towards household and kitchen expenses to the extent of 1/3rd gross salary and income tax paid that worked out to Rs.6,43,369/- out of which expenditure on electricity for Rs. 73891 and clothing Rs.91,300/- were reduced and non verifiable expenditure of Rs.4,78,178/- was ultimately deducted. Having done that the police report i.e charge sheet prima facie brought out that the accused was having disproportionate income of Rs.20,94,306.65 that worked out to be 112% of the likely savings which arrived as under :
Total income, expenditure and likely savings and assets acquired during the course of check period as as follows:
TABLE - D S. Head Amounts State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.8/70 9 No .
1. Income of V. K. Singhal Rs.1871029.50 during the course of check period
2. Expenditure of V. K. Singhal Rs.1423867.61 during the course of check period
3. Likely savings of V. K. Rs.447161.89 Singhal
4. Assets acquired by V. K. Rs.2541468.54 Singhal during the check period
5. Disproportionate assets Rs.2094306.65 Income and Assessment of Smt. Sarojini Singhal
8. It is the case of the prosecution that during the investigation the income, expenditure and assets acquired by Smt. Sarojini Singhal were worked as under :
TABLE - E S. Head Amounts No .
1. Income Rs.1,516,290.67
2. Expenditure Rs.169,453.00
3. Likely savings Rs.13,46,837.67
4. Assets acquired during the check Rs.1,153,142.39 period
5. Surplus funds Rs.193,695.28
9. It is further brought out that she acquired Santro car of Rs.4,05,326/- for which she paid Rs.79,870/- by pay order drawn on Canara Bank , Karol Bagh and Rs.3,25,456/- was financed by M/s Associated India Finance Ltd. The valuation State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.9/70 10 of the jewellary found in locker was also done which came to be of Rs.51,436/-.
Income and Assessment of Smt. Damyanti Goel
10. During the investigation the income , expenditure and assets acquired by Smt. Damyanit Goel was also assessed as under:
TABLE - E S. Head Amounts No.
1. Income Rs.399,511
2. Expenditure Rs.82,193
3. Likely savings Rs.317,319
4. Assets acquired during the check Rs.267,407.11 period
5. Surplus funds Rs.49,911.89
11. In making such assessment rental income from house KH-74, Kavi Nagar, belonging to her late husband of Rs. 3,74,950/- was also accounted as her income. Final Conclusion of the charge sheet
12. It was thus concluded in the charge sheet that neither Smt. Sarojini Singhal nor Damyanti was in position to provide surplus fund to accused and thus as on 20.12.2000 he was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.20,94,306.65 which is about 112 % of his income from known sources of income in regard to which he failed to give State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.10/70 11 a satisfactory explanation.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
13. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 59 witnesses:
The witnesses to the house search and lockers search:
PW-1 was Mr. Sudershan Singh, Head Clerk, Commercial Branch, Baroda House, New Delhi who was associated during the search of the official residence of the accused on 10.11.2000 who deposed that observation memo Ex.PW 1/A was prepared during the search by the CBI which was signed by him and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- was seized by the CBI and valuation was done of the household items available in the house / flat and he also deposed that the documents which are Ex.P-1 to P-189 were seized during the search vide memo Ex.PW 1/B; PW-2 was Mr. Ram Mohan Rao, Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Gurudwara Road, Karoal Bagh Branch, New Delhi who deposed that locker no. D-98 jointly in the name of accused and his wife was searched in his presence in which besides cash of Rs.2,05,000/- some jewellary items were found which details were written vide memo Ex.PW 2/A; PW-3 was Mr. Ishwar Naik, Probation Officer, Canara Bank, Arya Samaj State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.11/70 12 Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi who deposed about the search of locker no. D-580, jointly in the name of Smt. Sarojini Singhal and Smt. Damyanti Goel that was searched in his presence in which besides cash of Rs.1,57,500/- besides some jewellary items were found which details were written vide memo Ex.PW 3/A;
Sanction for prosecution
14. PW. 4 was Mr. Bandhu Upadhaya, Assistant Vigilance Officer in the Ministry of Urban Development who deposed that sanction for prosecution was granted by the President of India being the Competent Authority which is Ex.PW 4/A dated 01.04.2004.
Immovable Properties
15. PW-5 was Mr. S. K. Tyagi, Private Secretary to Chairman in Delhi Urban Art Commission who was Secretary of TCPO Cooperative Group Housing Society. He deposed that he handed over certain documents to CBI vide Production cum seizure memo Ex.PW 5/A containing the payment details of flat No. AO-6 at Shalimar Bagh vide documents Ex.PW 5/B, Ex.PW 5/C and Ex.PW 5/D for total consideration of Rs. 2,15,675/- .
16. PW-54 was Mr. Udai Singh, Head Clerk from GDA. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.12/70 13
He deposed that document Ex.PW 54/A giving the details of payment by accused towards purchase of plot no. D-93, Swarn Jayanti Puram, Ghaziabad for Rs.4,35,127/- up to 10.11.2000.
17. PW-26 was Mr. A. Subramanyam a Governmental official who testified as the Vice President of Kanak Durga Housing Society, Dwarka stating that one residential flat was booked jointly in the name of smt. Damyanti Devi Goel and Ankur Singhal and he deposed about the payment details Ex.PW 26/B-1 to B-9 supplied by him to the CBI vide memo dt. 12.05.2003 Ex.PW 26/A showing that total amount of Rs. 2,70,110/- was paid.
Witnesses on income
18. PW-6 was Sh. Shyam Lal Mirg, LDC in DDA who proved the salary details of the accused from March 1980 till 10.11.2000 and there is no dispute that the total salary of the accused came to Rs. 12,32,780.15p.
Miscellaneous expenses and expenditure
19. PW-7 was Mr. Mukesh electrician carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Raj Auto Electrics Works at Shop No. 5, Mohan Singh Market, INA, New Delhi and proved a bill of Rs.655/- dated 30.04.1993 Ex.PW 7/1 for repair of the dynamo Fiat no. DDQ 9098; PW-8 was Mr. Madan Behl, State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.13/70 14 partner of shop at Karol Bagh who testified about a bill for purchase of Gas Stove for Rs.3300/- vide bill dt. 30.10.2001 Ex.PW 8/A; PW-9 was Mr. Ravi Ahuja, a shop keeper from Karol Bagh who proved bill of Rs. 3100/- towards purchase of 4 ladies suits on 05.08.2000 Ex.PW 9/A; PW 10 was Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Mechanic who proved repair charges for Rs. 450/-vide bill dt. 13.12.1992 Ex.PW 10/1 towards Fiat car DDQ 9098; PW 11 was Mr. Ravinder Kumar having an electronic shop at Karol Bagh deposing about sale of Videocon TV for Rs. 21,500/- in the name of Ms. Pragya Singhal vide receipt dated 12.06.1997 Ex.PW 11/1; PW 12 was Mr. Rakesh Arora a mechanic who proved payment of repair charges and replacement of certain motor parts amounting to Rs.384/- vide bill dt. 07.03.1992 Ex.PW 12/1 and Rs.538/- vide bill dt. 26.07.1992 Ex.PW 12/2; PW 13 was Mr. Bawa Tondon shop keeper at South Extn. who deposed about the sale of four sarees for Rs.4880/- on 09.04.2000 vide memo Ex.PW 13/A; PW 14 was Mr. Kamal Kishore who deposed about the sale of one tyre for Fiat DDQ 9098 amounting to Rs.350/- on 29.09.1993 Ex.PW 14/1; PW 15 was Mr. Arun kumar who testified about sale of one colour TV "Daewoo" to the accused for Rs.9,000/- on 02.06.1999 vide memo Ex.PW 15/A; State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.14/70 15 PW 16 was another shop keeper who testified about the sale of one Futura Cooker on 08.03.1997 for Rs.1400 vide memo Ex.PW 16/A; PW-24 was Mr. Rakesh Chander, Manager from Maruti Authorized Service Centre testified about payment of Rs.724 towards service of Fiat DDQ 9098 on 18.11.1993 and another bill Ex.PW 24/B for payment of Rs.293.83 on 02.03.1993; PW-27 was Mr. Subhash Sharma, Assistant Zonal Inspector, MCD who produced the house tax record of Flat No. 6, TCPO Housing Society, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi thereby pointing out that a sum of Rs.40,111/- as house tax was paid as per letter Ex.PW 27/A; PW-44 was Mr. Rajesh Kumar who deposed about getting paid hire charges of taxi on 05.12.1999 for Rs.461/- and on 15.12.1999 Rs.750/- by the accused vide receipts Ex.PW 44/A and Ex.PW 44/B respectively. Bank witnesses
20. PW-17 was Mr. V. D. Singhla, Sr. Manager from Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh branch who deposed supplying details of bank accounts by the accused and his family members vide memo dt. 08.03.2001 Ex.PW 17/A. He deposed about joint account no. 1168 in the joint name of Smt. Damyanit Devi and Ankur Singhal having a fixed deposit for Rs.25,216/- dt. 14.03.1998; another FD of Rs.40,000/- jointly State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.15/70 16 in the name of Sarojini with her son Ankur dated 01.07.2000 and third fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 01.07.2000 of accused with his son Ankur Singhal which document were proved Ex.PW 17/B and Ex.PW 17/C respectively ; PW -20 was Mr. D. S. Arora. Sr. Manager from PNB. He deposed that accused jointly with his wife subscribed two mutual funds scheme EGC 9608598 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.P-118; and Ex.P-119 each on 31.05.1996 ;PW -22 was Mr. V. K. Goel Sr. Manager from Indian Overseas Bank who deposed that accused was having a joint account with his wife no. 7451 from 1996 to Oct.2000 Ex.PW 22/A having credit balance of Rs 24,623/- as on as per statement of account Ex.PW 22/C; PW 25 was Mr. J. R. Ralhan, Manager State Bank of India, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi who deposed that accused was having account no. 2457 as on 10.11.2000 with a balance of Rs.98,985.71 as per statement of account Ex.PW 25/B on which he gained interest of Rs.8945.57; PW-33 was Mr. K. C. Sharma Manager from Central Bank of India during the relevant time posted at Vikas Sadan Branch. He deposed that accused jointly with Damyanti Goel A/c no. 1458 opened on 02.09.1987 and the same was closed on 06.03.1991 and after closure of the said account, the entire amount was State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.16/70 17 transferred to the account no. 2321 in the name of the accused in their branch and the credit balance as on 10.11.2000 was of Rs. 34,834/- with accrued interest of Rs.3676/- that documents are Ex.P-34 to P-36; PW-39 was Mr. Attar Singh Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce. He deposed that accused was having account no. 11020 with their bank branch at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and credit balance as on 10.11.2000 was of Rs.56,387.60 and interest of Rs.4155/- had been credited till 10.11.2000 which is Ex.PW 39/A-5 and he proved certified copy of the statement of the account from the year 01.04.1997 onwards that are Ex.PW 39/A-1 to A-7. He deposed that another account was being maintained jointly with Damyanti Goel no. 5050 in which balance as on 10.11.2000 was of Rs. 36,839/- and interest of Rs.3615.20 had been credited till date as per statement Ex.PW 39/J in the same branch certified copy of the statement of which were proved Ex.PW 39/B-1 to B-2. He deposed about the third bank account no. 7853 in the name of Ankur Singhal with accused as the guardian and balance of Rs.29,506/-with interest of Rs.5281.80 had been credited till 10.11.2000 Ex.PW 39/K opened on 26.06.1997 which documents are Ex.PW 39/C to F.; PW-43 was Mr. S. Krishnamurthi, Chief Manager from ICICI bank Ltd. His State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.17/70 18 evidence is similar to PW-32 Mr. L. N. Rajan, Dy. General Manager from Infotech Ltd. who corroborated about the deposits made by the accused, his wife and son in ICICI bonds; PW-45 was Mr. G. Rajenderan, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank in the year 2002. He testified that account KD 0162/00 was opened in the joint name of accused with his wife Sarojini Singhal on 31.01.2000 for Rs.37,889/- but the same was prematurely withdrawn on 14.03.2001 and amount of Rs. 41,552/- was paid which included the interest of Rs.3,000/- upto 10.11.2000. He further testified that another account KD 163/00 in the joint name of accused with his wife opened on 13.01.2000 for the same amount which was prematurely withdrawn on 13.01.2000 amounting to Rs.41,552/- including the interest of Rs.3,000/- up to 10.11.2000. He further deposed about the third account KD 1172/1999 opened in the name of Smt. Damyanti Devi on 30.10.1999 for Rs.25,000/- with maturity date of 30.10.2000 closed prematurely on 14.03.2001 and amount of Rs.27,862/- was paid with interest of Rs.1420/- till 10.11.2000; PW -53 was Mr. N. Rajendran, Manager Vijaya Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi who testified about the joint account no. 15961 opened by the accused along with his wife on 21.05.2000 proving account opening form Ex.P-25 and State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.18/70 19 leter Ex.P-53/A whereby the Branch Manager delivered several documents concerning the bank account that are Ex.PW 53/A-1 to A-4 and suffice to state that as per statement Ex.PW 53/A it came out that credit balance in the account on 11.12.2000 was Rs.9926/- with interest of Rs.66 only.
Shares and debentures
21. PW-18 was Mr. Kaushik Prushtoma Shah, Manager from M/s JSW Steel Ltd. who deposed that accused jointly with his wife invested in 100 shares of the company @ of Rs. 100 thereby totalling Rs.10,000/- and earning a dividend of Rs. 1350 for the year 1994-95 to 1999 to 2000 which document is Ex.PW 18/A; PW 19 was Mr. B. Shankar, Manager with Larsen and Toubro Ltd. proving Ex.PW 19/A to the effect that accused subscribed 50 shares of the company for total amount of Rs.3,000/- and deriving dividend of Rs.2519/-; PW 21 was Mr. P. R. Sonawane, Company Secretary from Ajanta Pharma Ltd. who deposed that accused jointly with his wife was allotted shares in April 2000 who paid Rs.22,500/- on application money and Rs.10,000/- subsequently on allotment thereby totalling Rs.22,500/- and dividend of Rs.160 plus Rs. 142/- up to year 2000-2001 was earned which document are as proved Ex.PW 21/A and Ex.PW 21/B; PW 23 was Mr. Santosh State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.19/70 20 B. Kadam, Assistant Manager MCS Ltd. who deposed that accused applied of 100 partly convertible debentures of MRPL in 1992 and allotted 50 PCDs and paid Rs. 3500 on application of Rs.3250 on allotment which documents are Ex.PW 23/A to Ex.PW 23/C and he deposed that accused was paid total amount of Rs.8408 as dividend stock interest; PW -28 was Mr. C. S. Ashok Kumar , Company Secretary Areva T&D Ltd. formerly Alstom Ltd. who deposed that accused V. K. Singhal and his wife were allotted 26 shares of GEC Alstom India Ltd. company @ Rs.50 per share vide share certificate Ex.P-37 to P-40 on 28.07.1994 as per letter Ex.PW 28/A and they were paid dividend of Rs.136 for the period 31.03.1993 to 31.03.1997; PW- 29 was Mr. Abraham K. George, Assistant General Manager who deposed that accused was allotted 300 shares @ Rs.100 of M/s Vashisti Detergent Ltd. that merged with Hindustan Lever Ltd. and thus total amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as per share Ex.P-163 to P-165; PW -30 was Mr. Sunil Gohnani in security business who testified that accused jointly with his wife subscribed to 19 shares of M/s Reliance India Ltd. which were purchased from Usha Garg on 27.04.1993 for consideration of Rs. 4000/- vide letter Ex.PW 30/C. He further deposed that accused jointly with his wife State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.20/70 21 purchased 24 shares for Rs. 4600/- as on 01.08.1993 vide certificate Ex.P-119 to P-143; PW-31 was Mr. Raj Mohindra, Secretarial officer from M/s BTW Industries Ltd. He deposed that 100 shares each were subscribed by the accused and his wife separately @ of Rs.10 of M/s BTW Industries Ltd. as per document P-18 and P-19 which details supplied to the CBI letters Ex.PW 31/A & Ex.PW 31/B; PW 32 was Mr. L. N. Rajan Dy. General Manager of M/s Infotech Ltd. He deposed that he supplied details to CBI vide letter dated 17.09.2001 Ex.PW 32/A to the effect that accused jointly with his wife subscribed to 10 shares of Rs. 100/- each with a premium of Rs. 100 each share in 1991 and paid total amount of Rs.2,000/- besides getting allotted 5 debentures @ Rs.200 each in the year 1992 and another lot of 05 dividends for Rs.400 each. He deposed that dividend amount of Rs.7251.60 was paid during the period 1992 to 2001 and the shares certificate and dividend proved as P-70 to P-74. The witness also deposed that the FD made by the accused and his family members in ICICI bonds which details supplied to the CBI vide letter Ex.PW 32/C. He deposed that accused V. K. Singhal invested Rs.52,000/- in the year 1997 and interest of Rs.16,284.08 was paid to him up to 2001, Rs.50,000/- were deposited by Mrs. Sarojini Singhal for State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.21/70 22 the year 2001 and she earned interest of Rs.10,309.08. Further he deposed that investment in the name of Ankur Singhal for the year 1997 for Rs. 35,000/- on which interest of Rs. 12,444.47 was paid up to 2001; PW-35 was Mr. Hiten Koradia, Sr. Executive in Tata Telecom Services. He deposed that accused applied jointly with his wife and got allotted 1500 shares at a face value of Rs.12 totalling Rs.18,000/- of the company which document Ex.PW 35/1 to 15; PW-36 was Mr. Chander Shaker, Company Secretary from K. C. Software Ltd. He deposed that accused was having 500 shares @ Rs.10 as per application form Ex.PW 36/B and the shares were issued to him on 01.05.2000; PW-37 was Mr. S. K. Gupta, who was authorized representative of M/s Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. He deposed that accused jointly with his wife was allotted 200 shares @ Rs.10 on 03.05.1993 and was paid dividend Rs.750 during the year 1997-98 as per detail Ex.PW 37/B given to the CBI Ex.PW 37/A; PW -38 was Mr. A. K. Bansal from Transport Corporation India Ltd. Gurgaon who deposed that accused was allotted 33 shares @ Rs.10 which is Ex.PW 30/B and dividend of Rs.210 was for the year 1996 to November 2000; PW -40 was Mr. Subhash Dey from Tata Metallic Kolkata who deposed that accused jointly with his wife State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.22/70 23 subscribed to 100 shares of face value of Rs.3400/- as per transfer deed Ex.PW 40/B and certificate Ex.PW 40/C which details were given to the CBI on 18.04.2002 vide memo Ex.PW 40/A; PW-42 was Mr. Samir Kumar Dutta Officer from M/s Century Kolkata who deposed that accused and his wife having 200 shares from Rajshrre Ltd. which were merged Century Enka in the year 1998 and shares were issued in M/s Centary Enka Ltd., in the ratio of 20: 01 which was having a face value of Rs.100 plus Rs.30 as premium; PW-57 was Mr. Prasanta Sen, Supervisor in ABC Computer Pvt. Ltd. and in reference to letter Ex.PW 57/A, he deposed that 100 shares were allotted jointly to accused along with his wife amounting to Rs.2500/- in M/s. Super Forging and Steel Ltd.. He further testified about dividend income of Rs.91.96 for the year 1993-94 and Rs.160 for the period 1994-95 vide letter Ex. PW 57/B and the share certificate prove as Ex.P-150 and P-151; PW-59 was Mr. Bhupender Singh, Assistant Manager from UTI. He supplied information to the State CBI regarding investment by accused with others Ex.PW 59/A thereby bringing out that Ms. Pragya Sinhgal was allotted 1170.18 units under US 64 Scheme. He testified that accused was allotted 200 units under Master Gain 1982 Scheme as detailed State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.23/70 24 in Annexure 1 & 2 of document Ex.PW 50/A. He further deposed that accused jointly with his wife was allotted 200 units as per Annexure 3 of the said document Ex,.PW 50/A-1 to A-4.
Educational expenses
22. PW-41 was Shiv Kumar Duggal, Administrative Officer from Bal Bharti Public School, Sir Ganga Ram Marg, who deposed that master Ankur Singhal was admitted in the school in Class 3rd on 17.09.1985 studied up to 1996. He proved payment of fees as per letter Ex.PW 14/B for Rs.30,540 and Rs.50 as admission charge vide Rs.500 as caution money;
23. PW-34 was Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Accountant from Springdales School, Pusa Road, New Delhi who produced the record of tuition fee and another payment as detail Ex.PW 34/B in regard to education of Prajya Singhal w.e.f. 1986 -87 to 1999-2000 from Class Nursery to Class 12th for total amount of Rs.69,142/- plus Rs.450/- as examination fee; Insurance Policies
24. PW-46 was Mr. H. K. Deepak, Assistant Manager from LIC. He testified that accused had a LIC policy no. 110104375 subscribed on 28.01.1988 to mature in January 2008 and till November 2000 premium of Rs.87,829.20 was paid @ of Rs. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.24/70 25 6756.10 per annum proved vide letter Ex.P-24; PW-47 was Mr. Om Prakash, Assistant Administrative Officer from LIC. He testified about three policies by wife no. 112581669 from March 1999 to March 2003 with annual premium @ Rs. 9,716/- totalling Rs.18,580/- ; policy no. 112577376 from February 1999 to February 2003 @ of Rs.9723/- per year in the name of Ms. Pragya Singhal that documents are Ex.P-21A to Ex.P-23 but nothing was deposed about the third policy no. 24198940;
Payment of Income Tax
25. PW-48 was Mr. Jaikrit Singh Bhandari,who was an accountant with M/s Rajneesh and Associates that has been filing Income Tax Returns for the accused since 1984. He testified that during the period 1984-2001 accused paid Income Tax to the tune of Rs.1,81,183/- which is admitted by the accused.
Re -Payment of House Loan
26. PW-49 was Mr. Gora Sarkar, UDC, who testified that accused had taken house building allowance of Rs.1,25,000/- as per document Ex.PW 49/A-1 and recovery of Rs.960/- per month started w.e.f. July 1998 and total installment of Rs.130 were paid while last installment was for Rs.200/-. He testified State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.25/70 26 that thereafter recovery of interests started @ of Rs.1,000/- per month from June 1999 till April 2000 and Rs.5,000/- from May 2000 to February 2001 and the balance amount of interest of Rs.14078/- was paid in lump sum on 10.04.2001. He further testified that Rs.20,000/- were availed by the accused as conveyance allowance in February 1982 and further proved the statement regarding deduction of income tax from salary of the accused which are Ex.PW 49/B-1 to B-2 besides Ex.PW 49/C. CBI officials
27. PW-50 was Mr. S. Balasubramanium, Inspector in the ACB during the period 2002-2004 who was entrusted with the investigation in the year 2003 and testified about recording the testimony of certain witnesses besides collecting documents that are Ex.PW 50/A including Ex.PW 50/A-1 to A-4 up till Ex.PW 50/F.; PW -51 was Inspector Surender Malik who was member of the CBI team that conducted search of the official residence of the accused and also search of the lockers on 12.11.2000 and ultimately after making inquiries submitted a complaint with the SP concerned resulting in the lodging of the present FIR; PW -52 was Inspector Shobha Dutta who during the investigation of this case was instructed to go to Mumbai to collect evidence in regard to share holdings of the accused and State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.26/70 27 submitted a report to the main IO; PW-55 was Mr. Nirbhay Kumar who was a member of the CBI that conducted search at the residence of the accused on 10.11.2000 and later of the Lockers at the bank on 12.11.2000; PW-56 was Inspector A. K. Singh who submitted that he was handed over investigation on 24.06.2004 and he obtained order granting sanction for prosecution from the Competent Authority against the accused and filed charge sheet in the court; PW-58 was Inspector A. K. Sharma, who during the investigation recorded statement of few witnesses.
Statement of accused
28. On the close the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined as per Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence brought on record were put to him. Suffice to state that accused submitted that the cash recovered at the time of search of his house of the locker totalling Rs.5,16,770/- belonged to his mother in law. As regards jewellary found during the search of the house besides locker no. 580, he submitted that the same were received by his wife at the time of marriage and subsequently acquired by her out of her personal savings or gifted to her on family occasions . In so far as jewellary that was recovered in locker D-98 he submitted that the same belonged to his mother in law. No State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.27/70 28 dispute was raised as regards acquisition of property A-06, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi and plot at Swaran Jyanti Puram Yojna, Ghaziabad, UP but it was disputed that Kanka Durga CGHS Ltd., Gazipur, was acquired by him and he stated that it was acquired by his mother in law. The accused did not deny about the investment in shares and debentures of different companies. He admitted only insurance policy P-24 no. 110104375 but disputed the other policies except for the one in the name of his wife no. 112581669. The investment in FD was attributed by him to his wife and he submitted that there was sufficient surplus of funds available with his wife during the check period while her mother in law contributed towards the up bringing and education of his son Ankur Singhal. The accused admitted about credit balance in his few bank accounts and stated that he received rental income of Rs. 4,23,400/- during the check period.
29. Accused in his defence, examined his wife Sarojini Singh as DW-1 who deposed that she earned total salary Rs. 11,50,000/- from 1991 till November 2000 besides Rs. 2 lakh as Teacher Incharge for imparting extra classes. She admitted about purchase of Santro car and deposed that she withdrew Rs.43,000/- from her GPF. She also deposed about the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.28/70 29 properties and income of her mother who was examined as DW-4. DW-2 was Suresh Singhal, brother of the accused who deposed that accused was paid Rs. 6 lakhs on partition of family business during the check period; DW-3 was Pradeep Kumar Goel, who claimed that his deceased father Sohal Lal was running a partnership firm with Smt. Damyanti Devi as one of the partner and the firm was making huge profits; DW-5 was Bankim Bhatt who was a witness from M/s Meeka Machinery Pvt. Ltd. who deposed that Ankur Singhal was employed as Liasioning Representative in their bank in the year 1999 he was paid total remuneration of Rs.1,43,467/-; DW- 6 was Mr. O. P. Gutpa, Administrative Officer from Janki Devi Mahavidhyala , Rajinder Nagar who produced service book of smt. Sarojini Singhal Ex.DW 6/A and produced copy of the withdrawal form Ex. DW 6/B to the effect that Rs. 43,000/- were withdrawn by her from GPF account on 27.12.1999.
30. I have heard Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI) and Ld.Defence Counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record carefully and minutely besides going through the written submission filed by the defence and the case law. PROPOSITION OF LAW State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.29/70 30
31. Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act provides as under:
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionation to his known sources of income.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, "known sources of income"
means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
32. In the case of V. K. Puri v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(6) S.C.C. 91 : 2007 Cri.L.J. 2929, the conditions essential to bring a case u/section Section 13 ( 1 )( e ) of the PC Act were laid down as under :-
(1) The accused is a public servant;
(2) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;
(3) His known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution. (4) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. (5) The aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.
33. It has been reiterated time and again by the Superior Courts that a liberal view must be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportionate" for Sec. 13(1)(e)of the Act. As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, the meaning of 'disproportionate' is " too large or too small when compared with something else". Thus, in order to hold a person guilty for possession of disproportionate assets, the difference should be too large or unconscionable and not too small or trivial. As State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.30/70 31 regards what constitutes "known sources of income," in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 CRI. L. J. 598, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:
The expression 'known sources of income' in S. 13 has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the accused, within the meaning of S. 106. The phrase 'known sources of income' in S. 13(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word 'income.' It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wise the import and connotation of the term 'income,' it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income.' Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' of a public servant. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'satisfactorily account.' The emphasis must be on the word 'satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
(Paras 5, 6, 7)
6. The phrase "known sources of income" in S.1 3(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word "income." It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and has a State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.31/70 32 wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income," it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income."
Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant.
7. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account." The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy or acceptance.
34. Same view has been reiterated by their lordships of the Apex Court in the case of N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A. P." 2009 CRI. L. J. 1767.
Burdern of Proof:
35. Before we proceed to decide this case, it would be expedient to point out that it is the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and in doing so the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness in the case of the defence. The nature and extent of burden of proof u/s 5(1)(e) of PC Act analogous to Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act came up for discussion before the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar" AIR 1981 SC 1186 State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.32/70 33 wherein it was held that:
" That takes us to the difficult question as to the nature and extent of the burden of proof under Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act. The expression ' burden of proof' has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden, i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i. e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by Jaw upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 5 (1) (e); namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature, and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i. e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5 (1) (e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under Section 5 (1)
(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in AIR 1966 SC 1762 i. e. to establish his case by a preponderance of probability.
That test was laid down by the Court following the dictum of Viscount Sankey, L. C. in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1935) AC 462. The High Court has placed an impossible burden on the prosecution to disprove all possible sources of income which were within the special knowledge of the accused. As laid down in AIR 1960 SC 7, the prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of a public servant found in possession of resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, i. e. his salary. Those will be matters specially within the knowledge of the public servant within the meaning of S. 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 reads :
Section 106. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.33/70 34
In this connection, the phrase the burden of proof is clearly used in the secondary sense, namely, the duty of introducing evidence. The nature and extent of the burden cast on the accused is well settled. The accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt. All that he need do is to bring out a preponderance of probability."
Explanation of accused:
36. In regard to what is the nature and extent of explanation to be rendered by the accused, the Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 inter alia held while dealing with a case of Prevention of Corruption Act that:
"......Another question which arises is that what are the standards to be employed in order to judge the truth or falsily of the version given by the defence. Should the accused prove its case with the same amount of rigour and certainity, as the prosecution is required, to prove and criminal charge, or it is sufficient if the accused puts forward a probable or reasonable explanation which is sufficient to throw doubt on the prosecution case?"
".....The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. Infact, from the cardinal principles, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove its case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Sec. 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him , there is doubt on the prosecution case and therefore, the prosecution cannot said to have been established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the move of proving by standard of benefit of doubt is not applicable to the accused where he is called upon to prove its case or to prove the exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. It is sufficient to the defence to give a version probable with the prosecution version for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on the prosecution case and rejection by the Court."
Check period:
37. In State of Maharashtra v. Porabjee Pollanji State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.34/70 35 Daruwala, AIR 1988 SC 88, it was inter alia held that:
"It is for the prosecution to choose what according to it is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public servant in amassing wealth and characterise and isolate that period for special scrutiny. It is for the public servant to satisfactorily account for the apparently disproportionate nature of his possession. Once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct by proving, by the standard of criminal evidence, that the public servant is, or was at any time during the period of his offence, in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his sources of income known to the prosecution, the prosecution discharges its burden of proof and the burden of proof is lifted from the shoulders of the prosecution and descends upon the shoulders of the defence. It then becomes necessary for the public servant to satisfactorily account for the possession of such properties and pecuniary resources. It is erroneous to predicate that the prosecution should also disprove the existence of the possible sources of income of the public servant".
38. With the said proposition of law at the back of our mind, let us see what is meant by "Proved". Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines "Proved" as follows:
"Proved".- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence on probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists."
39. Further, Section 114 of the Evidence act reads as follows:
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
40. Thus, the fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the Court believes it to exist, State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.35/70 36 or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exits. In coming to its belief the Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened having regard to the natural course of event, human conduct and public and private business,in relation to the facts of each case. At the outset, I do not find any merit in the submission of ld .Defence counsel that presumption u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted u/s 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Reference can be had to the case of K. Poonuswamy v. State of Tamilnadu , AIR 2001 SC 2464, 2001 Cri LJ 3960, in which their lordships found a visible pattern where the mother in law was used as conduit for ill gotten money. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
41. Adverting to the instant case, the whole explanation of the accused as against the case of the prosecution is that his wife and mother in law have been earning more than sufficiently to supplement his income and thereby possess the assets that the prosecution claim to be in excess of his known source of income. 'Behind every successful man, stands a surprised mother in law",is a quote attributed to Voltaire. As per the accused there was a proud wife as well. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.36/70 37 We may first have a look into the income, expenditure and acquisition of assets by the wife and mother in law of the accused in order to see if the explanation rendered by the accused is probable or a reasonable one and satisfactory explained. The appreciation of evidence brought on the record and assessment of all items are done in three parts which is as under:
PART -I Income, expenditure and assets acquired by Smt. Sarojini Singhal during the check period 01.04.1981 to 10.11.2000.
(i) Income/earnings
42. Table E in this judgment copied from the charge sheet reflects that Smt. Sarojini Singhal, wife of the accused earned total income of Rs.15,16,290/- . The charge sheet does not spell out as to the various items that led to the assessment of such income. Any how, I believe the testimony of DW1 to the effect that she earned total salary of Rs.11,50,000/- although no documentary evidence is led in this regard. Believing the evidence of DW6, I also allow credit of Rs.43,000/- withdrawn by Smt. Sarojini Singhal from GPF account on 27.12.1999 as per Ex.DW6/B besides admission of car loan amount of Rs. 3,25,456/-. However, I do not find any substance in the evidence that Rs.2 lakhs were earned by her as a Teacher State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.37/70 38 Incharge apart from payment of regular assignments for holding two classes in a day. There is led no documentary evidence in this regard and nothing about it is reflected in the service book Ex.DW6/A that any extra amount or honorarium was paid to her by the college and it would be safe to conclude that total amount of Rs.11,50,000/- includes not only the salary but any honorarium for checking of examination papers or for holding extra classes. The total income thus comes to Rs. 15,18,456. (Rs.11,50,000 + 43,000 + 3,25,456).
(ii) Expenditure
43. As regards expenditure during the check period, I do not find any basis in the case of the prosecution for arriving at the figure of Rs.1,69,453/- as given in the charge sheet. The evidence brought on record brings out that she subscribed to an insurance policy no.112581669 with LIC w.e.f. 28.03.1999 and paid total amount of Rs.18,580/-. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 79,870/- was contributed towards purchase of Santro Car . Further, if the version of accused is believed, the education expenses in regard to daughter Pragya Singhal were borne by his wife. Total amount spent on educational expenses comes to Rs.1,49,702/- arrived as under:
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.38/70 39
Education in Springdales Ex.PW 36/B Rs.69,142/- Education in JCC Academy(D-24) Rs.68,560/- Technical education in Sahil Study Centre Rs.12,000/-
__________
Total Rs.1,49,702/-
44. One can also presume having regard to the natural course of events, human conduct, public and private business that the car loan must have been re-paid with interest and having regard to the market rate of interest which must have prevailed over the years roughly @ 6% to 12% p.a, a moderate figure of Rs.4 lakhs can be assessed towards repayment of car loan. Further, the prosecution in the charge sheet has not deducted any amount from the salary of Smt. Sarojini Singhal as "non verifiable" expenses but that cannot prevent this court from taking such approach as it would conform to natural course of human conduct and requirement of modern day living. To my mind, where wife is a working woman, it could be reasonably inferred that she would also spend some amount on herself for the purposes of her wearing clothes & apparels, on text books, some electronic gadgets, transportation, entertainment etc. here and there. A working woman, particularly teaching in a prestigious university, would be required to maintain a descent standard State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.39/70 40 of life. It may noted that the case of the accused is that jewelery valuing Rs. 1,73,001/- recovered at the time of house search and if the plea of the defence is believed, the same was acquired by his wife out of her personal income. In such a scenario, I do not see why less than 1/4th from the income be not deducted towards such expenses, which comes to Rs.2,98,000/- approximately.
45. Lastly, as per the service records of the accused Ex. P-1 she appeared to have advanced friendly loan of Rs. 72,442/-
to her husband as per sanction order 21.04.1988 and later advanced Rs. 46,672/- at the time of purchase of the residential flat at Shalimar Bagh, and Rs. 20.000/- at the time of purchase of Fiat car DDQ 9098. Therefore, the total expenditure during the check period comes as under:
Insurance Rs. 18,580/-
Purchase of Car Rs. 79,870/-
Educational Exp. Rs.1,49,702/-
Car Loan Rs.4,00,000/-
Non-verifiable expense Rs.2,98,000/-
Personal loan to husband Rs. 1,39,116/-
-------------------
Total Rs. 10,85,266/-
iii ASSETS
46. That brings us to assets, which as per the charge sheet State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.40/70 41 are alleged to be to the tune of Rs.11,53,142.29p. The State (CBI) in arriving at such figures, has taken the value of Santro Car Rs.4,05,326/-; value of the jewellery recovered from the locker maintained in Indian Overseas Bank @ Rs.51,436/- besides jewellery recovered and valued at the time of house search amounting Rs.1,73,001/-. If the prosecution case is believed , there were fixed deposits to the tune of Rs.1,73,566/- and cash in bank to the tune of Rs.1,06,300/- found as on 10.11.2000 as per details in Annexures I and II in the charge sheet, thereby totalling Rs.2,79,866/-. The total of the said items, if the prosecution case is believed, comes to Rs. 9,09,629/- much less than the amount of Rs.11,53,142/- reflected in Table E.
47. Any how, taking a liberal, and for the evidence that is brought on record, I assess only item nos.1 and 2 above as the same are admitted plus Rs.1,05,000.00 towards the Fixed Deposits proved vide ExPW45/A, Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW50/A & B. Thus, the sum total of value of the assets comes to Rs. 5,61,762.00. If to the said assessment of assets, expenditure of Rs.10,61,266.00 is added, it comes to Rs.16,23,026.00, which is much beyond the income/earnings of Rs.15,18,456.00 and thereby amply demonstrating the case of the prosecution that State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.41/70 42 the wife of the accused had no surplus income which could be used or applied towards purchase of other assets and valuables by her husband. It is pertinent to mention here that this court has not taken into account the various bills which have been proved on the record towards purchases of sarees and jewelleries and has adopted a liberal path for bringing such purchases within the ambit of non verifiable expenses. Further, this court has not reckoned and left so many house hold items, such as wearing apparels etc,. which are reflected in the Observation Memo Ex.PW1/B. The crux of the entire discussion is that even accepting the explanation of the accused, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that any surplus income was available with his wife for purchase of various assets and valuables. Thus, having regard to natural course of human conduct, behaviour and life experience, keeping in mind that in a traditional Hindu family, the father is the provider of all the basic necessities of life, I find the educational expenses in regard to daughter Pragya Singhal should also be attributed to the accused.
PART -II Income, expenditure and assets acquired by Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel (mother in law of accused) during the check period.
(I) INCOME / EARNINGS State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.42/70 43
48. The prosecution case is that Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel earned rental income of Rs.3,74,950/- from premises no. KH-74 Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad belonging to her late husband. Dw4 Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel on the contrary deposed that she earned rental income of Rs.8 lakhs from the said property, which is not made out in the absence of proving any rent deed or counter-foils of the rent receipts nor was examined any of the tenants. Mere corroboration by DW1 Smt. Sarojini Singhal that such rental income was earned by her mother does not cut much ice as she was obviously an interested witness, who would not go against her mother and obviously testified with the mindset of her pious obligation to save her husband.
49. DW4 then testified that her deceased husband was working as a Chief Librarian in the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University and at the time of his death, he was earning Rs.2500/- per month and after his death she received Rs.2,50,000/- on account of Provident Fund and gratuity besides Rs.40,000/- as insurance. But no documentary evidence is brought on the record in this regard. Further, nothing is brought forth as to the source or how and when the property KH-74 Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP was acquired.
50. DW4 Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel also testified that she State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.43/70 44 was having a plot in Indra Puri, Loni in her name, which was sold by her for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Well, no documentary evidence has been brought on record worth the name. No evidence is produced about source of funds for acquisition of the said property. She also testified that she was a partner in a firm as per document Ex.DW1/D and used to receive profit of Rs.20,000 to Rs.30,000/- every year and received Rs.6 lakhs in total during the check period. I am afraid it is difficult to believe such evidence. The document Ex.DW1/D is an unregistered partnership deed, unsupported by any document that could corroborate that a genuine partnership was in vogue. No audited books of accounts of the firm were produced or shown to raise an inference that any genuine partnership was going on out of which DW4 was receiving any share or income. The whole evidence appears to be a total fabrication and product of after thought on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence.
51. Thus the income of Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel comes to Rs.3,74,950/- and add to that the interest income in various bank accounts I do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case that her income during the check period comes to Rs. 3,95,511/-.
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.44/70 45
(ii) Expenditure
52. As regards expenses, the allegations in the charge sheet that it amounted to Rs.82,193/-, the evidence on the record shows that she lent Rs. 23,000/ to the accused at the time of purchase of the residential flat at Shalimar Bagh as per sanction order dated Ex. P-1 and if the version of accused is believed as brought in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., her mother in law bore the expenses for the education of Ankur Singhal amounting to Rs.6,235/- in Cambridge School plus Rs.31,490/- in Bal Bharti School, Pusa Road, New Delhi and spent Rs. 1,51,127 on his Engineering Education in Malegaon(D-28) which comes to Rs.1,88,852/-. Taking a liberal view, we may assume the expenditure of Rs.1,88,852/- instead of Rs.82,193/- also for the fact that the old lady also must be spending some amount on herself and her maternal grand children.
53. As regards the acquisition of assets, it is admitted that she acquired a residential plot at Kanaka Durga CGHS Limited as per document Ex.PW22/B-1 to B-9 for a sum of Rs. 2,70,110/-. The case of the accused is that the cash amount found at the time of the search of the house and cash in the lockers belonged to his mother in law. Assuming that to be correct for the sake of his plea, evidence brought by the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.45/70 46 prosecution vide Ex.PW17/A shows that she was having a joint bank account no.1168 in Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi w.e.f. 14.03.1998 having a credit balance of Rs. 25,216/- as on 10.11.2000. Evidence is also brought on the record that the mother in law was having a joint bank account no.7416 in Bank of Maharashtra, Malegaon with Ankur Singhal apart from 1996 to 09.06.2000 in which as on 10.11.2000 there was a credit balance of Rs.91,348/- vide statement of account Ex. PW50/E. It is also in the evidence of PW45 that a FD of Rs.25,000/- was made by her on 30.10.1999 with Canara Bank. The final financial position that emerges in the case of Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel is as under :-
INCOME Rental + Interest Income - Rs.3,95,511.00 EXPENDITURE Loan to accused VK Singhal - Rs. 23,000.00 Educational expenses of Ankur Singh (Cambridge School (D-25)(Ex.PW41/A) Rs.6,235.00 +Bal Bharti Public School Rs.31,490.00 + College of Engg.,Malegaon D-28) Rs.1,15,127.00) - Rs.2,01,852.00 ASSETS Kanak Durga CGHS Ltd. - Rs.2,70,110.00 State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.46/70 47 Bank Credit as on 10.11.2000 - Rs.1,16,564.00 Fixed Deposits - Rs. 25,000.00 Cash items of house search and Locker search - Rs.5,16,270.00 Total - Rs.9,27,945.00
54. Well, if the case of the accused is believed, as against the income of Rs.3,99,511/- the mother in law was having total assets of Rs.9,27,944/- further accounting for the expenses borne by her on the education of Ankur Singhal and leaving aside the credit balance in 7 bank accounts totalling Rs.2,20,584/- as given in Annexures I and II in the charge sheet besides the value of gold ornaments/jewellary. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that it is difficult to discern that Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel, mother in law of accused, had any surplus earnings to support the financial hands of the accused. When such view is taken, the conclusion is inescapable that the cash amount of Rs.
5,16, 270/- found at the time of search was the ill gotten money of the accused. I further conclude that expenditure on the education of son Ankur Singhal should be attributed to the accused for him being the provider of basic amenities of life as per customs and conventions of our dharma and societal norms.
PART -III State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.47/70 48 Income, Expenditure and Assets of accused VK Singhal, during the check period.
(I) Salary Income
55. As per evidence of PW6 total gross salary income of Rs.
12,32,780.15 during the check period is not disputed by the accused. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the plea of the accused is that he withdrew Rs.33,000/- from the GPF in the year 1990 but no evidence is brought by him on the record in this regard. The plea of the accused that Rs.16,000/- came to him from one of his LIC policy getting matured is also not substantiated by any document.
56. The service records of the accused were admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C by him which are Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-7. Ex.P-1 (D-2) is the service file of the accused which contains the documents regarding the compliance with rule 16 (4) of the CCS Conduct Rules that shows that sanction was accorded on 21.04.1988 to the accused to avail loan of Rs.50,000/- from Canara Bank of Rs.6600/ from LIC besides allowing him to take personal loan of Rs.72,442/- from his wife and Rs.23,000/- from mother in law besides loan from 3 other persons / friends viz. of Rs. 8400/-, Rs.13,105/- and Rs.4205/- totalling of Rs.1,77,762.50. This can be included in the earnings of the accused except Rs. 50,000/ for the fact that no documentary evidence is led that State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.48/70 49 such loan was actually acquired and if acquired how or in what manner repaid.
57. The file Ex.P-1 (D-2) further shows that sanction was granted on 04.01.1991 by the Competent Authority to enable the accused to purchase flat no.A06, TCPO, Shalimar by availing loan of Rs.1,25,000/- besides availing personal loan from wife Smt. Sarojini Singhal of Rs.46,672/- and allowing the accused to contribute Rs.53,156/- from his personal savings. Then on 11.10.1991 accused was allowed to purchase Fiat DDQ 9098 for Rs.90,000/- as per permission sought by the accused. He contributed Rs.21,500/- from personal saving;Rs.18,500/- were received from sale of his old car; Rs. 20,000/- was taken as loan from his wife and Rs.30,000/- from other friends or relatives.
58. It is pertinent to mention here that the File P-1 (D-2) further shows that last time the return was filed by the accused on 27.05.1992 in which besides giving details of his flat at Shalimar and the fiat car, he only mentioned about the NSC of Rs.10,000/- procured on 08.01.1991 and units in UTI amounting to Rs.10,000/- in the same year but in the subsequent successive year till 11.12.2000, the accused filed returns to the fact that there has been no acquisition by him State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.49/70 50 over Rs.10,000/-.
59. The case of the accused is that he received Rs.6 lakhs i.e. Rs.2 lakhs each from his three brothers on partition of family business. In this regard, he got examined his elder brother DW2 Suresh Singhal, who produced a family agreement Ex.DW2/A. As per the accused, his father was running a business of spices and dry fruits at Khari Baoli, Delhi who died leaving behind the business to his mother, four sons and four daughters and it was decided that he would leave his share in the business on which he was paid Rs.6 lakhs. I am afraid this document appears to be a self serving one, which is neither stamped nor registered, infact not even bearing the date. Nothing was brought on the record in regard to details about such business, books of accounts, income tax return of the firm which could suggest that the firm was earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. It is also the case of accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he earned Rs.2 lakhs from the sale of shares. Though there is pattern that the accused was extensively dealing in share market, no consideration could be had to any windfall made by the accused from such business.
60. It is then brought out in the evidence of PW6 that total income tax of Rs.1,81, 183/-was paid during the check period. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.50/70 51 Therefore, the salary during the check period comes to Rs. 12,32,780.15 - Rs.1,81,183.
61. That apart that the accused has been given the benefit of rental income of Rs.3,48,400/- from the flat no.A-6, TCPO, CGHS Ltd., Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi which was acquired during the check period. The plea of the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C is that rental income was Rs. 4,23,400/-, for which no evidence is led whatsoever by the accused.
Interest Income
62. As per statement Ex.PW39/K, it is brought out that accused as a guardian of his son Ankur Singhal was maintaining account no.7853 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajender Nagar Branch w.e.f. 01.04.1997 and upto the check period he earned interest income of Rs.5281.80. Further, as per evidence of PW25, accused was having account no. 2457 with State Bank of India, INA Branch and during the check period w.e.f. 28.06.1996 to 18.02.1999, he earned interest of Rs. 8945.57. Further, as per evidence of PW33, accused was having account no.1458 with Central Bank of India and as on 10.11.2000 vide statement Ex.P-34 he earned interest income State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.51/70 52 of Rs.3676/-. Further, as per evidence of PW39 accused was having account no.11020 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajinder Nagar Branch and as per statement of account Ex.PW39/A-5, he earned interest income of Rs.4155/- upto 10.11.2000. Lastly, the evidence of Pw39 also shows that accused was having account no.5050 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajinder Nagar Branch jointly with his mother in law Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel having earned interest income of Rs.3615.20 upto 10.11.2000 as per statement of account Ex.PW39/B-2. The said interest income have not been denied by the accused except that as regards account no.5050, his plea is that money belonged to his mother in law Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel, which is difficult to believe in view of the financial status of his mother in law discussed herein before. . Thus, the total interest income comes to Rs. 25,673/-. Although there is nothing to indicate that such interest income was ever accounted for by the accused, taking a liberal view the same is included as another source of income.
63. Thus the income/earnings is arrived as under:
Salary income - Rs.12,32,780.00
Loan for purchase of Flat no.A-6
TCPO, CGHS Ltd - Rs. 1,25,000.00
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.52/70
53
Loan from wife Sarojini Singhal
(Rs.72,442 + 46,672 +20,000) - Rs. 1,39,116.00
Loan from mother in law Damyanti Devi
Goel - Rs. 23,000.00
LIC (Maturity Amount) - Rs. 6,600.00
Sale of old Fiat Car - Rs. 18,599.00
Loan from friends
(Rs.8400 + Rs.13,105 + Rs.4205 +
Rs.20,000 + Rs. 30,000)- - Rs. 75,710.00
Rental income - Rs. 3,84,400.00
Interest Income - Rs. 25,673.00
Total - Rs. 20,30,779.00
Expenditure during the check period.
(i)Insurance
64. As per LIC Insurance Ex.P-21 that was seized at the time of search of the house on 10.11.2000, LIC bearing no.112577376 taken on 16.02.1999 was being maintained in the name of Pragya Singhal, who was financial dependent upon the accused and total amount of Rs.18,615/- viz Rs.9723/- per annum is attributable to the accused. It is then brought on the record in the evidence of PW46 that accused was having two LIC Policies, first bearing no. 110104375 subscribed on 28.01.1999 Ex.P-24 at an annual premium of Rs.6756.10 and he paid total amount of Rs.87,829.20 during the check period. The other policy was bearing no. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.53/70 54 330007800 subscribed on 28.07.1996 at a monthly premium of Rs. 21,448/- and accused had paid Rs.74,374/-. The sum total comes to Rs. 1,80, 818/-
(ii) Educational Expenses
65. In the face of the fact that accused satisfactorily fails to bring out that his wife and mother in law had any surplus earnings so as to augment his income, the expenses on the education of the children cannot but only be attributed to him. It is in evidence of Pw34 that his daughter Pragya Singhal had her education in Springdales School, Pusa Road, New Delhi and as per document Ex.PW34/B, Rs.69,142/- were spent. Then, it is in evidence of PW41 that his son Ankur Singhal had his education in Cambridge School, where during the check period Rs.6235/- were spent besides schooling in Bal bharti Public School, Pusa Roads vide document Ex.PW41/A & B totaling Rs.31,490/- during the check period.
66. It is then in the evidence that during the search, D- 25 towards educational expenses in JCC Acadamy Rs.68560/- were spent besides technical education of Pragya Singhal in Sahil Study Centre amounting Rs.12,000/- as per D-27 and Rs. 1,51,127/- were spent on the educational expenses of Ankur Singhal in Malegaon Engineering College vide D-28. I may State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.54/70 55 hasten to add that I do not find any merit in the plea that the prosecution should have proved the spending on education by calling witnesses from the concerned institutes. What the prosecution brings about here is that the children of the accused definitely have had their education and in the face of the ill conceived explanation by the accused that such expenses were borne by his wife or the mother in law, which at the cost of repetition has been found to be not truthful, I do not see how this item of expense could be excluded from consideration. The sum total of educational expenses comes to Rs.3,38,572/-.
(iii) Expenses on properties
67. It is in evidence of PW5 that accused spent Rs.6000/- on wooden work in flat no. AO-6, TCPO, CGHS Limited, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi besides maintenance amount of Rs. 13,521/- as per statement Ex.PW5/B. No evidence is brought forth by the accused that expenses were borne by the tenant. Then, as per evidence of PW49, house tax of Rs.40,111/- as per statement Ex.PW27/A was paid during the check period which is not disputed by the accused.
68. The prosecution also brings on record in the evidence of PW49 , which is not disputed that loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was recovered w.e.f. June 1998 @ Rs.960/- per State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.55/70 56 month for 130 months amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-, besides interest that was paid over the years amounting Rs.75,957/-.
(iv) Deduction of non verifiable expenses
69. The prosecution has assessed the non verifiable expenditure towards the household and kitchen expenses @ 1/3rd of gross salary minus income tax i.e. worked out to be Rs. 6,43,369/-, out of which it has deducted expenditure on electricity amounting to Rs.73,891/- and clothing amounting to Rs.91,200/- and as per Table C of this judgment, it has arrived at non verifiable expenditure of Rs.4,78,178/- .
70. Shri OP Malviya, Ld. Counsel assailed such deduction urging that accused had been living a very moderate life and 1/3rd deduction towards assumed expenditure is on a higher side. I am afraid I am not impressed. First thing first, it could very well be objectively assumed that certain amount from the salary income or the total earnings are surely defrayed towards maintaining house hold that generally speaking would include amount spent on groceries, vegetables, confectioneries, gas stove, electricity, water besides towards clothing, transport /conveyance, entertaining, hiring of domestic servant and so on. Having regard to the fact that accused has been an Officer occupying higher position in the DDA over the years, it State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.56/70 57 could very well be assumed that he and his family members must have been living quite a comfortable if not luxurious life. Regard be had to the fact that he had been living in a locality like Rajinder Nagar, a posh area in Central Delhi, his children studying in reputed public schools, accused and his family members maintaining two cars, having two air conditioners, two T.V. Sets, computers etc. as per observation memo Ex. PW1/B and thus I do not see how 1/3rd of the gross salary plus other lawful earnings minus income tax paid during the check period could not be applied towards non verifiable expenditure. It has been urged that the prosecution has not proved that Rs. 73,891/- were spent on electricity and / or no evidence is led about spending on clothing of Rs.91,300/- . All the same, one can have regard to the natural course of human nature and conduct that in a family, such as the accused, expenses must have incurred on consumption of electricity besides clothing. It is also pertinent to mention that the check period spanning for 19 years 7 months and 9 days and as such expenditure on electricity comes to Rs.315/- approx. on an average per month while Rs.147/- per person per month on clothing if the case of the prosecution is believed. Any how, even if the estimated amount on personal clothing is discarded from the expenditure State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.57/70 58 incurred by the accused and his family members, it would be reasonable to assume that 1/3rd must have been defrayed towards non verifiable expenditure. It is pertinent to point out that the prosecution also seized documents concerning various bills in the evidence of Pws reflected in para 17 of this judgment amounting to Rs.35,088/- but I have not chosen to add it separately to the total expenditure and rather have included this amount under the non verifiable expense and the accused has also been given benefit of expenses incurred on telephone, mobile bills, petrol etc. .
Property in Kanaka Durga Ltd.
71. Plea of the accused that this property was acquired solely out of the earnings of his mother in law cannot be accepted since it appears that Rs.50,000/- were contributed by accused from his account no. 5050 with Indian Overseas Bank on 10.07.1998. Another amount of Rs.20,000/- was contributed by the accused from his account no. 10.07.1998 and Rs.40,000/- on 26.04.2000 that corroborates with the statement of account Ex.PW 26/B-9 and not disputed by the accused. Thus, Rs. 1,10,000/- could be attributed towards expenditure by the accused if not that his mother in law was holding the property benami.
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.58/70 59
72. Thus the total amount on expenditure during the check period is arrived as under:
LIC Policies (Rs.18,615+Rs.87,829+74,374) - Rs1,80,818.00 Educational expenses ofAnkur Singhal - Rs.1,88,852.00 Pragya Singhal Rs. 1,49,702.00 Total - Rs. 3,38,554.00 Amount spent on Flat No.AO-6 TCPO, CGHS, Limited.(wooden work Rs.6000 +maintenance Rs.13,521+ loan Rs.1,25,000 + interest Rs.75,965 + income tax R.40,111) - Rs. 2,60,589.00 personal contribution as per Ex. P-1 (Rs. 53,156+18,500) - Rs. 71,656.00 Non verifiable expenses (Rs.12,32,780+Rs.3,84,400-Rs.1,81,183(IT)- Rs.,78,666.00 Electricity expenses Rs. 73,891.00 Amount paid towards Kanak Durga CGHS Ltd. - Rs.,10,000.00 Total - Rs.15,17,174.00 Assets acquired during the check period
(i) Immovable properties
73. Firstly, there is no dispute that residential flat no. AO-6 TCPO, CGHS Ltd., Shalimar Bagh,New Delhi was bought by the accused in the sum of Rs.2,15,675/- as per statements Ex.PW5/C to Ex.PW5/E during the check State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.59/70 60 period. There is also no dispute that a plot of land was acquired by the accused at Swarn Jayanti, Ghaziabad, UP on 19.03.1998 as per evidence of PW14 and total amount of Rs.4,35,127/- was paid as per documents Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-19 summarised in the letter Ex.PW54/A. In the face of the fact that this court comes to the conclusion that Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel earned a meager income of Rs.3,95,511/-during the check period, the consideration towards purchases of residential plot in Kanak Durga CGHS Ltd., for Rs.2,17,110/- as per documents Ex.PW26/B1 to Ex.PW26/B9 are clearly attributable to the accused. Any how to take a liberal view, I have not reckoned the same in the calculation of his assets but have included amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- contributed by him towards the purchase of the property.
(ii) Bank Accounts
74. As per Ex.PW39/K accused was having a bank account no.7853 with Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of his son with him as his guardian w.e.f. 01.04.1997 having a balance of Rs.29,506.07 as on 10.11.2000. Further, accused was having account no.2457 in State Bank of India, INA Branch, New Delhi, which as per the evidence of PW25 was opened on 28.06.1996 and operated till 18.02.1999 and having a balance of Rs. State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.60/70 61 98,985.71 as on 10.11.2000 as per statement Ex.PW25/B. The accused was then having account no.1458 in Central Bank of India and as per the evidence of PW33, which was initially a joint account with mother in law and later on became a sole account bearing no.2321 having a balance of Rs.34,834- as on 10.11.2000 as per statement of account Ex.P-34. Accused was further having account no.11020 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajinder Nagar Branch and as on 10.11.2000, there was credit balance of Rs.56,837.60 as per statement of account Ex.PW39/A-3 and A-4. Lastly, the prosecution has brought home that accused was having bank account no.5050 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajinder Nagar Branch and as on 10.11.2000, he had a credit balance of Rs.36,839.60 as per the evidence of PW39 reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW39/H & J. As per PW22/A, accused was having account no. 7451 with I.O.B having a balance of Rs. 24,673/ and it is further proved vide statement of account Ex. PW53/ A that he was having account no. 15961 with Vijaya Bank having a credit balance of Rs. 9,926/- as on 10.11.2000. The sum total comes to Rs. 2,91,701/-in the bank account.
(iv) Fixed Deposits
75. PW50 Dy.SP S.Balasubramaniam during the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.61/70 62 investigation affirmed that accused and his family members had made investment in M/s. Capital Finance Limited. The letter Ex.PW50/A shows that accused invested Rs.10,000/- in a fixed deposit on 27.10.1997 Ex.PW50/A-1. Similarly, his wife Smt. Sarojini Singhal invested Rs.10,000/- each in two fixed deposits on 27.10.1997 and 14.01.1997 vide document Ex.PW50/A-2 and A-3 respectively and fourthly Rs.15,000/- were invested in the name of Ankur Singhl on 25.04.1998 as per FD Ex.PW50/A-4. That apart PW50 deposed that there were 4 FDs each in the sum of Rs.10,000/- in the name of daughter Pragya Singhal subscribed on 02.06.1995, 17.08.2000 and last two on 07.06.2001 that are reflected in Ex.PW50/ A. Much challenge was made by Mr. Malviya, ld. Defence counsel that no one was called by the prosecution from the company concerned to prove the FDs. At the cost of repetition, I am not impressed since the documents concerning such investments were seized at the time of search of the house on 10.11.2000 vide memo Ex.PW1/B and the evidence of PW50 that details of such investments were sought by him have not been assailed either. Therefore, except for Rs, 20,000/- which are FDs by Smt. Sarojini Singhal the rest of the deposits to the tune of Rs.75,000/- are clearly attributable to State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.62/70 63 the accused.
76. Then in the evidence of PW45 G.Rajindran that investments were made in Kamdhenu Deposit Scheme of Canara Bank. His testimony brings out that accused jointly with his wife Smt. Sarojini Singhal invested Rs.38,542 on 13.01.2000 and another amount of Rs.37,889/- on 31.01.2000. Investment of Rs.25,000/- was also made on 30.10.1999, which is attributable to Smt. Damyanti Devi Goel. Accused has also not challanged deposit of Rs.37,889/- except that the initial deposit was for Rs. 25,000/- and taking a liberal view I assess such amount only.
77. PW17 then brought out that accused invested Rs.
40,000/- on 01.07.2000 in a fixed deposit in bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the joint name with his son Ankur Singhal vide account Ex.PW17/C which is admitted by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
78. PW32 then deposed that accused had invested Rs.
52,000/- for four years in ICICI Bonds w.e.f. 1997 to 2001 and he was paid interest upto Rs.16,284.08 which again is not challenged. The sum total comes to Rs.1,92,000/-.
(v) Investment in Shares with Dividends
79. The following investments have been proved by the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.63/70 64 prosecution that are admitted by the defence as per table No. - I of the written submissions.
Investment in shares with dividend received as proved by prosecution witnesses.
S. PW Name of share Investment Dividend
No No. in Rs.
.
PW18 JSW Steel 10,000.00 1352.00
1 /A
PW19 L&T 3,000.00 2519.30
2 /A
PW21 Ajanta Pharma 22,660.00 142.00
3 /B
PW23 MCS Ltd., 7050.00 8408.00
4
Admit RNPL 2000.00
5 ted
PW28 Areva T&D 1300.00 136.00
previously GEC
6 alston India
PW29 Vashishti 3000.00 -
7 Detergent
PW30 Relienec 4600+4000 1937.55
8 =8600
9 PW31 BTW 2000.00 NIL
10 PW32 ICICI Bank 5000 + 7251.60
PW35 Tata Tele 18000.00
Service
previously
11 Huges telecom
12 PW36 KCC Software 5000 NIL
PW37 Bhilwara 2000.00 750.00
13 Spinners
PW38 Transport 330.00 210.00
Corporation of
14 India
15 PW40 Tata Metalic 3400.00
16 PW42 Century enka No date of
Ltd. previously allotment
Rajshree proved.
Only based
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.64/70
65
on statement
it was
allotted in
1980. It was
prior to
check
period
17 PW57 Super Forgings 2500.00 251.96
for and Gas
Steels
18 Admi- Viral Syntax 1500.00 416.00
tted
97280-00 23374.41
80. Further, PW-59 brought out vide document Ex.PW 59/D-1 that 200 units of UTI US 1964 were applied @ of Rs. 10 on 09.02.1994 and vide document Ex.PW 59/D-2 under the same scheme of UTI 300 more units were applied @ of Rs.10 thus totalling of Rs.5,000/-. The document Ex.PW 50/A also brings out that during the check period investment was made in 335.183 units in UTI and 223.45 units @ Rs.10 totalling Rs. 5,580/-. Accused then appears to have made investment in Master Gain 1992 of 400 units @ Rs.10 amounting Rs.4000/- and invested in MGP 1992 UTI units totalling 2500 @ Rs. 10 amounting to Rs.25,000/-.
81. Interestingly, another circumstance that is brought against the accused is that during the search of the house on 11.12.2000 shares certificate besides debenture certificate in State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.65/70 66 respect of several companies were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. Although no witness has been called from the concerned companies, in as much as a presumption is raised that the CBI officials in the course of its official duties acted in a bonafide manner and seized some documents obviously from the lawful custody of the accused, and moreover such documents bear his name and that of his wife which is conclusive proof of their legal title to such scrips as per section 84(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, this Court could very well draw a presumption u/s 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act and assess the value of such share holdings and thereby make it admissible against the accused in the present proceedings. The details in regard to such holdings are as under:
Name of the Name of the holder Numb Rat Total Company er of e amount Ex.
shares Rs. Rs.
M/s Ajanta Accused V. K. 10/- 500/-
Pharma Singhal and Smt. P- 4
Sarojini Singhal 50
M/s Ajanta Accused V. K.
Pharma Singhal and Smt. P-5
Sarojini Singhal 50 10/- 500/-
AMEX Accused V. K.
Information Singhal and Smt.
P-6
Technologies Sarojini Singhal
Ltd. 100 10/- 1000/-
Debenture Accused V. K.
Certificate of Singhal and Smt.
Asian Sarojini Singhal P-7
Consolidated
Industries Ltd. 20 32/- 640/-
Debenture Accused V. K.
Certificate of Singhal and Smt.
Asian Sarojini Singhal P-8
Consolidated
Industries Ltd. 20 32/- 640/-
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.66/70
67
Debenture Accused V. K.
Certificate of Singhal and Smt.
Asian Sarojini Singhal P-9
Consolidated
Industries Ltd. 20 32/- 640/-
Asian Accused V. K.
Consolidated Singhal and Smt. P-10
Industries Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
Asian Accused V. K.
Consolidated Singhal and Smt. P-11
Industries Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
Asian Accused V. K.
Consolidated Singhal and Smt. P-12
Industries Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 40 10/- 400/-
Asian Accused V. K.
Consolidated Singhal and Smt. P-13
Industries Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 15 10/- 150/-
Asian Accused V. K.
Consolidated Singhal and Smt. P-14
Industries Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 50 10/- 500/-
Asian Accused V. K.
Consolidated Singhal and Smt. P-15
Industries Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10 10/- 100/-
Blue Blends Accused V. K.
Financial Ltd. Singhal and Smt. P-17
Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
Chambal Accused V. K.
Fertilisers and Singhal and Smt. P-22
Chemical Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
DLF Cement Accused V. K.
Ltd. Singhal and Smt. P-24
Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
DLF Cement Accused V. K.
Ltd. Singhal and Smt. P-25
Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
Deepak Accused V. K.
Fertilisers and Singhal and Smt.
Petrochemical Sarojini Singhal P-26
s Corporation
Ltd. 25 10/- 250/-
EIH Ltd. Accused V. K.
P-27 to
Singhal and Smt. 8X
P-30
Sarojini Singhal 3=24 10/- 240/-
ESSAR Oil Accused V. K.
Ltd. Singhal and Smt. P-31
Sarojini Singhal 100 10/- 1000/-
Debenture in Accused V. K. 100 x
P-32 &
ESSAR Oil Singhal and Smt. 2=
P-33
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 200 10/- 2000/-
Finolex Pipes Accused V. K.
Ltd. Singhal and Smt. 50 P-34
Sarojini Singhal 10/- 500/-
Debentures in Accused V. K.
P-35 &
Finolex Pipes Singhal and Smt. 0
P-36
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 60/- 3,000/-
Gupta Fibers Accused V. K.
100 P-41
Ltd. Singhal 10/- 1000/-
Hans Accused V. K.
Polyurethanes Singhal and Smt. 100 P-44
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal
10/- 1000/-
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.67/70
68
Hughes Accused V. K.
P-45 to
Tele.Com Singhal and Smt. 0 16000/
P-59
(India) Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- -
Interlink Accused V. K.
P-76 -
Petroleum Singhal and Smt. 0
P-79
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- 4000/-
Jammu & Accused V. K.
Kashmir Bank Singhal and Smt. 100 P-80
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- 1000/-
GCT Ltd. Accused V. K.
P-81 to
Singhal and Smt. 0
P-82
Sarojini Singhal 10/- 320/-
Jeevan Accused V. K.
P-83 to
Softech Ltd. Singhal and Smt. 0 10000/
P-92
Sarojini Singhal 10/- -
Jindal Vijay Accused V. K.
P-93 to
Nagar Steel Singhal and Smt. 0
P96
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- 4000/-
Narmada Accused V. K.
Chematur Singhal
100 P-112
Petroleum
Ltd. 10/- 1000/-
Norris Accused V. K.
Medicines Singhal and Smt. 100 P-114
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- 1000/-
Norris Accused V. K.
Medicines Singhal and Smt. 100 P-115
Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- 1000/-
Mangalore Accused V. K.
100x2 P-116
Refinery and Singhal
= &
Petrochemical
200 P-117
s Ltd. 10/- 2000/-
Tungabhadra Accused V. K.
Machinery & Singhal and Smt. 100 P-162
Tools Ltd. Sarojini Singhal 10/- 1000/-
Weal Infotech Accused V. K. P-168
Ltd. Singhal and Smt. 0 to
Sarojini Singhal 10/- 6,000/- P-173
Total Rs.
67,380/
-
82. Thus, the total investment in shares, debentures and UTI units come to Rs. 2,04,240/-. Lastly, without much ado, there is ample evidence discussed hereinbefore that the accused was owing a Fiat car DDQ 9098 as on the date of the search and acquired for Rs. 80,000/- during the check period. The plea of the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he was not owing State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.68/70 69 DDQ 9098 is clearly false and in this connection it may also be seen as per D-52 that the vehicle was ensured with United India Assurance Company and during the check period and Rs.8908/-
were paid towards third party insurance that has been left out of the consideration.
Accordingly the assets position is brought out as under:
Flat No. AO-6, TCPO, CGHS Ltd. - Rs. 2,15,675.00 Plot at Swaran Jayanti, Loni, Ghaziabad - Rs. 4,35,127.00 Fiat Car - Rs. 80,000.00 Bank balance as on 10.11.2000 - Rs. 2,91,701.00 Fixed Deposits - Rs. 1,92,000.00 Shares & Debentures - Rs. 2,04,240.00 Cash/items of house search - Rs. 5,16,270.00 Total - Rs.19,35,013.00
83. Therefore, as against total income/earning of Rs.
20,10,779.00, the total of expenditure plus value of the assets comes to Rs.34,52,187.00, which is more than Rs.14,41,408/-. In other words as against estimated savings of Rs. 4,95,605/-, the accused has amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.19,35,013/- At the cost of repetition, in arriving at such figure, we have given several concessions to the accused leaving aside the value of household articles reflected in the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.69/70 70 observation memo Ex. PW1/B, value of the gold and silver items. Exfacie the prosecution brings home that several items of assets, particularly investment in the plot of land at Swaran Jayanti Park, Gaziabad besides FDs, shares/debentures, have never been accounted for by the accused in terms of the explanation clause to section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. In conclusion, the accused fails to satisfactorily explain the sources of his assets that are disproportionate to his known sources of income.
84. I, therefore, hold that prosecution has able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. I, therefore, convict accused V.K.Singhal u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e ON 21.04.2012 (DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE -03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.70/70 71 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE-03, CBI NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CC No. 59/2011 Case ID No. 02403R0190302004 RC No. 76 (A)/2000/CBI/ACB/ND In re:
STATE (CBI) VS V. K. SINGHAL S/O S. K. SINGHAL R/O RA-107, 1ST FLOOR, INDERPURI, NEW DELHI APPEARANCES:-
Mr. A.K.Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI). Mr. O. P. Malviya, Ld. Counsel for the accused. 27.04.2012 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
1. Heard on the point of sentence and perused the record.
2. Mr. OP Malviya, ld. Defence counsel for the convict has urged that his client is 65 years of age, who was arrested on 10.11.2000 and since then he has been facing extreme mental agony and humiliation besides suffering from Asthma and Diabetes . It is urged by ld. Defence counsel that a lenient view State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.71/70 72 may be taken in awarding the sentence to the convict.
3. Per contra, Mr. VK Sharma, Ld. Sr.PP substitute for Mr. AK Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for State (CBI) who is on long leave has urged that there are no mitigating circumstances, which could warrant taking a lenient view in favour of the convict. Mr. Sharma has further urged that this is a fit case where the assets, which have been found disproportionate to the known sources of income be also confiscated to the State (CBI). It has further been urged that while imposing the fine, the factors that have already been brought on record may also be taken into consideration in terms of Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Finding of this court in regard to convict possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income have already been explained in the accompanying judgment dated 21.04.2012 and the same need not be repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
Suffice to state that as against total income/earnings of Rs. 20,10,779/- the total expenditure plus value of assets during the check period from 01.04.1981 to 10.11.2000 have been found to be Rs.34,49,187/-, which is more than Rs.14,38,408/-. In arriving at such figures, this court has also concluded that as against estimated savings of Rs.4,96,605/- (total income - total expenditure during the check period), the convict has amassed assets disproportionate State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.72/70 73 to the tune of Rs.19,35,013/-. The various items which have been arrived at in giving such a finding are reflected in the judgment that speak for themselves. The inference is that the convict has been indulging in corrupt activities during the check period, abusing his official position and thereby succeeded in amassing such wealth for which he has not satisfactorily accounted for. At the cost of repetition, the convict never account for acquisition of several properties to his department after 1991-92 till 10.11.2000. Hence on more than one scores, I do find any mitigating circumstance for taking a lenient view in favour of the convict.
5. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the convict, I sentence the convict V.K.Singhal to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years u/s. 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentence to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs ; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of 6 months.
6. As regards the request by the State (CBI) for confiscation of properties of the convict reliance is placed on a decision in Mirza Iqbal Hussain.vs. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 60 , wherein it was held that in cases falling u/s. 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention Act 1947 (which is analogues to Section 13 (1) (e) of the present Act), the Special Judge has the jurisdiction to make an order for State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.73/70 74 confiscation of the wealth that have been unlawfully acquired or which have been proved to be the disproportionate to his known sources of income. It may be added that Section 5 (6) of the PC Act, 1988 also empowers this court to exercise all the powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944..
7. On query raised, ld. Defence counsel has informed that the plot no.D-93, Swaran Jayanti Puram , Loni, Ghaziabad, UP which was assessed to Rs.4,35,127/- as on 10.11.2000 has since been disposed of by the convict. The State (CBI) during the course of trial have not moved any application for attachment of the properties in terms of Section 3 of the Criminal Law Ordinance Act, 1944. Subject to verification of such fact by the State (CBI), it is directed that in case the plot no. D-93, Swaran Jayanti Puram, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP has not been disposed of by the convict, the right, title or interest in the said plot shall be confiscated in favour of the State (CBI) who shall be at liberty to dispose of the same and appropriate the sale proceeds to the exchequer/revenue account. No prejudice shall be caused to any buyer if he has acquired the said property bonafidely for lawful consideration.
8. Further, the cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- , which was State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.74/70 75 found at the time of search of the official residence of the convict on 10.11.2000 and later in the bank lockers on 12.11.2000 shall also be confiscated to the State (CBI).
9. Similarly, the fixed deposits of Rs.1,92,000/- that have been arrived at vide para no.75 of the judgment shall also be confiscated to the State (CBI). Lastly, the shares and debentures that are reflected in para no.79 besides para nos.80 and 81 of the judgment shall also be confiscated to the State (CBI), who shall be at liberty to dispose of the shares/debentures as per the rate/prices in the share market and appropriate the sale proceeds to the exchequer/revenue account.
10. At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.PC. is moved by Mr. OP Malviya, ld.counsel for convict . Copy supplied to Mr. VK Sharma, Ld.Sr.PP. Fine of Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited by the convict.
11. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and he may be granted bail till filing of appeal.
12. Considering the fact that the convict is about 62 years of age, suffering from severe Asthma and Diabetes and also for the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.75/70 76 application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 07.07.2012 subject to the applicant/convict VK Singhal furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount . Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.
13. Copy of the judgment dated 21.04.2012 and copy of the order on sentence of even date be supplied to the convict free of cost. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e ON 27.04.2012 (DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE -03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.76/70 77 CC No. 59/2011 CBI v. V. K. Singhal 21.04.2012 Present : Mr. A.K.Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. O. P. Malviya, Ld. Counsel for the accused. Vide separate detailed judgment of even date, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused was holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. I, therefore, convict accused V.K.Singhal u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE -03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.77/70 78 CC NO. 59/11 State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal 27.04.2012 Present : Mr. A.K.Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. O. P. Malviya, Ld. Counsel for the accused. Vide separate detailed order on sentence the convict is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years u/s. 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentence to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs ; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of 6 months.
Similarly, the fixed deposits of Rs.1,92,000/- that have been arrived at vide para no.75 of the judgment shall also be confiscated to the State (CBI). Lastly, the shares and debentures that are reflected in para no.79 besides para nos.80 and 81 of the judgment shall also be confiscated to the State (CBI), who shall be at liberty to dispose of the shares as per the share market rate/prices and appropriate the sale proceeds to the exchequer/revenue account.
At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.PC. is moved by Mr. OP Malviya, ld.counsel for convict . Copy supplied to Mr. VK Sharma, Ld.Sr.PP. Fine of Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited by the convict.
Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and he may be granted bail till filing of appeal.
Considering the fact that the convict is suffering from Asthma and Diabetes and also for the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 07.07.2012 subject to the applicant/convict VK Singhal furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount . Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE -03,CBI State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.78/70 79 At this stage, Court Reader has pointed out that there is no mention about the consignment of the file. Ahlmad is directed to consign the file to the Record Room.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE -03,CBI NEW DELHI.
27.04.2012 State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.79/70 80 State (CBI) v. V. K. Singhal Page No.80/70