Bangalore District Court
State Represented By vs Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa on 14 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES
AT BENGALURU (CCH34)
Dated 14th February, 2023
: PRESENT :
Sri.H.A.Mohan, B.A.L., LL.B.
XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru
Spl.C.C.No.56/2015
COMPLAINANT : State represented by
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, Bengaluru
(By Public Prosecutor
Sri.Shivananda Parle)
vs
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa
(Accused) S/o Late G.Veerappa
Major
Vice President (Retired)
Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai,
Maharashtra
R/at Flat No.302, 3rd Floor,
Roopasri Apartments
No.43, Govindappa Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore560 004.
2 Spl.C.C.56/2015
2. Smt.R.Radha
D/o P.Raju
Major
R/at Flat No.302, 3rd Floor,
Roopasri Apartments
No.43, Govindappa Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore560 004.
3. Sri.Kotresh
S/o Kukkuppi Chennappa
Major
R/at No.21B,
Sri.Veerashankarakrupa,
Shrihari Colony, Behind KHP
Colony, Moka Road,
Gandhinagar,
Bellary.
4. Smt.Chand Devi Jain @
Chand Devi Inderchand Jain
(Discharged)
(By Sri.K.S.Javali,
Advocate)
Date of commission of the 10.07.2013
offence/s :
Offences charged : U/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of
P.C.Act, 1988 and 109 of IPC
3 Spl.C.C.56/2015
r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Name of the Complainant : CBI/ACB, Bengaluru
Date of commencement of
the evidence : 12.09.2019
Evidence closed on : 01.04.2022
Statement of accused u/S 23.09.2022
313 of Cr.P.C. :
Final Verdict Accused convicted
(H.A.Mohan)
XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet filed by Dy.SP, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru pertaining to RC.9(A)/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 4 Spl.C.C.56/2015 1988.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, Accused No.1 Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa is a Chartered Accountant and he was appointed as Accountant Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru in the year 2001. During the year 2005, he was promoted as Vice President and posted in ITAT, Mumbai. In 2008, he was transferred to ITAT, New Delhi. In 2011, he was transferred back to Mumbai and was President, ITAT, Mumbai. In the year 2012, again he was posted as Vice President, ITAT, Mumbai and hence he was a public servant.
3. It is further contended that Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha is the daughter of one Sri.B.Raju and studied upto 10th standard and therefore, she was not having any professional degree/diploma except tailoring and painting 5 Spl.C.C.56/2015 certificates. She was in liveinrelationship with Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (A1) from the year 2004 onwards and was living with him at his official residence at Mumbai as house wife, while Accused No.1 was working as Vice President. Therefore, she is not a public servant.
4. It is further contended that Accused No.3 Sri.K.Kotresh son of Kukkuppi Chennappa, is the nephew of Accused No.1 and he was working as Accountant Assistant in M/s Badri and Co., a chartered Accountant firm at Bellary. Even though Accused No.3 is not a Chartered Accountant, but he is very much capable in preparing Income Tax Returns of individuals and firms. He is a private individual.
6 Spl.C.C.56/2015
5. It is further contended that while Accused No.1 was working in ITAT during the check period from 01.01.2002 to 10.07.2013, he has acquired various movable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of Accused No.2, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise and by abusing his official position, with the active abetment of Accused No.3 and one Smt.Chand Devi Inderchand Jain and accordingly, acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.2,91,70,984/ i.e. 117.95% to his known source of income.
6. It is further contended that Accused No.1 hailed from a middle class family from Bellary and his father G.Veerappa was an agriculturist and his mother Smt.Shankaramma was a house wife. He was working as Chartered Accountant in Bellary till 1990. He was selected 7 Spl.C.C.56/2015 as Accountant Member of ITAT and retired from service on 31.09.2013 after serving as Vice President of ITAT, Mumbai.
7. It is further contended that during the year 1976, he married to one Smt.G.V.Shivaleela a member of middle class family from Davanagere. She studied upto intermediate and she was house wife. Out of the said wedlock, Accused No.1 and his wife Smt.G.V.Shivaleela have got three children namely Smt.G.V.Tejaswini, Sri.G.V.Saiprasad and Sri.G.V.Guruprasad. Smt.G.V.Tejaswini is MBBS doctor and working as a pediatrician and her marriage was performed prior to 2002 and since then, she has been living independently. Sri.G.V.Saiprasad completed his BE, Mechanical in the year 2002 and he started his carrier with Wipro Technologies in the year 2002. He has been living independently during the check period. Sri.G.V.Guruprasad completed his B.Tech, IT 8 Spl.C.C.56/2015 in the year 200304. He first joined in TCS in the year 2004 and he was living independently during the check period.
8. It is further contended that Accused No.1 developed a liveinrelationship with Accused No.2 from 2004 onwards and they got an illegitimate child by name G.V.Tejas, who was born on 12.05.2006 during the subsistence of marriage of Accused No.1 with Smt.Shivaleela. Accused No.1 in collusion with Accused No.2 and 3 started amassing assets with his illgotten money in the name of Accused No.2 by completely avoiding his first family. Even though Accused No.2 was not having any capacity to earn huge fees and commission, but by projecting Accused No.2 as qualified fashion designer and business consultant and beautician, Accused No.1 started doing share trading business during the check period, illegally in the name of Accused No.2. After amassing lot of 9 Spl.C.C.56/2015 properties in the name of Accused No.2, the Accused No.1 divorced his wife Smt.G.V.Shivaleela on 26.09.2008 by giving alimony of Rs.33 lakhs. Within a few days of divorce, Accused No.1 married Accused No.2 and started living with her and their son Master Tejas in Flat No.302, Roopasri Apartments, No.33, Govindappa Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore. In the account opening form in respect of SB A/c No.10427816612 of SBI, J.P.Nagar Branch in the name of Accused No.2, it is shown that Accused No.1 has introduced Accused No.2 through his letter dated 23.11.2004 by mentioning that he had tenanted his Flat No.197, 1st Floor, Block No.20, Jeevansathi Colony, 25th Main, J.P.Nagar, I Phase, Bangalore to Accused No.2 w.e.f. 11.11.2004. Further, Accused No.2 declared in the 'know your customer' (KYC) documents of the said account opening form that she is a house wife and her education is 10 Spl.C.C.56/2015 SSLC. Further, in the account opening form of PPF A/c No.01PW904024 (new No.10427878205) of SBI available in the name of Accused No.2 shows that the said account commenced on 24.01.2005 on the introduction of Accused No.1 on 22.01.2005. Accused No.2 is having another account with Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) Beach Candy Branch, Mumbai vide SB A/c No.12035 (new No.022201000012035). Account opening form dated 17.10.2005 in respect of the said account shows that the same was opened on the basis of one certificate issued by Accused No.1 as Vice President of ITAT, Mumbai. He certified that Accused No.2 was known to him and she was staying at Government Flat allotted to him at No.22, Belvedere, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai. The KYC documents submitted for opening this account also shows that Accused No.2 declared herself as house wife and her 11 Spl.C.C.56/2015 annual income was Rs.50,000/.
9. It is further contended that booking details of Flat No.10094, 'Jacaranda Corner', Prestige Shantiniketan, Bangalore in the name of Accused No.2 shows that the said Flat was actually booked by Accused No.1 on 15.04.2005 and later the same was transferred to the name of Accused No.2. As per the records of M/s Prestige Estates, Accused No.2 had given her address as No.302, Roopasri Apartments, Bangalore, which was owned by Accused No.1 at the time of booking of the said flat on 01.04.2005. The documents clearly shows that Accused No.2 was a SSLC qualified and a house wife and not a professional as projected by Accused No.1. Further, she could not produce any evidences to show that she was working as consultant and beautician. Investigation also revealed that she was not working as consultant since she was 10th standard. She is 12 Spl.C.C.56/2015 also not having any qualification for a beautician except tailoring certificate issued by Bangalore Corporation. It also evident that Accused No.1 and 2 were in relationship from 2004 onwards i.e. well before their official marriage in 2008.
10. It is further contended that six numbers of promissory notes dated 01.04.2007 worth Rs.25 lakhs each in the name of Accused No.1 seized during the house search pertaining to Accused No.1, that shows the same are found to be issued by M/s Balaji Warehousing Company Private Limited. Sri.K.Kodandarami Reddy, Chairman and Managing Director, M/s Balaji Warehousing Company Private Limited stated that he is a close friend of Accused No.1 and as directed by Accused No.1, he had drawn 6 numbers Rs.25 lakhs each blank cheques and equal number of promissory notes in the name of Accused No.2 and 13 Spl.C.C.56/2015 handed over the same to Accused No.1 through his covering letter dated 01.04.2007 as a Security for mobilising the funds. In the year 2007, Sri.K.Kodandarami Reddy decided to avail credit facilities from Bank of India. In that connection, he wanted to form one company in the name of 'M/s BWC Warehousing Private Limited' with the support of some loyal friends/people. After hearing the news, Accused No.1 requested him to take Accused No.2 and 3 as Directors. Accordingly, Sri.K.Kodandarami Reddy formed a company in the name of 'M/s BWC Warehousing Private Limited' as himself, his wife, Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha and Accused No.3 Sri.K.Kotresh as the directors. Actually the said firm was formed only for the purpose of raising funds. M/s BWC Warehousing Private Limited was paying back the loan installments out of the income earning by it. No income has been shared among its directors. That 14 Spl.C.C.56/2015 clearly proves that Accused No.1 wanted to create evidences that Accused No.2 was doing business and thus projected her as business woman for investing his illgotten money without creating any doubts. The Accused No.1 adopted various modus operandies such as illegal Share Trading, getting cheques in the name of Accused No.2 from unconnected persons/firms, purchasing properties in some other names and taking it back as gift etc. for collecting/accepting the corrupt/illegal money. The entire such money was either invested in the name of Accused No.2 or in his own name by completely avoiding his first family members.
11. It is further contended that the records disclose that Accused No.2 has received an income about Rs.92,00,000/ from sale of shares through the client A/c No.GBN5Z302 of Accused No.1 available at M/s Anand 15 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Rathi Share and Stock Brokers Limited, Mandya, which opened on 29.06.2007 with the assistance of Accused No.3 by showing the address as C/o Kotresh, Sir.M.V.Nagar, 4 th Cross(left), Bellary583 103. Most of the income were comes from the sale of the shares of 'CRAZY INFOTE', 'KAMAN HSG', 'JAIPAN INDUS', 'WALCHANDNGR', which were stated to be taken through M/s Alliance Intermediateries Network Private Limited, Mumbai from 28.04.2006 onwards. As per the records, evidences of BSE and NSE, M/s Alliance Intermediateries Network Private Ltd. is not a broker of National Stock Exchange (NSE). Its registration with ISE as sub broker was canceled w.e.f. 19.02.2004. Further, the securities 'Crazy Infote' and 'KAMAN HSG' were not at all listed on NSE. The trading of the shares of 'CRAZY INFOTE', 'KAMAN HSG', 'JAIPAN INDUS', 'WALCHANDNGR' were also not at all reflected in 16 Spl.C.C.56/2015 the Client A/c No.02040 of Accused No.2 available with Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).
12. It is further contended that the material clearly shows that the contact cum bills of M/s Alliance Intermediateries Network Private Ltd. are not genuine. So, as the share trading said to be done by Accused No.2 through M/s Alliance Intermediateries Network Private Ltd. are also not genuine. It is also evident that Accused No.1 had done money laundering through Accused No.3 in the name of Accused No.2. It is confirmed that as per the instructions of Accused No.1, the Accused No.3 invested illegal/unaccounted money of Accused No.1 in the shares purchased in the name of Accused No.2 from M/s Alliance Intermediateries & Network Pvt. Ltd. through Sri.Kamal Rathi, the agent, who was introduced by Sri.Vijayraj, a Share Trader/Income Tax Practitioner. The said shares 17 Spl.C.C.56/2015 were sold through M/s Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers Ltd., Mandya Branch, Karnataka and got about Rs.92 lakhs. Thus, they made the unaccounted/illegal money of Accused No.1 as accounted money in the name of Accused No.2. The said amount of Rs.92 lakhs received from the illegal shares were invested in Flat No.405, 4 th Floor, Wing C, Building Carnation, Raheja Gardens, Vanawadi, Pune, Flat No.10094 having 2072 square foot, 'Jacaranda Corner', Prestige Shantiniketan', Bangalore Flat OS - 5, Nirvana Nest Build Con (P) Ltd., Sapna Garden, Chogum Road, Porvorim Bardez, Goa etc. in the name of Accused No.2.
13. It is further contended that Accused No.1 adopted another modus operandi to get cheques in the name of Accused No.2 from the different persons/companies in the pretext of consultant fees, 18 Spl.C.C.56/2015 commission etc. This was corroborated by the two numbers of high value cheques, which received by Accused No.2 from M/s Nishat Enterprises and M/s Puja Impex.
14. It is further contended that Sri.Mehaboob.S.N. Proprietory, M/s Nishat Enterprises, PKV Commercial Complex Cellar, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Circle, College Road, Hospet had issued cheque No.660146 dated 29.01.2011 for an amount of Rs.6,27,700/ in the name of Accused No.2. Sri.Mehaboob.S.N. confessed that he neither knew Accused No.2 nor he had business dealing with her. He further confessed that the said cheque was issued as instructed by Accused No.3.
15. It is further contended that one Smt.Chand Devi Jain (who was shown as Accused No.4 in the charge sheet and later discharged by the court) had sent a demand draft 19 Spl.C.C.56/2015 dated 04.09.2006 of Rs.9,00,000/ drawn on HDFC Bank to Accused No.2 as full and final settlement towards her professional fees for a period of 6 months. On being asked about the service rendered by Accused No.2, Smt.Chand Devi Jain did not disclose the same by telling that the records for the same are not available, but at the same time Accused No.2 was not qualified/capable to earn a professional fee of Rs.9 lakhs within a short span of 6 months. The same clearly establishes that Smt.Chand Devi Jain abeted with Accused No.1 and had given Rs.9 lakhs in the name of Accused No.2 as per an arrangement made by Accused No.1, to set right his illegal money. Hence, Smt.Chand Devi Jain is also liable for abetment.
16. It is further contended that the above mentioned cheque/DD transactions of M/s Nishat Enterprises and M/s Puja Impex perfectly made by tax deducted at source (TDS).
20 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Deduction of TDS might be the specific instructions given by Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 for not landing the said transactions under the radar of IT department. Accused No.1 also adopted one more modus operandi for accumulating the assets with his illgotten money. He had acquired properties either in the name of his family members or others and used to get back the said properties back in his name. Through his modus operandie, he had acquired a land of 6 acres and 37 guntas at Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. The same was purchased in the name of Sri.Kukkuppi Chennappa and got it back through Smt.Kukkkuppi Nagamma, his sister via gift deeds. Accused No.1 also purchased residential site No.1268 measuring 60' X 80' at 7th Cross, LIC Plot, SectorIII, PhaseI, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore in the joint names Smt.G.V.Shivaleela and Sri.G.V.Guruprasad, his first wife and son. Later, the 21 Spl.C.C.56/2015 same was got back through gift deeds from Smt.G.V.Shivaleela and Sri.G.V.Guruprasad. The Accused No.1 also got two numbers of sites at Bellary in the name of Accused No.2 through gift deed from Smt.C.H.Vijaya W/o Sri.C.H.Venkata Sesha Reddy. The said Venkata Shesha Reddy is the then customer and a friend of Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 also purchased property at No.2/253C, 1st Stage, ITI Layout, 32nd Main Road (Sarakki), J.P.Nagar, Bangalore City Corporation Ward No.57, Bangalore in the joint names of Smt.G.V.Shivaleela, Sri.G.V.Saiprasad and Sri.G.V.Guruprasad, who were not earning members. Later, Accused No.1 got constructed a palatial house there by spending about Rs.33,14,500/. Though Accused No.1 tried to get back this property, but his first family members did not agree for the same. The above transactions clearly proves that Accused No.1 invested in properties in the name 22 Spl.C.C.56/2015 of different individuals, since he would not account the sources of purchase.
17. It is further contended that Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 claimed to have filed IT returns in the name of Accused No.2, who is having PAN AIJPR4200J. As per records of IT Department, Accused No.2 has only filed IT returns for the year from 200809 to 201213. IT Department does not have the IT returns of Accused No.2 for the years from 200304 to 200708, on their records. Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 claimed to have filed IT returns for the years from 200203 to 201011 in the name of Accused No.2 with the following yearly income:
* Income of Rs.44,500/ for the financial year 200203 * Income of Rs.96,000/ for the financial year 200304 * Income of Rs.1,43,000/ for the financial year 200405 * Income of Rs.2,59,630/ for the financial year 200506 * Income of Rs.16,69,116/ for the financial year 200607 23 Spl.C.C.56/2015 * Income of Rs.26,78,975/ for the financial year 200708 * Income of Rs.12,53,455/ for the financial year 200809 * Income of Rs.13,03,349/ for the financial year 200910 * Income of Rs.4,74,222/ for the financial year 201011
18. The investigation revealed that Accused No.2 has declared the income, which reads as under:
Financial year 200203 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an income of (1) Rs.28,000/ from Tailoring and Embroidering and (2) Rs.16,500/ as interest received during the financial year 200203. No documents are available to substantiate the said income said to be received from Tailoring and Embroidering. Further, Accused No.2 has received only an amount of Rs.5,463/ as interest from bank accounts during 200203. Hence, the income cannot be considered as claimed.
Financial year 200304 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an income of (1) Rs.72,000/ from Tailoring and Embroidering and (2) Rs.24,000/ as interest received during the financial year 200304. No documents are available to substantiate the said income received from Tailoring and Embroidering. As per the records, Accused No.2 has received only an amount of Rs.4,805/ as interest from bank accounts during 200304. Hence, the income cannot be considered as claimed.
24 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Financial year 200405 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an income of (1) Rs.95,000/ from Tailoring and Embroidering and (2) Rs.48,000/ as interest received during the financial year 200405. No documents are available to substantiate the said income of Rs.95,000/ from Tailoring and Embroidering. Further, Accused No.1 has received only an amount of Rs.10,579/ as interest from bank accounts during 200405. Hence, the income cannot be considered as claimed.
Financial year 200506 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an amount of (1) Rs.3,55,746/ as commission (2) Rs.20,006/ as interest received from Bank and Public Provident Fund (PPF) and (3)Rs.24,000/ from interest received during the financial year 200506. She also claimed that she had spent an amount of Rs.38,763/ as traveling expenses, salaries, miscellaneous expenses, staff welfare, telephone and mobile expenditures etc. No documents are available to substantiate the said commission received and expenditures. Further, Accused No.2 has not received any income from bank or PPF, other than an amount of Rs.7,036/ as interest from bank during 200506. Hence, the income cannot be considered as claimed.
Financial year 200607 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an income of (1) Rs.9,48,637/ from professional fees (2) Rs.6,85,000/ as commission and (3) Rs.8,655/ as Bank interest during the financial year 200607. She also claimed that she had 25 Spl.C.C.56/2015 spent an amount of Rs.1,43,425/ as traveling expenses, salaries, miscellaneous expenses, staff welfare, telephone and mobile expenditures etc. Out of those income, professional fees of Rs.9,00,000/ said to be received from M/s Puja Impex (A4) and commission of Rs.6,27,700/ claimed to be received from Sri.Mehaboob of M/s Nishat Enterprises, has already been disproved. Hence, these incomes, other than bank interest, cannot be considered as claimed.
Financial year 200708 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an amount of (1) Rs.7,45,228/ as commission received and (2) Rs.51,312/ from Bank interest during the financial year 200708. She also claimed that she had spent an amount of Rs.97,359/ as traveling expenses, salaries, miscellaneous expenses, staff welfare, telephone and mobile expenditures etc. No documents are available to substantiate the said commission received and expenditure. Accused No.2 also claimed an income of Rs.27,63,315/ said to be received from share business, which is already been disproved. Hence, these incomes, other than bank interest, could not be considered as claimed.
Financial year 200809 Accused No.2 claimed that she has received an income of (1) Rs.12,57,355/ as commission received and (2) Rs.70,401/ from bank interest during the financial year 200708. She has also declared a gross income of Rs.13,53,455/ from share business along with immovable properties, which were already been established as not genuine. No documents are available to substantiate the 26 Spl.C.C.56/2015 said commission received, other than bank interest. Hence, these incomes, other than bank interest, could not be considered.
19. The above mentioned evidences clearly proves that Accused No.1 made illegal money through pecuniary sources and the same were said to be shown/invested in the name of Accused No.2, who was his live in partner, with the help of Accused No.3, duly leaving his legal wife and children. For making the above mentioned illegal money as legal, Accused No.1 claimed to have filed IT returns in the name of Accused No.2 through Accused No.3, who was working in a chartered accountant firm. Hence, the income said to have been claimed in the name of Accused No.2 has been rejected/not considered.
20. Investigation further established that Accused No.1 had amassed the following assets in the name of Accused No.2 with his illgotten money during the check 27 Spl.C.C.56/2015 period:
1. Open site No.14, Sy.No.63/5, Nagashettihalli, Bangalore
2. Site No.57 measuring 40 x 50 ft. at Sy.No.34/2 & 49/2, Khata No.338, Kudlu Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Talu (East), Bangalore
3. Flat No.10094, Prestige Shantiniketan, Whitefield, Bangalore
4. Two sites at V.N.Layout, Bellary, which were stated to be gifted by Smt.C.H.Vijaya, W/o Sri.C.H.Venkata Sesha Reddy, a friend of Accused No.1
5. Flat No.405, 4th Floor, Wing C, Building Camation, Raheja Gardens, Vanawadi, Pune, Maharashtra
6. Flat OS5, Nirvana Nest Build Con(P) Ltd., Sapna Garden, Chogum Road, Porvorim Bardez, Goa
7. Plot No.59 and plot No.60 at Dharwad.
28 Spl.C.C.56/2015
21. Investigation further established that Accused No.2 abetted with Accused No.1 to manage the assets amassed by him with his pecuniary resources. Accused No.3 is the main abetter, who prepared the said IT returns in the name of Accused No.2. He had shown all his skills to project Accused No.2 as big business woman, who used to do business transactions and property transactions. He prepared false Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, Statement of Income etc. in the name of Accused No.2. Accused No.3 was main person, who laundered the ill gotten money of Accused No.2. Accused No.3 collected the illegal cash from Accused No.2 and carried the same to Mumbai and handed over to one Sri.Kamal Rathi for doing illegal share transactions. Accused No.3 had opened share trading account in the name of Accused No.2 by giving his own address and monitored the illegal share transactions in 29 Spl.C.C.56/2015 the name of Accused No.2 for accounting the illegal money of Accused No.1. Accused No.3 also involved in the property transactions of Accused No.1. He had handed over Rs.56 lakhs to Sri.Ramaprakash for making payments to the land owners of the benami property of 6.37 acres situated at Gunjur Village, Varthur, Bangalore. Accused No.3 well aware that the said land was purchased by Accused No.1 in the name of Sri.Kukkuppi Chennppa, his father. He also paid cash of Rs.3 lakhs to the seller of the property at Kudlu, Anekal, Bangalore, which was registered in the name of Accused No.2.
22. It is further contended that the revenue received by Accused No.1 through the money laundering and bogus share trading landed in the Savings Bank A/c No.54012300997 of Accused No.2 available at State Bank of Mysore, Gandhinagar Branch, Bellary. The said account 30 Spl.C.C.56/2015 was opened by Accused No.3 in the name of Accused No.2 in his own address i.e. C/o Kotresh.K, Sir.M.V.Nagar, 4 th Cross(left), Bellary583 103. Sri.N.Varadaraju, Assistant Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Bangalore also identified Accused No.3 stating that Accused No.3 used to visit their branch for doing operations in this account in the name of Accused No.2. The said evidence shows that Accused No.3 abetted with Accused No.2 to commit the offences.
23. It is further contended that Smt.G.V.Shivaleela, the first wife of Accused No.1 was a house wife without any permanent income. She has not filed any IT returns during the check period. The details/documents received from IT department also shows that she had issued with PAN AHQPS4162E, but not filed any IT returns. This also indicates that she did not have taxable income during the 31 Spl.C.C.56/2015 check period. Apart from the same, from 2004 onwards, Accused No.1 started illicit relationship with Accused No.2 and thereafter, his first wife and children estranged from Accused No.1. At the same time, Accused No.1 started making investments/properties only in the name of Accused No.2 fully avoiding his first family. The above evidence not made out abetment on the part of first wife of Accused No.1 and his children.
24. It is further contended that 'I to VI statements' and 'NOTE' submitted by Accused No.1 discloses details of immovable properties, movable properties, financial investments etc., possessed, disposed, matured etc. of Accused No.1 and 2 during the check period. There is a evidence to show that Accused No.1 has acquired various movable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of Accused No.2 during the period from 01.01.2002 to 32 Spl.C.C.56/2015 10.07.2013 by corrupt or by illegal means or otherwise and by abusing his official position, assets and pecuniary resources value to the tune of Rs.2,91,70,984/, which is 117.95% beyond his known source of income, but he could not give satisfactory account for the said assets.
25. The Accused No.1 was already in possession of following assets in his name and in the name of family members at the beginning of check period:
STATEMENTA Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e. on 01.01.2002 Sl.No Description of the Asset Amount (Rs.) 1 House hold items found at No.18, 9,400 Belvedera, B.D.Road, Mumbai26, the residence of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (A1) and stated to be available at the beginning of the check period 2 Cash balance as on 01.01.2003 in 66,004 Savings Bank A/c No.00781003572 (old No.12049) of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (A1) at Dena Bank, K.G.Road Branch, 33 Spl.C.C.56/2015 2nd Main, Gandhinagar, Maharashtra Mandal Buildings, Bangalore560 009 Total 75,404 Hence, the total value of the assets of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (A1) as on 01.01.2002 i.e. at the beginning of the check period was Rs.75,404//
26. That Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (A1) was in possession of various assets in his name as well as in the name of Smt.R.Radha (A2) at the end of the check period. The same are as follows:
Statement - B Assets at the end of the check period i.e. on 10.07.2013 Sl. Description of the Assets Amount No. in Rs.
1 Land converted for non-agricultural residential purposes 4160000 bearing Sy.No.(1) 187/3 measuring 28 guntas (ii) 188/1 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas and (iii) 210/2 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas in all measuring 6 acres 37 guntas excluding kharab situated at Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore acquired by Accused No.1 on 26.11.2008 by way of gift deed executed by his sister Smt.Kukkuppi Nagamma r/o Bandri Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District 2 Vacant residential site No.1268 measuring 40' x 60' situated 1440000 at 7th Cross, LIC Plot, Sector-III, Phase-I, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore acquired by Accused No.1 through Gift & Release 34 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Deeds executed by Smt.G.V.Shivaleela and Sri.G.V.Guruprasad, wife and son of Accused No.1 respectively 3 Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri Apartments at Govindappa 2000000 Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore measuring super built up area of 1310 sq.ft. together with exclusive right to use covered car parking space bearing No.7 in the basement floor purchased by Accused No.1 4 Plot No.47 measuring 500 sq. mtrs. In pocket-U, Sector-20, 1841602 Yamuna Expressway IDA, Greater Noida in the name of Accused No.1 5 Flat No.301, 302 & 303, KKR-PEARL' at Sy.No.58/1, Ward 15800000 No.19, Hebbal Ring Road, Nagashettihalli, Bangalore in the name of Accused No.1 from M/s Balaji Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Venkus Sadan, Chickamaranahalli, Bangalore 6 Ford Icon car (2003 Model) purchased by Accused No.1 on 621394 20.01.2003 and registered as KA 05 MA 3591 7 Samsung make television purchased on 14.10.2009 48750 8 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in Savings Bank A/c 14805 No.No.00781003572 (old No.12049) of Accused No.1 at Dena Bank, K.G.Road Branch, 2nd Main, Gandhinagar, Maharashtra Mandal Buildings, Bangalore-560 009. 9 Credit balance held in SB A/c No.4054381 190577 (old)/06610023131 (New) of Accused No.1 at Dena bank, Marine Lines, Mumbai.
10 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in Super Premium Savings 60539 Bank A/c No.90432170000079 of Accused No.1 at Syndicate Bank, Khan Market Branch, New Delhi 11 Credit cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in Savings Bank A/c 236158 No.64034242037 of Accused No.1 at State Bank of Mysore, Basavanagudi Branch, K.R.Road, Bangalore. 12 Flat No.10094 having 2072 Square foot, 'Jacaranda corner' 3554078 Prestige Shantiniketan in the name of Smt.R.Radha w/o Accused No.1.
13 Flat No.LG-1 (40, 17 sqmtr), Block A, Dove Valley View, 600000 Sy.No.17/0 of Issorcim Village, Velsao Pale Village Panchayath, Mormugao TK, South Goa District, Goa in the 35 Spl.C.C.56/2015 name of Accused No.2.
14 Flat No.405, 4th Floor, Wing C, Building Carnation, Raheja 2200000 Gardens, Vanawadi Pune is in the name of Accused No.2 15 Site No.57 measuring 40 X 50 ft. at Sy.No.34/2 & 49/2, 300000 Katha No.338, Kudlu Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Tq (East) in the name of Accused No.2 acquired through document No.ANK-I-23895/2004-05 16 Plot No.59 & 60 at Dharward in the name of Accused No.2. 102420 17 'Honda Activa' bearing Model No.'SCV110' of silver colour 41827 purchased by Accused No.1 from M/s Malwa Motors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 18 House-hold items found at No.18, Belevedera, B.D.Road, 437073 Mumbai-26, the residence of Accused No.1 and stated to be available at the end of the check period. 19 Cash seized during the house search at residential premises 116100 of Accused No.1 at Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri Apartments, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. 20 Fixed Deposit (STD) of Rs.10,80,800/- in the name of 1080800 Accused No.2 at SBI, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore vide A/c No.3220934527 21 State Bank of Mysore, Gandhinagar Branch, Bellary 126000 reinvestment deposit A/c No.54012324657 in the name of Accused No.2.
22 Balance in the Public Provident Fund (PPF) A/c 1067387 No.01PW904024 (new No.10427878205 at SBI, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore in the name of Accused No.2. 23 214 Nos. of NTPC shares in the name of Accused No.1, 13268 No.53-C, 32nd Main, 8th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 1st Phase, Bangalore-560 078.
24 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in SB A/c No.01190035336 351316 (old) 10427816612 (new) of Accused No.2 at SBI, J.P.Nagar Branch, 24th Phase, Bangalore 25 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in SB A/c No.01190012373 129267 (old) 54012300997 (new) of Accused No.2 at State Bank of Mysore, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Bellary.
36 Spl.C.C.56/2015 26 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in SB A/c No.12035 (old) 217526 022201000012035 (new) of Accused No.2 at IOB, Breach Candy Branch, Mumbai.
27 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in SB A/c No.12643 of 48433 Accused No.2 at Canara Bank, Indian Institute of Science Branch, Bangalore 28 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in SB A/c No.33019311570 356560 of Accused No.1 at State Bank of India, Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore 29 Cash balance as on 10.07.2013 in smart save a/c 29488 No.1503017588 in the name of Smt.G.V.Shivaleela /G.E.Veerabhadrappa at Oriental bank of Commerce, No.1149, 26th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore.
Total 37185368
Hence, the total value of the assets of
Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa(A1) as on 10.07.2013 i.e. at the end of the check period was Rs.3,71,85,368/
27. Income of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (A1) and Smt.R.Radha(A2) during the check period between 01.01.2002 to 10.07.2013.
STATEMENT - C Income of Accused No.1 and 2 during the check period from 01.01.2002 to 10.07.2013 Sl.No Description of the Assets Amount in Rs. 1 Net salary income of A1 received from ITAT during the 6082321 period 01.01.2003 to 30.06.2013 37 Spl.C.C.56/2015 2 Net salary income of A1 received from ITAT during the 300720 period 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 3 Proceeds towards the sale of BDA site No.1791 15345446 measuring 50 X 80' at HSR Layout, Sector-1, Bellandur, Bangalore 4 Outstanding loan amount taken from Sri.Venkata Sesha 700000 Reddy @ Venkata Satish Kumar for purchase of Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri Apartment, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 5 Rental income from flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri 1113838 Apartment, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore (approx) 6 Profit on sale of vacant site measuring 40 ft x 60 ft. 248000 located at No.60, Beechi Nagar, Kappagal Road, Bellary-03 (sale amount) 7 Rental income from Flat No.197, First Floor, Category- 25800 II, Type - G, Jeevan Sathi Segment, Block No.20 situated in Municipal No.9020, 24th Main, Sector-II, 1st Phase, J.P.Nagar (Sarakki), Bangalore (approx) 8 Interest received in the Savings Bank A/c 38865 No.00781003572 9 Interest received during the check period from 241396 01.01.2003 to 10.07.2013 from the SB A/c No.01190035336 (old) 10427816612(new) of Smt.Radha (A2) at State Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, 24th Phase, Bangalore 10 Interest received during the check period from 113762 01.01.2003 to 10.07.2013 from SB A/c No.01190012373 (old) 54012300997 (new) of Smt.Radha (A2) at State Bank of Mysore, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Bellary 11 Interest received during the check period from 59274 01.01.2003 to 10.07.2013 from the Super Premium Savings Bank A/c No.90432170000079 of A1 at Syndicate Bank, Khan Market Branch, New Delhi 12 Interest received during the check period from 28298 01.01.2003 to 10.07.2013 from SB A/c No.066610023131 of A1 at Dena Bank, New Marine 38 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Lines Branch, Mumbai 13 Interest received during the check period from 23255 01.01.2003 to 10.07.2013 from the SB A/c No.12643 of A2 at Canara Bank, IISC. Branch, Bangalore 14 Interest received from SB A/c No.12035 (old) 24704 022201000012035 (new of A2 at IOB, Breach Candy Branch, Mumbai during the check period 15 Interest received from SB A/c No.071-679898-006 of 2657 HSBC, Bangalore in the name of Accused No.1 during the check period 16 Interest received from SB A/c No.65034242037 of State 46263 Bank of Mysore, Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore in the name of Accused No.1 17 Interest received from SB A/c No.1503017588 of 4713 Oriental bank of Commerce, Jayanagar Branch, Banglaore in the joint names of Smt.G.V.Shivaleela and Accused No.1 18 Interest received from SB A/c No.33019311570 of SBI, 237 Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore in the name of Accused No.1 19 Security deposit received by Accused No.1 for having 150000 rented out his flat No.302 at M/s Roppasri Apartment, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore to M/s Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd.
20 Total annuity received by Accused No.1 in LIC Policy 122094 No.66077799 (DOC:15.12.1989 and matured on 01/2005) from LIC of India, Raichur Branch, Karnataka 21 Surrender value of the LIC Policy No.615009615 was in 50335 the name of Accused No.2, R/at No.249/C, 4th Cross, 5th Main, 1st Stage, 2nd Phase, Gokula Extn., Bangalore 22 Dividend received for the financial year 2002-03 980 towards 700 equity shares of Induslnd Bank Ltd. in the name of Accused No.1 23 Dividend received from 214 no.s of NTPC shares in the 6602 name of Accused No.1, No.53-C, 32nd Main, 8th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 1st Phase, Bangalore 39 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Total 24729560
28. The Accused No.1 and his family members had incurred following expenditures during the check period between 01.01.2002 and 10.07.2013.
STATEMENT D Expenditure during the check period i.e. between 01.01.2002 and 10.07.2013 Sl. Description of the Assets Amount in No. Rs.
1 1/3rd of Gross salary of the accused towards household 2024446 expenses 2 1/3rd of Gross Salary of the accused towards household 161380 expenses during 2002 3 Repayment of Housing Loan taken from HDFC for purchase 35464 of Flat No.197, situated in Municipal No.9020, 24th Main, Sector-II, 1st Phase, Sarakki, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore (Rs.2190X 84 months) 4 Expenditure incurred by Accused No.1 for purchase of Flat 1286590 No.30, Aishwarya Bless Apartment, Shamambarinagar, 1st Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore on 30.07.2005 in the name of his son Sri.G.V.Saiprasad 5 Expenditure incurred by Accused No.1 for purchase of Flat 1949680 No.103, Vaishnavi Woods, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore in the name of his son Sri.G.V.Guruprasad on 28.03.2005 6 Expenditure incurred towards Flat No.405, 4th Floor, Wing C 78951 Building Carnation, Raheja Gardens, Vanawadi, Pune in the name of Accused No.2 7 Repayment towards the loan availed by in the name of 158079 Smt.Shivaleela.G.V. from Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, No.7, PB No.5267, M.G.Road, Bangalore 40 Spl.C.C.56/2015 8 Repayment towards the loan A/c No.LBMUM00001227077 1331323 taken from ICICI bank for purchase of Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri Apartment, Govindappa road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 9 Single Premium Policy (ULIP Policy) with a single 100000 premium of Rs.1,00,000/ vide policy No.665482859 commenced on 28.06.2010 in the name of Accused No.2 and nominee is Accused No.1 10 Children money back policy with a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs 93520 assured with yearly premium of Rs.23,380/- vide Policy No.665482873 in the name of Sri.G.V.Tejas S/o Smt.Radha.R, which paid in 4 numbers of installments of Rs.23,380/- each on 28.06.2010, 30.06.2011, 21.06.2012 and 07.06.2013 11 Premium (single mode) paid towards the LIC Policy 30000 No.615009615 (DOC: 20.02.2006) in the name of Accused No.2 at LIC of India, Peenya branch, Bangalore during the check period 12 Premium paid towards the LIC Policy No.614816055 88440 (DOC: 10.11.2005) in the name of Smt.R.Radha at LIC of India, Peenya Branch, Bangalore 13 Premium paid towards the LIC Policy No.614816055 168210 (DOC: 10.11.2005) in the name of Smt.R.Radha at LIC of India, Peenya Branch, Bangalore 14 Premium paid towards the LIC Policy No.660077799 7015 (DOC: 15.12.1989) in the name of Accused No.1 at LIC of India, Raichur branch, Karnataka 15 Premium paid towards LIC Policy No.614313313 in the 29302 name of Accused No.2 during the period from April 2008 to 17.07.2013 16 Premium paid towards LIC Policy No.615763411 in the 171576 name of Sri.G.V.Tejas during the period from 25.06.2008 to 07.06.2013 17 Premium paid towards ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. 85500 Ltd. No.01009939 in the name of Accused No.2 18 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 224000 of Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri Apartments at 41 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, which was purchased by Accused No.1 19 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 130650 of property at 475A, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, which was purchased by Accused No.1 in the name of his first wife 20 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 1930 of property at No.1268, LIC Plot, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, which was gifted by Smt.Shivaleela to Accused No.1 21 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 1810 of property at No.1268, LIC Plot, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, which was gifted by Sri.G.V.Guruprasad to Accused No.1 22 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 113280 of property at Apartment No.309, 3rd Floor, Aishwarya Bliss, Sarakki, Bangalore, which was purchased by Accused No.1 in the name of Sri.Saiprasad 23 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 195640 of property at Apartment No.103, Vaishnavi Woods, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, which was purchased by Accused No.1 in the name of his son Sri.G.V.Guruprasad 24 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 30510 of property at Site No.57, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, which was purchased by Accused No.2 25 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 319880 of property at Apartment No.10094, Jacaranda Corner, Prestige Shantiniketan, Bangalore, which was purchased by Accused No.2 26 Registration and stamp duty charges towards the registration 921141 of Varthur property, which was purchased by Accused No.1 in the name of Sri.Kukkupi Chennappa 27 Expenditure towards the SBI Credit card bearing No.5264 63972 6894 1400 9522 in the name of Accused No.1 28 Purchase of sarees from M/s Babu Silks & Sarees, No.83-B, 57090 Nadu Street, Sheikped, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu vide cash bill No.S530149 dated 02.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.54,480/- and bill No.S619595 dated 02.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.2,610/ by Accused No.1 and his family members and the bills seized during the house search 42 Spl.C.C.56/2015 29 Service charges paid to Cauvery Ford by Accused No.1 22460 towards his Ford Ikon car bearing No.KA05 MA3591 30 Fees for designing house at No.53 C, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore 25000 paid to M/s Gayathri & Namith Associates, Temple Trees Row, Cauvery Colony, Near 1st Block, Kormangala, Bangalore by Accused No.1 31 Settlement amount paid by Accused No.1 to 3300000 Smt.G.V.Shivaleela after divorce 32 The cost of palatial bungalow at Plot No.53/C measuring 3314500 18.28 mtrs. X 12.19 mtrs. Situated at 32 nd Main, 8th Cross, Phase-I, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore in the joint names of Smt.G.V.Shivaleela, Sri.G.V.Saiprasad and Sri.G.V.Guruprasad 33 Educational expenses of Master G.V.Tejas S/o Accused No.1 252320 and 2 34 Property taxes paid towards Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Roopasri 16921 Apartment, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore Total 16790580
29. The computation of the assets, income and expenditure of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa (Accused No.1) during the check period between 01.01.2002 and 10.07.2013 are as follows:
Sl. Description Amount in Rs.
No.
A Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e. on 75404
01.01.2002 (A)
B Assets at the end of the check period i.e. on 10.07.2013 37185368
(B)
43 Spl.C.C.56/2015
C Receipts and Income during the check period i.e. 24729560
between 01.01.2022 and 10.07.2013 (C ) D Expenditure during the check period i.e. between 16790580 01.01.2022 and 10.07.2013 (D) E Assets acquired during the check period i.e. between 37109964 01.01.2022 and 10.07.2013 (B-A) F Likely savings during the check period i.e. between 7938980 01.01.2002 and 10.07.2013 (C-D) G Disproportionate assets during the check period i.e. 29170984 between 01.01.2002 and 10.07.2013 H Percentage of disproportionate assets check period i.e. 117.95% between 01.01.2002 and 10.07.2013 (G X 100/C)
30. It is further contended that the above income, expenditure, assets etc. shows that the Accused No.1 and 2 were in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.2,91,70,984/ i.e. 117.95% beyond his known source of income during the check period. Further, the Accused No.2 and 3 and M/s Pooja Impex have abetted Accused No.1 in acquisition of assets during the check period and many movable and immovable properties were purchased in the name of Accused No.2 from the illgotten money of Accused 44 Spl.C.C.56/2015 No.1. Most of the original documents are connected to the immovable properties recovered during the house search conducted at the residential premises of Accused No.1 at Bengaluru and Mumbai. In view of the said material, it is primafacie clear that the Accused No.1 being the public servant has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 and 3 and one Smt.Chand Devi Jain have committed the offence punishable under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act. Since Accused No.1 was already retired from service, sanction is not obtained.
31. During the course of proceedings, the Accused No.4 has been discharged. Therefore, charge against Accused No.1 to 3 are framed for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and 109 of IPC 45 Spl.C.C.56/2015 and read over to Accused No.1 to 3 in English language known to them. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial for recording the evidence was fixed.
32. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined CW3 to CW5, CW7, CW9, CW10, CW12 to CW18, CW25, CW21, CW6, CW11, CW8, CW20, CW22, CW23, CW24, CW26, CW30, CW33, CW32, CW34 to CW37, CW28, CW38, CW39, CW42, CW43, CW31, CW47, CW44, CW48, CW51, CW40, CW53, CW54, CW55, one Ranjith Aruva, CW71, CW61, CW60, CW59, CW45, CW62, CW63, CW67, CW70, CW83, CW77, CW97, CW101, CW105, CW104, CW103, CW2, CW52, CW99, CW66 and CW107 as PW1 to PW66 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P268 and Ex.D.1 to D.18. Other witnesses are not examined.
33. Thereafter, statement as contemplated under 46 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by putting the incriminating evidence available against Accused No.1 to 3 and recorded their answers as per the version given by them. They have submitted written statement with some documents, but not chosen to adduce their oral evidence.
34. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Shivananda Parle and and the learned counsel for the Accused Sri.Shivaji H.Mane and learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.Javali.
35. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 during the check period from 01.01.2002 to 01.07.2013 while working as public servant as Vice President in ITAT, 47 Spl.C.C.56/2015 acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.2,91,70,984/ i.e. 117.95% beyond his known source of income and he failed to give satisfactory account of pecuniary resources, which is disproportionate to his known source of income and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.2 and 3 have actively abetted Accused No.1 to acquire movable and immovable properties by Accused No.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
48 Spl.C.C.56/2015
3. What order?
36. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the affirmative (subject to some variation in percentage Point No.3 : 'As per final order' for the following:
REASONS
37. POINT Nos.1 AND 2: Since these two points are interconnected to each other, to avoid reputation of facts, they are taken up together for discussion.
38. Admittedly, the Accused No.1 was retired before filing the charge sheet and therefore, he was not a public servant as on the date of filing the final report. Hence, sanction for prosecution has not been obtained. With regard to this aspect, the Accused No.1 has not raised any objection. Hence, it is clear that sanction for prosecution is 49 Spl.C.C.56/2015 not necessary.
39. The learned Public Prosecutor has highlighted item by item as mentioned in charge sheet and argued that the prosecution has proved the case by placing most reliable and admissible evidence. It is for the accused to show that he had acquired all the properties out of his legal source of income. Mere filing of Income Tax Returns is not sufficient to prove the lawful source of income as per the judgment passed in Jayalalitha's case by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, sufficient check period has been taken by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel with regard to that aspect. In this case, 1/3rd of net salary has been considered. Hence, the accused cannot raise any objection in that regard.
40. Further, since the learned counsel for the 50 Spl.C.C.56/2015 accused has submitted detailed written arguments point, by point, instead of narrating the argument points, it is better to go item by item, for avoiding unnecessary and repeated discussions. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.S.H.M. for the accused, the matter is taken up for discussion as per Statement A to D.
41. STATEMENT A:
Now, let me consider items mentioned in Statement A. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution has only considered two items, which was in the hands of Accused No.1 at the beginning of check period. The prosecution has valued the said asset at Rs.75,404/. But, the Accused No.1 has seriously disputed the item No.2 and further contended that there were other assets with him. There is no dispute with regard to Rs.9,400/, which was with Accused No.1.
51 Spl.C.C.56/2015
42. Item No.2: Item No.2 is shown as Rs.66,004/. But, in the written arguments and during the course of arguments and also in Statement under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 has claimed additional assets. According to him, it was Rs.1,74,408/, which was in his account instead of Rs.66,004/. For that the accused is relying upon Ex.P.165. Ex.P.165 consisting of 11 pass books. The said documents have been produced by the prosecution and relying upon. In the final report, Investigating Officer has stated that at the beginning of check period, an amount of Rs.66,004/ was available in Dena Bank Account. But, original pass book produced by the prosecution discloses that there was a balance of Rs.1,74,407/ as on 31.12.2001. The same cannot be disputed by the prosecution, because it is its own document. The check period taken by the prosecution from 01.01.2002 52 Spl.C.C.56/2015 instead of 01.01.2003 in the final report. Of course, in that regard also, the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. has argued that without taking permission of the court, the Investigating Officer has erroneously changed the check period from 01.01.2003 to 01.01.2002 to suit the convenience. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, law has given discretion to the Investigating Officer to select the check period, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the check period shall not be too short and shall not be too long i.e. only principles laid down with regard to taking the check period. There is no law that permission should be taken from the court to change the check period while filing the final report. Since reasonable check period has been taken by the Investigating Officer and opportunities were given to the accused to give explanation in that regard, now the same cannot be held as 53 Spl.C.C.56/2015 wrong.
43. In view of the said fact and since the document of the prosecution itself discloses that there was a balance of Rs.1,74,407.70 as on 01.01.2002, the same should be taken as an asset at the beginning of the check period. Hence, the contention of Accused No.1 in that regard is accepted.
44. The Accused No.1 is also claiming additional amount of Rs.1,47,587/ by contending that as per the evidence of PW29 and Ex.P.82 to P.86 and the documents produced by him, there was a provident fund to that extent in his account at the beginning of the check period. In that regard, he has produced the original pass book issued by SBI pertaining to PPF A/c in the name of Accused No.1 G.E.Veerabhadrappa. This document discloses that a sum of Rs.1,47,587/ was available in his PPF account as on 54 Spl.C.C.56/2015 04.04.2001 and subsequently, some amounts were deposited. Since by the end of December 2001, so much amount was available in his account, the same will have to be considered. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued if there is a document to establish the same, the same can be considered. But, the argument is that since the law for both prosecution and the accused is one and the same, with regard to admissibility of the documents and since the accused has not produced this document by entering into witness box and offering himself for crossexamination, some of the documents cannot be received and considered by the court. Of course, law with regard to that aspect is very clear. There was no impediment for the accused to confront the said document to PW66, who is the Investigating Officer in this case. Had this document was confronted to PW66, he would have 55 Spl.C.C.56/2015 been in a position to examine and give the proper answers. But, why the Accused No.1 did not produce the same before the Investigating officer, either during the course of investigation or during the course of crossexamination has not been explained at all. However, since this is a original pass book issued by the bank, having regard to the scope of Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the same may be considered. Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is based on the fundamental principles of fairness. The attention of the accused must specifically be brought to inculpatory pieces of evidence to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. Therefore, the court is under a legal obligation to put the incriminating circumstances before the accused and solicit his response. Of course, it is for the accused to give proper explanation to the question posed to him.
56 Spl.C.C.56/2015
45. It is to be noted that here in this case for the first time, the Accused No.1 has brought to the notice of the court with regard to this additional income, along with other incomes. Even though the Accused No.1 has not placed his case while conducting crossexamination of PW66, but since the prosecution has not seriously disputed about this original pass book, I am of the opinion that the same may be accepted to hold that the Accused No.1 was having asset of Rs.1,47,587/ at the beginning of the check period. Hence, the same is to be added to Statement A.
46. The Accused No.1 also claims Rs.71,500/ and Rs.43,000/ by contending that the said amounts were paid to BDA as advance for allotment of site. During the course of crossexamination, suggestions were made to PW66 with regard to payment of advance to the BDA for allotment of site. He has admitted the same and It is a fact that 57 Spl.C.C.56/2015 subsequently the said allotment was canceled and returned the advance amount to Accused No.1 and allotted some other property by taking additional amount of Rs.5,20,000/ and odd. Since there is no serious dispute with regard to investment of Rs.71,500/ before the starting of check period, the same may be considered. Further, Ex.P.215 document in Page No.76 pertaining to account statement of Accused No.1 discloses that a sum of Rs.71,644/ was paid to BDA through cheque No.173866. But, there is no entry in the said statement with regard to payment of Rs.43,000/ on the same date. Therefore, the contention of the Accused No.1 to that effect cannot be accepted. Since, there is an evidence in the document of prosecution itself, with regard to payment of Rs.71,500/ before the starting of check period, the same should be considered as an asset in the hands of Accused No.1 at the time of beginning of check 58 Spl.C.C.56/2015 period. Hence, the sum of Rs.71,500/ is taken as additional income.
47. The Accused No.1 has also claimed a sum of Rs.2,85,000/ as sundry debtors. According to him, he filed Income Tax Returns for the year 200405 in the capacity of Hindu Undivided Family. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.Javali has argued that the Accused No.1 has produced Income Tax Returns, which were submitted in accordance with Income Tax rules and they clearly establish that the Accused No.1 had filed Income Tax Returns in his individual capacity and also in the capacity of Hindu Undivided Family.
48. It is also argued that during the year 1990, there was a partition in the joint family and copy of memorandum of partition has also been produced along with statement 59 Spl.C.C.56/2015 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the said document clearly establishes that he had also income from Hindu Undivided Family. Therefore, the same is to be considered.
49. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that since the Accused No.1 has failed to submit his explanation when statements were supplied to him and since no question was posed to PW66 by confronting the relevant documents to show the Hindu Undivided Family income, the same cannot be considered at this stage. As stated above, it has been highlighted that the alleged documents have not been proved in accordance with law.
50. In the light of the said arguments, I have perused the documents. Section 313 Cr.P.C. only says that the court with the assistance of public prosecutor and the defense counsel shall prepare the question with regard to 60 Spl.C.C.56/2015 incriminating evidence available against the accused, in order to give him a fair chance to give his explanation. That procedure has been properly complied by this court by preparing the relevant questions and by handing over the same to Accused No.1 and the same was verified by the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused and admitted the same to the effect that all the relevant questions were prepared and posed to the Accused No.1. Nothing has been raised to the effect that some questions were left out.
51. Therefore, as per the provision, the accused is required to give his explanation either in writing or by making his submission. Of course, the law does not say that the accused should come to the witness box and give his evidence, The court also cannot compel him to give his evidence. But, law also does not say that the accused can 61 Spl.C.C.56/2015 produce any number of documents along with statement to substantiate his contention, without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to contradict the same. If the Accused No.1 wants to rely upon any new documents, they are require to be produced and marked in accordance with law, as that of the prosecution. There is no separate law for the accused in that regard, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor.
52. A careful perusal of evidence of PW66, it is clear that no specific question was posed to him to the effect that at the beginning of check period, the Accused No.1 was also having Hindu Undivided Family asset of Rs.2,85,000/ and Rs.34,088/. No document was confronted to him for the purpose of giving an opportunity for his examination and to give his answers. But, the Accused No.1 has produced some xerox documents to show that there was a family partition 62 Spl.C.C.56/2015 in the year 1990 and his father had executed a Will dated 16.09.2000, whereunder, he bequeathed some properties in favour of his grand children and filing of some Income Tax Returns from the year 200506 onwards. But, the said documents do not disclose that the said Income Tax Returns were filed before starting of the check period. He has not produced any document to show that he had declared so much of amount before the starting of check period i.e. as on 01.01.2002. Therefore, in the absence of following the due procedure of law and producing the relevant documents in accordance with law, the contention of the accused in that regard cannot be believed and accepted. Moreover, there is no document to substantiate the said contention. Hence, the same is not considered.
53. The Accused No.1 also claiming that there was a cash balance of Rs.34,088/, but there is no material on 63 Spl.C.C.56/2015 record to substantiate the said aspect. Nothing was confronted to PW66 to show that this amount was available with Accused No.1 at the beginning of the check period. Therefore, in the absence of any material and in the absence of foundation made during the course of trial, this additional income cannot be taken into account. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused in that regard.
54. The Accused No.1 also contended that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ loan, cash and bank balance of Rs.27,431/ and sundry creditors and rent advance of Rs.62,600/ pertaining to Smt.Shivaleela should also be taken as asset at the beginning of the check period.
55. For this, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that since assets of the first wife and children of the 64 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Accused No.1 have not been considered by the prosecution either in B Statement or in C Statement, this amount cannot be considered. Sri.S.H.M. the learned counsel for the accused would submit that since asset of the first family members has also been taken as item No.2 of B Schedule, this also should be taken as an asset in the hands of Accused No.1.
56. It is to be noted that except item No.2 of B Schedule, no other property of Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons has been taken by the prosecution either in Statement B or in Statement C. It is an admitted fact that Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons have been separated from the family of Accused No.1 since he was living with Accused No.2 after 2003 onwards and got a son in the year 2006 and later he married Accused No.2 in the year 2008. That apart, the said documents do not disclose that the said assets were 65 Spl.C.C.56/2015 in their hands prior to 01.01.2002. Hence, at any stretch of imagination these assets of Smt.Shivaleela or her sons cannot be taken into account towards the asset of Accused No.1. With regard to item No.2 of B Statement, detail finding will be given at an appropriate stage. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Accused No.1 in that regard. Therefore, the said amount is not taken.
57. The Accused No.1 has also included item No.10 in the written statement/arguments to the effect that since the Accused No.2 has been living with him and since she was having asset of Rs.4,39,188/ as on 31.03.2001, the same should be considered as an asset in the hands of Accused No.1 at the beginning of the check period. For this, the Accused No.1 is relying upon his explanation statement given by Accused No.2 along with Ex.P.238. When the Investigating Officer issued notice under Form No.1 to 6 to 66 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Accused No.2 to submit her explanation with regard to some of the assets, she has filed the explanation, which is available in Ex.P.238. In this statement, she stated that she is qualified person in fashion technology. She had independent source of income during the period prior to 2008. Prior to 2008, she was living with her mother and sister and during that period, her mother passed away and her father and sister lived with her. Prior to the death of her mother, she had saved an amount of Rs.5,00,000/, which was given to her to meet her marriage expenses. The said amount was prudently invested by her and it was duly reflected in all balance sheets filed to the Income Tax Department prior to 2005. In the year 2008, she got married Accused No.1 Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa and have been only a house wife thereafter. All assets standing in her name were acquired by her prior to the year 2008 and have 67 Spl.C.C.56/2015 been reflected in the balance sheets. After 2008, no assets have been acquired by her. With respect to property situated at Pune, the same was, has a consequence of reinvestment out of sale proceeds of two sites, at Bellary. The sale and purchase have been duly reflected in the balance sheet and Income Tax Returns.
58. Except the said statement and producing the copies of Income Tax Returns for the year 200304, 2004 05, 200708, 200809 and 200910, no other document was produced by her to the Investigating Officer. If the Accused No.1 wants to contend that as on 31.03.2001 a sum of Rs.4,39,188/ was available with Accused No.2 and therefore, it should be taken as an asset to his account, he must show that even prior to 2002, the Accused No.2 was living with him and she was his family member and she had her independent asset. But, it is not the case of the Accused 68 Spl.C.C.56/2015 No.1 that even prior to 01.01.2002, the Accused No.2 was living with him and he had treated her as a family member. On the other hand, the entire evidence would show that after the year 2003, the Accused No.1 started living with Accused No.2 in liveinrelationship and that led to separation of family in respect of his first wife and children from the family of Accused No.1. Of course, it is the personal family affairs of Accused No.1, but the way in which he has been claiming and trying to blow hot and cold at the same time without specifically admitting certain facts and hence, his conduct becomes relevant. Since none of the documents produced along with Ex.P.238, which indicates that as on 31.03.2001, so much of money was available with Accused No.2 and more over it is not his case that even during that period also, she was living with him, his claim to that effect cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am not 69 Spl.C.C.56/2015 inclined to accept the contention of Accused No.1 in that regard.
59. Further, during the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly accepted the contention of the Accused No.1 that the vehicle was sold by him for Rs.1,80,000/. Therefore, income of Rs.1,80,000/ as per Sl.No.25 has been given. Further, as per Ex.P.215 the said amount was credited to the account of Accused No.1. It has been admitted by the prosecution that this vehicle i.e. old car was available with Accused No.1 at the beginning of the check period. In view of the same, there is no dispute that the said asset worth Rs.1,80,000/ should also be taken to the account of Accused No.1 at the beginning of the check period. Accordingly, the same is taken in Statement A.
60. In view of my above discussion, now it is correct 70 Spl.C.C.56/2015 to take the asset of Rs.9,400/, Rs.1,74,408, Rs.1,47,587/, Rs.71,500/ and Rs.1,80,000/ as an asset in the hands of Accused No.1 at the beginning of check period. The total comes to Rs.5,82,895/ in the place of Rs.75,404/.
61. B STATEMENT:
Item No.1: Now, let me consider the items mentioned in Statement B. According to prosecution, item No.1 is shown as Rs.41,60,000/ worth property, which is measuring 6 acres 37 guntas situated at Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. According to prosecution, it is a Benami transaction made by Accused No.1 and he invested the money to purchase the said lands in the name of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa, who is his brotherinlaw, in the year 2006 and within two years, thereafter he made Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa to execute the Gift Deed in favour of his wife Smt.Kukkuppe 71 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Nagamma, who is his sister and on the same day, Accused No.1 got the Gift Deed dated 26.11.2008 in his name.
62. But, the learned counsel for the accused has seriously disputed the said aspect and contended that it was the property of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and he had purchased the said property out of his own source of income, since he had agricultural lands at his village and hence the Accused No.1 has not at all invested his money to purchase the said lands. It is argued that when once the prosecution contends that it is Benami transaction, the entire burden is on the prosecution to prove the same. But, the prosecution has failed to prove the said aspect in accordance with law. Hence, the contention of the prosecution cannot be accepted.
63. In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution is 72 Spl.C.C.56/2015 relying upon the evidence of PW9, PW10, PW11, PW13, PW14, PW19, PW20, PW21 and PW22 and documents as per Ex.P.26 to P.29, Ex.P.40, 44, 57, 58, 59 and 60. PW9 is one Sri.Appaji Gowda, who is retired SubRegistrar. He has spoken about Ex.P.26 to P.29, which are Encumbrance and copies of Gift Deeds dated 26.11.2008 executed by Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa in favour of his wife Smt.Kukkuppe Nagamma in respect of lands measuring 6 acres 27 guntas situated at Gunjur Village. The fact with regard to execution of Gift Deed is not in dispute.
64. PW10 Sri.Ramprakash is one middle man, who worked on commission basis. He has spoken about approach made by Accused No.1 and one Sri.Narayanaswamy in the year 2005 for the purpose of getting the lands to the extent of 78 acres in Gunjur Village and he also spoken that he had agreed to provide the lands 73 Spl.C.C.56/2015 and at that time, Accused No.1 told them to get the land registered in the name of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa. But, owners of the land refused to register in the said passion. Therefore, the Accused No.1 had paid the said consideration for the said lands to him by way of cash in order to pay the same to the vendor. He stated that he had deposited the said amount in his bank account at Vijaya Bank, Gunjur Village and issued the cheques in the names of owners of the properties and he has identified the Accused No.1, who was before the Court stating that he had paid the consideration on that date. He has also identified his account statement marked as Ex.P.30 and P.31. He has also identified the cheque marked as Ex.P.32 to P.36 issued in favour of owners of the lands for various amounts. He specifically stated that the said cheques were issued in favour of land owners for the property purchased in favour 74 Spl.C.C.56/2015 of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa/Accused No.1 and the sale deeds were executed in favour of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 had bought him to the Sub Registrar. He also stated that initially he did not know Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa, but later he came to know that he is the relative of Accused No.1. He was present at the time of registration of the sale deed marked as Ex.P.37 and he is the witness to the said document. He specifically stated that he did the above said transaction with Accused No.1 and ITC Officer Sri.Narayanaswamy. He did not know Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and Accused No.1 and 3 told them to get the registered sale deed in the name of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa.
65. Nothing worth has been elicited in his cross examination to discredit the oral testimony, except eliciting some stray sentences here and there with regard to payment 75 Spl.C.C.56/2015 of cash by Sri.Narayanaswamy. Further, nothing has been elicited to show that there has been illwill or difference of opinion between this witness and Accused No.1 and therefore, he has given false evidence. He stated that he had received the cash only through Sri.Narayanaswamy. Through this witness, the accused got marked Ex.D.11, which is a portion of Ex.P.10. Of course, he admitted that during the talks for purchase of land or during the time of payment of money, Accused No.1 was not present.
66. PW11 one Sri.Suresh is a real estate person and he also spoken about the said transaction. He deposed that he knew Accused No.1, who is before the court and he had approached him to get land for purchase. He stated that one ITC Sri.Narayanaswamy purchased some lands in Gunjur Village. He stated that Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa handed over the consideration amount of sale to PW10 76 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Sri.Ramaprakash and in turn PW10 handed over the same to vendor of the land Sri.Mohan Babu. He stated that he did not know one Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa, who is the purchaser of the property. He also stated that Accused No.1 expressed his willingness to purchase 23 acres of land at Gunjur Village and he told to get the sale deed in the name of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa. Accordingly, sale deed was executed in his name.
67. In the crossexamination, nothing worth has been elicited to discredit his testimony.
68. PW12 is one Sri.G.K.Narayanaswamy. He has also spoken with regard to purchase of land at Gunjur Village, but since he was turned hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor has conducted the crossexamination. He has denied the suggestions that the version as per Ex.P.40 was 77 Spl.C.C.56/2015 given by him before the CBI Officer. Of course, he has denied the suggestion made in the crossexamination conducted by the Public Prosecutor.
69. PW13 is one Sri.Umashankar, contractor. He stated that he himself and his brother Sri.Kodanda Reddy were owning properties in Sy.No.210/2 of Gunjur Village. PW10 Sri.Ramprakash was in real estate business and approached him to purchase the land for Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa and he consented for the same. He also stated that the Accused No.1 had met him pertaining to negotiation of above said land, but he does not remember the market price of the land. PW10 advanced Rs.50,000/ and he told that the balance will be paid at the time of registration. On that day, Sri.Ramprakash had brought Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa to have the sale deed in his name, but he did not agree for the same. Then, Sri.Ramprakash 78 Spl.C.C.56/2015 told him that he would pay the consideration by way of cash, but he did not know as to who had paid the said amount to Sri.Ramprakash. At the time of registration of the sale deed, Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and Sri.Ramprakash were present and Sri.Ramprakash paid the sale consideration by way of cheques and cash. He stated that as per the instruction of Sri.Ramprakash, sale deed was executed in favour of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and Accused No.1 was not present at that time. He stated that he had no sale transaction with Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa, but he had met him only on the date of registration and Sri.Ramprakash alone had made all the registration expenses.
70. PW14 is one Sri.K.M.Nagabhushan, Retired Sub Registrar. He has produced certified copies of sale deed executed in favour of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa marked as 79 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.42 and the sale deed executed by Accused No.1 in favour of Akshaya Holdings marked as Ex.P.43. He has spoken on the basis of documents only. Therefore, much discussion is not required.
71. PW15 is Dr.Srinivas Reddy owner of land to the extent of 22 guntas in Sy.No.187/3 of Gunjur Village. He stated that one Sri.Narayanaswamy and Sri.Ramprakash approached him and requested him to sell his land and after two years, he had sold the land in favour of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa for a consideration of Rs.4,25,000/ and out of that Rs.25,000/ was paid by cash. He also stated that broker Sri.Ramprakash gave consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/ by way of cheque. On that day except Sri.Ramprakash, none were present. One Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa was introduced to him by Sri.Ramprakash. Since he was treated as hostile, crossexamination was conducted 80 Spl.C.C.56/2015 by Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion that he had given statement as per Ex.P.44. He has not supported the case of prosecution.
72. PW19 and PW20 Sri.G.Govardhan and Sri.Mohanbabu are the owners of land. They have deposed that they have sold the property for Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa for a consideration of Rs.22,75,000/ and Rs.11,25,000/ respectively. He deposed that one Sri.Ramprakash paid the consideration amount through cheques and some amount by cash. They deposed that the said lands were purchased for Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa, but sale deeds were registered in the name of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa on the date of registration. They were partly treated as hostile and Public Prosecutor has conducted the crossexamination. Of course, 81 Spl.C.C.56/2015 they have denied the suggestion that they had given statement as per Ex.P.57 and P.58. In the cross examination, they have denied the suggestion that even though the lands were purchased in favour of Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa, they have deposed falsely.
73. PW21 is Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and PW22 is his wife K.Nagamma. In his evidence Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa deposed that Accused No.1 is his wife's brother and Accused No.3 is his son. He owns 5 acres of agricultural land and he does cultivation by giving on lease. He stated that land to an extent of 6.37 guntas in Gunjur Village was standing in his name and he paid consideration for the said land. He stated that his son had brought him to Bengaluru at the time of registration. He stated that he had income of Rs.1,00,000/ per year from the lands and he has not filed Income Tax Returns. At the time of registration, 82 Spl.C.C.56/2015 he himself and his son were present and his son had negotiated for purchasing the land. He does not know as to how much consideration was paid to each of the vendors mentioned in the sale deeds. He stated that he does not know PW10 Sri.Ramprakash and he did not tell Sri.Ramprakash to negotiate for sale. He only paid consideration to the person, who had negotiated.
74. He further deposed that since brokers told him that as he was residing in the Village and somebody may occupy the properties at Gunjur Village, he had gifted the properties to his wife and thereafter, his wife gifted the same in favour of Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 did not pay the consideration amount. His son Accused No.3 Sri.Kotresh had paid registration charges and other expenses. He was treated as hostile and subjected for cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor.
83 Spl.C.C.56/2015
75. If his answers given in the crossexamination are carefully perused, they clearly shows that he did not participate at the time of negotiation and he did not have sufficient money with him to pay an amount of Rs.41,00,000/ and odd and he went to the SubRegistrar Office on the date of registration only and he does not know as to how the consideration amount was paid. He has not paid the consideration amount to the hands of PW10 Sri.Ramprakash with a request to pay the same to the vendors. He stated that immediately after purchase of property, he gifted the same in favour of his wife, but he executed the Gift Deed only on 26.11.2008 and on the same day, it was gifted in favour of Accused No.1.
76. PW22 is the wife of PW21 and if her evidence is carefully perused, it clearly indicates that she has no worldly knowledge and she has not properly explained as to 84 Spl.C.C.56/2015 whether she was capable to monitor the land at Bengaluru, better than her husband. She stated that by thinking that land would be safe, she gifted the same to Accused No.1. The consideration amount for purchasing the land in the name of her husband was paid by her son Accused No.3. In the crossexamination, she stated that her husband did not gift his self acquired properties either to her or to anybody. They have got 5 children and no property was gifted in their favour.
77. If the evidence of PW21 & 22 is carefully perused, it clearly indicates that they did not know anything about sale talks, negotiations and who paid the consideration amount to the vendors of the lands and who paid the said amount to Ramprakash. According to them, their son Accused No.3 has paid the consideration amount, but whereas Ramprakash and other witnesses have clearly 85 Spl.C.C.56/2015 deposed that the amounts were paid by Accused No.1 and that was credited to the account of Sri.Ramprakash at Vijaya Bank and thereafter, he issued cheques in favour of vendors and paid some amount by cash.
78. Further, the evidence of PW21 and PW22 clearly discloses that they were not at all having capacity to pay an amount of Rs.41,60,000/ during 2006 or at any point of time for the purpose of purchasing land at Bengaluru (Varthur Taluk). They are villagers and residing in Bellary District and doing cultivation. What prompted them to purchase land at Gunjur Village during that period has not been explained at all. When the witnesses i.e. brokers, who involved in negotiation clearly deposed that Sri.Narayanswamy and Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa approached them with an intention to purchase land at Gunjur Village and when Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa paid the amount to 86 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Sri.Ramprakash, Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and Sri.Kotresh were no where in the picture either during the negotiation or during payment of consideration and he was present only at the time of registration. Therefore, the contention of PW21 and PW22 that their son Sri.Kotresh has paid the consideration amount cannot be believed and accepted. In fact, it has not been elicited in the evidence of other witnesses that Accused No.3 Sri.Kotresh was present at the time of negotiation and he paid the consideration amount. The fact that after two years from the date of execution of the sale deed, Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa executed Gift Deed in favour of his wife and on the same day, she executed Gift Deed in favour of Accused No.1, who is her brother and admittedly, he was working as Vice President of ITAT, a reputed post and having huge income, would show that he in fact purchased the property in the name of PW21. When 87 Spl.C.C.56/2015 he was having huge income and lot of properties in his name and admittedly, PW21 and PW22 were having limited extent of lands in the village having 5 children, what prompted them to donate this valuable property in favour of Accused No.1 is to be explained by the Accused No.1 himself. But, except denying the evidence, during course of 313 statement, nothing has been placed by him to show that it was not purchased by him. Of course, as per law, it is not his duty to establish that it was not Benami transaction. It is the burden on the prosecution to establish that it was a Benami transaction and in fact, it was purchased by Accused No.1 himself.
79. In that regard, I rely upon latest judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 (Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) Constitution Bench in the judgment dated 15.12.2022 has considered several aspects 88 Spl.C.C.56/2015 with regard to admissibility of evidence of hostile witness, with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence in prevention of corruption case and other things. In para No.34 it is held that 'normally a hearsay witness would be inadmissible, but when it is corroborated by substantive evidence of other witnesses, it would be admissible'. In para No.35 it is held that 'evidence that does not establish the fact in issue directly but throws light on the circumstances in which the fact in issue did not occur is circumstantial evidence (also called inferential or presumptive evidence). Circumstantial evidence means facts from which another fact is inferred. Although circumstantial evidence does not go to prove directly the fact in issue, it is equally direct. Circumstantial evidence has also to be proved by direct evidence of the circumstances'.
80. In para No.46 it is held that 'Courts are 89 Spl.C.C.56/2015 authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved by other facts. The court can, under Section 4 of the Evidence Act, raise a presumption for purposes of a fact. It is well settled that the presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a primafacie case for a party for whose benefit it exists'.
81. In para No.53 elaborate discussion has been made with regard to circumstantial evidence.
82. In para No.67 it is held as follows:
"This Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as "hostile" and is crossexamined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and 90 Spl.C.C.56/2015 acted upon. It is for the judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
83. In para No.71 it is held that ' we hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution makes sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption. Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph 91 Spl.C.C.56/2015 nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corruption would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke'.
84. It is to be noted that even though that judgment was passed pertaining to the case registered for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, but the principles with regard to appreciation of evidence can be looked into for this type of case also. In the light of the expression made by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court has to weigh the evidence as referred above. As stated 92 Spl.C.C.56/2015 above, there is no iota of doubt in the mind of the court, after having examined the evidence available on record, that the Accused No.1 who was working as Vice President of ITAT, Mumbai having many properties in his name, had purchased this property for a sum of Rs.41,60,000/, which was a guideline value and may be it was purchased for more money as per prevailing market situation and being apprehended that he might be caught if it was directly registered in his name, he thought it fit to get the sale deed registered in the name of Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa, who is his brotherinlaw (sister's husband) and immediately after two years, he got transferred to his name through the Gift Deed from his sister on the same day and she got the same in her name from Gift Deed executed by her husband. The evidence of Sri.Ramprakash and other witnesses, the owners of the land clearly inspired the confidence of the 93 Spl.C.C.56/2015 court that Sri.Kukkuppe Chennappa and his son were not at all in picture at the time of negotiation and they did not have money to pay so much of consideration during 2006 and therefore, the amount of Rs.41,60,000/ or more was paid by Accused No.1 himself to Sri.Ramprakash and in turn Sri.Ramprakash paid the consideration amount to the vendors of the land.
85. Further, the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.Javali has pointed out that the evidence of Sri.Ramprakash and others have been disputed by the purchaser Sri.Kukkuppi Chennappa himself. When the purchaser himself deposed that he had invested money to purchase the said properties, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be believed. Further, during the course of crossexamination, PWs10, 11 and 12 have made certain admissions. Sri.Ramprakash admitted that Accused No.1 was not present on the date when the 94 Spl.C.C.56/2015 cash amount was paid and one Sri.Narayanaswamy has paid the amount. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the property was purchased by Accused No.1 in the name of his brotherinlaw Sri.Kukkuppi Chennappa and later he got the same through gift. Therefore, it is his own property, holds no water.
86. It is to be noted that as stated above, the evidence of above said witnesses and the circumstances under which the property was purchased and later gifted in favour of Accused No.1 clearly indicates that Sri.Kukkuppi Chennappa had no income to purchase the said property. It is not the case of PW21 Sri.Kukkuppi Chennappa that he had paid the cash amount to one Sri.Narayanaswamy and in turn the said Sri.Narayanaswamy had paid the same to PW10 Sri.Ramprakash, in order to pay the same to the seller of the properties, through his account. Admittedly, the sale 95 Spl.C.C.56/2015 consideration amount was paid through the account of Sri.Ramprakash. Admittedly, Sri.Narayanaswamy is not the beneficiary. Therefore, why Sri.Narayanaswamy was required to pay the cash amount to Sri.Ramprakash for purchasing the lands in the name of Sri.Kukkuppi Chennappa has not been explained at all by the Accused No.1. Further, in the evidence of PW10 copies of cheques and bank statement have also been marked. The said documents clearly establish that the consideration amount was paid by Sri.Ramprakash through his account in favour of sellers of the property.
87. Further, it is to be noted that the witnesses were crossexamined after lapse of long time. PW10 was examinedinchief on 25.10.2019, but after taking time for crossexamination, after long time i.e. on 02.03.2022 he was subjected for crossexamination. The other witnesses 96 Spl.C.C.56/2015 were also subsequently crossexamined. Therefore, subsequently, the Accused No.1 might have won over the witnesses and accordingly, got elicited certain admissions with regard to cash amount paid by Accused No.1 in favour of Sri.Ramprakash. So, the said aspect is to be taken note of by the court. Moreover, PW21 has not deposed that consideration amount was paid by him in cash to Sri.Ramprakash. If really, PW21 himself had the capacity to arrange so much of money to purchase the land, there was no necessity for him to pay the said money to PW10 or any person to deposit the same in his account and then to pay the amount through cheque to the vendors. It is totally improbable theory set up by the Accused No.1. On the other hand, the prosecution has placed most probable and believable evidence to prove this aspect and it is beyond all reasonable doubt. So, considering the above facts and 97 Spl.C.C.56/2015 circumstances and the law on the point, I have no hesitation to conclude that this property in fact, was purchased by Accused No.1 himself, but since he was a public servant, in anticipation of trouble, he had thought of purchasing the same in the name of PW21 and after lapse of two years, he was able to get the gift deed in favour of his sister i.e. PW22 and immediately on the same day, he got transferred the same to his name through the gift deed. The evidence of PW21 and PW22 does not inspire the confidence of the court with regard to their bonafides to get the sale deed and later to execute the gift deed in favour of Accused No.1. There is clear evidence to show that they colluded with Accused No.1, since he is the own brother of Smt.Kukkuppi Nagamma, in order to help him to purchase the landed properties, out of illgotten/undeclared source of income. Hence, the contention of the prosecution to that effect is 98 Spl.C.C.56/2015 accepted. In view of the same, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.Javali in that aspect.
88. Item No.2: According to the prosecution, since the first family members of Accused No.1 had no independent source of income, the money that was invested by Accused No.1 to purchase this item and accordingly, it was purchased in their names. For this, the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. has argued that as per the evidence of PW66, even though he had examined all the documents, but he failed to analyze all the documents. He admitted that no cash was credited to the accounts of the first family members of Accused No.1. He admitted that no money was flown from the accounts of his children to the account of Accused No.1 and from the account of Accused No.1 to the accounts of his children.
99 Spl.C.C.56/2015
89. It is further argued that even though by that time, his children and his first wife were not employees, but there is no law, which prohibits them to inherit certain properties. The first wife and children of Accused No.1 got some properties through Will and other documents as per Ex.D.2 to D.7 and by selling the said properties, they have acquired several properties. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that since they had no independent income, the Accused No.1 himself had invested the money to purchase this property, holds no water.
90. For this in the reply, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Shivananda Parle has argued that admittedly all the properties standing in the names of first wife and two sons of Accused No.1, have not been taken in StatementB. Because by the time, they have acquired several apartments/properties in their names, their salaries were 100 Spl.C.C.56/2015 increased and therefore, the Investigating Officer was convinced that they had independent source of income to purchase other properties in their names. But, in order to show that the sale proceeds of some properties were invested to purchase this property, PW24 and PW36 have not produced the account statements. What prevented them to produce their account statements to show that sale proceeds were credited to their accounts and out of the sale proceeds, the consideration amount of Rs.14,40,000/ was paid through cheque to acquire this property. The initial burden has been discharged by the prosecution by placing relevant documents. As per the provision under Section 13(1)(e) and explanation, it is for the Accused No.1 to produce the account extract to substantiate his contention that, his children had invested to purchase this property out of sale proceeds only. He cannot keep silent in a case of this 101 Spl.C.C.56/2015 nature when the prosecution has discharged the initial burden. So, nonproduction of the account extract to that effect leads to draw an inference that just to suppress the material fact, Accused No.1 has not placed the materials. More over, without stepping into the witness box, mere production of some documents along with statement under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. is not sufficient to prove the contention. He should come to the witness box and face the test of crossexamination and if he is able to withstand the test of crossexamination, then only the said documents can be received in evidence. With regard to proof of the documents, the law for both prosecution and the defense is one and the same.
91. In that regard, the learned Public Prosecutor is relying upon the judgment reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 (State of Madha Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others).
102 Spl.C.C.56/2015 In that judgment, in para No.5 to 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Section 13 deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause
(e) of subsection (1) of the Section is pressed into service against the accused.
The same is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of sub section (1) of section 13 corresponds to clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (referred to as 'Old Act'). But there has been drastical amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful source, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance 103 Spl.C.C.56/2015 with the provisions of any law, rules orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known sources of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act').
The phrase "known sources of income" in section 13(1)(e) {old section 5(1)(e)} has clearly the emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no 104 Spl.C.C.56/2015 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.
105 Spl.C.C.56/2015
92. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has cited the decision reported in (2015) 14 SCC 505 (Kedari Lal v. State of Madha Pradesh and others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows;
"Expression 'known source of income' has two elements. First, income must be received from lawful source and secondly, receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with provisions of law, rules or orders applicable to public servant. Receipt by way of share in partition of ancestral property."
93. Further, the learned counsel for the accused Sri.S.H.M. has furnished many citations with regard to burden of proof in a case of this nature and what is the role of the accused. But, having regard to the statue itself if, initial burden is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the 106 Spl.C.C.56/2015 accused to give proper explanation as to the legal source of income to acquire the properties in his name or on his behalf. Hence, all the judgments need not be quoted. Whether in the present case, the prosecution has discharged the initial burden and therefore, the accused is under obligation to give any explanation is a point to be decided by the court.
94. In the light of the aforesaid arguments and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have examined the evidence on record.
95. In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution is relying upon Ex.P.3. Ex.P.3 is the document relating to purchase of item No.2 bearing No.53C situated at J.P.Nagar for a consideration of Rs.14,40,000/. Admittedly, this property was purchased on 02.02.2002 in the names of 107 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Smt.Shivaleela, the first wife of Accused No.1 and Sri.Guruprasad and Sri.Saiprasad the two sons of Accused No.1. The learned Public Prosecutor tried to convince this court that as per Ex.P.67 statement given by PW24 before the IO, he stated that his father paid entire amount for purchasing the property. But, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the IO, cannot be considered as an admission unless it is corroborated by other evidence. However, as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW24 and PW36, who are the sons of Accused No.1, would show that the properties as per Ex.D.2 to D.7 marked through PW36, do not reflect that prior to 02.02.2002, PW24 and PW36 and their mother Smt.Shivaleela had sold any property to acquire sale proceeds in order to invest on this property, which is shown as item No.2 of 'B' Schedule. Even on careful perusal of said 108 Spl.C.C.56/2015 documents, they disclose that the first property was sold by Smt.Shivaleela on 09.02.2004. Ex.D.3 is dated 01.07.2006. Ex.D.4 and D.5 are dated 18.11.2002. Ex.D.6 is dated 19.11.2003. Ex.D.7 is dated 18.11.2002 and Ex.D.8 is dated 01.07.2006. So, none of these documents disclose that Smt.Shivaleela and her two children had sold any property prior to 02.02.2002 and the sale proceeds were credited to their respective bank accounts and therefore, they had sufficient money in their account to invest Rs.14,40,000/ for purchasing this property and also to incur the expenditure towards registration and stamp duty.
96. That apart as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor even though PW24 and PW36 in the crossexamination conducted by the prosecution, deposed that all the money's were credited to their accounts and through the said accounts only, they paid the consideration 109 Spl.C.C.56/2015 amount, but, admittedly none of the bank statements have been produced either by them or by Accused No.1 to substantiate their assertion. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. has argued that since it is the burden on the prosecution to collect the relevant documents to discharge initial burden, the court cannot expect that the accused should produce the documents. The learned senior counsel also mainly relying upon certain admissions elicited in the crossexamination of PW66 to the effect that he has examined all the bank statements and analyzed the same.
97. It is to be noted that the prosecution has produced Ex.P.12 c/c of account extract in the name of Smt.Shivaleela/Sri.Guruprasad/Sri.Saiprasad. During the course of arguments, Sri.Shivaji.H.Mane is also relying upon the this statement and pointed out that as per entries dated 21.11.2002, 24.11.2002, 26.11.2002, 01.01.2003, amounts 110 Spl.C.C.56/2015 were credited to their accounts, which is equalling to more than Rs.14,00,000/. Therefore, the said entries clearly disclose that all these three persons had sufficient money in their bank account to purchase this property. But, it is important to note that as stated above, item No.2 was purchased on 02.02.2002, but none of the entries in these documents disclose that as on 02.02.2002 or prior to that these three persons had an amount of Rs.14,00,000/ and odd, in order to purchase this property. No entry discloses that prior to 02.02.2002 the consideration amount was passed through this account to the seller of the property either by way of cheque or DD. Of course, subsequent to that date, as per Ex.D.2 to D.7 these three persons have sold some properties and got the money. Admittedly, the children of Accused No.1 have purchased several properties in their names from the year 2004 onwards and admittedly, 111 Spl.C.C.56/2015 the said properties have not been included in 'B' Statement. The IO i.e. PW66 has categorically stated that since these three persons had no independent source of income prior to 02.02.2002 and 2004 onwards, they started earning more money and therefore, he was convinced that they had source of income to purchase other properties. Therefore, he has not included the said properties. The said evidence of PW66 is supported by the evidence of PWs24 and PW36, since PW24 admitted that he joined the service only in the year 2002 and his income was very less and he started earning lakhs of rupees only after 2004 onwards. Admittedly, PW36 was a student during 2002 and he was not earning anything. Admittedly, Smt.Shivaleela was a housewife and did not have any independent source of income.
98. In view of the above, it is very clear that by 112 Spl.C.C.56/2015 producing Ex.P.12 the prosecution has discharged the initial burden casted upon it and therefore, it is for the Accused No.1 to give proper explanation as to how his first wife and two children had source of income to the extent of about Rs.15,00,000/ prior to 02.02.2002 to purchase this property. But, he has failed to give proper explanation in that regard by producing the relevant bank statement in the name of his wife and two children. Therefore, as per the provision under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act, since the Accused No.1 failed to give satisfactory answer with regard to the manner in which this property was acquired, the court shall draw an inference that as per the statement of PW24 marked as Ex.P.67, the Accused No.1 himself must have invested his illgotten money for the purpose of purchasing this property in the names of his first wife and two children. Further, admittedly the Accused No.1 got 113 Spl.C.C.56/2015 transferred this property to his name through Gift Deed from his first family members as per Ex.P.5. This circumstance also would clearly indicates that the investment was made by Accused No.1 for acquiring this property and therefore, subsequently he got transferred the same to his name. Therefore, this property becomes the asset of the Accused No.1 during the check period. Hence, the Court cannot find fault with the prosecution with regard to inclusion of this property in 'B' Statement.
99. In view of the above said discussion and material on record, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.Javali in that regard. Accordingly, this amount is taken to the asset of Accused No.1.
100. The next asset shown in this statement is 114 Spl.C.C.56/2015 investment of Rs.20,00,000/ made for acquiring Plot No.302 i.e. Roopasri Apartments. According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 has acquired this property during the check period. Therefore, it is taken as his asset.
101. In the written arguments, the learned counsel for Accused No.1 has highlighted that for the purpose of purchasing this property, the Accused No.1 had availed loan of Rs.12,00,000/ on 28.12.2004 from ICICI Bank and that fact has been confirmed by PW37 in his evidence and also got marked Ex.P.109 and P.110. But, PW66 has not taken into consideration the loan of Rs.12,00,000/ borrowed by Accused No.1 to acquire this property.
102. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly considered and as per the evidence available, Rs.12,00,000/ loan was borrowed by 115 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Accused No.1 to acquire this asset. But, it is further argued that since the said loan amount was cleared during the said check period along with interest of Rs.1,31,323/, since the same has also been shown in Statement C, this need not be changed.
103. After having heard the learned counsel for the accused, one thing is very clear that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/ loan was borrowed during the check period and it was repaid during the check period itself. In view of the same, Rs.12,00,000/ shall be excluded from Statements B and C. But, the interest of Rs.1,31,323/ is required to be taken as expenditure in Statement D. Hence, instead of Rs.20,00,000/, Rs.8,00,000/ is taken as an asset of Accused No.1 during the check period.
104. The next item is Plot No.47 worth 116 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Rs.18,41,602/. There is no dispute with regard to this item. Hence, much discussion is not necessary. Further, in respect of item No.4 to 11 also, there is no dispute. Accused No.1 has admitted the said assets. Hence, much discussion is not necessary. Accordingly, the same are taken on record. With regard to item Nos.19, 23 and 28 also there is no dispute. Only item Nos.12 to 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 are in dispute.
105. Item No.12: According to the prosecution, this plot Jacaranda Corner was acquired during the check period by Accused No.1 and subsequently, it was transferred to the name of Accused No.2. Accused No.2 made total payment of Rs.35,54,078/ and got it registered in her name during the check period. That payment was made by Accused No.1 through the illegal share transactions done by Accused No.2. Hence, this property was taken as an asset of Accused 117 Spl.C.C.56/2015 No.1.
106. It is to be noted that in respect of this property and other properties acquired in the name of Accused No.2, there are serious disputes. According to the prosecution, alleged share transactions done by Accused No.2 are fake transactions and the said investment was made illegally by utilizing the illgotten money of Accused No.1. The main contention on behalf of Accused No.2 is that about Rs.92,39,214/ was credited to the account of Accused No.2 from Share Trading Company and therefore, it is independent income of Accused No.2 and out of the said money, she had acquired this property and other properties in her name. She also claimed an income of Rs.1,66,71,909/ as item No.45 in Statement C. She also claimed that by investing her own money in the share market, she had acquired so much of wealth and also doing 118 Spl.C.C.56/2015 job as tailor, consultant to companies and earned lakhs of rupees out of it. She claims that all the investment and income details have been furnished in Income Tax Returns submitted by her with balance sheet. Therefore, it is not fair on the part of the prosecution to include this property and other properties, which are standing in her name, to the asset of Accused No.1.
107. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. has vehemently argued that PW66 has not properly analyzed the documents, which were received by him and admittedly he did not take the assistance of either the Chartered Accountant or Forensic Examiner in order to ascertain the true facts. He is only B.Com. Graduate and does not have required qualification to examine the documents carefully. All the documents were seized in the house of Accused No.1 and in fact, letter was given to Investigating Officer to 119 Spl.C.C.56/2015 return some documents for the purpose of giving explanation. The learned senior counsel is very fair that just by filing Income Tax Returns, one cannot prove that he/she is having legal source of income. But, here in this case, the Accused No.2 has filed her Income Tax Returns along with balance sheets, wherein it has been clearly stated as to how the amounts were received to her account. She has produced copies of Income Tax Returns. Even though PW66 deposed that the Income Tax Department did not supply the relevant documents when request was made to department to produce the documents, but he has not examined the Income Tax Department official to prove the same. With regard to source of Accused No.2, nobody is examined and no material has been collected.
108. It is further argued that all the share transactions should go through Dmat Accounts and since Dmat 120 Spl.C.C.56/2015 statement account has been produced by Accused No.2 and CD has been admitted by PW66 and he does not dispute the statements contained in CD, the court has to take judicial note of it. In the share market, off the market transactions are taken place. CD is pertaining to Anandarathi's Share Trading and chart matches Ex.D.17. Rs.1.25 crores came to the account of Accused No.2 and on that amount, tax has been paid. PW66 has failed to examine and explain as to how the money from Accused No.2 was flown to the account of Accused No.1. No material is placed to show that amount from the account of Accused No.2 was flown to the account of Accused No.1. When the statements of account issued by the bank and the documents issued by the recognized company clearly shows that the Accused No.2 since the beginning had invested her money in share trading and the money was accumulated from time to time and 121 Spl.C.C.56/2015 credited to her bank account, how the prosecution can contend that it is an illegal money. There is no document to show that Accused No.1 has made investments in the name of Accused No.2 in the Share Market. PW47 and Ex.P.138 clearly establishes that PW66 has totally failed to give proper explanation. Therefore, adverse inference as per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act needs to be drawn. The defense of accused all through is the same and there is no change.
109. Further, as per the evidence of PW66, since he has not taken the assistance of Forensic Expert and since he has failed to analyze the documents properly, the whole contention of the prosecution that the entire amount of more than Rs.1 crore pertaining to Accused No.2 belongs to the Accused No.1, is an unfair investigation conducted by PW66. When there is no document to show that amount 122 Spl.C.C.56/2015 from the account of Accused No.1 to the account of Accused No.2 was flown at any point of time, the prosecution has failed to prove the initial burden in that regard. Therefore, the onus is not on the accused to give any explanation in that regard. Absolutely, there is no material to establish that the share business done by Accused No.2 is either illegal or that was invested out of the alleged illegal money of Accused No.1. Therefore, in respect of all the income and expenditure and assets of Accused No.2, the case of the prosecution must fail.
110. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that PW66 has properly conducted the investigation and issued notice to the Department to produce the relevant documents and also issued notice to the alleged share trading business and also approached the BSE and NSE to get the documents pertaining to 123 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Anandarathi, but there was no document to the effect that the said Anandarathi Share Trading Company was in existence. It was a fake Company and Accused No.1 had invested his illegal money in the name of Accused No.2 and more over as per the provision under Section 13 of P.C.Act, he has not declared the same in his assets and liabilities statement to the effect that the Accused No.2 had so much of assets in her name through legal source.
111. Further, it is argued that it is not only the duty of the public servant to show that he has source of income, but it must be legal source and it should be reported to the competent authority as per prevailing rules. Since the Accused No.1 has treated Accused No.2 as his family member after the year 2003 and even the son was born to them in the year 2006 much prior to the date of their marriage, it was the duty of the Accused No.1 to declare 124 Spl.C.C.56/2015 these assets in his APR. But, admittedly, he has not declared the said assets in his APR. Therefore, it cannot be considered as legal source of income.
112. In the light of the said arguments, I have carefully perused the relevant oral evidence and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, written statements submitted by Accused No.1 and 2 along with some documents. Here in this case, since there are important circumstances that have been highlighted by prosecution to contend that the said circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that the Accused No.1 after started living with Accused No.2, started making investments in the name of Accused No.2 by illegal means and acquired crores of rupees, but that has not been intimated to his department in 125 Spl.C.C.56/2015 accordance with provisions under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and the relevant rules. The learned Public Prosecutor has cited many decisions with regard to scope of Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and what is the burden on the prosecution and how it is to be satisfactorily explained and what is the burden on the accused to give explanation and also with regard to the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. Since many decisions have been cited and I noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about the scope of the provision, I feel that in addition to decision already referred, the decision reported in (1999 6 SCC
559), in a case between P.Nallammal and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police), if cited that would meet the ends of justice.
113. With regard to circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon judgment in Criminal 126 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Appeal No.1669/2009 in between Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), wherein it is held as under:
"The principal fact can be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from its existence or its connection with other circumstantial evidence. It is often said that witnesses may lie but not the circumstances. However, the court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. Inference of guilt can be drawn only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of an accused. In other words, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that, taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
127 Spl.C.C.56/2015 It is trite law that in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be made if all the incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt, and provide a cogent and complete chain of events which leave no reasonable doubt in the judicial mind. When an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. If the combined effect of all the proven facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, a conviction would be justified even though any one or more of those facts by itself is not decisive.
114. Here in this case, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW46 to PW48, PW59 and PW60 and Ex.P.104 to P.106.
128 Spl.C.C.56/2015
115. PW46 is one Tilakraj.B., working as Manager, Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., Mumbai, during the relevant period. During the course of his evidence, Ex.P.132 to P.135 are marked. He deposed that as per the records of his office M/s Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt. Ltd. is not registered as subbroker with any trading members of Bombay Stock Exchange. The statement with regard to Price Volume Statement of Crazy Infotech Ltd. and Kammanwala Housing Construction Ltd. consists opening value of the share, trading date, high value of the share, low value of the share, closing value of the share and total traded quantity. He further deposed that while he was enquired by CBI, he was shown the documents related to M/s Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the name of Smt.R.Radha dated 03.05.2006 as per Ex.P.134. He stated that it indicates that Smt.R.Radha 129 Spl.C.C.56/2015 had purchased 22,000 shares of Kamman HSG shares at the rate of Rs.15/ per share. But, as per Ex.P.132 Price Volume Statement of Scrip of Kamman HSG Construction, it was shown as opening and closing price of the share was at Rs.52.40 as on 03.05.2006. Hence, the said statement does not tally with Ex.P.134. He further deposed that as per Ex.P.135, Smt.R.Radha had purchased 15000 shares of Crazy Infotech at the rate of 8.50 per share. But, in Ex.P.132 Price Volume Statement of Scrip Crazy Infotech Shares, it was shown that opening and closing price of the share was at Rs.14.50 and Rs.15/ as on 04.05.2006 respectively. Hence, the said statement does not tally with Ex.P.135. He also deposed that in Ex.P.134 and P.135 there is no mention with regard to trading done by Smt.R.Radha - Accused No.2, through M/s Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt. Ltd. sub broker. As per their records, the said 130 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Company was not Sub Broker of Bombay Stock Exchange.
116. In the crossexamination, a suggestion was made that as on the date of the said transactions, he was not working as Assistant Manager in Bombay Stock Exchange, Bengaluru. He admitted that the CBI Officer has not confronted to him the cash book and cash balance details. Even though many suggestions were made and got the admission with regard to the documents, but no specific suggestion has been made to show that the said Companies were registered as Sub Brokers in Bombay Stock Exchange. That apart no documents were confronted to this witness by the Accused No.1 or Accused No.2 to show that whatever he has stated in his examinationinchief is contrary to some other documents. If really, the Accused No.2 was having legal documents to show that the said companies were sub brokers of Bombay Stock Exchange and they clearly tally 131 Spl.C.C.56/2015 with Ex.P.134 and P.135, nothing prevented her to confront the documents and to get the clear cut admissions for the purpose of showing the court that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not correct. But, since that attempt has not been made by the accused to contradict the documents marked as Ex.P.133 to P.135 and hence it is to be held that nothing worth has been elicited in his crossexamination to discredit his oral testimony.
117. PW47 is one Sri.P.G.Yoganand working as Senior Branch Manager, Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers, Mysore. He has deposed that from 2005 to 2016, he was working as Senior Branch Manager in the Company. Through this witness, the prosecution got marked Ex.P.136 to P.140. Ex.P.137 is Saudha Summary Report bearing trading account No.GBN5Z302 for the period from 01.04.2007 to 23.05.2014. Since, the same is computer 132 Spl.C.C.56/2015 generated document and since objection was raised with regard to Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, the same was marked subject to objection by observing that the same would be considered at the time of deciding the matter. Ex.P.138 is Dmat account pertaining to Accused No.2 and the same has also been marked subject to objection with regard to Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. Even Ex.P.139 is marked subject to objection with regard to Certificate. Ex.P.140 is the contract/bills of Ananda Rathi Share and Stock Brokers. He further deposed that Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha was their client and her trading A/c No. is GBN5Z302. She had opened trading account on 29.06.2007. One Mr.Vijayraj had introduced her. She started her transaction on 03.07.2007 by selling shares worth Rs.13,21,650/ as per Ex.P.139 and P.140. She had purchased shares on 28.02.2008 in 3500 numbers 133 Spl.C.C.56/2015 for Rs.8,32,300/, on 19.08.2008 in 3000 nos. for Rs.48,636/, on 22.09.2008 shares for Rs.3,71,434/, on 29.09.2008 shares for Rs.1,19,554/, on 06.10.2008 shares for Rs.2,18,109/, on 08.10.2008 Shares for Rs.91,428/, on 15.10.2008 shares for Rs.2,48,574/,on 22.10.2008 shares for Rs.2,78,732/, on 12.02.2008 in 5000 nos. shares for Rs.4,53,151/, on 10.03.2008 in 1000 nos. shares for Rs.2,08,455/, on 19.08.2008 shares for Rs.3,24,043/, on 26.08.2008 in 2000 nos. shares for Rs.1,85,439/, on 10.09.2008 shares for Rs.4,00,0001/, on 25.09.2008 in 1300 nos. shares for Rs.2,82,955/, on 16.09.2010 in 2550 nos. shares for Rs.1,38,813/, on 22.09.2010 in 10000 nos. shares for Rs.1,11,715/ and on 24.09.2010 in 4000 nos. shares for Rs.46,729/. The shares purchased and sold by Smt.R.Radha is reflected in Ex.P 139 and 140.
134 Spl.C.C.56/2015
118. It is to be noted that except putting a suggestion that whether the CBI had requested to furnish the original of Ex.P.139, no other suggestion has been made with regard to Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act was absolutely necessary or not. No suggestion has also been made to the effect that trading A/c No.GBN5Z302 is not pertaining to Accused No.2. Since it is their computer generated document and since they have not raised any serious objection and since they are pertaining to account of Accused No.2, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Pandit Rao v. Kailash Kushanrao's case, there is no impediment to receive the said documents in evidence.
119. Further, it is to be noted that suggestions have been made to the effect that huge money out of share trading business during the period from 2008 to 2010 were 135 Spl.C.C.56/2015 received by Accused No.2 as per the statement. But, no suggestion has been made as to how the investments were made and what was the initial investment made by Accused No.2 and in what manner. No suggestion has also been made to the effect that the said companies were registered as Sub Broker in Bombay Stock Exchange. Therefore, it is to be held that nothing worth has been elicited in his cross examination to establish that the said share business was done through legal manner.
120. PW48 is one Sri.Vijayraj, working as Accountant in Ananda Rathi Share and Stock Brokers Ltd., Mandya Branch. He deposed that he was working in the said Company from 2003 to 2012 and during that time, he came in contact with Accused No.3 Sri.Kotresh and he was working at M/s Bhadri & Co. in Bellary. He further deposed that long back, Accused No.3 told him that he wanted to 136 Spl.C.C.56/2015 meet him at Bengaluru to do share trading and accordingly, he met him in Bengaluru. He further deposed that as told by Accused No.3, he opened share trading account in the name of Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha in Ananda Rathi Shares and Stock Brokers Ltd. as per Ex.P.139. Accused No.3 also requested him to introduce a specialist in share trading to do share trading business and accordingly, he introduced to him one Sri.Kamal Rathi, who was doing share business in Mumbai. As per the instructions of Accused No.3, he did the share transaction in the name of Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha. He does not know as to who had paid the money for share trading in the name of Accused No.2, but he had received his brokerage commission. Now, he does not remember as to which company share was purchased in the name of Accused No.2. He specifically stated that he did not meet Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha and everything 137 Spl.C.C.56/2015 was done by Accused No.3 Sri.R.Kotresh.
121. He further deposed that he sold some of the shares of Accused No.2 through Ananda Rathi Shares and profit earned by Accused No.2 is shown in Ex.P.139. The said Company used to pay the amount received by selling the share of Accused No.2, in her favour through DD or cheque. As per the entry in Ex.P.139, a total sum of Rs.92,39,214/ was paid to Accused No.2.
122. In the crossexamination, suggestion was made to the effect that he was not a permanent employee, but nothing has been suggested to show that he has deposed falsely and he has not done any work on behalf of Accused No.3. Therefore, the crossexamination conducted by the Accused does not demolish evidence of PW48.
138 Spl.C.C.56/2015
123. From the above evidence and from Ex.P.106, the court has noticed that from 06.07.2007 onwards lakhs of rupees were credited to the account of Accused No.2 in State Bank of Mysore, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary. The entries made in the said document is in consonance with the evidence given by PW46 to PW48. Further, it is also noticed that several cash amounts were credited to the account of Accused No.2 from 31.01.2008 to 20.02.2008. So, the above said evidence on the part of prosecution clearly discloses that from the year 2007 onwards i.e. during the check period, admittedly, the Accused No.2 was a member of Accused No.1 family as a wife and they had a son by name Master.Tejas and started doing share trading business through Accused No.3. Nothing has been suggested to show that Accused No.2 herself was doing the share trading business. There is a clear evidence to the effect that all the 139 Spl.C.C.56/2015 share trading business on behalf of Accused No.2 was done by Accused No.3 only.
124. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.2 has only stated that it is an off market discounted purchase and credited in Dmat account and except that she has not given any other explanation with regard to, why the Accused No.3 has done the share trading on her behalf.
125. Further, the Accused No.3 during the course of statement under Section 313 has only stated that Sri.Vijayraj came in contact with him and he was working in Bhadri and Co., but he does not remember with regard to Question No.5 and 7. He stated that there is no person by name Kamala Rathi. He also stated that all the transactions duly reflected in bank account.
140 Spl.C.C.56/2015
126. In the written statement filed by Accused No.2 and 3, they have not stated anything as to why the share trading was done by Accused No.3 on behalf of Accused No.2. It is not the case of the Accused No.2 that she alone did the share trading business without taking the help of Accused No.3. They have not produced contrary material to that of the evidence given by PW46 to PW48. Therefore, in fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no proper explanation with regard to the answers given by PW46 to PW48 and the said evidence clearly establishes that the alleged share trading business was done by Accused No.3 on behalf of Accused No.2 and that was not in accordance with law. Nothing has been suggested in the crossexamination to show that either Ananda Rathi Share Trading Company or M/s Alliance Company were Subbrokers and registered in Bombay Stock Exchange. No 141 Spl.C.C.56/2015 document is produced by the accused to contradict the said statement and to show that they were the registered sub broker companies.
127. Much has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. that since it was offline trading transaction and since it is permissible under law, it is not illegal. Of course, offline share trading is permissible, but when the person on behalf of public servant wants to do the said share trading, the same should be done in accordance with law only. Admittedly, the Accused No.1 has not intimated about the said share trading done on behalf of Accused No.2, to his department. Whatever may be the arguments addressed on behalf of accused, the word employed under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act clearly 142 Spl.C.C.56/2015 discloses that if a public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has at any time during the period of his office. Therefore, when the Accused No.2 on behalf of Accused No.1 had possessed this much of asset in her name, as per explanation contained in the said provision, it was his duty to intimate the same to his department as per provision of any law, rules or orders. But, admittedly, he has not intimated the same to his department. Therefore, that itself is in violation of this provision.
128. Another circumstances that has been noticed by the court is with regard to the manner in which money was accumulated to the account of Accused No.2 with a active collusion of Accused No.3 Sri.Kotresh. The Accused No.3 is the son of the sister of Accused No.1, who was working as Assistant in M/s Bhadri & Co.
143 Spl.C.C.56/2015
129. In that regard, the evidence of PW60, Sri.P.Ravindranath discloses that he has filed returns on behalf of Accused No.2. He clearly stated that Accused No.3 Sri.Kotresh had prepared the returns and then he submitted the same. He also stated that for preparing the said Income Tax Returns, instructions were given by Accused No.2. He also stated that earlier, Income Tax Returns were required to be filed in the month of July every year. But, Accused No.2 was not submitting the Income Tax Returns on time. She used to submit the same six months to one year later. If Income Tax Returns was submitted after lapse of two years, it was not processed by the Department. His office used to prepare statement of income, profit and loss account, balance sheet, capital accounts etc. in the name of Smt.R.Radha. Of course, he was turned hostile and subjected for crossexamination by the learned Public 144 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Prosecutor. Of course, he has denied his statement given before the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.206. But, he further stated that he does not remember as to from which year and for how many years, she was his client. He does not remember the residential address of Smt.R.Radha, but earlier he had that knowledge. According to him, Smt.R.Radha was doing Consultancy in respect of Steel Plant, but he does not know the name of Company. She used to give her pass book to show her income. He used to take her LIC premium and insurance documents. He does not remember as to how much income she was getting. She was doing her work at Bellary. Accused No.3 Sri.Kotresh has been working in their firm for the last 25 years. Of course, he has denied other suggestions. He has given positive answers to the suggestion made on behalf of Accused No.2 and 3.
145 Spl.C.C.56/2015
130. But, the evidence of PW59 one Sri.Mehaboob become relevant with regard to the manner in which the Accused No.2 and 3 were in collusion to get money. He is native of Hospet and doing his business in the name of style M/s Nishant Enterprises, which is dealing with supply of Special Industrial Lubricants. He stated that during the year 200910, there was business dealing between himself and Accused No.3 with regard to supply of industrial lubricants. Accused No.3 had agreed to get the order for supply of the same and he had also agreed to pay the commission for that purpose. He stated that with regard to the said business, he was required to pay a commission of Rs.7,00,000/ to Accused No.3. But, when he tried to issue cheque for Rs.7,00,000/ in the name of Accused No.3, Accused No.3 requested him to issue cheque in the name of Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha. Thereafter, as per his request, after 146 Spl.C.C.56/2015 deducting TDS of Rs.72,100/, he has issued cheque for Rs.6,27,900/ in favour of Accused No.2. He clearly stated that Accused No.2 is not either his partner or business firm. But, just because Accused No.3 told him to issue cheque in her favour, he has issued the same. He has also given statement as per Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, Bengaluru as per Ex.P.205. But, this witness has not been subjected for crossexamination on behalf of the accused. Therefore, this evidence of PW59 remained intact.
131. The evidence of PW59 clearly goes to show that the Accused No.3 was working for Accused No.1 for many years due to their close relationship and he was working on behalf of Accused No.2 with regard to Share Trading and other business, but he used to credit the amounts to the account of Accused No.2. No suggestion has been made to 147 Spl.C.C.56/2015 the effect that the Accused No.2 was very qualified and capable to do the business and earning lakhs of rupees. No document has been produced to show that she was doing tailoring, embroidery work and earning lakhs of rupees.
132. It has been pointed out that she was an expert in the company matters, therefore, she was appointed by M/s Pooja Impex Pvt. Ltd. as per letter dated 30.03.2006 and accordingly remuneration at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs p.m. for a period of 6 months in total Rs. 9,00,000/ was paid to her. But, the said document was not confronted either to PW66 or PW63 one Sri.Purushotham Nawandhar, Accountant. He has deposed with regard to payment of DD for Rs.9,00,000/ on 04.09.2006 in the name of Smt.R.Radha. He does not know as to who appointed the said Smt.R.Radha in the said Company and there is no proof to know her educational qualification.
148 Spl.C.C.56/2015
133. In the crossexamination, suggestions have been made to the effect that only Accused No.4 (she has been discharged subsequently), who was the Director of M/s Pooja Impex Pvt. Ltd. knew about the appointment letter issued in favour of Smt.R.Radha. But, since nothing has been produced to show about her educational qualification, her competency and her appointment in the said Company through legal process and payment of Rs.9,00,000/ through legal manner, no account statement or books of accounts have been produced on behalf of the Accused No.2 to show that she was appointed in the said Company and she actually worked for 6 months and the said payment was made as a remuneration for the work done by her, the contention of the Accused No.2 in that regard becomes doubtful. Therefore, in the absence of any documents to that effect, since the prosecution has discharged initial 149 Spl.C.C.56/2015 burden with regard to payment of Rs.9,00,000/, in her favour and also with regard to her incapacity to do that work, it is for the accused to give proper explanation to show that she had such a educational qualification and she actually had worked in the said Company for 6 months and such a remuneration was paid through proper accounts. But, no proper explanation has been given in that regard to substantiate their contention.
134. Even in the written statement, filed by Accused No.2, nothing has been stated with regard to her education qualification, her competency to work as Consultant in the said Company and also with regard to receipt of that money through proper channel. Therefore, it is to be held that the accused have failed to give proper explanation in that regard.
150 Spl.C.C.56/2015
135. The Accused No.2 has produced some xerox documents along with written statement. The said xerox documents are pertaining to investment made in Ananda Rathi Shares and Stock Brokers Ltd. with regard to that aspect, a detailed discussion has already been made. The said statement only indicates that only after 09.07.2007, she started investing in said share. As per the evidence of PW46 to PW48, there is no material to show as to how so much of amount was accumulated by the Accused No.2 by that time. But, as per the copies of sale deeds produced by her, two properties were sold by her on 26.02.2008 only and out of that Rs.9,90,000/ each, in total Rs.19,80,000/ was received by her on that day by selling two flats, which were taken by her, by way of Gift Deed executed by one Smt.C.H.Vijaya W/o Sri.Venkatesh Reddy. Even though prosecution has seriously disputed about these documents, 151 Spl.C.C.56/2015 but since the said documents are the copies of registered sale deeds and there is no bar to get the Gift from any person and since the properties were sold in accordance with law, the court can safely take this income of Rs.19,80,000/ at the hands of Accused No.2 as on 26.02.2008.
136. Further, as per the documents produced by PW32, which are marked as Ex.P.91 to P.95, there are so many entries, which show that the Accused No.2 had booked this apartment i.e. shown as item No.12 in B Schedule by paying advance of Rs.2,73,000/ on 14.03.2006. Prior to that date, the said Flat was booked by Accused No.1 by paying the advance amount of Rs.50,000/ as per Ex.P.95. Subsequently, he got canceled that booking and later it was booked by Accused No.2. PW32 stated that the entire amount of Rs.35,54,078/ was paid by Accused 152 Spl.C.C.56/2015 No.2 Smt.R.Radha. Of course, the statement available in the said documents disclose that from time to time the amounts were paid. But, the Accused No.2 has failed to produce any document to show that she had legal source of income to make the payments till 10.01.2008. Till that date, many amounts were paid. It is the contention of the Accused No.2 that since she had income through share business, out of the said income, she had paid the said amounts. But, this court has already come to a conclusion that there is no proper documents to believe and accept that Accused No.2 had legal source of income to invest so much of money i.e. lakhs together money in share business. All of a sudden, in the year 2007, she had invested Rs.13,21,650/ on 03.07.2007 and later purchased so many shares. But, this court has already discussed about the manner in which the Accused No.3 assisted Accused No.1 and 2 with regard 153 Spl.C.C.56/2015 to doing share trading business and also with regard to payment of DD for Rs.9,00,000/ and also Rs.6,27,900/ through PW59. Even though the Accused No.2 did not do any work for PW59, but at the instance of Accused No.3, a sum of Rs.6,27,900/ was paid to Accused No.2. Therefore, on careful examination of all these oral and documentary evidence and the circumstances as narrated by the prosecution, they would clearly establish that the alleged share business done by Accused No.2 are not actually done by her and it was done by Accused No.3 and probably at the instance of Accused No.1 by utilizing the illegal source of money and acquired so much of wealth. Since the Accused No.1 has failed to declare said asset to his department, the said assets cannot be considered as legal source of income as per Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the several judgments.
154 Spl.C.C.56/2015
137. But, since the Accused No.2 has able to show that she had legal source of income of Rs.19,80,000/ by selling two plots at Bellary, the same can be considered as her independent source of income. Therefore, there is no impediment to take this evidence on record to hold that out of Rs.35,54,078/, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ must have been invested by Accused No.2 out of her lawful source of income. But, rest of the amounts i.e. Rs.15,54,078/ cannot be taken as investment of Accused No.2. The circumstances under which the apartment was booked initially in the name of Accused No.1 and later canceled and rebooked in the name of Accused No.2 by showing the wrong address and also mentioning the different care of address pertaining to Accused No.2 would indicates that since the Accused No.1 being in Chartered Accountant Field and working as Vice President/President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in 155 Spl.C.C.56/2015 anticipation of trouble and by adopting ingenious method, he must have thought fit to invest his illegal money through Accused No.2 and 3. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to circumstantial evidence, I am of the clear opinion that the contention of Accused No.2 with regard to her independent source of income related to alleged share business cannot be believed and accepted. Hence, the arguments of the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. in that regard is not accepted. However, since there is a material with regard to Rs.20,00,000/, Rs.20,00,000/ is considered as income of the Accused No.2 out of Rs.35,54,078/ and an amount of Rs.15,54,078/ is taken as asset of Accused No.1.
138. The next item is item No.13, which is under dispute. But, in the written arguments, the learned Public 156 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Prosecutor has contended that Rs.5,00,000/ was paid to builder as per evidence of PW34 through cheque dated 03.09.2008. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court can consider Rs.5,00,000/ in the place of Rs.6,00,000/ pertaining to this item. Therefore, the contention of accused with regard to Rs.5,00,000/ is accepted.
139. The next item is item No.14. This is Flat No.405 in Raheja Garden Apartment, Pune, purchased in the name of Accused No.2 for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/. In that regard, the document is marked with consent as per Ex.P.180. Ex.P.180 is the letter submitted by the owner of the said apartment, which discloses that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ was paid on 31.12.2007 and Rs.1,00,000/ was paid on 11.05.2009. Subsequently, other charges were also paid during the year 2009. But, since this court has already come to a conclusion that Accused No.2 had no 157 Spl.C.C.56/2015 independent source of income during that period and her legal source of income of Rs.20,00,000/ has already been considered pertaining to item No.12, this asset cannot be considered as an asset of Accused No.2. Hence, this court has to hold that the illgotten money of Accused No.1 or other money acquired through illegal source must have been invested to acquire this property in the name of Accused No.2 and since, moreover the same has not been intimated to his department in accordance with law, the contention of Accused No.1 in that regard cannot be believed and accepted. Hence, as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the contention of accused in that regard is rejected. Hence, the same is taken as asset of Accused No.1 only.
140. Next item is item No.15. This item bearing Site No.57 situated at Kudulu Village. This item was also 158 Spl.C.C.56/2015 purchased in the name of Accused No.2. In view of my findings on item No.12, since the Accused No.2 was not having her independent/ lawful source of income to acquire this property, the contention of Accused No.1 cannot be believed and accepted. This property must have also been acquired out of illegal source of Accused No.1 in the name of Accused No.2. Elaborate discussion has already been made with regard to share business. Therefore, much discussion is not necessary.
141. The next item is item Nos.16 and 17. These two items are also purchased in the name of Accused No.2. But, in view of my findings with regard to item No.12, since she has failed to establish her independent/legal source of income to acquire this property, the contention of Accused No.1 in that regard cannot be believed and accepted.
159 Spl.C.C.56/2015
142. The next Items are Item Nos,15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27. As per the case of the prosecution, all these items even though standing in the name of Accused No.2, but by contending that since Accused No.2 had no independent source of income to acquire these properties, therefore, the said asset were acquired out of the illegal source of Accused No.1. Of course, the Accused No.1 and 2 have seriously disputed about the contention of the prosecution in that regard. In the written arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has highlighted as to how Accused No.2 had acquired these properties out of her source of income. It is to be noted that this court has already elaborately discussed about the source of Accused No.2 to acquire several properties in her name. This court has already come to a conclusion that the Accused No.2 has failed to establish that she had legal source of income to 160 Spl.C.C.56/2015 acquire these properties. Therefore, much discussion is not necessary with regard to these items. Hence, the contention of the accused in that regard cannot be accepted. Therefore, the case of the prosecution with regard to that aspect is to be believed and accepted. Hence, these items are also taken to the account of Accused No.1.
143. The next item is item No.18. Even though the prosecution has contended in the charge sheet that the house hold articles were valued at Rs.4,37,073/, but after due calculation, now it is clear that it comes to Rs.3,88,323/ and therefore, in the place of Rs.4,37,073/ , Rs.3,88,323/ is to be taken. It is the contention of the Accused No.1 also in that regard. Hence, the said amount is taken as an asset of Accused No.1 during the check period.
144. The next item is item No.29. The item No.29 is 161 Spl.C.C.56/2015 shown as asset worth of Rs.2,94,088/. According to the accused, the said amount was in the account of Smt.Shivaleela. During the course of arguments and even in the written arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has admitted the said contention. Therefore, this item is not considered as the asset of Accused No.1 during the check period.
145. In view of my above discussion and assets to the credit of Accused No.1 are taken, now the total assets during the check period in respect of Accused No.1 comes to Rs.3,50,07,130/. Hence, the said amount is taken as asset in the place of Rs.3,71,85,368/.
146. STATEMENT C:
As per this statement, the prosecution has shown 23 items as the assets acquired by Accused No.1 during the check period. I have gone through the written arguments 162 Spl.C.C.56/2015 submitted on behalf of the accused. It is seen that the accused have not disputed item Nos.1 to 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 to 20, 22 and 23. The disputed items are item Nos.9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 21.
147. Let me discuss about the disputed items. According to the accused, an amount of Rs.2,41,396/ interest received by Accused No.2 as per Ex.P.99 to P.102 and interest of Rs.1,13,762/ as per Ex.P.104 and P.105 and interest of Rs.23,255/ are the assets of Accused No.2. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as income of the Accused No.1. It is to be noted that this court has already discussed about the independent source of Accused No.2 while answering item No.12 of B Schedule and came to the conclusion that except Rs.20,00,000/ received by her by selling two properties, she did not prove her independent and lawful source of income to invest the same on share 163 Spl.C.C.56/2015 business and to receive the same. Therefore, the contention of Accused No.2 in that regard cannot be accepted. More over, if these amounts are taken as income of Accused No.1 during the check period, it would for his beneficial only and thereby, his income would be increased. Therefore, there is no point in disputing these items. Of course, the court is aware that in order to show that Accused No.2 had independent source of income and Accused No.1 has not at all invested any money through Accused No.2, he has taken such defense. But, in view of my findings, the same cannot be accepted. Hence, the said contention is not accepted.
148. The next item is item No.14. The item No.14 is also interest amount of Rs.24,704/ received by Accused No.2. According to the accused, it was an independent income of Accused No.2. But, in view of my above findings and since moreover if this amount is taken, it would be 164 Spl.C.C.56/2015 beneficial for the Accused No.1, the contention of the accused cannot be accepted. Hence, the contention of the accused in that regard is not considered.
149. The accused claims that the interest amount of Rs.4,713/ received by Smt.Shivaleela is her income and not the income of Accused No.1. But, the fact that the said account was in the joint names of Accused No.1 and his first wife is not in dispute. Moreover, it is beneficial to Accused No.1 to show his income. Hence, the contention of the accused in that regard is not accepted.
150. Item No.21 is the amount of Rs.50,335/. According to the accused, it is the surrender value of the LIC Policy in the name of Accused No.2. In view of my earlier discussion with regard to independent source of Accused No.2, the contention of accused cannot be believed and 165 Spl.C.C.56/2015 accepted. Hence, this amount is also taken as income of the Accused No.1.
151. In respect of this Statement C, the accused claims several additional incomes.
152. A. The Accused No.1 claims PPF maturity amount of Rs.2,07,752/. The prosecution has fairly consented for the same during the course of arguments. Hence, this additional income is taken to the credit of Accused No.1.
153. B. Item No.2 is an amount of Rs.1,80,000/, which was received by Accused No.1 by selling the old car. The prosecution has fairly consented for the same. Moreover, the old car has been taken in Statement A and 166 Spl.C.C.56/2015 the same was sold during the check period and hence, it is just and proper to take this amount as an income of Accused No.1 during the check period. Accordingly, the same is taken as additional income of Accused No.1.
154. C TO E. The Accused No.1 claims an amount of Rs.35,328/ received by selling UTI Units on 24.12.2002, Rs.24,419/ received from LIC mutual fund and Rs.13,848/ received as redemption amount of IFB. In that regard, he has relied upon documents marked as Ex.P.47, P.48 and P.215. In the written arguments and during the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly consented for the same. Hence, without much discussion, I hold that these three amounts are to be taken as additional income of the Accused No.1 during the check period.
155. F. Another additional income claimed by the 167 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Accused No.1 is Rs.29,00,000/ loan said to have been received by him from Accused No.2 for the purpose of paying permanent alimony to Smt.Shivaleela at the time of giving divorce to her. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that so far, the said loan has not been cleared. It is to be noted that in view of my findings on item No.12 in B Statement, since the Accused No.2 has failed to establish her independent source/legal source of income, the amount received from her by Accused No.1 towards settling his dispute with first wife and to pay the permanent alimony cannot be considered as the loan received by Accused No.1 from Accused No.2. As per the said discussion, it is to be held that said amount was the illgotten money of Accused No.1 himself. Therefore, this amount cannot be considered as income of Accused No.1 during the check period. Hence, 168 Spl.C.C.56/2015 the said contention is not accepted.
156. G. The next additional income claimed by Accused No.1 is Rs.4,00,000/ loan amount received from Smt.K.Nirmala W/o Kotresh (Accused No.3) for the same purpose i.e. to pay the permanent alimony in favour of Smt.Shivaleela. Of course, the said amount was transferred to the account of Accused No.1 through RTGS. Therefore, there is an evidence to show the transfer of money from the account of Smt.Nirmala to the account of Accused No.1.
157. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that since this amount was also acquired illegally by Accused No.3, the same cannot be considered as legal source of income of Smt.Nirmala. However, since Smt.Nirmala is not the accused in this case and since it has not been established that money was credited to the 169 Spl.C.C.56/2015 account of Smt.Nirmala either from account of Accused No.3 or from account of Accused No.1, it is safe to take the said amount as loan received by Accused No.1 from Smt.Nirmala. Hence, to that effect, the claim of Accused No.1 is accepted.
158. H. The next additional income claimed by the Accused No.1 is Rs.69,882/ towards LIC maturity amount. The prosecution has fairly consented for the same in view of Ex.P.215. Hence, without much discussion, this amount is considered as income of Accused No.1 during the check period.
159. I. Another huge amount claimed by the Accused No.1 is amount of Rs.27,58,951/ by contending that this was the income declared by him as HUF income. The accused is relying upon the same in Income Tax Returns.
170 Spl.C.C.56/2015 But, there is no basis for claiming this amount as HUF amount. No specific suggestion has been made in the cross examination of PW66 to show that so much of amount was declared by Accused No.1 as HUF income during the check period.
160. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, since the first family of Accused No.1 was separated from his family, any assets belonging to Smt.Shivaleela and her sons cannot be considered as income of Accused No.1. Moreover, he has not declared the same to his department and no document is produced in that regard. That apart, the Accused No.1 has failed to explain as to how, he acquired HUF fund and through which mode. It is not the case that, apart from doing his job, he was doing agriculture and getting income. It is also not his case that he was doing business and earning money.
171 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Moreover, he being the public servant during the check period cannot contend that he was doing business. In view of all these facts and circumstances, the contention of the Accused No.1 that he was also having HUF income of Rs.27,58,951/ , apart from his salary income and other sources, cannot be believed and accepted. Hence, the same is not considered.
161. J. The next additional income claimed by the Accused No.1 is GPF advance amount of Rs.78,000/. In the written arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly consented for the same. That apart there is evidence as per Ex.P.47 and P.48. Hence, without much discussion, this additional income of Rs.78,000/ is taken to the credit of Accused No.1.
162. The next items claimed by the Accused No.1 are 172 Spl.C.C.56/2015 item No.34 in the additional list i.e. amount of Rs.11,48,700/, Rs.9,95,589/, Rs.6,00,000/, Rs.7,00,000/, Rs.20,00,000/, Rs.1,21,000/, Rs.1,21,000/, Rs.2,58,500/, Rs.2,71,745/, Rs.5,22,961/ and Rs.17,50,000/. According to the accused, since these assets were in the hands of first wife and her two children and since their assets have also been considered in Statement B, these incomes should also be considered as his income during the check period.
163. But, as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, except item No.2 of B Statement, no other assets, which are standing in the names of Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons, have been considered by prosecution. With regard to that item No.2, this court has already given findings by holding that the same was acquired by Accused No.1 in the names of his first wife and two children.
173 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Therefore, in view of the said facts and circumstances, these assets in the names of Smt.Shivaleela and two sons cannot be considered as income of Accused No.1 during the check period. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the accused in that regard. Hence, they are not taken as assets.
164. The next item of property claimed by the accused is an amount of Rs.1,66,71,909/. According to the accused, the Accused No.2 had acquired this item during the check period. Therefore, it should be considered as an asset of Accused No.1 during the check period. It is also the contention of the accused that since some of the assets of Accused No.2 are also considered as properties of Accused No.1, this amount also should be taken as his asset. In that regard, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted detailed statement in the written arguments.
174 Spl.C.C.56/2015
165. It is to be noted that this court has already given a elaborate discussion pertaining to item No.12 of Statement B and held that except Rs.20,00,000/, which was received by selling two properties, no other properties can be considered as her independent source of income. Therefore, much discussion is not necessary pertaining to this amount. In view of the said findings, this amount cannot be considered as an asset of Accused No.1 during the check period. Hence, the same is not accepted.
166. The next asset claimed by accused is Rs.4,11,474/. According to the accused, a sum of Rs.61,474/ is interest towards Smt.K.Nirmala, Rs.1,00,000/ is towards rent deposit pertaining to Pune property and Rs.2,50,000/ towards Bengaluru property. In the written statement, no details have been furnished as to how these properties are acquired. Since benefit of 175 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Rs.4,00,000/ towards loan received from Smt.K.Nirmala has already given to Accused No.1 and since no material is placed with regard to other items, the same cannot be believed and accepted. That apart, no specific suggestions have been made in the crossexamination of PW66 with regard to these items. Therefore, during the course of arguments, for the first time that too without any supporting materials, the same cannot be entertained by the court. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of accused in that regard.
167. In view of my above discussion with regard to all the items, the arguments of the learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. that PW66, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, has not properly examined and analyzed the relevant documents by taking the assistance of Forensic Expert and Chartered Accountant and therefore, his report cannot be 176 Spl.C.C.56/2015 believed and accepted, cannot be accepted. Because, after careful perusal of the documents, this court came to a conclusion that as per the available documents, the findings given by Investigating Officer i.e. PW66 is proper. Hence, the arguments cannot be accepted. In my opinion, to the above extent, the analysis made by PW66 is proper.
168. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the difference of assets comes to Rs.10,07,235/. Hence, the total assets in the hands of Accused No.1 during the check period comes to Rs.2,57,36,795/ in the place of Rs.2,47,29,560/. Accordingly, the same is taken.
169. STATEMENT D:
I have heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused and also 177 Spl.C.C.56/2015 carefully perused the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. According to the prosecution, the total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period is Rs.1,67,90,580/. But, in the revised statement, it is shown as Rs.1,55,90,580/.
170. Item Nos.1 and 2: The item No.1 and 2 in Statement D are 1/3rd of net salary amount received by Accused No.1 during the check period. Even though the accused in the written arguments contended that the prosecution has taken 1/3rd of the gross salary and therefore, it is not proper in view of the decision in Sajjan Singh's case of the Hon'ble Apex Court. But, they have failed to point out as to how the calculation made by the prosecution with regard to net salary is incorrect. The prosecution has taken note of the evidence of PW62 and 178 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.208 and P.215 and P.178 for the purpose of proving the domestic expenditure. With regard to salary income, the prosecution has examined the relevant witnesses. Further, in the written arguments, it has not been specifically pointed out as to how the net salary income calculated by the prosecution is wrong. Even though in the charge sheet, it has been mentioned that gross salary, but it is net salary income that has been taken by the prosecution for deducting 1/3rd towards expenditure. Therefore, the revised amount claimed by the accused is a sum of Rs.6,08,232/ and Rs.30,072/ since has no basis, it cannot be accepted. Hence, the contention of the prosecution with regard to that aspect is to be believed and accepted.
171. Item No.3: The item No.3 is Rs.35,464/ towards repayment of housing loan taken from HDFC Bank for purchasing of Flat No.197. In the written arguments, the 179 Spl.C.C.56/2015 accused has not pointed out as to how the said expenditure taken by the prosecution, is wrong. It is contended that before the check period, he had availed loan of Rs.1,75,000/ and he made repayment of Rs.35,464/ towards the said loan. Therefore, in view of the said statements, without much discussion, the same is to be believed and accepted and accordingly, the expenditure of Rs.35,464/ is taken to the account of Accused No.1.
172. Item No.4: The item No.4 is expenditure shown as Rs.12,86,590/. According to the prosecution, this expenditure was incurred by Accused No.1 for purchasing Flat No.309. There is no dispute with regard to purchasing of this property in the name of Sri.G.V.Saiprasad, who has been examined as PW24.
173. As per the evidence of PW30, who is the Builder 180 Spl.C.C.56/2015 of Aiswarya property, he sold the apartment for a consideration of Rs.12,86,590/ including VAT of Rs.36,130/. He stated that the said amount was paid in installments commenced from 12.07.2004 till 22.07.2005 as per Ex.P.87. This document has not been disputed by the accused. But, the prosecution seriously contended that in view of the admissions elicited in the course of cross examination of PW24, he was not having so much of income during that period. Therefore, the said amount was invested by the Accused No.1 himself out of his illgotten money in the name of his son. Therefore, the same is to be considered as the expenditure of Accused No.1.
174. It is to be noted that during the course of evidence, PW24 has specifically denied the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that he did not have so much of amount during that period and the amount was 181 Spl.C.C.56/2015 invested by his father. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused, he admitted all the suggestions to the effect that during 200405, he was getting around Rs.12,00,000/ income per annum as salary and also got the income by selling the ancestral properties. It is to be noted that this court has already come to a conclusion that except the item No.2 of B Statement, as it was purchased on 02.02.2002 in the name of Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons, no other property purchased/acquired by them subsequent to that date have been included either in B or in C Statement. This property admittedly was purchased in the year 2005. It is a fact that by that time, there was no cordial relationship in the family of Accused No.1 consisting of himself and his first family members since he had started living with Accused No.2 by that time. Admittedly, there was a settlement in the family and subsequently during the 182 Spl.C.C.56/2015 year 2006, the Accused No.1 has given divorce to his first wife and also allotted some properties. The fact that PW24 started earning more income from the year 200405 onwards has not been seriously disputed by the prosecution. That apart as per Ex.D.2 to D.9, they got some ancestral properties and subsequently sold the same and out of the sale proceeds and by taking loans and by selling other properties Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons have acquired several properties in their names. Therefore, the said properties have not been included either in B or in C Statement. Since PW24 has able to show that he started earning more money from 2004 onwards and since by that time, he himself and his mother and brother have sold several properties and since there was a disturbance in the family, it is not possible to accept the contention of the prosecution that this amount was also invested by the 183 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Accused No.1 in the name of Sri.Saiprasad.
175. PW66 in his crossexamination has admitted that there is no document to show the flow of money from the account of Accused No.1 to the account of his first wife and children. Nothing has been placed to show that this amount was actually invested by Accused No.1 during that period. Therefore, in the presence of believable documents placed by the Accused, the benefit shall be extended in favour of the accused. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the prosecution that this expenditure was also made by the Accused No.1. Hence, the same is not taken as expenditure of Accused No.1.
176. Item No.5: This property was purchased on 28.03.2005 in the name of Sri.G.E.Guruprasad. According to the accused only Rs.17,50,000/ was invested and not 184 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Rs.19,49,680/ as contended by the prosecution.
177. In that regard, the learned counsel for the accused has highlighted as to evidence of PW2 and Ex.P.3. PW2 is one Sri.Srihari, who was working as Superintendent, I.G.R. As per his evidence, the property was purchased by Sri.G.E.Guruprasad on 11.03.2005 for a consideration of Rs.5,20,000/. He further stated that stamp duty of Rs.1,75,100/ through DD and Rs.100/ cash was paid. Apart from that registration charges of Rs.20,640/ was paid. So, in total a sum of Rs.7,95,470/ was spent towards purchasing of the said property and not Rs.19,49,680/ as per the version of the prosecution.
178. It is to be noted that whatever may be the quantum of amount, that was invested for purchasing of this property, since the accused have able to produce documents 185 Spl.C.C.56/2015 to show that after the year 200405, Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons started earning more money and they had also got the money by selling their ancestral properties, this cannot be considered as the investment made by the Accused No.1.
179. It is to be noted that this court has already come to a conclusion that since the prosecution has not taken the other assets standing in the name of Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons, except item No.2 of B Statement and since it was contended that after 200405, they started earning more money and in view of the fact that there is a material to show that Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons started selling ancestral properties and purchasing other properties and thereafter selling some properties and acquired other properties, in the absence of any believable material placed by the prosecution to show that this amount was also invested by the Accused No.1 to acquire this property, the 186 Spl.C.C.56/2015 contention of the prosecution cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, the benefit shall be extended in favour of the accused. Accordingly, this amount is not taken to the account of Accused No.1 with regard to expenditure.
180. Item No.6: With regard to this item, there is no serious dispute. This expenditure of Rs.78,951/ was incurred towards Flat No.405 of Pune. In view of my findings with regard to capability of acquiring legal source of income by Accused No.2 Smt.R.Radha, this amount should be taken to the credit of Accused No.1 towards expenditure. Therefore, without much discussion, I take this amount to the expenditure of Accused No.1.
181. Item No.7: This is an amount of Rs.1,58,079/ the loan amount repaid by Smt.Shivaleela. The contention of the prosecution is that since Smt.Shivaleela was not 187 Spl.C.C.56/2015 employed and did not have independent source of income, the Accused No.1 alone has repaid the said loan amount. Therefore, it should be taken to the account of Accused No.1 only. But, by that time, as per Ex.D.2 to D.9, Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons started earning income by selling the properties. It is a fact that there was a disturbance in the family. Therefore, the Accused No.1 was started living with Accused No.2. Therefore, in that circumstances, it is not possible for the court to accept that Accused No.1 was investing any money in his first family and to repay the loan. Since there is some believable evidence to show that Smt.Shivaleela had money by selling ancestral property, this amount cannot be considered as expenditure of the Accused No.1. Moreover, the said loan amount was repaid through her account. There is no material to show the flowing of money from the account of 188 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Accused No.1 to the account of Smt.Shivaleela. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor in that regard. Hence, this amount is not taken to the account of Accused No.1 towards expenditure.
182. Item No.8: This item is with regard to repayment of loan in a sum of Rs.1,31,323/ made by the Accused No.1. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted that Rs.12,00,000/ loan was taken by the Accused No.1 and the same was repaid during check period itself. Therefore, the amount of Rs.12,00,000/ is not considered either in Statement B or in Statement C. Therefore, only the interest portion of Rs.1,31,323/ admittedly paid by Accused No.1 is to be taken as a expenditure. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,31,323/ is taken pertaining to item No.8.
189 Spl.C.C.56/2015
183. Item No.9: Item No.9 is an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ invested to purchase single premium policy on 28.06.2010 in the name of Accused No.2. Even though it is the contention of the accused that the said amount was invested by Accused No.2, but in view of my earlier discussion, the contention of the accused in that regard cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, this amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is also taken as an expenditure of Accused No.1.
184. Before discussing other items, since item Nos.19, 20, 23 and 32 are in dispute, they are taken up together for discussion.
185. Item No.19: Item No.19 is an amount of Rs.1,30,650/ towards registration charges of property bearing No.475A and item No.20 is registration and stamp 190 Spl.C.C.56/2015 duty of Rs.1,930/ in respect of LIC Plot at J.P.Nagar. Item No.23 is registration charges of Rs.1,95,640/ towards purchase of Apartment No.103, Sarakki, J.P.Nagar. Item No.32 is Rs.33,14,500/ said to have been invested for construction of building in item No.2 of B Schedule.
186. Since this court has already come to the conclusion that the first wife of Accused No.1 Smt.Shivaleela and her two sons started earning money after 200405 and also earned money by selling properties in the month of November 2002 and subsequently, the properties as per item No.19, 20 and 23 were purchased in the names of Smt.Shivaleela and her son G.V.Guruprasad, the contention of the prosecution cannot be considered as the investment made by Accused No.1, in their names. Since these properties were not taken either in Statement B or Statement C, in view of availability of evidence as per 191 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.D.2 to D.9 and Ex.P.3(a), Ex.P.5(a), Ex.P.6(a), the contention of the prosecution cannot be believed and accepted. We cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. If the prosecution wants to consider these assets, are the assets of Accused No.1, then the expenditure towards these properties can also be considered. When since these properties have not been considered as assets of Accused No.1, the expenditure towards registration charges also cannot be considered as expenditure of Accused No.1. Hence, I am not inclined to believe and accept the contention of prosecution in that regard.
187. Item No.32: With regard to item No.32 i.e. the amount invested for construction of building in item No.2 of B Schedule, the prosecution is relying upon evidence of PW56 and Ex.D.1. PW56 is the Executive Engineer Sri.Lakshminarasimaiah. As per his evidence, he visited the 192 Spl.C.C.56/2015 building on 11.09.2014 as per the instructions of CBI and valued the building at Rs.33,14,500/ and submitted his report as per Ex.D.1.
188. In the crossexamination, he admitted that he did not know the name of the owner of the building. He has not taken any photograph or videograph with regard to said building. He has not obtained and produced the guideline value issued by the Department of Stamps. He has admitted that approximate value will be mentioned in the sanctioned plan. He also admitted that the CBI Officer had not shown him the valuation documents issued by the bank. He has also not shown him the documents relating to borrowing of loan for construction of the building. He has no information as to whether the building was got constructed through 193 Spl.C.C.56/2015 agency or by owner himself. He admitted that as per income tax rules, if owner himself construct the building, there is some concession towards income tax. He has not called owner of that building and requested him to produce the documents relating to construction of that building. He has also not asked the CBI Officer to hand over the documents relating to construction of building including the bills. He admitted that the value of the building is depending upon the standard of materials used for construction. In order to show that he actually visited the apartment, except Ex.D.1, he has not produced any other documents like photograph or videograph, statement of neighbouring house owners. He has not collected any documents to show as to when the building was completed, but he relied upon only tax paid receipts. He has also not seen the building completion report and Investigating 194 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Officer did not show him any documents.
189. The evidence of this witness would show that in fact, he has not followed the proper guidelines while visiting the spot and preparing the valuation of the building. He has not intimated the owner of the building, examined him and admittedly he did not collect any documents with regard to investment made by the owner of the building, who constructed the building. If the report as per Ex.D.1 is carefully perused, it would indicate that without examining any documents and without knowing as to in whose name the building was standing and without collecting any documents, he has casually prepared the report and submitted the same. What prevented him to collect relevant documents has not been explained at all. Therefore, the valuation made by him to the extent of Rs.33,14,500/ cannot be believed and accepted.
195 Spl.C.C.56/2015
190. On the other hand, the accused have contended that only a sum of Rs.22,30,465/ was invested to construct the building. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the valuation as per Ex.D.1 in accordance with law, the contention of the accused in that regard will have to be believed and accepted.
191. Further, during the course of crossexamination of PW24, in whose name the property was standing, nothing worth has been elicited to show that he did not invest the money to construct the building. As per his Income Tax Returns marked in Ex.D.16, he was having income and declared in Income Tax Returns. As per Ex.D.2 to D.7, they were having independent income by selling the properties. He stated that Accused No.1 moved out of their family after the year 200405. Since PW56 did not collect any documents to show that when exactly the construction 196 Spl.C.C.56/2015 was commenced and when it was completed and since PW66 has admitted that no money was flown from the account of Accused No.1 to the account of his children and since nothing has been placed to show that the amount of Accused No.1 was invested to construct this building, the contention of the prosecution in that regard cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, the analysis made by the PW66 that investment made by Accused No.1 to construct the building cannot be accepted.
192. Of course, this court has already come to a conclusion that the site was purchased out of the illgotten money of Accused No.1. Subsequently, the children started earning money and even as per the documents produced by the accused, sufficient amount was there in the accounts of his children, the contention of the accused to that effect is to be believed and accepted Hence, all these amounts are 197 Spl.C.C.56/2015 not taken to the account of Accused No.1 towards expenditure.
193. The other expenditure are item Nos.10 to 18, 21, 22, 24 to 31.
194. The above items pertaining to registration charges incurred towards purchasing of several properties and fees paid to M/s Gayathri and Namit Enterprises, service charges etc.
195. It also includes expenditure towards purchase of item No.1 of B Statement. Since this court has already come to a conclusion that the property purchased in the name of Kukkuppe Chennappa was actually the property of Accused No.1, the expenditure towards registration should have also been incurred by Accused No.1. Therefore, there 198 Spl.C.C.56/2015 is no difficulty in concluding that the said expenditure should be taken to the credit of Accused No.1. There is no serious dispute with regard to other registration charges in the name of Accused No.1, since some of the properties were also acquired in the name of Accused No.2. In view of my earlier findings, any expenditure incurred towards that aspect is to be taken to his account.
196. Further, admittedly the Accused No.1 has incurred expenditure of Rs.33,00,000/ towards settlement of his dispute with his first wife Smt.Shivaleela by paying the same as permanent alimony. Therefore, this also rightly taken as expenditure. Therefore, much discussion is not necessary with regard to these items.
197. Item No.33 and 34: These items are the education expenses of Master.G.V.Tejas and property tax 199 Spl.C.C.56/2015 paid towards Roopasri Apartments. There is no dispute with regard to these items. Hence, they are to be taken as expenditure of Accused No.1.
198. After having analyzed the above said statements and evidence available on record, except the expenditure mentioned as per item Nos.4, 5, 7, 19, 20, 23 and 32, the other expenditure should be taken to the account of Accused No.1. If the amounts mentioned in the said items are excluded from the expenditure of Accused No.1, the remaining amount comes to Rs.85,53,511/.
199. After having analyzed the evidence relied upon by the prosecution and the accused as referred above, now the court has come to a conclusion that the following assets were in the hands of accused as per Statement A to D. Calculation of Disproportionate Assets of Accused No.1 Sri.G.E.Veerabhadrappa 200 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Value of Assets arrived by Actual Total amount the IO in Rs. in Rs.
A. 75,404 A. 5,82,895/
B. 3,71,85,368 B. 3,50,07,130/
C. 2,47,29,560 C. 2,57,36,795/
D. 1,67,90,580 D. 85,53,511/
8. Percentage (BA)(CD) 66.98%
Rs.1,72,40,951*100/C=
B-A C-D
3,44,24,235/- 1,71,83,284 =1,72,40,951*100=1,72,40,95,100/c
=66.98%
200. In view of my discussion and further having calculated the assets mentioned available in Statement A to D, now it is clear that the Accused No.1 has disproportionate asset of Rs.1,72,40,951/ beyond his known source of income. It comes to 66.98%.
201. Since this court, has analyzed all the oral and documentary evidence and keeping in mind the law on the point and particular provision under Section 13(1)(e) of 201 Spl.C.C.56/2015 P.C.Act, the same is disproportionate asset. But, the Accused No.1 has failed to give proper explanation with regard to acquisition of the said assets. He had purchased property through Benami transaction and also invested money in share trading through Accused No.2 and also invested money to purchase one property in the name of his first family members. The same has not been properly explained by the Accused No.1 as per the said provision.
202. Further, as per the above evidence and discussion, it is clear that the Accused No.3 has actively colluded with Accused No.1 to get the money in the name of Accused No.2 from PW59 and also from illegal share trading business. Therefore, it is clear that in terms of Section 109 of IPC, they actually abated Accused No.1 to acquire disproportionate income to that extent. Therefore, they are also equally liable along with Accused No.1. The evidence 202 Spl.C.C.56/2015 to that effect placed by the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. I did not see any iota of doubt in the case of prosecution to establish the disproportionate asset to the extent of 66.98%. In view of the above said discussion since it is noticed that Accused No.1 had acquired properties through Benami transactions and the same has been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.J. and Sri.S.H.M., in that regard. I have no hesitation to accept the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor to that extent. Hence, I answer the Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
203. POINT NO.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I 203 Spl.C.C.56/2015 hereby convict the Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, I hereby convict Accused No.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 109 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act.
The bail bond of the Accused No.1 to 3 and that of their sureties are stand canceled. (Dictated to the Judgmentwriter, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then signed by me on this the 14th day of February, 2023).
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
204 Spl.C.C.56/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.S.H.M. the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 regarding sentence.
The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that even though this offence was committed under old Act of P.C.Act, but having regard to the quantum of amassed wealth while working in highly reputed post, 3 years simple imprisonment shall be awarded and that would send the message to the public at large.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused Sri.S.H.M. has pointed out that the Accused No.1 is aged person, having so many ailments, having kidney problems and since he was regularly appearing before the court during the trial without absent on any date, leniency may be extended by awarding minimum sentence. The Accused 205 Spl.C.C.56/2015 No.1 also made submission in the court that he has already suffered a lot and he is aged person and suffering so many diseases. Therefore, leniency may be shown.
Admittedly, this case was registered in the year 2013. During that period, old P.C.Act was in force. As per provision under Section 13(2) of P.C.Act, the court shall award a sentence not less than one year, but which may be extended to 7 years and also be liable to fine. Here, in this case, this court has already examined the material with regard to the disproportionate assets. This court has relied upon latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Constitution Bench and also has experienced as to rampet corruption in the system. In this case also, the Accused No.1, who was working as a Vice President/President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and has amassed wealth to an extent of Rs.1,72,40,951/ beyond his known source of 206 Spl.C.C.56/2015 income during the period from 01.01.2002 to 13.07.2013. So, that was the huge amount during that period. However, having regard to the present age of the Accused No.1 and since a specific submission has been made to the effect that he has been suffering from so many ailments and the court has also noticed that he was very regular in attending the court during the trial, I am of the opinion that the some leniency may be shown with regard to that aspect.
However, keeping in mind, the extent of wealth he acquired beyond his known source of income and the position he had held during that period and keeping in mind the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that if two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/ is imposed to Accused No.1, that would meet the ends of justice. Apart from that the assets 207 Spl.C.C.56/2015 to the extent of Rs.1,72,40,951/ will also be confiscated to the Central Government.
With regard to Accused No.2 and 3 are concerned, the Accused No.2 is the second wife of Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 is sister's son of Accused No.1. They have abated the Accused No.1 to commit the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act. As per law, they are also equally liable on par with Accused No.1. The learned counsel Sri.S.H.M. has argued that PO Act may be extended in favour of Accused No.2 and 3, keeping in mind, the offence under Section 109 of IPC. But, since the abatement is to commit the offence under P.C.Act, P.O.Act cannot be applied. Therefore, the arguments of Sri.S.H.M. cannot be considered.
In view of the fact that the abators are also equally responsible and answerable, it is necessary to award same 208 Spl.C.C.56/2015 sentence. However, while imposing fine, they may be imposed fine of Rs.25,000/ each. Hence, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
SENTENCE The Accused No.1 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Further, Accused No.2 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Further, disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.1,72,40,951/ shall be confiscated to the Central Government.
209 Spl.C.C.56/2015 The period of custody already undergone by the accused if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply free copies of the judgment to the Accused No.1 to 3 forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then signed by me on this 14th day of February, 2022).
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII A.C.C. & S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
210 Spl.C.C.56/2015 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PWs CWs Name of the Witness Date of examination PW1 CW3 Usha Rani.N.C. 12.09.2019 PW2 CW4 Srihari 12.09.2019 PW3 CW5 Smt.Celine Dsuza 12.09.2019 PW4 CW7 B.G.Manju 12.09.2019 PW5 CW9 Nagendra D.Rao 04.10.2019 PW6 CW10 Prasant Kumar 23.10.2019 PW7 CW12 Chandra Shekar Ganiga 23.10.2019 PW8 CW13 Bipul Kumar Sinha 23.10.2019 PW9 CW14 D.H.Appaji Gowda 25.10.2019 PW10 CW15 Ram Prakash 25.10.2019 PW11 CW16 G.K.Suresh 25.10.2019 PW12 CW17 G.K.Narayanaswamy 25.10.2019 PW13 CW18 Umashankar.B.S. 25.10.2019 PW14 CW25 K.M.Nagabhushan 06.12.2019 PW15 CW21 D.R.Srinivas Reddy 06.12.2019 PW16 CW6 P.N.Murthy 17.12.2019 PW17 CW11 Premarajan.P.V. 17.12.2019 PW18 CW8 M.K.Shantha Murthy 17.12.2019 PW19 CW20 G.Govardhan 18.12.2019 PW20 CW22 G.Mohan Babu 18.12.2019 PW21 CW23 Kukkupppi Chennappa 18.12.2019 PW22 CW24 Kukkuppi Nagamma 18.12.2019 PW23 CW26 K.Sowmyalatha 17.01.2020 PW24 CW30 G.V.Sai Prasad 07.02.2020 PW25 CW33 K.Nagaraju 11.02.2020 211 Spl.C.C.56/2015 PW26 CW32 K.Balashekaran 11.02.2020 PW27 CW34 Smt.Nikita.N.Kadam 27.02.2020 PW28 CW35 Sri.Bhim Sain Gambhir 27.02.2020 PW29 CW36 S.V.Giriyan 27.02.2020 PW30 CW37 Raghunath.K 27.02.2020 PW31 CW28 Kodandarami Reddy.K 27.02.2020 PW32 CW38 T.Aravind Pai 28.02.2020 PW33 CW39 H.V.Sriprakash 28.02.2020 PW34 CW42 Shylesh 28.02.2020 PW35 CW43 N.Varadaraju 28.02.2020 PW36 CW31 G.V.Guruprasad 16.03.2020 PW37 CW47 Chalam Murthy 16.03.2020 PW38 CW44 Girishchandra Hiremath 16.03.2020 PW39 CW48 C.H.Venkata Sesha Reddy 27.01.2021 PW40 CW51 Gurpreet Singh Ugal 19.03.2021 PW41 CW40 Om Prakash 08.04.2021 PW42 CW53 Sudheendranatha Rao 09.04.2021 PW43 CW54 Mohammad Ziauddin 09.04.2021 PW44 CW55 Ananda.R 09.04.2021 PW45 Ranjith Aruva 09.08.2021 PW46 CW71 Tilakraj.B 25.08.2021 PW47 CW61 P.G.Yoganand 25.08.2021 PW48 CW60 Vijayraj 25.08.2021 PW49 CW59 Vimal Anand 20.09.2021 PW50 CW45 Devendra Kumar Puri 25.11.2021 PW51 CW62 Shridhar 25.11.2021 PW52 CW63 Swaminathan 25.11.2021 PW53 CW67 S.Jayaramaiah 25.11.2021 PW54 CW70 Sanjay M.Kadam 26.11.2021 PW55 CW83 B.Nagaraju 14.12.2021 PW56 CW77 Lakshminarasimhaiah 14.12.2021 212 Spl.C.C.56/2015 PW57 CW97 Dimple Dua 14.12.2021 PW58 CW101 T.Anbazhagan 16.12.2021 PW59 CW105 Mehaboob 16.12.2021 PW60 CW104 P.Ravindranath 04.02.2022 PW61 CW103 Sundara M.Shetty 04.02.2022 PW62 CW2 Ravindra Kumar 02.03.2022 PW63 CW52 Purushotham Nawandhar 02.03.2022 PW64 CW99 Birkunwar Singh 02.03.2022 PW65 CW66 S.Bhalakrishna 02.03.2022 PW66 CW107 Suresh Kumar.E.P. 01.04.2022 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Exhibit Description Number Ex.P.1 Covering letter from BDA pertaining to Site No.617, Banashankari Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 True copy of documents from BDA Ex.P.3 Covering letter dated 15.2.2014 and c/c of sale deeds dt.11.03.2005 and 30.07.2005 Ex.P.3(a) Registered sale deed dated 30.07.2005 Ex.P.4 C/c of sale deeds dt.22.11.2002 Document No.3095/95 96 dt.29.05.1995 along with covering letter Ex.P.5 C/c of Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.03.2004, c/c of EC from 1.4.2004 to 17.09.2013, c/c of gift deed dt. 11.03.2002 and sale deed dated 24.02.1995 Ex.P.5(a) Gift Deed dated 11.03.2002 executed by A1 in favour of 213 Spl.C.C.56/2015 his son Sri.G.V.Saiprasad Ex.P.5(b) Sale deed dated 24.02.1995 executed in favour of A1 by LIC Society at a cost of Rs.3,20,500/ Ex.P.6 C/c of sale deed dated 02.02.2002 and EC from 1.6.1989 to 31.03.2004 Ex.P.7 Copy of tax paid receipt, katha extract, copy of letter dated 07.10.2013, copy of letter dated 26.10.2013 along with covering letter dt.22.10.2013 Ex.P.8 C/c of EC from 1.4.1975 to 30.03.2003, c/c of sale deed dt. 10.11.1998, c/c of lease cum sale agreement dt. 15.05.1986, c/c of sale deeds dated 20.11.1998 and 21.02.2003 along with covering letter dated 18.02.2014 Ex.P.9 Letter dated 28.02.2014 of Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd.
addressed to CBI Ex.P.9(a) Signature of authorized signatory Mr.Ralph Ex.P.10 The letter of authority issued by M/s Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. dated 3.5.2014 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.11 Covering letter of SBI dated 07.10.2013 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of the then Chief Manager of SBI Ex.P.12 Statement of joint account for the period from 01.01.2003 to 10.07.2013 Ex.P.13 Covering letter dated 29.05.2014 for handing over account opening form Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.14 C/c of account opening form Ex.P.15 Covering letter dated 28.02.2014 of PW7 Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.16 C/c of account opening form of A2 along with specimen signature card Ex.P.17 C/c of statement of SB A/c of Smt.R.Radha for period 214 Spl.C.C.56/2015 from 18.01.1999 to 28.02.2014 Ex.P.18 C/c of account opening form and specimen signature card of Smt.R.Bhagyalatha Ex.P.19 C/c of statement of account for the period from 30.01.1999 to 31.01.2014 of Smt.R.Bhagyalatha. Ex.P.20 C/c of account opening form and specimen signature card of Smt.R.Ramarathna Ex.P.21 C/c of statement of account for the period from 30.01.1999 to 31.01.2014 of Smt.R.Ramarathna Ex.P.22 Covering letter dt.13.03.2014 of PW8 Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.23 C/c of account opening form along with specimen signature card and KYC document i.e. PAN card and certificate issued by Ministry of Law and Justice of Accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P.24 C/c of statement of SB A/c of A1 and A2 from 01.01.2006 to 11.03.2014 Ex.P.25 Covering letter dated 16.09.2013 of PW9 Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.26 EC for the period from 1.4.2004 to 10.07.2013 pertaining to Gift Deed executed on 26.11.2008 by Kukkuppi Chennappa in favour of Kukkuppi Nagamma Ex.P.27 EC for the period from 1.4.2004 to 10.07.2013 pertaining to Gift Deed executed on 26.11.2008 by Kukkuppi Nagamma in favour of Veerabhadrappa Ex.P.28 C/c of Gift Deed dated 26.11.2008 executed by Kukkuppi Chennappa in favour of Kukkuppi Nagamma Ex.P.29 C/c of Gift Deed dated 26.11.2008 executed by Kukkuppi Nagamma in favour of Veerabhadrappa Ex.P.30 C/c of statement of account stood in the name of PW10 from 30.12.1999 to 08.09.2006 along with Certificate 215 Spl.C.C.56/2015 u/S 65 of Evidence Act Ex.P.30(a) Certificate issued u/S 65B Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW61 Ex.P.31 Copy of account opening form of Vijaya bank and specimen signature card Ex.P.32 to 4 Xerox true copy of cheques 36 Ex.P.37 True copy of sale deed dated 20.04.2006 executed by D.R.Srinivas Reddy in favour of Kukkuppi Chennappa pertains to the land in Sy.No.187/3 Ex.P.37(a) Covering letter dated 08.10.2013 and signature of PW14 & (b) Ex.P.38 C/c of sale deed dated 20.4.2006 executed by G.Mohan Babu in favour of Kukkuppi Chennappa in respect of land bearing Sy.No.188/1 Ex.P.39 C/c of sale deed dated 2.2.2006 executed by G.Raju in respect of Sy.No.210 Ex.P.39(a) Covering letter dated 07.05.2014 to submit the & (b) document and signature of PW14 Ex.P.40 Some portion of statement given before IO (translated in Kannada language) Ex.P.41 C/c of sale deed dated 16.01.2006 executed by PW13 and his brother Kodanda Reddy in favour of Kukkuppi Chennappa in respect of Sy.No.210/2 Ex.P.41(a) Covering letter dated 23.04.2014 to submit the document and signature of PW14 Ex.P.42 C/c of sale deed dated 02.02.2006 executed by G.Govardhan in favour of Kukkuppi Chennappa Ex.P.43 C/c of sale deed dt.08.12.2011 executed by G.E.Veerabhadrappa Ex.P.43(a) C/c of Encumbrance Certificate 216 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.43(b) Covering letter dated 27.03.2014 to submit the document Ex.P.44 Some portion of statement given before CBI by PW14 Ex.P.45 Covering letter dated 14.11.2013 to hand over the documents Ex.P.46 Copy of note sheets maintained by BDA, alienation certificate, copy of challan, copy of possession certificate, copy of lease agreement, copy of registration card and other documents in respect of Site No.4AC, 823, HRBR Layout, Bangalore allotted in the name of G.V.Guruprasad Ex.P.47 Covering letter dated 17.02.2014 of PW17 Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.48 True copies of specimen signature card of A1, a/c opening form, certificate issued by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, residential address proof, PAN Card, ID Card and statement of account along with original Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.49 Covering letter dated 07.10.2013 of PW18 Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.50 Sale deed dated 16.05.2011 executed by G.V.Sai Prasad in favour of Nayana Bhaskar Rai and D.Bhaskara Rai in respect of flat No.197, J.P.Nagar Ex.P.51 Gift deed dated 26.09.2008 executed by Smt.G.V.Shivaleela in favour of A1 Ex.P.52 Release Deed dated 26.09.2008 executed by G.V.Guruprasad in favour of G.E.Veerabhadrappa Ex.P.53 Covering letter dated 06.09.2013 of PW18 Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.54 Copy of Form No.15 (7 ECs) Ex.P.55 Three Form No.16 217 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.56 Gift deed dated 21.06.2011 executed by Mahesh.B.C. in favour of Tejaswini.M.C. Ex.P.57 Some portion of Statement of PW19 before IO Ex.P.58 Some portion of Statement of PW20 before IO Ex.P.59 Some portion of Statement of PW21 before IO Ex.P.60 Some portion of Statement of PW22 before IO Ex.P.61 Covering letter dated 26.09.2013 of PW23 to submit the documents Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.62 EC pertaining to Apartment No.B302, 3rd Floor situated in Sy.No.1791 at Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore Ex.P.63 C/c of sale deed dated 28.01.2006 executed by T.R.Ravishankar and T.R.Raghuram in favour of A1 Ex.P.64 C/c of sale deed 23.06.2004 executed by C.Krishna in favour of T.R.Ravishankar and T.R.Raghuram Ex.P.65 Sale deed dated 02.02.2002 pertains to House No.53/C Ex.P.66 EC, tax demand notice, tax paid receipt and plan issued by BBMP pertains to House No.53/C, J.P.Nagar Ex.P.67 Denying of Statement before IO, CBI by PW24 Ex.P.68 Covering letter of PW25 Ex.P.69 B Extracts pertains to Safari LX bearing Reg. No.KA05 MD 9084 Ex.P.70 B Extracts relates to KA 05 HJ 7330 TVS Streak stands in the name of Shwetha.G. Ex.P.71 B Extract relates to Ford Icon car bearing No.KA 05 MA 3591 stands in the name of Accused No.1 Ex.P.72 Covering letter dated 10.04.2014 of furnishing documents to CBI Ex.P.72(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.73 Ledger Extract furnished by PW26 in respect of vehicle 218 Spl.C.C.56/2015 purchased by Accused No.1 for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.03.2005 Ex.P.74 Covering letter dated 23.09.2013 of PW27 Ex.P.74(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.75 Statement of S.B.A/c No.06661004229 stands in the name of Accused No.1 in Dena Bank, New Marine Lines Branch, Mumbai for the period from 01.01.2003 to 21.09.2013 Ex.P.76 Statement of SB A/c No.06610023131 stands in the name of Accused No.1 in Dena Bank, New Marine Lines Branch, Mumbai for the period from 30.11.2011 to 17.09.2013 Ex.P.77 Account opening form along with KYC documents of Accused No.1 in Dena Bank, New Marine Lines Branch, Mumbai bearing A/c No.06610023131 Ex.P.78 Covering letter dated 25.02.2014 of PW28 Ex.P.79 Application form submitted by Accused No.1 to pen an SB A/c in the bank Ex.P.80 Covering letter dated 25.07.2013 addressed to the bank along with statement o faccount of Accused No.1. Ex.P.81 Statement of account of A1 in SB A/c No.90432170000079 for the period from 01.08.2008 to 25.07.2013 along with Interest Certificate and Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.82 Covering letter dated 16.05.2014 of PW29 Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.83 SB A/c opening form of A1 on 26.09.2008 along with KYC Documents Ex.P.84 Another covering letter dated 15.05.2014 submitted along with statement of account Ex.P.84(a) Signature of PW29 219 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.85 Screenshot pertaining to SB A/c No.640342426037 of A1 Ex.P.86 Statement of account No.640342426037 of A1 for the period from 26.09.2008 to 25.07.2013 Ex.P.87 Letter dated 17.10.2013 of Aishwarya Properties Ex.P.88 A letter dated 06.09.2013 relating to details of payment addressed to CBI Ex.P.88(a) Signature of PW31 Ex.P.89 Another letter dated 21.10.2013 for handing over details of rent paid to Accused No.1 Ex.P.89(a) Signature of PW31 Ex.P.90 Details of rent paid to Accused No.1 by Balaji Warehousing Co. Ltd.
Ex.P.91 Covering letter dated 16.09.2013 of PW32 Ex.P.91(a) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.92 Statement of account as on 16.09.2013 of A2 Ex.P.93 Covering letter dated 10.03.2014 along with ledger extract Ex.P.94 Covering letter dated 09.05.2014 of PW32 Ex.P.95 Applications submitted by A1 and A2 and booking form for booking the apartment No.10094 Ex.P.96 Covering letter dated 14.11.2013 of PW33 Ex.P.96(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.97 PPF account opening form of A2 Ex.P.98 Statement of account of A2 maintained by the bank Ex.P.99 Covering letter dated 27.02.2014 of furnishing documents of A2 Ex.P. 100 Account opening form Ex.P.101 Statement of account extract of A2 maintained by the bank for the period from 09.12.2004 to 16.07.2013 Ex.P.102 STDR account statement of A2 Ex.P.103 Letter dated 21.02.2014 furnishing information 220 Spl.C.C.56/2015 pertaining to Flat purchased by A2 Ex.P.103(a) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.104 Covering letter dated 22.02.2014 of PW35 to CBI Ex.P.105 Account opening form stands in the name of Smt.Radha Ex.P.106 Statement of account of Smt.Radha for the period from 29.03.2005 to 31.12.2013 Ex.P.107 Sale deed dated 2.2.2002 of property No.53/C, Sarakki, J.P.Nagarr Ex.P.108 A portion in the statement of CW34/PW36 Ex.P.109 Covering letter of ICICI Bank Ltd. dated 10.03.2014 for submitting the documents Ex.P.109(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.110 Copy of application for loan and loan statement account Ex.P.111 Covering letter of PW38 for furnishing the documents to CBI Ex.P.111(a) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.112 EC and sale deed dated 02.02.2005 Ex.P.113 Covering letter dated 28.04.2014 of HSBC Bank addressed to IO, CBI for handing over certified copies of loan applications in the name of Shivaleela Ex.P.113(a) Signature of PW40 Ex.P.114 Xerox copy of the application for loan and enclosures submitted by Smt.Shivaleela Ex.P.115 Covering letter dated 26.07.2013 of HSBC Bank addressed to IO, CBI for handing over loan statement Ex.P.116 Loan Statement and repayment schedule relates to Smt.Shivaleela Ex.P.117 Covering letter dated 17.03.2014 of HSBC Bank addressed to IO, CBI for handing over documents Ex.P.118 Copies of account opening form, KYKC documents and statement of account pertaining to Shivaleela and A1 221 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.119 Covering letter dated 20.11.2013 of PW41 Ex.P. 119(a) Signature of PW41 Ex.P.120 Details of investment made by A1 and his family in NTPC along with application for the allotment of shares Ex.P.121 Covering letter containing the details of policies Ex.P.121(a) Signature of PW42 Ex.P.122 & Two status report relates to A2 and G.V.Tejas 123 Ex.P.124 Covering letter of policy relates to A1 Ex.P.124(a) Signature of PW42 Ex.P.125 Policy details of A1 bearing No.660077799 Ex.P.126 Covering letter to CBI along with five policies Ex.P.126(a) Signature of Administrative Officer Ex.P.127 Status report of four policies standing in the name of A2 and one report stands in the name of G.V.Tejas Ex.P.127(a) Signature of PW43 Ex.P.128 Covering letter to CBI for furnishing the documents pertaining to account of PW44 Ex.P.128(a) Signature of PW44 Ex.P.129 Account statement of cooperative bank Ex.P.130 Document submitted by PW45 to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company to the IO of CBI Ex.P.131 Notice received by PW46 from CBI to produce some documents relatin gto trading business carried out by A2 Ex.P.132 Covering letter and two statements Ex.P.132(a) Signature of the Manager Ex.P.133 Authorization letter dated 12.06.2014 authorizing PW46 to appear on behalf of BSE Ltd.
Ex.P.134 Contract cum bill of M/s Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt. td. Stood in the name of A2 dated 03.05.2006 222 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P. 135 Contract cum bill of M/s Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt. td. Stood in the name of A2 dated 04.05.2006 Ex.P.136 Receipt memo dated 09.04.2014 Ex.P.136(a) Signature of Amarnath.H.S. Ex.P.137 Report dated 01.04.2007 to 23.05.2014 Ex.P.138 Statement of DMat Account Ex.P.139 Covering letter dated 28.02.2014 addressed to CBI along with account opening form of A2 and ledger account statement Ex.P. 140 141 contract cum bills of Anandarathi Shares and Stock Brokers Ltd.
Ex.P. 141 Covering letter dated 21.02.2014 addressed to SP, CBI Ex.P.141(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.142 IT returns of A1 for assessment year 201314 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.143 IT returns of A1 for assessment year 201213 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.144 IT returns of A1 for assessment year 201011 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.145 IT returns of A1 for assessment year 201112 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.146 IT returns of A1 for assessment year 200910 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.147 IT returns of A1 for assessment year 200809 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.148 IT returns of A2 for assessment year 201314 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.149 IT returns of A2 for assessment year 201213 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.150 IT returns of A2 for assessment year 201112 handed 223 Spl.C.C.56/2015 over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.151 IT returns of A2 for assessment year 201011 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.152 IT returns of A2 for assessment year 200910 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.153 IT returns of A2 for assessment year 200809 handed over by PW49 to CBI police Ex.P.154 Letter dated 05.03.2014 of IT Department written by PW49 to SP, CBI Ex.P.154(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.155 Letter dated 29.10.2014 of IT Department written by PW49 to CBI Ex.P.155(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.156 Covering letter dated 13.03.2014 for handing over documents to CBI by PW50 Ex.P.156(a) Signature of PW50 Ex.P.157 Account opening form in the name of A2 Ex.P.157(a) Letter submitted by A1 along with account opening form Ex.P.158 Statement of accounts in the name of A2 Ex.P.159 Covering letter dated 12.04.2014 for handing over documents to CBI by PW51 Ex.P.160 Statement of account for the period from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.2004 in respect of A1 Ex.P.161 Mahazar Ex.P.161 Signature of PW52 Ex.P.161(b) Signature of PW57 Ex.P.162 Search list including inventory Ex.P.162(a) Signature of PW53 Ex.P.162(b) Signature of PW64 Ex.P.162(c) Inventory report with regard to Household articles prepared during search 224 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.162(d) Signature of PW64 Ex.P.163 Letter issued by Sai Samyakk Jewellery Works Ex.P.164 Search List Ex.P.164(a) Signature of PW54 Ex.P.164(b) Signature of Ajith Mondal Ex.P.165 11 Pass books seized on search Ex.P.166 Bunch of papers including RC, Form No.16 and IT returns seized on search Ex.P.167 LIC premium receipts, insurance papers seized on search Ex.P.168 Property documents seized on search Ex.P.169 Bunch of papers relating to property documents seized on search Ex.P.170 File contains property documents seized on search Ex.P.171 File contains copy of pass book of Dena Bank and statement of account of Global Trust bank seized on search Ex.P.172 File containing Deed of Declaration and other property documents seized on search Ex.P.173 File containing Medical bills and other bills seized on search Ex.P.174 to Fee receipts issued by CW73 to 76 177 Ex.P.178 Salary particular documents issued by CW96 Ex.P.179 Documents relating to A2 issued by CW1 i.e. purchase of Active Motor Bike Ex.P.180 Documents relating to purchase of Flat No.405 and 424, WingC building Carnation, Raheja Gardens, Vanawadi Pune by A2, issued by CW46 Ex.P.181 Covering letter of State Bank of India, Basavanagudi Branch along with account opening form, issued by CW100 225 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.182 Documents relating to credit card used for paying the flight ticket charges, issued by CW56 Ex.P.183 Documents relating to purchasing of sarees from A.S.Babu Shah Designs by A2, issued by CW57 Ex.P.184 Documents relating to letter dated 29.05.2014 of National Stock Exchange pertaining to A2, issued by CW72 Ex.P.185 Documents relating to ROC Certificate relating to M/s Pooja Impex with Annual Report issued by CW79 Ex.P.186 Documents issued by Alliyance Intermidiatary Pvt. Ltd., issued by CW80 Ex.P.187 Covering letter dated 15.03.2014 of Indian Bank, M.C.Road, Mandya along with 14 DDs in the name of A2, issued by CW81 Ex.P.188 Sale deed dated 28.03.2013 between A2 and Chethanya Properties and Prestige Estate Projects along with covering letter of SubRegistrar, Mahadevapura, issued by CW82 Ex.P.189 Letter dated 31.07.2014 of Delhi Development Authority Vigilence Branch issued by CW84 Ex.P.190 Booking of site through a letter dated 09.12.2013 of BUDA issued by CW85 Ex.P.191 Letter dated 15.03.2014 of S.R.Energy pertaining to A2 and issued by CW86 Ex.P.192 Letter dated 19.03.2014 of BGSE Financial Ltd. pertains to Guruprasad and Saiprasad , issued by CW87 Ex.P.193 Letter dated 11.03.2014 of Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd., issued by CW88 Ex.P.194 Letter dated 10.03.2014 of Karvy Computer Shares Pvt.
Ltd. pertaining to A2, issued by CW89 Ex.P.195 Letter dated 12.03.2014 of Kamanwala Housing 226 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Construction Ltd. pertaining to A2 and others, issued by CW90 Ex.P.196 Letter dated 09.03.2014 of Indian Co. Ventures Ltd.
pertaining to Shivaleela and A2, issued by CW91 Ex.P.197 Letter dated 18.11.2013 of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. pertaining to A1 and his family members, issued by CW92 Ex.P.198 Letter dated 07.11.2013 of Canfin Homes Ltd. pertaining to Shivaleela nd A1 issued by CW93 Ex.P.199 Letter dated 14.11.2013 of Finolex Industries Ltd.
pertaining to Shivaleela and family members, issued by CW94 Ex.P.200 Letter dated 28.08.2014 pertaining to Agreement of Sale executed between Yamuna Express IDA Greater Noida and A1 for alloting the site at Sector 20, issued by CW27 Ex.P.201 Covering letter dated 20.03.2014 handing over the documents to CBI by PW55 Ex.P.202 Copy of Ledger extract with respect to A/c No.13847 in the name of A.Kotresh and A2 Ex.P.203 Form No.75(c) in respect of account of A2 Ex.P.204 Application for opening account in the name of A2 Ex.P.205 Statement given before Magistrate, Bengaluru by PW59 Ex.P.205(a) Signature of PW59 Ex.P.206 Portion of 161 statement given by PW60 before Dy.S.P., CBI on 14.10.2014 Ex.P.207 Covering letter dated 13.09.2013 of PW61 Ex.P.207(a) Signature of PW61 Ex.P.208 Covering letter dated 08.10.2013 of handing over documents to CBI Ex.P.208(a) Signature of PW62 Ex.P.209 Document dated 01.02.2013 received from Income Tax 227 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Department (ITAT) Ex.P.210 Salary particulars of A1 for the period January 2003 to December 2004 Ex.P.211 Salary particulars of A1 for the period January 2005 to June 2008 and November 2011 to December 2012 Ex.P.212 Salary particulars of A1 for the period May 2013 to July 2013 Ex.P.213 Statement of salary of A1 for the year from 200809, 200910, 201011, 201112 Ex.P.214 Letter received from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Ex.P.215 Xerox and attested Annual Assets and Liability Statements of A1 Ex.P.216 Letter dated 15.09.2014 addressed to IO, CBI handing over the documents by PW63 Ex.P.216(a) Signature of PW63 Ex.P.217 Another letter dt.02.11.2013 addressed to Cbi in respect of M/s Puja Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.P.217(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P.218 Another letter dated 25.09.2014 written by M/s Puja
Impex Pvt. Ltd. to CBI
Ex.P.219 Search Report
Ex.P.219(a) Signature of PW65
Ex.P.219(b) Signature of PW66
Ex.P.220 Bunch of documents pertaining to BGSC Finance Ltd. and
Century Enka Ltd seized during search by CBI Ex.P.220(a) Signature of PW65 ExP.221 Bunch of documents pertaining to flight tickets, invoice of Tejaswini, Concorde Motors Ltd. and other invoices seized during search Ex.P.222 Bunch of documents pertaining to Kissan Vikas Patras 228 Spl.C.C.56/2015 and Deposit receipt of Davanagere Urban Cooperative Bank and Deposit confirmation advice of Induslnd Bank seized during search Ex.P.223 Bunch of documents pertaining pass book in the name of G.V.Guruprasad maintained in SBI Bank, J.P.Nagar Branch and cheque book seized during search Ex.P.224 Bunch of documents pertaining to Deposit confirmation advice of Induslnd Bank and term deposit advices of SBI, J.P.Nagar Branch in the name of Shivaleela.G.V. along with pass book seized during search Ex.P.225 Bunch of documents pertaining to receipts issued by Pride and Expert Properties Pvt. Ltd., Museum Road, Bengaluru issued in the name of Guruprasad.G.V., letters of pride Spring Fields, Demand letter for developer share seized during search Ex.P.226 Bunch of documents including Gift Deed executed between A1 and Shivaleela, sale deed executed by P.Nanjundappa and another in favour of Shivaleela and sale agreement between Nanjundappa and another and declaration of Nanjundappa seized during search Ex.P.227 Bunch of documents pertaining ot Tax paid receipts, will dated 16.09.2000 and others Ex.P.228 Bunch of documents pertaining to tax paid receipts in the name of Shivaleela.G.V. and Guruprasad Ex.P.229 Bunch of documents pertaining to tax paid receipts in the name of Shivaleela.G.V. and Saiprasad along with one sale deed Ex.P.230 Rental agreements Ex.P.231 Bunch of documents containing bills and receipts Ex.P.232 Bunch of documents containing certificate of payment, invoice and bills etc. 229 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.P.233 FIR registered in RC.09(A)/2013 Ex.P.234 Annual Property Returns submitted by A1 to his department Ex.P.235 Service book documents pertaining to A1 Ex.P.236 Acknowledgment for having informed the A1 with regard to ABCD Statement Ex.P.237 1 to 6 Statement book pertaining to A1 Ex.P.238 Further information documents in the form of note given by ! Ex.P.239 Report given by A2 with regard to her expendtiure Ex.P.240 Authorization letter given to PW66 by SP/CBI/ACB Ex.P.240(a) Signature of SP Ex.P.241 Share details documents submitted by A3 along with seizure memo dated 17.06.2014 Ex.P.241(a) Signature of witness Ex.P.242 Statement of accounts Ex.P.243 LIC documents seized during the course of search Ex.P.244 Share related documents Ex.P.245 Original registered sale deed dated 23.07.2013 executed between A2 and Sri.Chennaveeraiah and others Ex.P.246 Original registered sale deed dated 23.07.2013 executed between A2 and Sri.Chennaveeraiah and others Ex.P.247 BBMP tax paid receipts Ex.P.248 Sale Agreement dated 08.02.2008 between K.A.Baby and Ramarathna Ex.P.249 RTC, tax paid receipts and copy of sale deeds Ex.P.250 Copies of tax paid receipts and Gift Deed dated 16.07.2007 in between A3 and H.Nagaraj and others Ex.P.251 Bunch of documents and tax paid receipts Ex.P.252 Documents relating to the daughter of A1 Ex.P.253 Bunch of documents with regard to release of rights 230 Spl.C.C.56/2015 taken place between A1 and his son Ex.P.254 Bunch of documents pertaining to LIC in respect of A1, A2 and son Ex.P.255 Bunch of documents relating to the properties of father of the A2 Ex.P.256 Bunch of original documents relating to Varthur property Ex.P.257 Bunch of original documents relating to Varthur property Ex.P.258 Number of bills Ex.P.259 Bunch of tax paid receipts Ex.P.260 Bunch of documents with regard to agreements pertaining to A2 Ex.P.261 Bunch of bills, cheques and receipts Ex.P.262 Bunch of documents with regard to rental agreement and tax paid receipts Ex.P.263 Bunch of documents relating to tax paid receipts and cheques transaction Ex.P.264 Bunch of documents relating to cheques and receipts Ex.P.265 Parent documents pertaining to A1 Ex.P.266 Copies of documents pertaining to BDA property situated at HSR Layout in respect of A1 Ex.P.267 Copy of the documents pertaining to Varthur property in the name of A1 Ex.P.268 CD produced by prosecution LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Name of the witness Date of examination NIL 231 Spl.C.C.56/2015 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Exhibit Particulars No. Ex.D.1 Valuation Report incorporated in the charge sheet relates to house property No.53/C, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru Ex.D.1(a) Signature of PW56 Ex.D.1(b) Signature of Sri.Sudharshan Ex.D.1(c) Signature of Junior Engineer Sri.Nagamalleshwar Rao Ex.D.2 C/c of sale deed dated 09.02.2004 executed by Korishetty in favour of Smt.G.V.Shivaleela Ex.D.3 Sale deed dated 01.07.2006 executed by G.V.Saiprasad in favour of Basavaraj Sindhoor Ex.D.4 C/c of sale deed dated 18.11.2002 executed by PW36 in favour of Dr.Jayakumar Ex.D.5 C/c of sale deed dated 18.11.2002 executed by PW36 in favour of Venkobi Ex.D.6 C/c of sale deed dated 19.11.2003 executed by PW36 in favour of Anbazhagan Amsanathan Ex.D.7 C/c of sale deed dated 18.11.2002 executed by G.V.Saiprasad in favour of Dr.K.N.M.Asharani Ex.D.8 C/c of sale deed dated 01.07.2006 executed by Smt.Shivaleela in favour of Basavaraj Ex.D.9 WILL executed by grand father of PW36 in favour of PW36 in respect of property situated at M.V.Nagar, Bellari Ex.D.10 The last sentence in the statement u/S 161 of PW10 Ex.D.11 Para 5 of Page No.1 of Ex.D.10 some portion Ex.D.12 Signature of Smt.Chand Devi Jain on Ex.P.218 232 Spl.C.C.56/2015 Ex.D.13 Letter dated 08.05.2015 addressed by PW66 to A3 Ex.D.14 Seizure mahazar dated 17.6.2014 Ex.D.15 Another seizure memo dated 19.05.2014 for having collected documents from the custody of A3 Ex.D.16 Copy of IT returns for the year 200304, 200506, 2006 07, 200809 upto 2013 Ex.D.17 Returned documents pertaining to Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.D.18 True copy of contents in CD (H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru. 233 Spl.C.C.56/2015