Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . 1. Ram Bhaj Bansal(A­1), on 26 October, 2013

                                                           1
                                                                             CBI case . No.  03/11

               IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK 
                    SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI,
                  DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI


CBI case . No.  03/11
Date of Institution:  03.12.2007
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 26.10.2013
Decision : Acquittal  

                                     CBI case no. 03/11
                                  RC no. 2(A)/05/ACU­VII
                                 CBI/ACU­VII/New Delhi 

In the matter of:­


CBI  versus.                    1.         Ram Bhaj Bansal(A­1),
                                           S/o Sh. Tule Ram Bansal, 
                                           R/o M­138, GK­II, New Delhi.

                                2.         Smt. Kaushalya Bansal(A­2),
                                           W/o Ram Bhaj Bansal,
                                           R/o M­138, GK­II, New Delhi.

                                                                .............Accused persons

                                           JUDGMENT

1. The brief facts, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that case No. RC No. 1A/2005 ACU­VII was registered against accused Ram Bhaj Bansal (hereinafter referred to as 'A­1'), the then Executive Engineer of Najafgarh Division of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others on 01.02.2005 and pursuant to the registration of the FIR, searches were CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 1 of 199 pages 2 CBI case . No. 03/11 conducted at various places, including the residence of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal at M­138, Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi, on 02.02.05. Several documents were seized therefrom by Inspector Rekha Sangwan. Subsequently, after a period of about two months, on scrutiny of the documents seized, present Disproportionate Assets case was registered against the accused persons as RC 2A/2005 ACU­VII, on 05.04.2005.

2. It is alleged that during the period from 1977 to 2005, accused (A­1) had acquired abnormally large number of movable and immovable assets in his name and in the names of his immediate family members which were prima­facie grossly disproportionate to his known and lawful sources of income. That wife of accused (A­1) i.e. accused Kaushalya Bansal (hereinafter referred to as 'A­2'), was not working professional with bonafide legal sources of income and all of their three children out of which 2 are daughters and both of them are married and were not working members before marriage to contribute to the accumulation of the alleged properties. That the son of the accused persons had completed his MBA in the year 2004 and was working in a call center.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 2 of 199 pages 3 CBI case . No. 03/11

3. It is further alleged that accused (A­1) had opened a paper company in the name and style of M/s Brijesh Trading Company in which his wife, accused Kaushalya Bansal and son were the directors and that the said company was not doing any genuine business and prima facie appears to have been incorporated for the purpose of money laundering only.

4. It is further alleged that accused (A­1) was found to have acquired movable and immovable properties, to the tune of Rs.97,48,558.67 in his name and other family members, whereas his then basic pay was only Rs.22,116/­ per month and that this accumulated immovable and movable properties conservatively estimated at Rs.97,48,558.67, prima facie constitute commission of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused (A­1). Hence, the present FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the CBI in the court against accused Ram Bhaj Bansal (A­1) and his wife i.e. Kaushalya Bansal, accused (A­2) under section 13(i) (e) r/w section 13 (2) of Prevention of CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 3 of 199 pages 4 CBI case . No. 03/11 Corruption Act, 1988 and under section 109 IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act for having assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.43,01,687.24 i.e. 477.76% of their income.

5. That supplementary charge sheet was also filed in respect of further investigation carried out by the CBI about the issues which were kept open while filing the main charge sheet. However, the supplementary charge sheet brought no further incriminating evidence.

6. It is further alleged that accused Ram Bhaj Bansal joined the services of MCD in May, 1967, as Junior Engineer. That he was married to accused (A­2), Kaushalya Bansal during 1974 and thereafter, three issues were born to them, namely, Ms. Kavita {(daughter), married in 1999­2000}; Ms. Namita{(daughter) married in the year 2001} and Brijesh Bansal(son).

7. It is further alleged that accused Ram Bhaj Bansal remained posted as Junior Engineer from 1969 to 1987 in II, III, IV and IX divisions/sections of MCD and that he remained posted as Assistant Engineer in IV, City Zone, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 4 of 199 pages 5 CBI case . No. 03/11 XXIV, XIII and XX divisions/sections of MCD from 1987 to 2001 and became Executive Engineer in Division XXVII, Civil Line Zone, Najafgarh and DEMS Division and retired from service w.e.f 30.04.2006.

8. That the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules are applicable to MCD officials and the accused (A­1) being MCD Engineer was required to intimate all the financial transactions of and above Rs.10,000/­ while he was Junior Engineer and Rs.15,000/­ after he was promoted to AE, MCD, within one month of the transaction. That this intimation was required to be placed before the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, who after analyzing the reasonability and genuineness of the transactions, was competent to accept the same or raise further queries/take further action. That he was required to file annual property return (APR) both for immovable and movable properties every year, during first fortnight of the next year. That the APR was also required to be placed before the competent authority, who after analyzing it, would accept or reject the same.

9. That the Junior Engineers were required to submit their CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 5 of 199 pages 6 CBI case . No. 03/11 property returns in the office of ADC(Engineer) either through proper channel or directly.

10. That accused (A­1), for the first time, had submitted IPRs in bulk during the year 1972 for the years 1969 to 1972 which had not been put up to the competent authority for acceptance. That the property returns for the year 1972 to 1975 were received by the concerned clerk in IPR section of MCD during 1976 and in the said property returns of 1972 to 1975, no information about acquisition of any immovable property was given except an agricultural land worth Rs.30,000/­ and 100 sq. yards plot in Delhi. That accused (A­1) had not submitted any property return thereafter and reminders were sent to him from time to time, dated 08.02.1980; 02.09.1981; 17.09.1983 and 18.05.1984 etc asking him to file the annual property returns and thereafter, IPRs were submitted (rather got inserted in the files) by the accused in the year 1988­89 when a vigilance enquiry commenced against him.

11. It is further alleged that an anonymous complaint was received in Vigilance Section of MCD against accused (A­1) on 24.10.88 alleging possession of disproportionate assets CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 6 of 199 pages 7 CBI case . No. 03/11 by him viz. (i) a palatial house at B­60, East of Kailash, (ii) 400 sq. yards residential plot in GK­II, (iii) factory in Okhla 400 sq. yards, (iv) Flat at Nehru Place, (v) Flat at Devika Tower, (vi) Flat at Raja House Shop, (vii) residential flat in DLF Colony, (viii) Plot at Ankur Vihar, (ix) residential plot at Gurgaon and (x) Agricultural land in Haryana. That the above complaints were placed before the senior officers.

12. It is further alleged that thereafter, vide order, dated 21.12.1988, the Director(Vigilance), MCD had ordered for vigilance enquiry, which was marked to Sh. R.K. Kataria, an officer in vigilance department, who had submitted his findings in his report, dated 08.06.89.

13. That when the aforesaid vigilance enquiry was in progress, accused (A­1) managed with the concerned staff of IPR Section and got the IPRs (immovable property returns) for the period 1977­1988 'placed' in the IPR file and the IPRs for this period i.e. 1977­1988 were prepared by the accused in such a manner that the entries therein contained/had some entry or the other so as to explain the assets alleged against him in the complaint.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 7 of 199 pages 8 CBI case . No. 03/11

14. That in addition to the properties, stated by the accused (A­1) in the IPR, he also acquired in his name and in the names of his other family members, various other properties but the impugned IPR did not contain any entry, indicating acquisition of these properties or towards explanation of the source of money. That the vigilance matter against accused Ram Bhaj Bansal was closed on 05.01.1990 but IPR section was not intimated about closure of the matter by vigilance section. That as a consequence to this, dealing hand kept all the IPRs for the period 1976 onwards, in abeyance, till his retirement on the pretext that a vigilance enquiry was pending against him.

15. It is further alleged that accused (A­1) continued amassing properties by illegal means in the manner that he acquired 26 immovable properties (including construction on the landed property) in his name and in the name of his family members, some of which were sold during the relevant period and presently, 15 costly properties were in his possession. That no intimation about acquisition of any of the above properties had been given by the accused(A­1), most of the important properties have not been reflected CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 8 of 199 pages 9 CBI case . No. 03/11 in the IPRs found available in the IPR files/vigilance files and none of the IPRs has ever been placed or accepted by the competent authority.

16. That accused (A­1) had inherited 37 Kanal and 12 marla of land in the year 1971­72 at village Pabsara, District Sonepat, Haryana, shown as inherited, although his father was still active and alive at that time. At the same time, accused had shown as 'gifted' a residential plot of 100 sq. yards, costing Rs.20,000/­(without giving details of the address etc. and purchase cost etc.) and the agricultural land in Sonepat, District Rohtak, Haryana, ad­measuring six acres(without giving its details and address etc) shown as 'inherited' from his father. That the said IPRs were also not been put up to the senior officers for acceptance by the concerned clerk, who is not traceable now.

17. That in the year 1971­1972, accused (A­1) acquired the first property in the form of 200 sq. yards, a residential plot i.e. B­60, East of Kailash, in joint ownership with his elder brother, Sh. I.S. Bansal (50% share is 100 sq. yards). That the second property was acquired in the name of his wife i.e. accused Kaushalya Bansal in the form of a plot at CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 9 of 199 pages 10 CBI case . No. 03/11 M­138, GK­II, New Delhi, on 15.11.1977, for the cost declared as Rs.1,42,000/­.

18. That thereafter, three plots were purchased in the year 1979 in the name of his wife, Kaushalya Bansal (A­2) i.e. plot no. 213, DLF, Faridabad for a cost of Rs.12,770/­ , plot no. 86A, DLF, Faridabad for sum of Rs.16,900/­ and plot no. B­107, DLF, Model Town, Faridabad for Rs.5,661.50. That one more industrial plot bearing no. B­279 at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, was also purchased in the year 1979 for Rs.40,000/­ but all these properties have not been reflected by the accused in the impugned IPRs on the pretext that the transactions entered into by accused (A­2) were out of her own funds including, stridhan, gifts, inheritance etc and therefore, were not required to be indicated, in as much as, the same would not attract the provisions of Rule 18 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, as it is mentioned in the IPR for the year 1978.

19. That accused (A­2) purchased one more plot in 1982 in DLF i.e. 156, DLF, Model Town, Faridabad for Rs.7,300/­, which was disposed of subsequently. That in the year 1983, accused (A­1) acquired one flat at B­14, Deepali, Nehru CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 10 of 199 pages 11 CBI case . No. 03/11 Place for Rs.47,250/­ from one OM Apartment in the name of his wife and that this property has also not been reflected by the accused in his IPRs on the same pretext, as above.

20. That in the year 1985, two properties had been acquired, first one at no. 508A, Devika Tower, Nehru Place in the joint names of the daughters of the accused namely, Kavita Bansal and Namita Bansal for Rs.1,36,500/­ and second at No. 1209 A, Devika Tower in the name of his minor son, Brijesh Bansal for Rs.1,26,000/­. That the source of purchase of these properties have been declared by the accused in the impugned property returns as loans from Sh. N.K. Gupta of M/s Steel House, in token of advance rent.

21. That in the year 1986, one more property, bearing no.

1214, Hemkunth Tower has been purchased in the name of Brijesh Trading Company for Rs.2,69,869/­ and this property has not been declared in the impugned IPRs. That the source of payment has been shown as rental income of accused (A­2) to the tune of Rs.1,22,000/­ and Rs.1,45,869/­ by Sh. Tule Ram, father of accused (A­1) as CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 11 of 199 pages 12 CBI case . No. 03/11 Director of Brijesh Trading Company. That none of these claims of the accused is supported by either the available copies of ITRs or the balance sheet of the Brijesh Trading Company.

22. That in the year 1987, three properties were purchased, two at Raja Tower, Nehru Place at no. 101­C in the name of Brijesh Bansal and 101­D in the name of Kavita Bansal for Rs.53,300/­ and Rs.65,000/­, respectively. That this property is reflected in the impugned IPR for the year 1987 and the source of income as reported in the IPRs, is by loans and gifts from father, from accused (A­2) and also one Sh. Raghubir Singh. That the third property no. 27, Ankur Vihar, DLF, Ghaziabad was acquired during the relevant period which was, however, got cancelled by the accused on 29.08.2000 and that this property is not reflected in the impugned IPRs. That this property was alleged in the complaint against accused (A­1) but Mr. Bansal in his written statement before vigilance officer, Mr. Kataria, has denied having owned any such plot, by concealing the fact of Rs.75,000/­ having been paid for this plot, which were refunded to him, on 16.09.2000. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 12 of 199 pages 13 CBI case . No. 03/11

23. That in the year 1988, a property at 214, Devika Tower, Nehru Place has been purchased by the accused for Rs. 2,51,750/­ in the name of his wife, Smt. Kaushalya Bansal. That this property was not alleged in the complaint and was not reflected in the impugned IPRs. That the source of procurement has been claimed as 'advance rent'.

24. That in the year 1988­89, the factory premises no. B­279, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, was constructed by spending a sum of Rs.19,06,800/­ and the construction has been shown in the name of accused (A­2). That this property was not alleged in the complaint and, therefore, accused did not reflect this property in the impugned IPRs, which were submitted by him to cover up vigilance enquiry. That source of the funds for construction of this premises are again claimed as coming from the rental income from different properties.

25. That during 1988­1993, construction of the property no.

M­138, GK­II, New Delhi, was carried out for a expenditure of Rs.24,82,000/­ as reflected in the consolidated IPR for the year 1988­1992, wherein the accused (A­1) had mentioned that construction in this property was out of CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 13 of 199 pages 14 CBI case . No. 03/11 'own income' of accused (A­2). That this IPR along with other IPRs upto the year 2000, has been submitted by the accused (A­1) on 14.06.2001, which was neither put up to the competent authority nor otherwise dealt in the file and as per valuation report available in the House Tax file of MCD, it has been mentioned that maximum building work was done in the year 1988 and finishing work was done in the year 1992 to 1993. That the composite cost of construction has been mentioned as Rs.19,89,829/­ which as per MCD, was done in the year 1988­89. That the total value of this asset as on 31.03.89 comes to Rs.21,31,829/­.

26. That most of the properties have been acquired by the accused (A­1) during the period from January, 1977 to March, 1989 (check period) which later on resulted in claims of accumulation of huge income out of the rents received from these properties. That during this period i.e. January, 1977 and March, 1989, accused (A­1) did not have any other source of income. That his wife accused(A­2) being house wife and his children being minor also had no source of income. That the evidence about expenditure of accused and his family members under different heads other than the 1/3rd of salary income, as alleged under CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 14 of 199 pages 15 CBI case . No. 03/11 prudent presumption and what has been mentioned in the property returns, has not surfaced during the course of investigation due to the period being very old and no record being available specially the bank record. That even then, this period has been taken by the prosecution as a 'check period' for the purposes of this charge sheet because the disproportion is clear in view of huge immovable assets accumulated during this period i.e. 01.01.77 to 31.03.89. That the entires in impugned IPRs show huge amounts of gifts/loans etc from his father, other relatives etc, which on the face of it, appear highly questionable in view of the fact that there was no reciprocation of gifts and refund of loans as intimated/reflected in IPRs during the whole service period of the accused. That in order to avoid the scrutiny/verification of or enquiry on his claims by the competent authority, accused (A­1) has not intimated any of these so called gifts/loans etc, as required under rules. That accused (A­1) had taken away income tax returns available with his CA, N.K. Dua on 24.12.01, under the receipt and has now been claiming that these are not traceable. That income/loans/gifts claimed by accused (A­1) would have also been reflected in his ITRs, which as CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 15 of 199 pages 16 CBI case . No. 03/11 per record are available with accused. That same have not been produced by him to corroborate his claim. That father of accused (A­1) had himself mortgaged the land available with him and was not, therefore, capable of giving any gifts/loans to his son. That sources of acquiring these properties are, therefore, stated to be unlawful which are not acceptable in view of the facts, as stated above.

27. That a total of about Rs.11,79,324.30 has been shown to have been received by way of gifts and loans in the IPRs submitted by accused (A­1) from 1976 to 1999 from different relatives/persons, mainly his father, Tule Ram, including uncle, Pale Ram, Sh. N.K. Gupta and Sh. Raghubir Singh and some other companies/family friends. That no reciprocal repayment of loans/gifts have ever been mentioned by the accused having been given by him/their family, nor has the corresponding expenditure on celebration of the occasions when these gifts have been shown to have been received, been mentioned anywhere by the accused/his family members. That also nowhere the accused had mentioned anything about the refunds of the amounts taken on loan.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 16 of 199 pages 17 CBI case . No. 03/11

28. That the pay and allowances of accused (A­1) from 01.01.1977 to 31.03.1989 (i.e. check period) was Rs. 2,50,684.04. That the statement of all the witnesses, pertaining to salary details of accused (A­1), in this regard, have also been recorded. That raising of loan by mortgaging of agricultural land as shown in one of the IPRs of 1989, has been found to cover up the source of his disproportionate asset while facing the vigilance enquiry and the statement of witnesses have also been recorded, in this regard.

29. That similarly, in respect of income of Rs.22,500/­ for relinquishing the right in Barsati Floor in B­60, East of Kailash, New Delhi, to elder brother of accused (A­1), statements of witnesses have been recorded. That the brother of accused namely, I.S. Bansal, being public servant in MES of Indian Army had not given any intimation to his department about this transaction. That similarly, gift of Rs.20,000/­ by father of accused, namely, Tule Ram, on 28.03.81, rental income of B­60, East of Kailash, receipt of Rs.5,324.30 from family friend in Canada by accused (A­2); gift of Rs.17,000/­ on 31.10.77 by Sh. Tule Ram, father of accused(A­1) to accused (A­2); CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 17 of 199 pages 18 CBI case . No. 03/11 income from sale of jewellery by accused (A­2) for Rs. 20,000/­ on 07.11.77; lottery prize claim of Rs.10,000/­, vide ticket no. 251608 of Series X in 26th Draw of Nagaland State Lottery during 1977; receipt claim of Rs.20,000/­ from father in law as gift on her wedding anniversary; receipt claim of Rs.10,000/­ from uncle in law, Sh. Pale Ram on her wedding anniversary; Rs.20,000/­ from uncle­ in­law (A­2) through cheque; receipt claim of Rs.20,000/­ from uncle in law, Sh. Pale Ram through cheque on 31.03.81; rental income of Rs.1,27,506/­ from 1983 to 1988 from B­14(basement), Deepali, 92 Nehru Place from M/s Slidex Security Services, gift of Rs.5,000/­ in 1985 and Rs. 20,000/­ in 1986 received from accused (A­2) from her father in law, Sh. Tule Ram; claim of Rs.1,55,869/­ on 03.12.1986 by father in law, Sh. Tule Ram Bansal for purchasing the property 1214 Hemkunth Tower, Nehru Place, as Director of M/s Brijesh Trading Company; rental income claim of Rs.1,49,800/­ from 1214 Hemkunt Tower from 1986 to 1988 from M/s Modi Rubber; payment of Rs. 68,890 between 06.04.1987 to 17.09.1988 by her father in law, Tule Ram, Raghubir Singh and Pale Ram for purchasing property at 27, Ankur Vihar; Advance claim of Rs.66,780/­ in 1988 adjusted in the sale price of the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 18 of 199 pages 19 CBI case . No. 03/11 property at 214 Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi; income claim of Rs.20,000/­ from sale of 300 shares of M/s DCM; loan of Rs.29,000/­ taken by Master Brijesh Bansal (son) through his mother, accused (A­2) from one family friend, N.K. Gupta on 10.06.1985; loan of Rs.19,000/­ received by son of accused from his grand father, Tule Ram in 1985; gift of Rs.20,000/­ from Tule Ram to Master Brijesh Bansal through mother, Kaushalya Bansal on 27.04.87; loan of Rs.15,000/­ received by accused(A­1) from his uncle, Pale Ram in 1986; loan of Rs.2,000/­ from Tule Ram to Master Brijesh Bansal through accused (A­2) in 1986; loan of Rs.6,500/­ from Tule Ram to Master Brijesh through accused (A­2) in 1986­87; loan of Rs.10,000/­ from Sh. Raghubir Singh to Master Brijesh Bansal through Kaushalya Bansal on 26.03.87; loan of Rs.18,340/­ from Tule Ram to Master Brijesh Bansal through accused (A­2) in 1987­1988; loan of Rs.20,000/­ from Raghubir Singh to accused (A­1) on 26.03.1987; loan of Rs.1,640/­ from Raghubir Singh to accused (A­1) on 09.09.87; gift of Rs. 34,612/­ on birthday of Brijesh Bansal have been found to be unacceptable; rental income of Rs.1,12,266/­from 1209, A Devika Tower from M/s Max during the years 1985­1988; lottery prize of Rs.34,300/­ won in 77th draw of UP State CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 19 of 199 pages 20 CBI case . No. 03/11 Lottery (Dhanlaxmi) in 1980.That similarly, a loan of Rs. 5,000/­ received by Kavita Bansal, daughter of accused (A­1) from Sh. Tule Ram on 15.04.1985; loan of Rs.5,000/­ from Raghubir Singh on 23.12.86; loan of Rs.8,500/­ received from Gopal Singh on 23.12.1986; loan of Rs. 3,500/­ from Sh. Tule Ram in between 08.10.86 to 07.11.1986; loan of Rs.6,500/­from Tule Ram between 09.12.1986 to 07.03.1987; loan of Rs.18,200/­ from Tule Ram between 04.04.1987 to 10.03.1988; loan of Rs.1,620/­ from Raghubir Singh on 09.09.1987; Loan of Rs.20,000/­ from Sh. Raghubir Singh in 1987; income of Rs.1,25,305/­ by way of rent from 508­A, Devika Tower from M/s TCIL and other income of Rs.50,000/­ in the year 1985; loan of Rs.8,500/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Pale Ram in 1986; loan of Rs.5,000/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Raghubir Singh in 1986; loan of Rs.3,500/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Tule Ram in 1986­87; loan of Rs. 6,500/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Tule Ram in 1986­1987; gift of Rs.20,000/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Tule Ram on 30.04.1987; loan of Rs.18,200/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Tule Ram in 1987­1988; loan of Rs.1,620/­ received by Namita Bansal from Sh. Raghbir Singh in 1987 and other income of Rs. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 20 of 199 pages 21 CBI case . No. 03/11 52,000/­ as shown in the IPRs till 1985, have not been taken in the valid income of the accused persons and their family members.

30. That the total assets of accused (A­1) at beginning of the check period i.e. 01.01.1977 are agricultural land at Tehsil Sonepat, District Rohtak, which is stated to be inherited from his father as per IPR submitted for the year 1971­1972 with the value of the land shown as Rs.30,000/­ and besides this a residential plot of land at B­60, East of Kailash acquired for the value of Rs.20,000/­ on which a sum of Rs.57,500/­ were spent on construction from 1972­1975 and the total value of this asset is shown as Rs. 77,500/­. That there was no property in the name of his wife accused (A­2) or their children at the beginning of the check period.

31. That the above assets of accused (A­1) at the beginning of the check period and the assets at the end of the check period i.e. 31.03.1989 were as under:­ Assets in the name of accused (A­1)

(i) Agricultural land at Sonipat, District Rohtak inherited in CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 21 of 199 pages 22 CBI case . No. 03/11 1971 from his father­Rs.30,000/­.

(ii) Residential plot at B­60, East of Kailash, New Delhi for Rs.20,000/­ and its cost of construction Rs.57,500/­ spent during 1972 to 1975. Thus, total value Rs.77,500/­. Assets in the name of accused (A­2)

(i) M­138, GK­II, New Delhi purchased from Mr. Balinder Jit Singh Chaddha on 15.11.77 for the declared cost of Rs. 1,42,000/­+ cost of constructions as Rs.19,89,829/­ upto 31.03.1989 excluding the finishing work done after check period;

(ii) B­279, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi purchased from M/s Capital Engineering Works in the year 1979 with 85% share in the said partnership firm. 85% of the cost of acquisition and construction comes to Rs. 16,84,432/­(out of total cost of Rs.19,81,685/­);

(iii) B­107, DLF Model Town, Faridabad with total confirmed value as Rs.5,689.50 paid to DLF;

(iv) B­213, DLF Model Town, Sector­11, Faridabad (300 sq. yards), the value as shown in her ITR for 2004­05 as Rs. 16,900/­;

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 22 of 199 pages 23 CBI case . No. 03/11

(v) G­156, Sector­10, DLF, Faridabad (250 sq. yards) for which total payment made Rs.8,447.50;

(vi) Plot no. 86 A Block B, sector­11, Faridabad (346 sq. yards) for which total payment made Rs.7,241/­.

(vii) B­14 (Basement), Deepali 92, Nehru Place, New Delhi for which total payment made of Rs.47,930.40;

(viii) 1214, Hemkunth Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi for which total payment of Rs.2,77,869/­ has been made;

(ix) Plot no. 27, Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad purchased from DLF for total payment of Rs.72,716/­ made between 06.04.87 to 30.12.1988 but its allotment was later on cancelled by DLF for non payment and refund was sent to her on 06.09.2000 i.e. after check period and

(x) 214, Devika Tower, 6 Nehru Place, New Delhi purchased from M/s Pragati Construction Company for a cost of Rs.2,51,750/­.

Assets in the name of Brijesh Bansal(Son)

(i) Flat no. 1209 A, Pragati Devika Tower, Nehru Place, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 23 of 199 pages 24 CBI case . No. 03/11 New Delhi purchased from M/s Pragati Construction Company and agreement signed by accused (A­1) for minor son, Brijesh Bansal for a cost of Rs.1,26,000/­ and

(ii) Flat no. 101C, Raja Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi, purchased from M/s Raja Towers P. Ltd for Rs.53,300/­. The Flat was alloted to M/s Jasbir Singh & Company, who made request to M/s Raja Towers to treat the money paid by Jasbir & Company, as having been paid by Brijesh Bansal and said application was jointly signed by Jasbir Singh and accused (A­1) on behalf of his minor son. That the flat was later on sold after check period i.e. 20.06.90. Assets in the name of Kavita and Namita Bansal (daughters)

(i) Flat no. 101D, Raja Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi originally allotted to M/s Jasbir Singh & Co., for Rs.65,100/­ was got transferred to Baby Kavita and Namita Bansal as Mr. Jasbir Singh made request to M/s Raja Towers for treating the consideration paid by Baby Kavita and Namita Bansal. The said application was signed by Jasbir Singh and accused (A­1) on behalf of his minor daughters. The said flat was sold after the check period i.e. 20.06.90 and CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 24 of 199 pages 25 CBI case . No. 03/11

(ii) Flat no. 508, Pragati Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi purchased from M/s Pragati Construction Company on payment of Rs.1,36,500/­ in the name of Baby Kavita and Namita.

32. That during the check period, household expenditure was Rs.71,781.16 being 1/3rd of net salary of Rs.2,15,343.49; the expenses as mentioned in IPRs submitted by accused (A­1) during the check period in various items was Rs.44,815/­; LIC premiums and chit fund, etc in check period was Rs. 1,98,104.22; expenditure incurred by Brijesh Bansal on maintenance charges paid to M/s Devika Estate Private Ltd in the sum of Rs.2,340/­; expenditure incurred by Kavita and Namita Bansal on maintenance charges paid to M/s Pragati Construction Ltd., Rs.2,730/­ and to Devika Estate P. Ltd. Rs.651/­.

33. That the summary of income, assets and expenditure in the name of accused (A­1) and his family members has been tabulated as under­:

                               Description                                     Amount
                                                                                   (Rs.)
Income of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal

 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal  & Anr.                                                25 of 199 pages
                                                           26
                                                                             CBI case . No.  03/11


Pay and allowances from 01.01.77 to 31.03.88                                        2,50,684.04
Total                                                                              2,50,684.04


Income of accused Kaushalya Bansal
Lottery prize of Nagaland State Lottery                                                    10,000
Rental income from B­14(Basement), Deepali 92,                                          1,24,362

Nehru Place from Slidex Security Services Rental income from 1214, Hemkunt Tower from 1,56,691 1986 to 1988 from M/s Modi Rubber Advance rent in 1988 adjusted in the sale price at 66,780 214, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi Income from sale of 300 shares of M/s DCM 20,000 Total 3,77,833 Income of Brijesh Bansal Rental income from 1209A, Devika Tower from 1,12,266 M/s Max 1985­88 Total 1,12,266 Income of Kavita Bansal Lottery Prize won in 77th draw of UP State lottery 34,300 (Dhanlaxmi) in 1980 Income by way of share in rent from 508A, 62,652.5 Devika Tower from M/s TCIL during check period Total 96,952.5 Income of Namita Bansal Income by way of share in rent from 508A, 62,652.5 Devika Tower from M/s TCIL during check period Total 62,652.5 Assets at the beginning of check period Immovable assets of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal Agricultural land at District Rohtak, Tehsil­ 30,000 Sonepat(inherited) 1971­72 Residential plot at B­60, East of Kailash, New 77,500 Delhi and construction cost thereof 1971­75 Total 1,07,500 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 26 of 199 pages 27 CBI case . No. 03/11 Assets at the end of check period Immovable assets of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal Agricultural land at District Rohtak, Tehsil­ 30,000 Sonepat(inherited) 1971­72 Residential plot at B­60, East of Kailash, New 77,500 Delhi and construction cost thereof 1971­75 Total 1,07,500 Immovable assets in the name of accused Kaushalya Bansal M­138, GK­II, New Delhi 21,31,829 B­279, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi 16,84,432 B­107, DLF Model Town, Faridabad 5,689.5 213, Block B, DLF Model Town, Sector­11, 12,849.5 Faridabad (300 sq. yards) 156 Block G, Sector­10, DLF Faridabad (250 sq. 8,447.5 yards) Plot no. 86A, Block­B, 346 sq. yards, sector­11, 7,241 Faridabad B­14(Basement), Deepali 92, Nehru Place 47,930.4 1214, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place 2,77,869 27, Ankur Vihar Plot, Ghaziabad 72,716 214, Devika Tower, 6 Nehru Place 2,51,750 Total 45,00,753.9 Immovable assets in the name of Brijesh Bansal Flat no. 1209A, Pragati Devika Tower, Nehru 1,26,000 Place, New Delhi Flat no. 101C, Raja Towers, Nehru Place 53,300 Total 1,79,300 Immovable assets in the name of Namita and Kavita Bansal Flat no. 101D, Raja Towers, Nehru Place 65,100 Flat no. 508, Pragati Devika Tower, Nehru Place, 1,36,500 New Delhi Total 2,01,600 Expenditure during check period CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 27 of 199 pages 28 CBI case . No. 03/11 Accused Ram Bhaj Bansal's expenditure Household expenditure (1/3rd of net salary) 71,781.16 Expenses as mentioned by accused Ram Bhaj 44,815 Bansal in IPRs submitted by him during the check period LIC Premium, chit fund etc as mentioned in 1,98,104.22 various IPRs submitted Total 3,14,700.38 Brijesh Bansal's expenditure Maintenance charges paid to Devika Estate P 2,340 Ltd.

Total 2,340 Namita and Kavita Bansal's expenditure Maintenance charges paid to Pragati 2,730 Construction Maintenance paid to Devika Estate P. Ltd. 651 Total 3381

34. It is, thus, alleged that the following picture emerges in respect of income, asset, expenditure and disproportion, during 01.01.77 to 31.03.89­:

          A.         INCOME                                              Rs.

                     Ram Bhaj Bansal                                     2,50,684.04

                     Kaushalya Bansal                                    3,77,833.00

                     Brijesh Bansal                                      1,12,266.00

                     Kavita Bansal                                           96,952.50

                     Namita Bansal                                           62,652.50

                     Total                                                9,00,388.04


 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal  & Anr.                                                28 of 199 pages
                                                           29
                                                                             CBI case . No.  03/11




          B.         Assets at the beginning of check period

                     Ram Bhaj Bansal                                     1,07,500.00

          C.         Assets at the end of check period

                     Ram Bhaj Bansal                                     1,07,500.00

                     Kaushalya Bansal                                      45,00,753.90

                     Brijesh Bansal                                      1,79,300.00

                     Namita and Kavita Bansal                            2,01,600.00



          D.         Total assets at the                                 49,89,153.90

                     end of check period 



          E.         Expenditure during check period 

                     Ram Bhaj Bansal                                     3,14,700.38

                     Brijesh Bansal                                             2340.00

                     Namita and Kavita Bansal                                   3381.00

          F.         Total expenditure during                            3,20,421.38

          Disproportionate assets =

4989153.90­107500+320421.38­900388.04=43,01,687.24 % of Disproportionate Assets= 477.76%

35. That the children of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal were too young to willingly connive in commission of the offence CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 29 of 199 pages 30 CBI case . No. 03/11 with him but his wife, accused, Smt. Kaushalya Bansal, by allowing most of the properties to be acquired in her name and bank transactions interacted through her, has actively abetted accused (A­1) in obtaining and gathering the disproportionate assets.

36. The case of the prosecution, in brief, therefore, is that accused persons namely, Ram Bhaj Bansal and Smt. Kaushalya Bansal, during the period from 01.01.77 to 31.03.89, committed an offence by acquiring assets, movable and immovable properties to the extent of Rs. 43,01,687.24 which are disproportionate to the known source of income of accused(A­1) and which is punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that accused Kaushalya Bansal abetted the commission of said offence by entering into conspiracy with accused Ram Bhaj Bansal to acquire the properties movable and immovable in her name by using the money provided by accused (A­1). Accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed offences, punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under section 109 IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 30 of 199 pages 31 CBI case . No. 03/11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

37. Further, accused (A­1), being public servant, while posted and functioning in different capacities and lastly as Executive Engineer, Najafgarh Division of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, during the period from 01.01.77 to 31.03.89 committed an offence by acquiring assets, movable and immovable properties to the extent of Rs. 43,01,687.24 which were disproportionate to his known source of income as on 31.03.89, he had been in possession of pecuniary resources/properties in his name as well as in the name of his wife, accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal and children, for which he could not satisfactorily account for. Accused (A­1), thus, is alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under section 13(2) of the said Act.

38. Prima­facie, offences under section 109 IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, against the accused(A­2) and substantive offence under section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 31 of 199 pages 32 CBI case . No. 03/11 section 13(2) of the said Act, in addition, against accused(A­1) Ram Bhaj Bansal, were made out.

39. Charge, accordingly, was framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

40. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions, examined as many as 65 witnesses.

41. Thereafter, accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C.

42. Defence has also produced 3 witnesses, in support of their defence.

43. The prosecution, has contended that the case of the prosecution has been proved, in view of the documents, circumstances and other material that has appeared on record. That the prosecution witnesses have supported and proved the prosecution version beyond any doubt.

44. On behalf of the defence, on the other hand, it has been CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 32 of 199 pages 33 CBI case . No. 03/11 stated that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case much less beyond reasonable doubt. That no disproportionate assets have been proved.

45. On behalf of the parties, written arguments have also been filed, which appear on record. The prosecution has cited no case law. The defence, on the other hand, has cited the following case law ­:

(i) Jastinder Singh Vs. State, 2001 Cri. L. J. 11, Delhi High Court

(ii) M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State DSP Hyderabad, 1993 CRI. L.J.308

(iii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199

(iv) Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M. P., AIR 1977 SC 796

(v) M. Sreeramulu Vs. State of A.P., 2003 CRI. L. J. 2956

(vi) Shri K. Chandra Vs. State (Through CBI) 1993 JCC 37

(vii) D.S.P. Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran 2005 X AD (SC) 368

(viii) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. J.Satyanarayana VII(2008)SLT 43

(ix) Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India, 1994 CRI. L.J. 12

(x) Subhash Vs. State of M. P., ­2000 (1) Crimes 361

(xi) State through CBI Vs. M.S. Tyagi & Others, Crl.Rev.P. 373/2004, High Court of Delhi

(xii) Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363

(xiii)State of Maharashtra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla 1988 CRI. L. J. 183

(xiv) State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors. 1991(I) RCR 383

(xv) H. S. Gotla Vs. State, 2001 CRI. L. J. 2695 (xvi) State Inspector of Police Visakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 VII AE (SC) 278 (xvii) State of M. P. Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 (xviii) P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar 1996(2) Supreme (Cr.) 31 (xix) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000 (2) Supreme (Cr.) 33 (xx) Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi, 139 (2007) Delhi Law Times 178 (xxi) State of Rajasthan Vs. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC 210 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 33 of 199 pages 34 CBI case . No. 03/11

46. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, cited above.

47. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:

48. PW1, Sh. Kuldeep Kumar was posted as Halqa Patwari at Nangal Kalan, Sonepat, during the relevant period.

49. PW1 has proved the Jamabandis, Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, for the years 2004­2005, 1999­2000 & 1964­1965, as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/C, respectively. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said Jamabandis, which were prepared by him after comparing them with the original records.

50. PW1 has further proved the mutations no. 6054 to 6062, 6427, 6609 & 6610, as Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 34 of 199 pages 35 CBI case . No. 03/11 Ex.PW1/M, Ex.PW1/N, Ex.PW1/P & Ex.PW1/Q. He has identified his signatures and seal at pt. A, on each of the said mutation. He has deposed that the said mutations were prepared by him after comparing them with the original records.

51. PW­1 in his cross­examination admitted certified copies of revenue records which are Ex.PW1/DA and Ex.PW1/DB issued by Halka Patwari of Nangal Kalan, District Sonepat, Haryana. He further admitted that land mentioned in these documents is agricultural land and was used as such till 2005 and that the said land yield 2­3 crops in a year. He also stated that he had personal knowledge about these documents. He has, thus, contradicted the versions of the prosecution that the land in question could yield nothing.

52. PW2, Sh. Scaria MV was posted as UDC in the Central Establishment Department of MCD, during the relevant period. He used to look after the maintenance of immovable property returns of the officers of MCD.

53. PW2 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A, immovable property return file of accused Ram Bhaj CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 35 of 199 pages 36 CBI case . No. 03/11 Bansal, consisting of 1 to 103/C pages & note sheet pages 01 to 08N, was handed over by him to CBI, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been been duly identified by him. He has proved the said file, consisting of 1 to 103/C pages and note sheet from page 1/N to 8/N, as Ex.PW2/B colly and Ex.PW2/C, colly, respectively.

54. PW2 has further deposed that the immovable property return file Ex.PW2/B, contains the property returns of accused (A­1) for the period from 1969­70 to 31.12.2001. PW 2 is a formal witness.

55. PW3, Sh. Nand Kishore Singh was posted as Accountant in the office of Central Establishment Department, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi, during the relevant period.

56. PW3 has deposed that he had handed over the personal file of accused (A­1), which is Ex.PW3/A(D­5) to CBI, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/B. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said seizure memo. He has further deposed that said file does not contain any property return filed by accused (A­1).

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 36 of 199 pages 37 CBI case . No. 03/11

57. PW­3 in his cross examination deposed that he could not depose about the documents contained in the file Ex.PW4/A (D­7). That he was only maintaining the file of Executive Engineer and the file Ex.PW4/A pertains to the period when accused was Assistant Engineer and he was the dealing hand. The deposition of this witness, therefore, does not help the prosecution.

58. PW4, Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta was posted as Head Clerk in the Central Establishment Section, Property Return Cell, Town Hall, Delhi, at the relevant period, who used to look after the work of maintenance of files of movable and immovable property returns and other intimations of like nature submitted by the employees of Group A&B of MCD Employees, under CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.

59. PW4 has deposed about the procedure of acquisition of immovable property by an employee of MCD, as per CCS Conduct Rules.

60. PW4 has proved the property return file of accused (A­1), which was maintained in the MCD, as Ex.PW4/A(D­7). He has reiterated the note sheet portion of the above said file, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 37 of 199 pages 38 CBI case . No. 03/11 Ex.PW2/C, colly. He has further deposed that the aforesaid file contains the details of movable and immovable property returns of accused (A­1), furnished by him, during his service.

61. PW­4 also stated that he was not maintaining the file Ex.PW4/A during the check period. He could not tell as to who was maintaining it. He further stated that the employee had no control over the maintenance of the property return file and regarding notings in the relevant file. The deposition of this witness, in no manner help the prosecution, in proving their version, as against the accused persons.

62. PW5, Sh. R.K. Kataria was posted as Superintendent/Senior Investigating Officer in the Vigilance Department of MCD, during the relevant period.

63. PW5 has deposed that he had conducted enquiry in respect of accused (A­1), on the basis of complaint received by him. The proceedings and finding, which were recorded by him, on the basis of enquiry conducted by him, have been proved as Ex.X­1(D­4). PW5 has also CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 38 of 199 pages 39 CBI case . No. 03/11 identified his signatures at pts, A, B & C, on the same.

64. PW5 has further deposed that whatever documents were received during the enquiry are available in the enquiry file, Ex.X­1(D­4). He has admitted that he had recorded the statement of accused (A­1) and that of Sh. Satish Kumar Mathur. He has further deposed that he had conducted the said enquiry on the direction of his boss and that he did not apply his mind. He turned hostile to the version of the prosecution.

65. PW­5 did not support the case of the prosecution. During his cross examination he deposed that he did not know as to who had filed the application for recording his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The testimony of this witness, therefore, is of no use to the prosecution.

66. PW6, Sh. S.P. Jain was posted as Deputy Law Officer, in the Central Establishment Department, MCD, Town Hall, New Delhi, during the relevant period, who was incharge of property return cell of MCD officers of A&B category.

67. PW6 has reiterated the property return file of accused CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 39 of 199 pages 40 CBI case . No. 03/11 (A­1), Ex.PW4/A. He has deposed that upto the year 1997, the above said file was maintained in the Engineering Department Head Quarter, which was forwarded to Central Establishment Department (CED) of MCD.

68. After going through the document at page 31/C of file, Ex.PW4/A, PW6 has deposed that the intimation regarding purchase of scooter was given on 04.08.1981. Further, he has briefly explained the movement of the property return file in their department.

69. In response to specific questions, PW6 has stated that every property return filed by the employee must be processed in the note and if it was not processed, it means that either property return has not been filed and if it has been filed, the concerned dealing assistant has failed in his duty.

70. PW6 was further asked as to what does he mean by the term 'property return has been filed', whether it was within time or after time, because it was not processed in the note sheet, in response to which, PW6 replied that even if the return is filed late, the dealing assistant is bound to CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 40 of 199 pages 41 CBI case . No. 03/11 process it and in case, he does not process it, it is failure of his duty and that date of filing of return is mentioned on the return itself as diary number is put on it. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

71. The testimony of PW6 is also of no advantage to the prosecution.

72. PW­6 in cross examination by the defence has admitted that page 66­C of the file Ex.PW4/A indicates that the intimation was diarised at sl. no.908 dt. 01.02.1989 in the department and that the intimation was marked to Supdt. (Engineer) and thereafter forwarded to the property return section. By this, he has further eroded the version of the prosecution.

73. PW7, Sh. Vishnu Swaroop was posted as Addl. Director of Vigilance, who was looking after the work of Director (Vigilance) at the relevant time. He has deposed that the enquiry, in question, was conducted by Assistant Director (Vigilance). He has further deposed that the initial enquiry was conducted by Mr. Kataria, who the Investigating Officer.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 41 of 199 pages 42 CBI case . No. 03/11

74. PW7 was further specifically asked as to whether the report filed by Mr. Kataria was proper or correct or was based on correct findings, to which he replied that he thought it proper on the basis of record, placed before him and therefore, he submitted the same to the competent authority. He was further questioned that later on, did he find anything else regarding the findings, to which he answered that during the period he remained in Vigilance Department, he did not find anything against the accused person(A­1). He was further questioned as to whether he saw the statement of Mr. S.K. Mathur, in the above said proceedings, to which he answered that he did not remember. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

75. PW­7 has, thus, also turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. In cross examination by the defence, he admitted that he has been cited witness in 5­6 cases of CBI as sanctioning authority. The defence has admitted the entire files Ex.X­1 and Ex.PW4/A which are D­4 and D­7, respectively. The prosecution has relied upon these two files. The contents of these two files only help the defence. The prosecution has not been able to contradict the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 42 of 199 pages 43 CBI case . No. 03/11 contents of these files.

76. PW8, Sh. N.K. Gupta has deposed that account no. 2753, in respect of M/s Brij Trading Company Private Ltd was introduced by him, which was opened, vide account opening form, Mark PW8/A­1. He has deposed that his father was a good friend of father of accused (A­1) and that he had extended a loan of Rs.9,000/­ from the account of his firm M/s Steel Home to Brijesh Trading Company of accused (A­1). That on the other occasion, he had extended personal loan of Rs.20,000/­ from his personal resources to accused (A­1). That both these loans were given in the year 1985, which were repaid to him, in the year 1988.

77. PW8 has further deposed that he had purchased two properties, bearing no. 101­C & 101­D, Raja House, Nehru Place, New Delhi, in the name of his wife, Mrs. Mithlesh Rani, which were in the name of children of accused persons. That the payment in respect of the aforesaid two properties were made through cheques and endorsement was made in favour of the purchaser in the books of builder. The copies of transfer papers in respect of the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 43 of 199 pages 44 CBI case . No. 03/11 above transactions, are Mark PW8/A­2 and Mark PW8/A­3, which bear the photo impression of signatures of Mrs. Mithlesh, which have been duly identified by PW8. He has further deposed that the first property was purchased for an amount of Rs.53,300/­ and second was purchased for an amount of Rs.65,000/­.

78. PW­8 could not prove any of the documents shown to him by the prosecution which are marked Ex.PW8/A­1, Ex. PW 8/A­2, and Ex. PW 8/A­3. In cross examination, contrary to the case of prosecution, this witness has deposed that Mr. Tule Ram who was father of Ram Bhaj Bansal was a rich and Influential person and in the year 1981 this witness was invited by the Tule Ram on the birthday of his grandson where 70­80 persons gathered and his family was given Rs.5001 as gift, that other persons were also giving gifts in the form of gold coins and silver coins. He also deposed that the loan which he extended to Ram Bhaj Bansal was interest free loan. PW 8 has thus demolished the case of the prosecution sought to be established through this witness.

79. PW9, Sh. Hardeep Kumar was working as LDC in CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 44 of 199 pages 45 CBI case . No. 03/11 Dangerous Building Department, City Zone, Dariya Ganj, New Delhi, during the year 2007. He has deposed that Mr. Ansar Alam was Executive Engineer, Building Department, at that time.

80. PW9 has identified the signatures of Mr. Ansar Alam, at pt.

A, on the salary details, dated 01.12.2007, which have been proved as Ex.PW9/A­1, as he had worked under him and had seen him writing and signing, during the official course of business. Similarly, he has identified the signatures of said Mr. Ansar Alam on the details, Ex.PW9/A­2. He has further deposed that the details of salary, contained in Ex.PW9/A­2 were prepared by him from the concerned office record, namely, ECR Register. He has further deposed that he had compared the details with ECR Register before it was signed by Mr. Ansar Alam.

81. PW10, Ms. Sailja Nair was posted as Accountant in the office of Executive Engineer­IV, MCD, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi.

82. PW10 has identified his signatures at pt. A and that of Mr. Rajesh Wadhwa, at pt. B, on the letter, dated 05.03.07, vide CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 45 of 199 pages 46 CBI case . No. 03/11 which details were forwarded to the CBI. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW10/A­1.

83. PW10 has further identified his signatures at pt. A on the details of pay and allowances, drawn by accused (A­1), during the period from 01.11.78 to 03.07.1987, 04.07.1987 to 13.09.1988 and 01.03.89 to 28.02.1997, which have been collectively proved as Ex.PW10/A­2(consisting of ten pages). He has also identified the signatures of Sh. Dharmender, at pt. B, that of Sh. Jitender Dawar at pt. C and that of Sh. Dev Raj Arora at pt. D, on each page of Ex.PW10/A­2, as he had worked with these officials and had seen them signing documents in the official course of business. He has deposed that the details in Ex.PW10/A­2 were prepared, on the basis of ECR maintained in the office of Executive Engineer, South Zone, at that time and that the same are correct.

84. PW­9 and PW­10 were examined by the state regarding salary statement, Ex.PW9/A­1 and Ex.PW9/A­2 and Ex. PW10/A­2 but both these witnesses admitted of having not brought the ECR (establishment check register) which is a permanent record. It is not understood as to why CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 46 of 199 pages 47 CBI case . No. 03/11 prosecution did not call for the permanent authenticated record in order to prove the requisite documents.

85. PW11, Sh. Shamsher Singh has deposed that he was working as Estate Manager in Raja Towers Private Ltd, since 2003. He has further deposed that he did not provide Mark PW8/A­2 and MarkPW8/A­3 to CBI. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

86. In his cross examination by Ld. Senior PP for CBI, he denied the suggestion that he made statement to Inspector Dheeraj Khetrapal(IO of the case), in respect of two properties of Raja Towers namely, 101­C and 101­D and that he had provided the copies Mark PW8/A­2 & Mark PW8/A­3 to the CBI, during the course of investigation. He voluntarily stated that he had received a telephonic call from CBI but when he reached there, the concerned person did not meet him and that he was not called again and that he had not made any statement to any Inspector of CBI. He has further denied the suggestion that he stated to CBI in his statement that accused(A­1) got these properties mentioned in the above documents transferred from one Jasbir Singh, for payment of Rs.53,300/­ and Rs. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 47 of 199 pages 48 CBI case . No. 03/11 65,000/­, respectively. He has further denied that he made statement, Mark PW11/X.

87. PW­11 turned hostile to the version of the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution's case.

88. PW12, Sh. Sukumar Mistry was working as LDC in the office of Executive Engineer (MCD), Division no. IX, Arjun Marg, Defence Colony, New Delhi, at the relevant period. He has deposed that his duties included preparing salary bills of employees and officer of that division.

89. PW12 has identified his signatures at pt. A on the details of pay and allowances of accused (A­1), which have been proved as Ex.PW12/A­1(running into three pages). He has also identified the signatures of Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma, the then Accountant, at pt. B, on the aforesaid details, as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, during the official course of business.

90. PW12 has also identified his signatures at pt. A and that of Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, the then Accountant, at pt. B, on the note sheet, which has been proved as Ex.PW12/A­2. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 48 of 199 pages 49 CBI case . No. 03/11

91. PW12 has also identified his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. Hemant Kumar, at pt. B, on the details of pay and allowances, which have been proved as Ex.PW12/A­3.

92. PW12 has also identified his signatures at pt. A, on the copies of details of pay and allowances, which are Mark PW12/A­4. He has deposed that the details prepared by him are correct, as per the ECR Record, available at that time and that for the period from 01.08.1986 to 31.03.1987, details were prepared approximately on the basis of previous pay fixation, as the record for this period was not available.

93. PW­12 also admitted in his cross examination that he did not bring ECR register. He also admitted that he had not annexed the photocopies of the relevant entries of ECR register to the CBI. He also stated that accused not even withdrew salary from his division from that period.

94. PW13, Sh. S. Ramachandran was working as Chief Manager of Corporation Bank, Greater Kailash, Part­II Branch, New Delhi, at the relevant period. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 49 of 199 pages 50 CBI case . No. 03/11

95. PW13 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the letter, which was written by him to CBI, in response to some queries raised by CBI in respect of accounts of accused (A­1) and his family members, after consulting the bank records. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW13/A.

96. PW13 has further identified his signatures at pt. A on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW13/B, vide which he had forwarded the computer print out of statement of accounts no. SB 16043, which is mark PW13/C.

97. PW­13 admitted that the statement of account marked 13/E was not certified as per law. He further admitted that the information regarding the accounts given to the Ex.PW13/A were after 31.03.1989, which is beyond the check period. The examination of the witness was, therefore, futile.

98. PW14, Sh. Gauri Shankar Mishra was working as Manager (Legal) in Areva T & D India Ltd, during the period from July, 2007 to April, 2011. He has deposed that the documents, Mark PW14/A were sent by his company to CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 50 of 199 pages 51 CBI case . No. 03/11 the CBI.

99. PW­14 did not do anything and was examined in part by the prosecution. His testimony, therefore, cannot be considered.

100.PW15, Sh. Narender Singh was working as Peon in Punjab & Sind Bank, Defence Colony, at the relevant time. He has deposed that at that time, Mr. Ashok Batra was the Chief Manager of the said branch.

101.PW15 has identified the signatures of Sh. Ashok Batra, at pt. A, on the letter, dated 26.05.2009, as he had worked under him and had seen him signing the documents. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW15/A. He has also identified the signatures of said Sh. Ashok Batra at points A­1 & A­2 on the statement of account, which has been proved as Ex.PW15/B.

102.PW­15 in cross examination deposed that he merely handed over the documents Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B to the CBI. He further admitted that Ex.PW15/B was not certified as per law, that being so the same is not admissible under the law.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 51 of 199 pages 52 CBI case . No. 03/11

103.PW16, Sh. Kehar Singh Chauhan has deposed that he did not know accused (A­1). That he, however, knew his father, Tule Ram, who had two brothers namely, Pale Ram and Soram. He has further deposed that the financial condition of Pale Ram, Tule Ram and Soram was not such as they could give any gift or loan to any person.

104.PW­16 upon whom the prosecution has relied heavily to show that Tule Ram, father of accused A­1, was unable to gift or lend loan to any person, has shattered the version of prosecution, however, in cross­examination. He deposed that he did not know the agricultural income of Tule Ram at the relevant time. He admitted that there was tube­well in the land of Tule Ram and the land in his area was very fertile. Admittedly, Tule Ram had agricultural land which is stated to be fertile by this witness and there was means of irrigation in the form of Tube­well and thus, it cannot be said that Tule Ram was not a man of means to the extent that he could neither make a gift or give loan to others. This witness, therefore, wipes out the case of the prosecution altogether.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 52 of 199 pages 53 CBI case . No. 03/11

105.PW17, Sh. Vijay Singh has deposed that he knew Sh. Tule Ram, Pale Ram and Soram, who were Lalas and brothers. That they were residents of Nangal Village. That he knew them for the last 40 years, as they were having land in his village at several places and that some of it was adjoining his land.

106.PW17 has further deposed that during the relevant period i.e. 1975 to 1989, the yield per acre of the above said land, was about 15­20 quintal per acre, per season.

107.PW17 has further deposed that Tule Ram had a better financial condition than his brothers and that he was capable of doing anything for his children. He voluntarily stated that when Tule Ram could make his two children engineers he might be having some means.

108.PW17 has further deposed that he did not know about the children of Tule Ram. That Tule Ram had sold his land, about 5­7 years back, 8/9 Kilas/acre. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. His deposition demolished the case of the prosecution that Pale Ram was not a man of means.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 53 of 199 pages 54 CBI case . No. 03/11

109.In his cross examination by Ld. Senior PP for CBI, PW17 has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely on account of being won over by the defence.

110.PW­17 has turned hostile to the version of prosecution.

On the contrary, in the cross examination of defence he admitted that the land belonging to Tule Ram was fertile and yielded 3 crops in a year and that the land was well irrigated by the Tube­well.

111.PW18, Sh. Ram Dass Gautam, who was posted as Manager at UCO Bank, Model Town, New Delhi, was dropped by the prosecution.

112.PW19, Sh. Ramesh Arya was posted as Office Assistant in Skipper Towers Private Ltd, Top Floor, Skipper Corner, 88, Nehru Place, New Delhi­19.

113.PW19 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW19/A, documents were seized from him by the CBI, which he had provided from his company's record. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the said seizure memo. The CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 54 of 199 pages 55 CBI case . No. 03/11 documents i.e. Flat buyer agreement and transfer application form, which were seized, vide the aforesaid seizure memo, have been proved as Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/C, respectively. He has identified the signatures of Sardar Tejwat Singh, the then MD of Skippers Tower Private Ltd, at pt. A, on page 10 of the said agreement and that of Late Sh. V.D. Suri, at pt. A on Ex.PW19/C, as he had seen them writing and signing during official course of business.

114.PW19 has further deposed that vide transfer application form, Ex.PW19/C, permission was granted for transfer of rights in respect of space/flat no. 1214, 12th floor, Hemkunth Tower, 98 Nehru Place, New Delhi from Ms. Kusum Tandon to Brijesh Trading Company Private Ltd of which accused, Mrs. Kaushalya Bansal was director.

115.PW19 has also identified the signatures of Sh. V.D. Suri at points B­1 and B­2 on transfer form, available at page 11 of Ex.PW19/B. He has deposed that besides the payment reflected in aforesaid document, ground rent and maintenance charges were also required to be paid by the above said transferee at the rate of Rs.2.76 per Square Feet, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 55 of 199 pages 56 CBI case . No. 03/11 per year (ground rent). That the maintenance charges and other charges were to be paid to the society, where the property was located.

116.PW20, Sh. Ashwani Kumar was working as Naib Tehsildar in the office of Divisional Commissioner, 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi­54, during the relevant period.

117.PW20 has identified his signatures at pt. A on the sale deed, which has been proved as Ex.PW20/A (D­132).

118.Similarly, PW20 has identified his signatures at pt. A on the document D­130, which has been proved as Ex.PW20/B. He, however, could not identify his signatures at pt. A, on document(D­129), which is Ex.PW20/C. He has further identified his signatures at pt. A on the document, which has been proved as Ex.PW20/D.

119.PW21, Sh. Praveen Arora was working with Om Apartments Private Ltd, since 1981.

120.PW21 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the seizure memo, vide which documents, Ex.PW21/B to Ex.PW21/D CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 56 of 199 pages 57 CBI case . No. 03/11 were handed over by him to the CBI. The said seizure memo has been proved as Ex.PW21/A. He has deposed that vide documents, Ex.PW21/B to Ex.PW21/D, basement flat no. B 14/92, Nehru Place was sold to accused (A­2), for an amount of Rs.47,250/­.

121.PW­21 admitted that a sum of Rs.47,250/­ was received by their company on 28.12.1982 vide bank draft. He further admitted that owners were to pay ground rent and capital assets and repayment fund on yearly basis.

122.PW22, Sh. Balinder Jeet Singh has deposed that he along with his mother was owner of the plot no. M­138, Greater Kailash, Part­II, New Delhi, which was sold to accused (A­2), about 35 years back. He has further deposed that relating to above transaction, he did not have any document and that the sale deed was executed through a registered document. That the sale consideration paid by the purchaser named above, was of Rs.1,42,000/­ besides the registration charges and stamp duty, which was paid by the buyer, separately. He has identified the photo impression of his signatures as well as that of his mother, at pts. A and B, respectively, on the sale deed, which is CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 57 of 199 pages 58 CBI case . No. 03/11 Mark PW22/A.

123.PW­22 did not prove any documents and as such as photocopy of the sale deed was shown to him.

124.PW23, Sh. Laxmi Dutt Joshi was working as Assistant Director in the Law Department of DDA.

125.PW23 has deposed that file, Ex.PW23/A was handed over by him to the CBI with the approval of competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Land & Disposal. That the said file is in respect of property i.e. Industrial plot no. B­279, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi.

126.PW23 has deposed that initially, the above said plot was alloted to a partnership firm namely, Capital Engineering Works, after auction on 29.06.1973 for bid amount of Rs. 33,300/­, as per documents available at pages no. 3 to 8 of the file, Ex.PW23/A. That a composition fee of Rs.3,465/­ was paid as per receipt available at page 103 of file, Ex.PW23/A on 16.02.1985. That similarly, composition fee of Rs.1,260/­ was paid, vide receipt available at page no. 136 of Ex.PW23/A. That similarly, vide receipt available at CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 58 of 199 pages 59 CBI case . No. 03/11 page no. 117, total amount of Rs.5022.50 has been paid which includes composition fee of Rs.2,520/­ and ground rent of Rs.2502.50.

127.PW23 has further deposed that an amount of Rs.35,302.65 was paid as un­earned increase in respect of the aforesaid property, vide receipt, dated 23.03.1984, which is Ex.PW23/B, available in file Ex.PW23/A.

128.PW23 has further deposed that a request was received and thereafter, change in constitution of the firm was allowed, vide office copy of letter, which is available at page no. 118 of file, Ex.PW23/A.

129.PW23 was specifically asked court question as to whether any payment was made by either of the accused persons namely, Ram Bhaj Bansal and Kaushalya Bansal, which he could not tell, creating a doubt in the story of the prosecution.

130.PW23 has further deposed that copy attested by Notary was submitted by the party, which is available at page no. 109 to 112 of Ex.PW23/A and is Mark PW23/C. That CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 59 of 199 pages 60 CBI case . No. 03/11 subsequently, a perpetual lease deed(page 125 to 128) was executed between DDA and M/s Capital Engineering Works, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/D. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Hari Singh, the then ALO, DDA, at pt. A and that of accused Kaushalya Bansal on behalf of Capital Engineering Works, at pt.B, on the said perpetual lease deed.

131.PW23 has also identified the signatures of Ms. Ashma Manjar, the then Commissioner, LD, at pt. A on page 69/N of the file, Ex.PW23/A, vide which, he was permitted to hand over the said file to CBI. PW­23 was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence.

132.PW24, Sh. Jagtar Singh was an official witness from DDA.

He has identified the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the then Deputy Director, LAB(Residential) DDA, at pt. A, on the letter, as he had seen him signing and writing in the official course of business. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW24/A.

133.PW24 has further deposed that he had handed over the file, in respect of plot no. B­60, East of Kailash, which was CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 60 of 199 pages 61 CBI case . No. 03/11 maintained in regular course in DDA, which is Ex.PW24/B along with the letter, Ex.PW24/A to the CBI. He has further deposed that the financial transactions, shown in the file, Ex.PW24/B, are not pertaining to the check period, in this case.

134.PW24 has further deposed that he did not have personal knowledge of the present case and that he had handed over the record of this case to the CBI and that the file was already lying closed and that he had never dealt with the said file. PW­24 was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence, for the obvious reasons that PW 24 did not help the prosecution.

135.PW25, Sh. Ajit Singh has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 13.09.2006, documents were handed over to the CBI. He has identified his signatures at pt. A­1 & A­2, on the same. He has further identified his signatures at pt. A and that of Sub Registrar, Sh. Virender Singh, at pt. B on the index register of Sub Registrar­III, Asaf Ali Road, which has been proved as Ex.PW25/B.

136.PW­25 deposed in his cross examination that from the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 61 of 199 pages 62 CBI case . No. 03/11 record which he brought he could not ascertain as to whether in respect of particular entry as to who was the purchaser or who was the seller. The deposition of this witness is uncertain and vague.

137.PW26, Sh. Jasbir Singh was doing property dealing business in the name of Jasbir Singh and Company, in the year 1987.

138.PW26 has deposed that he had purchased property no.

101, Raja Tower, Nehru Place, in the year 1987. That after the property got transfered in his name, he had sold the same in four parts i.e. 101­A, B, C & D. That portions C and D were sold in the name of children of accused, Ram Bhaj Bansal, out of which, one was sold for Rs.53,300/­ and the other one for Rs.65,000/­. He did not remember as to how much profit, he had earned in these transactions. That he again said, he might have earned profit of Rs.2,000/­Rs. 3,000/­, per transaction. He, however, did not remember the mode of payment. He has deposed that he did not have any record, pertaining to that period as 20­30 years have passed. That he had received the payment from Tule Ram, father of accused (A­1). This witness was CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 62 of 199 pages 63 CBI case . No. 03/11 declared hostile by the prosecution.

139.In his cross examination by Ld. Senior PP for CBI, he denied the suggestion that he took payment from accused (A­1) and not from Late Sh. Tule Ram. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely to save accused persons.

140.PW­26 in cross examination demolished the case of the prosecution when he deposed that Tule Ram came to purchase the property in question for his grand children and paid a sum of Rs.65,100/­. Accused(A­1) accompanied him as the property was to be purchased in the names of minor and he was a natural guardian. As such cost of Rs. 65,100/­ can not be attributed to accused (A­1).

141.PW27­Sh. Pradip Singh, PW28­Sh. R.K. Handa, PW29­ Sh. K.L. Mehndiratta and PW30­Sh. Vinod Kumar, being irrelevant witnesses, were dropped by the CBI from the list of witnesses.

142.PW31, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Goel was an official witness from MCD, Lajpat Nagar. The sanction file of building CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 63 of 199 pages 64 CBI case . No. 03/11 plan, in respect of property no. B­279, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, which was maintained at Building Head Quarter, Department of MCD, has been proved as Ex.PW31/A.

143.PW31 has deposed that as per record, the sanction of building plan was released on 05.05.1988, after deposition of Rs.930/­, as per entry at page 34 of file, Ex.PW31/A. That the concerned building plan is at page no. 1 of the aforesaid file.

144.PW­31 has deposed about the sanction of building plan in respect of property No.B­279, Okhla Industrial Area Phase­ I on 05.05.1988. In cross examination this witness admitted that he neither visited nor inspected the building in question. He could not give built up area or covered area and that the measuring Mezzanine and Basement were free from FAR covered area and that a person was at liberty to construct the same or not. He categorically admitted that he only dealt with the file Ex.PW31/A.

145.PW32, Sh. Vishal Garg was working as Manager (Finance) in Max India Ltd., Okhla, New Delhi, at the relevant time. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 64 of 199 pages 65 CBI case . No. 03/11

146.PW32 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the seizure memo, vide which documents, Ex.PW32/B were handed over by him to the CBI. The said seizure memo has been proved as Ex.PW32/A.

147.PW32 has further deposed that page no. 5 of file, Ex.PW32/B contains details of payment made by Max India Ltd to Master Brijesh Bansal in respect of rent for the flat no. 1209A, Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He has further deposed that he had taken out the print of said page no. 5 from the computer system, in which accounts and banking entries are maintained and which are correct, as per data available in the computer. That the above mentioned property was taken on rent by company w.e.f 01.07.1985 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,430/­, which was changed in July, 1988 at the rate of Rs.2,794.50 pm. That the above said rate of rent continued upto the year 1991.

148.PW­32 in his cross examination admitted that plot No. 1209A Devika Tower, Nehru Place was vacated by Maximum Only Limited on 17.01.2002 and till then it was on rent from Master Projects Benwal. That the rent was CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 65 of 199 pages 66 CBI case . No. 03/11 increased every 3 years as per agreement.

149.PW33, Sh. Ram Babu was posted as Record Clerk at Building Head Quarter, at the relevant period.

150.PW33 has identified his signatures at pt. A1 and A2 on the seizure memo, which has been proved as Ex.PW33/A, vide which file, Ex.PW31/A was seized from him by the CBI. PW­33 being a formal witness was not cross examined by the Defence.

151.PW34, Sh. M.K. Verma, has deposed that the assessment proposal, at page no. 59C of file, which has been proved Ex.PW34/A, is in respect of property no. B­60, East of Kailash and is in the name of Mr. I.S. Bansal.

152.PW34 has further deposed that the details of the tax payment in respect of the above said house is not available in the aforesaid file. That subsequently name of accused, R.B. Bansal was added as joint owner, as per the copy of lease available, at page no. 50C. That the ledger of the payment of house tax is maintained in the office of Assessment and Collection Department, R.K. Puram, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 66 of 199 pages 67 CBI case . No. 03/11 Sector­9, New Delhi. PW­34 was not cross examined by the Defence.

153.PW35, Sh. Shiv Charan Singh has deposed that he knew Pale Ram and Tule Ram, who were the residents of Village Nangal, who were having agricultural land at 3­4 places. That the financial condition of Tule Ram and Pale Ram was good.

154.PW35 has further deposed that during the period 1977­89, the land was very fertile, the yield of sugarcane was around 300­350 quintal, per acre; the yield of paddy was 50­60 mounds, per acre and the yield of wheat was 50­60 maunds, per acre. That besides this, there was crop of vegetables and that the land in question was giving 3 crops, per annum. That Pale Ram and Tule Ram were capable of gifting Rs.30,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­, as they had financial dealings in several villages. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

155.In his cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, PW35 has denied the suggestion that Tule Ram was not even capable of giving gift of Rs.10,000/­ to Rs.20,000/­. He has further CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 67 of 199 pages 68 CBI case . No. 03/11 denied the suggestion that whenever the season was favourable in the lands of Pale Ram and Tule Ram, an yield of paddy and wheat of about 15­30 quantal, per acre, used to be taken, every year. He has admitted that he had not stated about the yield of sugarcane, exactly. He volunteered that IO might not have asked him in his statement about the yield of sugarcane and that as far as he remember, he has deposed, correctly. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely, to help the accused persons having been won over by them.

156.PW­35 turned hostile to the version of the prosecution.

PW­35 in his further cross examination by the defence admitted that there were Tube­well in the fertile land of Tule Ram which was used to irrigate fields.

157.PW36, Sh. Raja Ram was posted as Clerk in the Directorate of UP State Lottery, Lucknow, in the year 1980.

158.PW36 has identified his initials at pt. A and that of Sh.

Banarasi Das, the then Additional Director, at pt. B, on the letter, dated 02.07.07, which has been proved as Ex.PW36/A (D­73).

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 68 of 199 pages 69 CBI case . No. 03/11

159.Similarly, PW36 has identified the signatures of said Sh.

Banarasi Das, at pt. B, on the copy of the prize payment register of the department, which has been proved as Ex.PW36/B. He has deposed that the prize money was of Rs.40,000/­ out of which, after deducting tax and commission, an amount of Rs.34,331/­ was paid to Ms. Kavita Bansal, daughter of accused persons, vide bank draft, which has been mentioned in Ex.PW36/B. PW­36 was not cross examined.

160.PW37, Sh. P. Ram Mohan Rao was an official witness from Bank. He has identified the signatures of Late Sh. M. Venketeshwar Rao, the then Branch Head, at pt. A, on the letter, as he had seen him signing and writing in the official course of business, being employed in the same bank, at the relevant time. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW37/A (D­293).

161.PW38, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta was another witness from Bank. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW38/A. He has deposed that along with the aforesaid letter, he had sent CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 69 of 199 pages 70 CBI case . No. 03/11 the certified copy of ledger of loan account of accused (A­1) and that of Sh. I.S. Bansal. The said certified copy has been proved as Ex.PW38/B(D­294). He has deposed that the original ledger is destroyed after a period of eight years, as per banking norms.

162.PW38 has also identified his signatures at pt. A, on the statement of share money, in respect of Mr. I.S. Bansal, which has been proved as Ex.PW38/C.

163.PW­38 deposed in his cross examination that he never heard about Bankers Book of evidence Act. As such, it is not understood as to why this witness was examined? The statement of the account Ex.PW38/B becomes inadmissible for want of compliance of the requisite certificate under the Bankers Book of Evidence.

164.PW39, Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain was also an official witness from Bank. He has identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Goel, the then Manager, at pt. A, on the letter, as he had seen him writing and signing in the official course of business. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW39/A. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 70 of 199 pages 71 CBI case . No. 03/11

165.Similarly, PW39 has identified the signatures of one Mr. Gupta, whose full name, he did not remember, at pt. A on the statement of account and vouchers, as he had seen him signing and writing in the official course of business. The said statement of account and vouchers are Ex.PW39/B­1 and Ex.PW39/B­5 (D­257).

166.Similarly, PW39 has identified the signatures of said Sh.

Gupta on the statements of accounts (running into four pages), three vouchers, account opening form, which are Ex.PW39/C colly (D­257), Ex.PW39/D colly(D­257) and Ex.PW39/E(D­257), respectively.

167.PW39 has also identified the signatures of said Sh. Gupta, at pt. A, on the statement of account, running into two pages, which has been proved as Ex.PW39/F (D­257).

168.PW­39 in his cross examination deposed that all the documents mentioned by him pertains to the period beyond the check period. His testimony was, therefore, irrelevant.

169.PW40, Sh. Satya Pal Anand was the Director of M/s Big CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 71 of 199 pages 72 CBI case . No. 03/11 Dot Advertising & Communication Private Ltd, M­138, GK­ II(Basement), New Delhi, at the relevant time.

170.PW40 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the seizure memo, vide which three files and one computerized statement, showing details of rent paid to the Bansal Family, were seized by the CBI from him. The said seizure memo has been proved as Ex.PW40/A.

171.Deposition of PW­40 also pertains to the period beyond the check period and is irrelevant.

172.PW41, Sh. Naveen Chander Harbola was working as UDC in the office of IHQ of MOD(Army) Engineering Chief Branch, Joint DG(D&V/EID), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi, during the relevant period.

173.PW41 has identified the signatures of Director, Sh. M.K. Gupta, at pt. A on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW41/A. He has deposed that vide the aforesaid letter, file of Mr. Inder Singh Bansal, which is Ex.PW41/B(D­59), was handed over by him to the IO.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 72 of 199 pages 73 CBI case . No. 03/11

174.PW­41 deposed that he never dealt with the file mentioned in his examination in chief and that merely as a manager he has transported the said file at the asking of his officer to the CBI, that he has no knowledge of the contents of the file shown to him by the prosecution. This witness also, therefore, does not prove anything as per law.

175.PW42, Sh. A.V. Surya Prakash was posted as Chief Manager, 2nd line in the office of Corporation Bank, GK­II Branch, New Delhi, during the relevant period.

176.PW42 has identified his signatures at pt. A on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW42/A(D­160). He has deposed that he had written the said letter after consulting the bank record.

177.PW42 has also identified the signatures of Sh. K.P. Nayak, the then AGM of the branch, at pt. A, on the letter, as he had seen him signing in the official course of business. The said letter is Ex.PW42/B (D­277). Similarly, he has identified the signatures of said Sh. K.P. Nayak, at pt. A, on the certificate, which has been proved as Ex.PW42/C. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 73 of 199 pages 74 CBI case . No. 03/11

178.PW42 has also identified the signatures of Sh. M.S. Murthy, the then Manager of the branch, at pt. A, on the certified copies of applications for opening the accounts, which are Ex.PW42/D (D­280), Ex.PW42/E (D­281), Ex.PW42/E­1(D­282) and Ex.PW42/F(D­283).

179.PW40 has also identified the signatures of said Sh. M.S. Murthy, at pt. A on the certified copies of account opening forms for term deposit, which are Ex.PW42/G­1 to Ex.PW42/G­9(D­284).

180.PW­42 admitted that stamp on the statement of accounts were not affixed on the statement to the fact that the same were certified as per Bankers Book of Evidence Act. He also deposed that details of the accounts asked for were not available in their bank prior to 1993 as it mentioned in the Mezzanine Ex.PW42/A. The testimony of this witness is, therefore, of no use to the prosecution.

181.PW43, Sh. Anand Singh was posted as ARC, in Sub Register's Office, at the relevant period.

182.PW43 has denied his signatures at pt. A on the document, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 74 of 199 pages 75 CBI case . No. 03/11 Ex.PW43/A. He, however, has identified the signatures of Sh. Kulbir Singh Dhaka, at pt. A, on each page of the certified copy, which has been proved as Ex.PW43/B (D­171). He has identified the signatures of said Sh. Kulbir Singh Dhaka as he had seen him signing, in the official course of business.

183.PW­43 failed to identify his signature on Ex.PW43/A. Under cross examination he deposed that he did not remember whether he handed over the documents to the CBI or not.

184.PW44, Sh. Brahm Pal was resident of Village Pubsara, District Sonepat, Haryana. He was the Sarpanch of the said village. He has deposed that he knew Sh. Tule Ram and Pale Ram. That he did not know about the sons of Pale Ram and Tule Ram. That he, however, knew that one of the son of the Tule Ram is accused (A­1).

185.PW44 has deposed that the financial condition of Tule Ram was good. That Tule Ram and Pale Ram had land from the last 50­60 years in their village and that they were originally from Village Nangal Kalan and that the financial CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 75 of 199 pages 76 CBI case . No. 03/11 condition of the people of that Village was weak.

186.PW­44 admitted that land of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal was fertile and that land of Tule Ram was at 7­8 places. He further admitted of 3­4 yields in the said land.

187.PW45, Sh. Gopal Singh was another witness from Village Pubsara, District Sonepat, Haryana. He has deposed that his father used to cultivate the agricultural land of Sh. Pale Ram and Tule Ram on 'ughai and batai basis' and that after the death of his father, he used to cultivate the said land. That the agricultural land belonging to accused (A­1) was mortgaged in favour of his father, Lal Singh, who used to sell the yield of the crops in the market.

188.PW45 has further deposed that he did not remember as to whether he had stated in his statement to the IO that the said land was mortgaged to his father. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

189.In his cross examination, PW45 has denied that he had made statement to the IO, which has been recorded at portion X to X in statement Mark PW45/A. He has denied CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 76 of 199 pages 77 CBI case . No. 03/11 the suggestion that he has deposed falsely regarding the land having been mortgaged to his father, in order to save accused (A­1), at his instance, having been won our by him.

190.PW­45 turned hostile to the version of prosecution. He further deposed in his cross examination by the Defence that land of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal was very fertile. He has further deposed in line with the PW­44.

191.PW46, Sh. Karambir was the resident of Village Nangal Kalan, District Sonepat, Haryana. He has deposed that his father was having good relation with Tule Ram because he was 'Seth' of his father. He has identified the son of Tule Ram, accused (A­1). PW­46 corroborated the version of PW­44 and PW­45, in his cross examination, by the Defence.

192.PW47, Sh. Puran Singh has deposed that he did not hand over the letter, which is Ex.PW47/A (D­133) to the CBI along with its enclosures. He could not tell as to whether the enclosures filed along with the letter, Ex.PW47/A are the true copies of the extract from the ledgers. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 77 of 199 pages 78 CBI case . No. 03/11

193.PW­47 did not help the prosecution in as much as he could not tell whether the enclosures filed along with the leter Ex.PW47/A were the true copies of the extracts from the ledgers.

194.PW48, Sh. M. C. Gupta was posted as Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, at the relevant period.

195.PW48 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW48/A­1(D­126), vide which he had sent his valuation report, running into six pages and that the same was prepared by him in his own hand along with annexures, comprising of 11 pages. He has also identified his signatures/initials at page 6 of his report and on each page of the annexures, at pt. A, with official stamp. The said report has been proved as Ex.PW48/A­2, colly. He has deposed that his valuation is correct.

196. The report of the valuer PW 48, however, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts for the reasons :

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 78 of 199 pages 79 CBI case . No. 03/11

(i) Ex. PW 50/C­3 (D­125) proved by the prosecution shows construction of this property from 1990 to 1999 (i.e. beyond the check period) which has not been contradicted by any evidence by the State.

(ii). Ex. PW 48/A1 shows assessed value as Rs.

24,82,000 for the construction from September, 1988 to March, 1993 without segregating as to which construction pertain to the period September, 1988 to March, 1989 (i.e. the check period). The defence has alleged that the plan itself was sanctioned in September, 1988 & no commencement of construction could take place before 1990 which is corroborated by Ex. PW 50/C. The same appears to be reasonable & plausible.

(iii) Ex.PW 48/A2 (a printed format) in Col. 3.1 mentions seven (7) documents supplied to PW48, which are - (1) Sale Deed (2) MCD Bldg. Deptt. Certificate dated 4.5.1990 (3) Form C - submitted to MCD, (4) Damage Notice - approval from MCD (5) Server Connection - MCD permission letter dated 27.3.91 (6) Letter of approval from MCD (7) Valuation Report of private valuer dated 20.12.1993, but none of them was enclosed with the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2. There is nothing to show that any of these documents was considered /gone into or was contradicted by PW 48. His report, Ex.PW 48/A­2 is, therefore, vague unjustified and whimsical. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 79 of 199 pages 80 CBI case . No. 03/11

(iv) In Col. 2.1 of Ex. PW48/A­2 against the name of the owner 'not known to us' has been recorded. This indicates that owner was not known to PW 48 actually, what to talk of giving notice to him and take feedback from him for corroboration/contradiction of their valuation report.

(v) Period of construction was taken by PW 48 as September, 1988 to March, 1999 at the instance of CBI without ascertaining the year­wise construction & segregating it for the six months of the check period as valuation was done in 2007.

(vi) Col.4.3 of the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2, shows that 'no declaration of owner was sought or was available with PW 48' . He proceeded on the premises that CBI had informed it to be more than Rs.10 lakhs without any basis. He failed to ask for the basis and seems to have proceeded on whimsical & pre­guided basis.

(vii) As many as six carbon copies have been annexed in the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2 without affording any reason as to where the original of the same were? It, therefore, creates serious doubt on the authenticity of this report.

(viii) Each and every page of Ex. PW 48/A­2, does not bear the signatures of PW 48.

(ix) In cross­examination, this witness has given CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 80 of 199 pages 81 CBI case . No. 03/11 evasive answers so as to show that he has concealed more than reveal anything.

(x) Admittedly, PW48 has not taken the 'best method' to valuate the assignment given to him.

(xi) PW 48 did not consider & contradict the private valuation report dated 20.12.1993 given to him and as is mentioned in col. 3.1 of Ex. PW 48/A­1, which is written and signed by him.

197.PW49, Sh. Arun Bahuguna was posted as Accounts Assistant in Pragati Group of Companies, having registered office at Devika Tower­6, Nehru Place, New Delhi­19.

198.PW49 has identified his signatures at point A, on the seizure memo, vide which documents were seized by the CBI from him, which has been proved as Ex.PW49/A­1(D­299). He has deposed that the documents seized have been attached with the memo, running into four pages and are collectively, Ex.PW49/A­2, which bear the signatures of Sh. D.R. Gupta along with the rubber stamp of Pragati Construction Company, at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by PW49. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. D.R. Gupta, as he was partner of Pragati Construction Company and had seen CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 81 of 199 pages 82 CBI case . No. 03/11 him writing and signing in the official course of business.

199.PW49 has further deposed that the details mentioned in Ex.PW49/A­2 are correct and were prepared from the original ledger by the store keeper, in his presence.

200.PW49 has also identified his signatures at pt. A on the seizure memos, which has been proved as Ex.PW49/A­3 & Ex.PW49/A­4 and vide which documents, were seized from him. The purchase agreement and details of payment made in respect of flat no. 214, have been proved as Ex.PW49/A­5 & Ex.PW49/A­6. He has also identified the signatures of Mr. D.R. Gupta, at pt. A, on Ex.PW49/A­5 & Ex.PW49/A­6.

201.PW49 has also identified the signatures of Mr. Vinod Kumar, at pt. B, on the last page, as a witness to the agreement, Ex.PW49/A­5, as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing during the official course of business.

202.PW49 has identified the signatures of Mr. Shashi Kumar, at pt. A on the details of maintenance charges collected CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 82 of 199 pages 83 CBI case . No. 03/11 from the party in respect of flat no. 214, which have been proved as Ex.PW49/A­7. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. Shashi Kumar as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, at pt. A, on page 6th of maintenance agreement, which has been proved as Ex.PW49/A­8.

203.PW49 has also identified the signatures of Mr. D.R. Gupta, at pt. A, on the payment details in respect of flat no. 508A, which have been proved as Ex.PW49/A­9. Similarly, he has identified the signatures of said Mr. D.R. Gupta, at pt. A, on the purchase agreement, which has been proved as Ex.PW49/A­10 as well as at pt. A­1 on page 1 of Ex.PW49/A­10, below the entries for transfer of this flat at encircled portion 'X'. He has also identified the signatures of Mr. Vinod Kumar Goel, at pt. B, on page 10 of Ex.PW49/A­10.

204.PW49 has also identified the signatures of Mr. Shashi Kumar, on payment details and that of Mr. Naresh Kumar Garg on maintenance agreement, in respect of flat no. 508A, at pt. A, which have been proved as Ex.PW49/A­11 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 83 of 199 pages 84 CBI case . No. 03/11 & Ex.PW49/A­12.

205.PW49 has also identified the signatures of Mr. Chander Bhan, at pt. B, below the endorsement at pt. X2, on page 1 of Ex.PW49/A­12. He has identified the signatures of said Mr. Chander Bhan as he was one of the Director and he had worked under him and had seen him writing and signing documents in the official course of business. He has also identified the signatures of Mr. Vinod Kumar Goel, at pt. C on page 6 of Ex.PW49/A­12.

206.Payment details and purchase agreement in respect of purchase of flat no. 1209A, have been proved as Ex.PW49/A­13 & Ex.PW49/A­14, which bear the signatures of Mr. D.R. Gupta, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW49.

207.PW49, however, in cross­examination dated 9.4.2013 at page 5 deposed that while transferring the flat in the name of Kavita Bansal and Namita Bansal, the advance rent paid by the tenants amounting to Rs.34,020 (already given by the tenant) was adjusted. Hence, sale consideration of Rs. 1,36,500/­ gets reduced by Rs.34,020 which has not been CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 84 of 199 pages 85 CBI case . No. 03/11 taken into consideration by the prosecution.

208.PW50, Sh. Sanjeev Lakhanpal was posted as Investigating Inspector, Vigilance, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, at the relevant period. He has deposed that he was directed to join CBI team on 02.02.05 and that they went to the residence of accused (A­1) at M­138, Greater Kailash, Part­II. That his colleague Mohd. Farukh also accompanied him. That the CBI team conducted search at the above mentioned residence, wherein documents/articles were seized and search memo/observation memo were prepared, which were signed by all the present, including him.

209.PW50 has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the search list, which has been proved as Ex.PW50/A(D­28). He has deposed that the documents seized during search, have also been mentioned in the said search list.

210.PW50 has deposed that an observation memo(D­97), in respect of articles found available in the house of accused (A­1), was also prepared at the spot, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 85 of 199 pages 86 CBI case . No. 03/11 him. The said memo has been proved as Ex.PW50/B (running into 8 sheets).

211.PW50 has further deposed that accused (A­1) was also present during the search and that information regarding mode of procurement, time and price, have also been recorded in the memo, Ex.PW50/B.

212.PW50 has identified his signatures at pt. A and that of Mohd. Farukh, at pt. B, on the RC (D­98), which has been proved as Ex.PW50/C­1. Similarly, he has identified his initials at pt. A and that of Mohd. Farukh, at pt. B on documents, seized during the search, which are Ex.PW50/C­2, Ex.PW50/C­3(D­125), Ex.PW50/C­4(D­324), Ex.PW50/C­5(D­170), Ex.PW50/C­6(D­199), Ex.PW50/C­7(D­325), Ex.PW50/C­8(D­131), Ex.PW50/C­9(D­136), Ex.PW50/C­10(D­137), Ex.PW50/C­11(D­138), Ex.PW50/C­12(D­141), Ex.PW50/C­13(D­142), Ex.PW50/C­14(D­303), Ex.PW50/C­15(D­304), Ex.PW50/C­16colly(D­305), Ex.PW50/C­17(D­318), Ex.PW50/C­18(D­147), Ex.PW50/C­19(D­152), Ex.PW50/C­20(D­155), Ex.PW50/C­21(D­163), CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 86 of 199 pages 87 CBI case . No. 03/11 Ex.PW50/C­22(D­63), Ex.PW50/C­23(D­64), Ex.PW50/C­24(D­65), Ex.PW50/C­25(D­66), Ex.PW50/C­26(D­67), Ex.PW50/C­27(D­68), Ex.PW50/C­28(D­70), Ex.PW50/C­29(D­71), Ex.PW50/C­30(D­72) and on document, Ex.PW20/C(D­129). He has also identified his initials at pt. C and that of Farukh at pt. D, on document, Ex.PW50/C­31 (D­128).

213.PW51, Sh. N.R. Thakur was posted as Inspector in CBI, AC­III, during the relevant period. He has deposed that as per order of the then SP, Sh. K.C. Joshi, he was directed to assist IO of the case. He reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW33/A, vide which documents were seized by him from Sh. Ram Babu. He has identified his signatures at pt. B, on the said memo.

214.PW52, Sh. V.P.S. Mann was entrusted part investigation of the case. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW52/A, he had seized documents from serial no. A to D, from Satish Kumar Soni, the then Assistant Manager, Andhara Bank, Green Park, New Delhi, which are attached with the memo, Ex.PW52/A. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 87 of 199 pages 88 CBI case . No. 03/11

215.PW52 has identified his signatures at pt. P on the statements of PW5, Sh. R.K. Kataria and PW6, Sh. S.P. Jain, which have been recorded by him.

216.PW53, Sh. Ajai Kumar Mishra was also entrusted part investigation of the case. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW53/A, he had seized documents from Sh. Chet Ram, the then Patwari, Halka­Jakhauli, Tehsil & District Sonepat, which are attached with the memo, Ex.PW53/A.

217.PW53 has identified his signatures at pt. P on the statements of PW7, Sh. V.S. Sharma, PW17, Sh.Vijay Singh and PW35, Sh. Shiv Charan Singh, which have been recorded by him.

218.PW54, Sh. Punit Kumar Sharma, was posted as Zonal Inspector in Property Tax Department, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, at the relevant time. He has proved the files in respect of properties no. B­6, Building no. 13, Nehru Place, New Delhi and no. 214, Building no. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi, which were maintained in his department as CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 88 of 199 pages 89 CBI case . No. 03/11 Ex.PW54/A & Ex.PW54/B, respectively.

219.PW55, Sh. Chet Ram was posted as Patwari of Circle Jakhauli, Haryana, during the relevant period. He has deposed that he had furnished the requisitioned certified copies from revenue record, which were prepared in his own hand. The jamabandis along with Mutation records, bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him and proved as Ex.PW55/A to Ex.PW55/D. The mutation and Khasra Girdawari also bear the signatures of PW55, at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him and proved as Ex.PW55/E and Ex.PW55/F. PW55 has reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW53/A, vide which certified copy of mutation, running into 15 sheets, which is Ex.PW55/G was seized from him by CBI. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the same.

220.PW56, Sh. Ramesh Kumar was working in Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd, as Deputy Manager (Administration), during the relevant period. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW56/A and vide which, he had CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 89 of 199 pages 90 CBI case . No. 03/11 sent the necessary information sought by CBI from their record. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. Ishwar Saran, the then Deputy Manager(F &A) on the document, Ex.PW56/B, as he had seen him writing and signing in official course of business.

221.PW57, Sh. Raj Kumar Sah was posted as Assistant Registrar of Company in the office of Registrar of Company Office, New Delhi, during the relevant period. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW57/A (D­312). The documents/certified copies forwarded by him, vide the said letter(running into 25 leaves which are four set of documents), were collected have collectively been proved as Ex.PW57/B. He has identified his initials along with official seal at pt. A, on the same. He has deposed that before signing these documents, he had compared these documents with originals and that they are correct, as per the original records.

222.PW58, Sh. Vijay Singh was posted as Assistant Valuation Officer in Income Tax Office, Rohit House, New Delhi, at the relevant period.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 90 of 199 pages 91 CBI case . No. 03/11

223.PW58 has identified his signatures and official stamp at pt. A on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW58/A, vide which he had forwarded his valuation report. He has also identified his signatures and official stamp at pt. A on valuation report, which has been proved as Ex.PW58/B, running into two pages.

224.The valuation report, Ex. PW 58/B, however, is not admissible and is liable to be discarded for the following reasons:

(i) The IO wrote letter, Ex. PW 58/DX admittedly to this witness to make correct valuation as the report given was not for the correct period. The I.O., therefore, himself had rejected the valuation report when he had sought revaluation. Revaluation was not done by PW 58. Strangely, IO(PW65) without obtaining fresh correct report, filed report, Ex. PW 58/A & Ex. PW 58/B with the charge sheet. The prosecution has, thus, itself failed to prove its case qua these reports.

(ii) The entire report is handwritten and is not on prescribed printed format (as the report Ex.PW 48/A1 & Ex. PW 48/A2).

(iii) Before proceedings to ascertain valuation PW 58 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 91 of 199 pages 92 CBI case . No. 03/11 admittedly had no documents or declared value by the owner.

(iv) In the report construction period­wise is not mentioned so as to show which part of the construction / valuation pertain to the check period.

(v) No notice to the owner was given for any feedback or for contradiction of her claim.

(vi) Letter, Ex. PW58/DX, was not acted upon by PW58.

225.PW59, Sh. I.S.N. Murty was posted as Dy. Manager, in Andhara Bank, Green Park Branch, New Delhi, during the relevant period. He has deposed that at that time, Assistant General Manager of the branch was Sh. M. Venkateshwar Rao. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. M. Venkateshwar Rao, at pt. A, on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW59/A (D­315), as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of business.

226.PW59 has also identified the signatures of Sh. A.V. Raju, the then Sr. Manager, at pt. A, on the copy of ledger sheet and copies of pay in slips, which have been collectively proved as Ex.PW59/B, as he had seen him writing and CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 92 of 199 pages 93 CBI case . No. 03/11 signing during the official course of business.

227.PW59 has identified the signatures of said Sh. M. Venkateshwar Rao at pt. A, on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW59/C (D­314) along with its annexures, 18 pages of which have been attested by A.V. Raju, the then Sr. Manager, at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by PW59 and remaining five pages bear initials of M. Venkateshwar Rao, the then AGM at pt. A, on each page.

228.PW60, Sh. D.V. Sivanaik was posted as Dy. Manager in Andhara Bank, Green Park Branch, New Delhi, at the relevant time. He has identified the signatures of Sh. P. Ram Mohan Rao, the then Sr. Manager of the branch, at pt. A, on the letter, as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of business. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW60/A.

229.Cross examination, by the defence, of PW­51, PW­54, PW­55, PW­57 and PW­60 is Nil as they were formal witnesses.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 93 of 199 pages 94 CBI case . No. 03/11

230. PW 2, PW 19, PW 20 and PW 37 are also formal witnesses.

231.PW61, Sh. D.R. Gupta has reiterated letters, Ex.PW49/A­6, Ex.PW49/A­9 & Ex.PW49/A­13, which bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that they are correct, as per the original records, available in their office.

232.PW62, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh has identified the notings, which are attached to the petition, which was moved by N.R. Thakur, Inspector of Police, CBI, at pt A and B on the sheet, which has been proved as Ex.PW62/A. He has identified his initials at pt. C and D, on the same.

233.PW62 has deposed that he had recorded the statement of Sh. R.K. Kataria, u/s 164 Cr.P.C, running into three pages, which has been proved as Ex.PW62/C. He has identified his signatures at pt. X on each page of the same. He has also identified the signatures of witness, Sh. R.K. Kataria, at pt. A, and his thumb impression at pt. B, on each page, which were put in his presence. He has deposed that the witness was produced by the IO, who had moved an CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 94 of 199 pages 95 CBI case . No. 03/11 application for copy of statement, which has been proved as Ex.PW62/B. That the said application was allowed, vide his endorsement and initials at pt. A on Ex.PW62/B. He has also identified the certificate given by him, at pt. Z, which he had appended to the effect that he had correctly and truthfully recorded whatever was voluntarily stated by the aforesaid witness.

234.PW63, Sh. Suresh Kumar was posted as Inspector in AC­ III, during the year 2008. He has deposed that after transfer o f the Inspector, Dhiraj Khetrapal, part investigation of the case was entrusted to him on certain points. That during the course of investigation, he had examined witnesses and collected documents. That thereafter, he submitted supplementary charge sheet in this case, mentioning that the original charge sheet filed in this case may be considered as final charge sheet as no new/additional allegations were substantiated during further investigation. This shows that further investigation yielded nothing as against the accused persons.

235.PW64, Smt. Chanchal Talwaria was partner of M/s Dua & CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 95 of 199 pages 96 CBI case . No. 03/11 Associates, which is a Chartered Accountant Firm. He has deposed that Mr. N.K. Dua was the other partner in the said firm, which was in existence since 1989. That initially, he had joined the said firm as an employee and later on, he became the partner in the said firm.

236.PW64 has identified the signatures of Sh. N.K. Dua, at pt.

A, on the second page of the letter, as he had seen him writing and signing in the official course of business. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW64/A (D­91).

237.Similarly, PW64 has identified the signatures of Sh. N.K. Dua on the letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW64/B(D­91).

238.PW64 has further deposed that accused (A­1) was his client and that they were filing his income tax returns as well as income tax returns of his family members and that they did not have any income tax return papers of the accused (A­1) and his family members as they had returned the same to the accused persons on the request of accused (A­1), against a receipt. The said receipt has been proved as Ex.PW64/C(D­94).

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 96 of 199 pages 97 CBI case . No. 03/11

239.PW65, DSP Dhiraj Khetrapal, was posted as Inspector in the CBI, in the year 2005. He has deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of the present case, which was registered on the basis of scrutiny of documents.

240.PW65 has identified the signatures of Sh. K.C. Joshi, the then SP, at pt. A­1, A­2 and A­3, on the FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW65/A. He has also identified the signatures of said Sh. K.C. Joshi on the order, which has been proved as Ex.PW65/A­2. He has deposed that vide the said order, he was authorized by the then SP, Mr. Joshi to conduct investigation of the present case, as required under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

241.PW65 has further deposed that after taking over the investigation of this case, he had recorded the statement of witnesses and seized a number of documents, vide various seizure memos and finally, filed the charge sheet in this case on 30.11.07.

242.PW65 has reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A­1, vide which he had seized documents from Sh. Arun Bahuguna, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 97 of 199 pages 98 CBI case . No. 03/11 accountant of M/s Pragari Construction Company. He has also identified his signatures at pt. B on the same.

243.Similarly, PW65 has reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW19/A, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. A.

244.PW65 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW65/A­3, he had seized documents from Sh. Anand Singh, the then Assistant Registry Clerk in the Office of Sub Registrar, Gurgaon, which bears his signatures as well as signatures of Sh. Anand Singh, at points A and B, respectively, which have been duly identified by him.

245.PW65 has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW32/A, which bears his signatures at pts. B, which have been duly identified by him.

246.PW65 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW65/A­4, he had seized documents from Sh. Soman. O.M., Deputy Manager, M/s Kailash Apartment Ltd, New Delhi, which bears his signatures at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 98 of 199 pages 99 CBI case . No. 03/11

247.PW65 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW65/A­5, he had seized documents from Sh. Kailash Chander Mittal, the then Assistant Assessor & Collector, R.K. Puram, MCD, which bears his signatures at point A and that of Sh. Kailash Chander Mittal, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

248.PW65 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW65/A­6, he had seized documents from Sh. Raj Bhushan Sharma, the then Junior Law Officer, MCD(Vigilance), which bears his signatures at point A and that of Sh. Raj Bhushan Sharma, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

249.PW65 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW65/A­7, he had seized documents from Sh. S.S. Chauhan, the then Assistant Assessor and Collector, MCD, which bears his signatures at point A and that of Sh. S.S. Chauhan, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

250.PW65 has reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A­4, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B and that of Sh. Arun Bahuguna, at pt. A, which have been duly CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 99 of 199 pages 100 CBI case . No. 03/11 identified by him.

251.PW65 has further deposed that letter, dated 02.08.2007 (D­337) was received by him during the course of investigation from Sh. Tilak Raj, vide which documents were received and were taken on record. The said letter is Mark PW65/B­1.

252.PW65 has reiterated seizure memos, Ex.PW40/A, Ex.PW43/A and Ex.PW49/A­3, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B.

253.PW65 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW65/A­8, he had seized documents from Mrs. Laxmi Sharma, the then Assistant Administrative Officer, LIC which bears his signatures at point B and that of Sh. Arun Bahuguna, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

254.PW65 has further deposed that he had also received status of three policies of LIC in response to his notice, under section 91 Cr.P.C. from Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the then Administrative Officer, which have been collectively CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 100 of 199 pages 101 CBI case . No. 03/11 proved as Ex.PA/I. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the notice, which was issued by him. He has deposed that the said notice was replied by endorsing on the said notice by Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who had forwarded the documents through Ct. Virender Singh on 14.06.07.

255.PW65 has further deposed that during the course of investigation of this case, certain other documents were also seized by his associating team members, namely, Sh. V.P.S Man, Inspector, who had seized documents, vide production cum seizure memo. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. V.P.S. Man at pt. A on the said seizure memo, which has been proved as Ex.PW65/A­9.

256.PW65 has further identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Mishra, the then Inspector, at pt. A, on the seizure memo, which has been proved as Ex.PW65/A­10.

257.PW65 has further deposed that he had recorded the statements of Sh. Jasbir Singh & Shamsher Singh, which have been proved as Ex.PW26/X & Ex.PW11/DX, which bear his handwriting and signatures, at pt. A, on each statement, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 101 of 199 pages 102 CBI case . No. 03/11

258.Now, I come to the version put forward by the defence witnesses.

259.DW1, Sh. Pritpal Singh was posted as Income Tax Officer at ITO Ward 3(1), CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. He could not produce the summoned record. i.e. the assessment orders in respect of accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal for the period 1975­1976 to 1989­90, being old and not traceable in the record.

260.In his cross examination he could not admit or deny documents, which are Ex.DW1/A(colly).

261.DW2, Sh. Umesh Kumar was also posted as Income Tax Officer, at ITO Ward 23(1), Pratyatakshar Bhawan, Civic Center, New Delhi. He also could not produce the summoned record. i.e. the assessment orders in respect of accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal for the period 1975­1976 to 1989­90, being very old record.

262.In his cross examination, he could not admit or deny documents, which are Ex.DW1/A(colly). CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 102 of 199 pages 103 CBI case . No. 03/11

263.Accused Kaushalya Bansal was examined under section 315 Cr.P.C as DW3. She tendered her assessment orders/tax paid vouchers for the period 1975­1976 to 1989 to 1990, which are Ex.DW 1/A (Colly).

264.In her cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, she admitted that the income tax matter of all her family members, at the relevant time, was being dealt with by M/s Dua Associates Chartered Accountants. She did not remember as to whether in the year 2001, when her husband accused Ram Bhaj Bansal was facing some departmental enquiry, they had taken all papers from the said M/s Dua Associates Chartered Accountants.

265.DW3 has identified the signatures of accused Ram Bhaj Bansal, at pt. A, on document Ex.DW3/A­1(D­92). Similarly, she has identified the signatures of her husband at pt. A on document, Ex.PW64/C(D­94). Both these documents, however, pertained to the period beyond check period.

266.DW3 denied the suggestion that the assessment orders CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 103 of 199 pages 104 CBI case . No. 03/11 produced by her, are false and fabricated, having been obtained on false declaration.

267.DW3 has further denied the suggestion that deliberately having obtained all the papers from M/s Dua Associates Chartered Accountants, vide Ex.DW3/A­1 and Ex.PW64/C, the same have not been filed in the court. She voluntarily deposed that she did not remember as to whether the documents were taken back or not from M/s Dua Associates Chartered Accountants. She has further denied the suggestion that during the check period i.e. 01.01.1977 to 31.03.1989, she was merely a housewife, having no source of income. She has further denied the suggestion that M/s Brijesh Trading Company was having no actual business and that there was no income from the same during the said check period. She has further denied the suggestion that since her husband was facing an inquiry of disproportionate assets, the assessment orders as well as income from M/s Brijesh Trading Company was falsely created as a cover up to hide the assets of her husband.

268.DW3 could not identify her signatures at pt. A on the letter, Ex.DW3/A­2. She voluntarily stated that she did not CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 104 of 199 pages 105 CBI case . No. 03/11 remember about the said letter as it pertained to the year 1992, which is beyond the check period. Similarly, she could not identify her signatures at pt. A and handwriting on letter, Ex.DW3/A­3. She has admitted that their house at M­138, GK­II, which was constructed, got valued by Sh. OP Aggarwal, Registered Valuer and that she had filed the same with the MCD. That the report, regarding the same is available at page no. 22 to 26, which is Ex.DW3/A­4 in the house tax file, Ex.DW3/A­5. She could not identify her signatures at pt. A on the note sheet, Ex.DW3/A­6.

269.In the case law reported as V.K. Puri vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007) 6 SCC 91, page 97, the following ingredients of the offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are required to be proved, has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i) The accused is a public servant;

(ii) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;

(iii) His known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution;

(iv) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate of his known sources of income.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 105 of 199 pages 106 CBI case . No. 03/11

270.The contention of the defence are that the IO did not conduct the fair investigation and the prosecution has not taken into account the actual income, expenditure and value of assets as is born out of the material placed on record by the prosecution, itself. The head­wise particulars of the total income, expenditure and total assets as are available are as under :

Total Income of accused R. B. Bansal(A1):

1. Pay & Allowances from 1.1.1977 to Rs2,79,687.24 31.3.1988 :

Rs.2,50,684.04 has been taken by CBI as Pay & Allowances from 1.1.1977 upto 31.3.1988 whereas the check period is from 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1989. Page 1­6 of D15 and page 1 of D­17 proves that accused R. B. Bansal drew pay and allowances of Rs.29003.20 during the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989. Hence the difference of Rs.29,003.20 is to be added in Rs.2,50,684.04 which comes to Rs.2,79,687.24.

2. Several other income by way of interest, receipts etc.:

Besides above, several other income were omitted due to non­availability of documentary evidence. The following income can be proved by defence by rule of preponderance of probability:

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 106 of 199 pages 107 CBI case . No. 03/11 2(a) Income by Mortgaging Agricultural Rs.90,000.00 land by accused R. B. Bansal(A1) : Page 8/C of the file, Ex. PW2/B(colly) which is in respect of Immovable Property Return of the accused R. B. Bansal for the year 1969­70 to 31.12.2001, shows that accused R. B. Bansal acquired agricultural land of 6 acres amounting to Rs.30,000/­ by inheriting from his father.

Property Returns for the year 1976­77 further shows that accused mortgaged the above agricultural land for Rs.90,000/­ by two mortgage deeds on 9.2.1977 and 2.3.1977 for Rs. 45,000/­ each. PW45 Gopal Singh and PW46 Karam Beer proved the said transactions. Hence, there is sufficient evidence to show that accused (A1) earned Rs.90,000/­ as income, by mortgaging his agricultural land in the year 1977.

2(b) Agricultural Income of accused R. B. Rs.65,000.00 Bansal (A1):

Page 79/C and 80/C of D­4 shows that as on 15.2.1978, as per the certificate issued by Tehsildar on the report of Patwari, accused R. B. Bansal was having an annual income of Rs. 13,000/­ from his agricultural land consisting of 37 Kanals 12 Marlas received through inheritance and the said land remained in his possession since 1971­72 till 1977, when the same was mortgaged. Thus, accused earned agricultural income continuously for five years, which comes to Rs.

65,000/­ (13,000X 5) and the same is to be added in income.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 107 of 199 pages 108 CBI case . No. 03/11 2(c) Pre Check Period Income/Salary Rs.31,425.00 D­8, 10, 12, 13, & 17 reveals that accused R. B. Bansal had drawn total salary of Rs. 47,134/­ during the pre­check period from 4.6.1969 to 31.12.1976. After deducting statutory 1/3rd expenses, it comes to Rs.31,425/­. The CBI ought to have given the benefit of 2/3rd of the salary to the accused as they have taken a shorter period.

2(D) Rental Income from Property B­60, Rs. 75,020.00 East of Kailash:

Ex. PW34/A (D­119) reveals that accused(A1) received a total rent of Rs. 75020/­ for the period Nov.1974 to May, 1982, from the half share of the property B­60, East of Kailash, which admittedly, jointly stood in his name and his brother, I. S. Bansal's name.

2(E) Income by selling half share of barsati Rs. 22,500.00 floor:

Rs.22,500/­ was received by accused R. B. Bansal(A1) vide draft No.330900 dated 8.5.1982 from his brother, I. B. Bansal, in lieu of excessive constructed portion as per the Award of Arbitrator R. K. Gupta.

[Ex. PW 65/DZ­4 (D­122 page 10)] Total Income of accused R. B. Bansal as Rs.5,63,632.04 per evidence Total Income of accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal (A2) The CBI had taken the total income of Rs.3,77,833 under the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 108 of 199 pages 109 CBI case . No. 03/11 income head and there is no dispute about the same and the split up income is under:

1 Lottery prize of Nagaland state lottery Rs. 10,000.00 Rental Income from B­14 (Basement) Rs.1,24,362.00 Deepali 92, Nehru Place from M/s Slidex 2 Security Rental Income from 1214, Hemkunt Rs.1,56,691.00 Tower from 1986 to 1988 M/s Modi 3 Rubber Advance ren in 1988 adjusted in the sale Rs. 66,780.00 price at 214, Devika Tower Nehru Place, 4 New Delhi.

              Income from sale of 300 shares of M/s                           Rs. 20,000.00
            5 DCM 
               Total                                                        Rs.3,77,833.00

Besides the above income, CBI intentionally omitted the following lawful income :

1 Income by selling of gold ornaments: Rs. 20,571.75 Accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal(A2) sold her gold ornaments (istridhan) on 7.11.1977 for Rs.20,571.75 vide receipt voucher No. 2774 dated 7.11.1977 for purchase of plot No. M­138 G. K. II.

Accused R. B. Bansal also gave the intimation to his department about the said sale of gold ornaments as well as of purchase of aforesaid plot by his wife for Rs.1.42 lakhs and details of which at available at page 63C of D7.(Ex.PW4/A) 2 Gifts received from Tule Ram and Pale Rs.1,37,000.00 Ram:

During the period from 30.12.1971 to CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 109 of 199 pages 110 CBI case . No. 03/11 31.3.1987, accused Kaushalya Bansal got gifts for a total sum of Rs.1,37,000.00 from her father in law, Tule Ram and his brother Pale Ram. Details of the same are reflected at pages, 19­C, 64­C, 56­C, 14­ C, 60­C, 58­C, 56­C of D­7(Ex. PW4/7).

3 Loan taken from her father in law, Tule Rs. 20,000.00 Ram :

As per D­7(Ex.PW4/A) page 60­C (i.e. property return of accused R. B. Bansal for the year 1979) accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal received a loan of Rs. 20,000.00 from her father in law, Tule Ram. The same, being legal income, should be added in income head.

4 Total income received by Smt. Rs.4,48,973.00 Kaushalya Bansal as per income tax return :

The total income for which income tax has been paid by the accused Kaushalya Bansal during the check period comes to Rs.4,48,973.00 [Ex. DW1/A (colly) i.e. income tax order located on 14.8.2013. She also filed Income Tax assessment order, which is Ex. DW1/A(colly).

Total Income of accused Kaushalya Rs10,04,377.75 Bansal thus comes to Income of Brijesh Bansal 1 CBI had taken only one income of Rs.1,12,266.00 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 110 of 199 pages 111 CBI case . No. 03/11 Brijesh Bansal as Rental Income from 1209­A Devika Tower Besides above income, he received the following income by way of gifts and loan, which have been omitted intentionally by the CBI.

Property return of the year 1987 i.e. on Rs. 20,000.00 page 40­C of D­7 (Ex. PW4/A) reveals that Brijesh Bansal was given gift of Rs. 20,000/­ 3 Document D­7 (pages 48­C, 42­C & 40­ Rs. 82,480.00 C) reveals that Brijesh Bansal took loan of Rs.19,000/­ Rs.20,000/­, Rs.6500/­ & Rs.18,340/­ from Tule Ram and Rs.

15,000/­ from Shri Pale Ram. He also took loan of Rs.20,000/­ & Rs.1640 from Shri Raghubir Singh, a family friend.

Total of these loan amount comes to Rs.

82,480/­,which should be added in his income.

4 As per Income Tax Return for the year Rs.22,000.00 1982­83, 1983­84, & 1984­85, there are other income of Rs.5970/­, Rs.6790/­ & Rs.9240 respectively totaling to Rs.

22,000/­ , which ought to be added in his income.

Total income of Brijesh Bansal Rs. 2,36,746.00 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 111 of 199 pages 112 CBI case . No. 03/11 Income of Kavita Bansal 1 CBI had taken the following income of Kavita Bansal under the Income Head :

i.) Lottery prize won in 77th draw of UP Rs.34,300.00 State Lottery (no dispute) Rs. 62652.50 ii.) Income by way of share in rent from 508­A, Devika Tower from M/s TCIL during check period (No dispute)

2. Besides above income, she received the following income by way of gifts and loan, which have been omitted intentionally by the CBI:

Rs. 33,200.00 Document D­7 (pages 48­C, 42­C & 38­ C ) shows that Kavita Bansal took loan of Rs.5000/­, Rs.3,500/­, Rs.6500/­ & Rs.18,200/­ from Shri Tule Ram. Total of these loan amount comes to Rs.

32,200/­,which should be added in her income.

3 Document D­7 (pages 42­C) reveals that Rs. 8500.00 Ms. Kavita Bansal also took loan of Rs.

                8500/­   from   Shri     Gopal   Singh,which 
                should be added in her income.
        4.      Document D­7 (pages 42­C, page 38­C)                           Rs. 26,620.00

reveals that Ms. Kavita Bansal had also taken loan of Rs.5000/­ , Rs.20,000/­ and Rs.1620, totaling of Rs.26620/­ from Shri Raghubir Singh,which should be added in her income.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 112 of 199 pages 113 CBI case . No. 03/11

5. Document D­4 (page 68, 66 & 65) Rs. 23,050.00 reveals the other income, totaling to Rs. 23050/­, which have been disclosed in Income Tax Return for the assessment year 1982­83 (Rs.6220), 1983­84 (Rs.

7180), 1984­85 (Rs.9650). This income, being the legal income ought to be added in income head.

Total income of Kavita Bansal Rs. 1,88,322.50 Income of Namita Bansal 1 CBI had taken only one income of Rs. 62,652.50 Namita Bansal by way of share in the rent from 508­A, Devika Tower from M/s TCIL during check period (No Dispute)

2. Besides above income, she received the following income by way of gifts and loan, which have been omitted intentionally by the CBI :

Rs.20,000.00 Document D­7 (page 40­C) reveals that Namita Bansal was given a gift of Rs. 20000/­ by Shri Pale Ram,which should be added in her income.

3 Document D­7 (pages 42­C & 38­C) Rs.28,200.00 further shows that Namita Bansal took loan of Rs.3500/­, Rs.6500/­ & Rs.

18,200/­ totaling to Rs.28,200/­ from Shri Tule Ram, which should be added in her income.

4. Document D­7 (page 42­C) also reveals Rs.8,500.00 that Namita Bansal took loan of Rs.

8500/­ from Shri Pale Ram, which should CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 113 of 199 pages 114 CBI case . No. 03/11 also be added in her income.

5. Document D­7 (pages 42­C & 38­C) Rs.6,620.00 further shows that Namita Bansal had taken loan of Rs.5000/­ & Rs.1620 (totaling to Rs.6620) from Shri Raghubir Singh.

6. Document D­4 (pages 64, 62 & 61) Rs. 20,250.00 further reveals the other income, totaling to Rs.20250/­, which have been disclosed in Income Tax Return for the assessment year 1982­83 (Rs.5660), 1983­84 (Rs.

6900), 1984­85 (Rs.7690). This income, being the legal income, ought to be added in income head.

Total income of Namita Bansal as per Rs.1,46,222.00 record.

Assets Assets of accused R. B. Bansal(A1) at the beginning of the Check Period, as taken by CBI:

1. Agricultural Land at Distt. Rohtak Tehsil Rs.30,000.00 Sonipat (Inherited) 1971­72 (No dispute)

2. Residential plot at B­60, East of Kailash Rs.77,500.00 New Delhi and constructed cost thereof 1971­75 (No Dispute) Total Rs.1,07,500.00 Assets of accused R. B. Bansal(A­1) at the end of the Check CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 114 of 199 pages 115 CBI case . No. 03/11 Period:

1. Immovable assets of accused R. B. Bansal Rs.30,000.00 Agricultural Land at Distt. Rohtak Tehsil Sonipat (Inherited) 1971­72

2. Residential plot at B­60, East of Kailash Rs.77,500.00 New Delhi and constructed cost thereof 1971­75.

Total Rs.1,07,500.00 Immovable Assets in the name of accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal(A­2):

1. M­138, Greater Kailash - II, New Rs. 1,53,360.00 Delhi:

The aforesaid plot was purchased by accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal(A­2) for Rs.1,42,000/­ on 15.11.1977 from the funds arranged by her, which has been reflected at page 63­C/ 64­C of D­7. Smt. Kaushalya Bansal(A­2) applied for sanction of building plan to the MCD authorities, which was granted vide letter No.828/B/HQ/88/385/AE/Bldg/HQ dated 14.9.1998. That accused(A­2) was extremely busy in construction work of factory plot No. B­279, Okhla, Phase - I and same could be completed in March 1989 and this fact is reflected in the letter dated 13.7.2007, Ex. PW 63/DX­1, written by PW 65 IO Dhiraj Khetrapal to the Asstt. Valuation Officer, Unit III, Income Tax Deptt, (a copy was endorsed to accused (A­2) with its enclosure completion certificate - Mark PW 58/DX­1, Form C - Mark PW 58/DX2 and Form D - Mark PW 58/DX­3) CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 115 of 199 pages 116 CBI case . No. 03/11 wherein, he referred to the valuation of property No. B­279, pointing out certain anomaly and mentioning that portion of the building was constructed during a later period (Viz 1998­2000) than which has been utilized in his report of 1988­89 and requested to make re­valuation taking the period of construction as above. That it is clear from the letter Mark PW58/DX­1 that completion was given on 1.3.1989, which further justify that accused(A­2) remained busy in construction work/obtaining completion certificate of aforesaid plot till March1989 and she undertook the construction of work of plot No. M­138, Greater Kailash­II only in the first week of April, 1989, which was completed in March, 1993. That it is clear that no money was spent on the construction of the plot of M­138, G. K. II during the check period i.e. 1.1.1977 to March, 1989. CBI can only take cost of plot i.e. Rs.1,42,000 + total registration charges of Rs.11,360 totaling to Rs.153,360/­ as per deposition of PW 22 Shri Balinderjeet Singh. That CBI failed to prove that what portion of the construction was actually done during the check period. Hence the valuation done by the income tax valuer on wrong date of construction has got no value at all. The CBI had taken wrong value of Rs.21,31,829.00, whereas only the cost of plot can be taken which is Rs.

153,360/­ as no construction was done during check period.

2. B - 279 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­ Rs.3,39,902.00 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 116 of 199 pages 117 CBI case . No. 03/11 I, New Delhi:

This plot was purchased by accused(A­2) from M/s Capital Eng. Work in the year 1977. As per the file, Ex. PW23/A, initially the said plot was alloted in the name of M/s Capital Engineering works, namely, Shri Ashok Raj Gupta, Shri Rameshwar Das Gupta and Smt. Sushila Devi and Rs.33,300/­ was paid by the above said partners to DDA. Later on, accused(A­2) was included as 4th partner having 85% share and further an amount of Rs.41,585.00 was paid as 'composition fee' and 'unearned money'.

That the cost of construction taken by CBI as Rs.1684432.00 is highly irregular and is not based on true facts. After getting the building plan sanctioned vide file No.F3(100)87/Bldg/2537 dated 5.5.1988, accused(A­2) undertook the construction work and took the completion certificate for basement and ground floor vide Mark PW 58/DX­1 dated 1.3.1989. That she got evaluated the cost of construction of ground floor and first floor from the registered valuer and as per the valuation report, PW 58/DY, the cost was valued as Rs.3,25,000/­. Ex.

PW 31/A further corroborates the above fact.

Further that the construction work was done after the end of check period i.e. 31.3.1989 which continued till 2000 and this fact is evident from the letter dated 13.7.2007, Ex. PW 63/DX­1, written by PW 65 - IO Dhiraj Khetrapal to the Valuation Officer, Income Tax, for CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 117 of 199 pages 118 CBI case . No. 03/11 revaluation of cost of B­279. But despite that IO relied upon the valuation report, which was initially given for the entire building comprising of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor and coverage of open area on backside.

Further that, if the rates, as taken by the valuation officer, assumed as correct, the cost would be Rs.8,14,455.00 for the covered area of 155.46 Sq. meter each of the basement and ground floor. That if the construction was a self construction, 10% of the cost is to be reduced and contractor profit as 15% should also be reduced, which comes to Rs.6,10,841.00.

Hence, cost of plot comes to Rs.

3,99,885.00 (Rs.33,300.00 + Rs.

41,585.00 + Rs.3,25,000.00) and if 15% as share of other partners is reduced, it comes to Rs.3,39,902.00.

3. B ­107 DLF Model Town, Faridabad, Rs.5689.50 (No dispute though not legally proved)

4. 213, Block B, DLF Model Town, Sector Rs.12,849.50 11, Faridabad (300 Sq. Yards) (No dispute though not legally proved)

5. 156, Block G, Sector 10, DLF, Faridabad Rs.8,447.50 (250 Sq. Yards) (No dispute though not legally proved)

6. Plot No. 86­A, Block B, 346 Sq. Yds. Rs.7,241.00 Sector­11, Faridabad, (No dispute though not legally proved)

7. B­14(Basement) Deepali 92, Nehru Place, Rs.47,930.00 (No Dispute)

8. 1214, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place: Rs. 1,22,000.00 The CBI had taken wrongly the cost of CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 118 of 199 pages 119 CBI case . No. 03/11 this flat as Rs.2,77,869.00. The said flat was purchased by accused(A­2) in the name of M/s Brijesh Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.62,869.00 and Rs.

93,000/­ was contributed by Shri Tule Ram, one of the Directors of M/s Brijesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, vide Cheque No. 929835 and Cheque No.656664 from his own income. Ex. PW57/A (D­312) proves that late Shri Tule Ram and accused(A­2) were the Directors of the firm M/s Brijesh Trading Company.

Hence, the contribution made by Tule Ram ought to be reduced from cost of plot. (Rs.2,77,869.00 - Rs.155869.00 comes to Rs. 1,22,000.00 which can be attributed to accused(A­2).

9. 27 Ankur Vihar Plot, Ghaziabad : Rs.7,654.00 CBI had erroneously taken the total cost of this plot as Rs.72,716/­ as the said plot was booked and most of the payments was made by Tule Ram, Raghubir Singh and Pale Ram through cheques through their accounts, which is mentioned in the covering letter of DLF. Only Rs.7654.00 was paid by accused(A­2) from her accounts. As such Rs.7654.00 only can be taken. That this plot was later on cancelled for non­payment and pending dues and refund was sent to the party on 6.9.2000.

10. 214 Devika Tower­6, Nehru Place Rs.2,51,750.00 (No dispute) Total Assets in the name of Smt. Rs.956823.50 Kaushalya Bansal (A­2) CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 119 of 199 pages 120 CBI case . No. 03/11 Immovable Assets in the name of Brijesh Bansal:

1. Flat No. 1209­A, Pragati Devika Tower, Rs.96,840.00 Nehru Place, New Delhi:

That benefit of total rent received i.e. Rs. 29,160 (2460X12 =29160) had not been given under the Income Head by IO. As such the same ought to be reduced from total cost of the flat i.e. Rs.1,26,000 - 29,160 = Rs.96840. Thus, Rs.96,840.00 ought to be taken under assets head.

2. Flat No. 101­C, Raja Towers, Nehru Nil Place, PW 26 deposed that while purchasing the above said flat in the name of his grandson, Brijesh Bansal, Shri Tule Ram paid himself the sale consideration amount of Rs.53,300.00 to PW 26 Shri Jasbir Singh. As such, this cost cannot be attached with the assets of R. B. Bansal.

Total assets of Brijesh Bansal Rs. 96,840.00 Immovable Assets in the name of Namita and Kavita Bansal

1. Flat No. 101 D, Raja Towers, Nehru Nil. Place:

PW26 Shri Jasbir Singh deposed that the sale consideration of Rs.65,100/­ was paid by Shri Tule Ram to him, while purchasing the aforesaid flat in the name of Namita and Kavita Bansal. As such this amount cannot be attributed to the assets of accused R. B. Bansal.

2. Flat No. 508, Pragati Devika Tower, Rs.1,02,480 Nehru Place, New Delhi:

CBI took the cost of this flat as Rs.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 120 of 199 pages 121 CBI case . No. 03/11 1,36,500.00. PW49 Shri Arun Bahuguna categorically deposed in cross examination that while transferring the said flat it was preoccupied by tenants and advance rent of Rs.34020/­, which was already given to the Pragati Construction Company by the tenants, had been adjusted against sale consideration of the flat. Hence this amount should be reduced from the amount of sale consideration. Thus, Rs. 102,480 (Rs.136500­34020) should figure under the Assets Head. D­7 page 48­C authenticate the above transaction.

                                    Total Assets                                 Rs.1,02,480



                             Expenditure During check period 


         Expenditure of R. B. Bansal(A­1):
         1.  House Hold Expenditure (1/3rd of net                              Rs. 71781.16
             salary)
             (No dispute)
         2.  Expense as mentioned by accused(A­1) in                                        Nil

IPR's submitted by him during the check period.

That CBI had hypothetically drawn an expenditure of Rs.44,185 on basic of articles purchased during the period 1978 to 1987.

That the prosecution has not proved anything on record to show that what articles were in possession of accused(A­1) on the last day of check period i.e. 31.3.1989. Unless the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 121 of 199 pages 122 CBI case . No. 03/11 prosecution proves that these articles were in possession of accused on the last day of check period, this cannot be treated as expenditure. Moreover, this expenditure is covered under 33% of the household expenses as already taken under expenditure head.

That IO took value of FDR with SBI as Rs.15,000/­ under the expenditure head. if there was any evidence to show the existence of the FDR at the end of check period, the same was to be taken under Assets Head. In case, the FDR was not in existence at the end of the check period, benefit of interest under income head ought to be given. Hence, this amount of Rs.44,815 cannot be treated as expenditure.

3. LIC premium, chit fund etc. as Nil.

mentioned in various IPR's submitted :

That Rs.198104.22 has been wrongly taken and is against the rule of assessment of disproportionate assets. IO took the cost of Rs.7658.82 for purchasing of Scooter in 1981, for purchasing of DCM shares of Rs.11,464 in 1981 & 1982 for membership of chit fund spent Rs.91120 in 1986­87 and rest amount was paid as LIC premium. That IO neither make any investigation to this effect nor it has been legally proved on record. In fact, it is whimsical creation on the basis of the IPR, which has got no legal sanctity. Total Expenditure of R. B. Bansal(A­1) Rs.71,781.16 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 122 of 199 pages 123 CBI case . No. 03/11 Expenditure of Brijesh Bansal:

1. Maintenance Charges paid to Devika Nil.

Estate Pvt. Ltd.:

PW49 Shri Arun Bahuguna deposed in his cross examination that maintenance charges relating to above property were being born by the tenants of this property. Hence, Rs.2340/­, as taken by CBI erroneously, cannot be treated as expenditure.

Total Expenditure Nil Expenditure of Namita and Kavita Bansal:

1. CBI had erroneously taken a sum of Rs. Nil.

2730. That PW49 Arun Bahuguna proved that maintenance charges were being borne by tenants. Hence, this amount cannot treated as expenditure.

Maintenance charges paid to Devika Estate Pvt. Ltd.

On the above analogy this amount of Rs.

651 cannot be taken as expenditure.

               Total Expenditure                                                            Nil



         A.  INCOME of all members of family
                R. B. Bansal                                                Rs. 5,63,632.04
                Smt. Kaushalya Bansal                                      Rs.10,04,377.75
                Brijesh Bansal                                               Rs.2,36,746.00
                Kavita Bansal                                                Rs.1,88,322.50
                Namita Bansal                                                Rs.1,46,222.00

 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal  & Anr.                                                123 of 199 pages
                                                          124
                                                                             CBI case . No.  03/11


                Total Income                                              Rs. 21,39,300.29
         B  ASSETS  at beginning of check 
            period: 
                R. B. Bansal                                                 Rs.1,07,500.00
         C  ASSETS  at end of check period: 
                In the name of R. B. Bansal                                  Rs.1,07,500.00
                In the name of Smt. Kaushalya Bansal                         Rs.9,56,823.50
                In the name of Brijesh Bansal                                  Rs.96,840.00
                In the name of Kavita & Namita                               Rs.1,02,480.00
                Bansal 
         D      Total Assets at the end of check                           Rs.12,63,643.50
                period 
         E      Expenditure during check period 
                R. B. Bansal                                                    Rs.71781.16
                Brijesh Bansal                                                              Nil
                Kavita & Namita Bansal                                                      Nil
         F.     Total Expenditure during the check                              Rs.71781.16
                period
                DA, if any,
                Rs.12,63,643.50 - Rs.1,07,500.00 + 
                Rs.71,781.16 - Rs. 21,39,299.54 = 
                ­9,11,374.88      

That further benefit of 10% of the total income i.e. 2139299.54 can also be given to the accused, which comes to Rs.213929.95.

271. It has been contended on the part of the defence that the expression of 'burden of proof' has two distinct meaning CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 124 of 199 pages 125 CBI case . No. 03/11 i.e. legal burden and evidential burden. Under the legal burden, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts by leading cogent evidence. The evidential burden on part of the defence relates to the accused after the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Further, it is not obligatory on the part of the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purpose of proving his version, he can rely on the admissions, made by the prosecution witnesses or the documents filed by the prosecution. The defence is to probablise the defence so as to show the innocence of the accused persons.

272.It is also contended that it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by section 5 of the Evidence Act and as soon as preponderance of probability is proved the burden shifts to the prosecution which has still to discharge its original onus and that the prosecution is required to prove affirmatively that the explanation of the defence is false. Further that in case, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 125 of 199 pages 126 CBI case . No. 03/11

273.It is also contended on behalf of the defence that on 2.2.2005 searches were conducted at the residence of the accused R. B. Bansal(A­1) at M­138 Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi, in relation to a case against the R. C. No. 1(A)/05/ACU­VII under sec. 120­B, r/w 420/468/471 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, against the MCD officials including the accused R. B. Bansal, but they failed to recover any document in connection with the above case. That the then Inspector of CBI, Rekha Sangwan, broomed the whole house and seized all the documents, made an observation memo, which is required only for the purpose of DA case, in violation of the section 17 of the P. C. Act as she was incompetent authority to enter into investigation of DA case. That she was not authorised to commence investigation in a DA case under section 13(i) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 within the meaning of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She, at best, could be the complainant. Admittedly, she is not the complainant in this case. She even was not cited as a witness. Further, the search conducted in this case is in violation of section 165 Cr. PC. That an FIR was lodged against the accused(A­1) alleging that accused(A­1) had CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 126 of 199 pages 127 CBI case . No. 03/11 acquired assets to the tune of Rs.97,48,558.67 in his name and in the name of his family members during the period 1977 to 2005 and consequently, a case was registered against the accused(A­1) under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) PC Act on 5.4.2005.

274.It is further contended that when CBI could not make out a case of disproportionate assets against the accused(A­1) from the investigation of check period of 1977 to 2005, then check period was modified from 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1989 and was intentionally chosen. That the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to show that the money was provided by the accused R. B. Bansal to his wife, accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal for the purchase of movable and immovable property. That accused Smt. Kaushalya Bansal was an independent entity and was filing income tax returns and has been paying the income tax since 1974­75 till today. That she was assessed also. Her being income tax assessee is not an after­thought after registration of this case. The IO, it appears, has completely overlooked these aspects of the matter as the IPR furnished by the accused (A­1) to his Department clearly provides [e.g. in the file, Ex.PW4/A (D­7)] the information that CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 127 of 199 pages 128 CBI case . No. 03/11 accused(A­2) was assessed to income tax.

275.As against the contention of the prosecution, the defence has stated that the father of the accused(A­1), Shri Tule Ram was an affluent person, which is shown by the documents and depositions of several witness of the prosecution, itself.

276.That as per document D­7, Ex. PW4/A ( Page 8/C) Shri Tule Ram had given agricultural land of 6 acres worth of Rs.30,000/0­ through inheritance during the year 1971­72. Besides this, in 1964, Shri Tule Ram had purchased plot No. B­60, East of Kailash, in the name of his elder son I. S. Bansal and lateron, vide separate lease deed, name of accused(A­1) was included by giving him a share of 100 sq. yards in the said plot.

277.The defence further relied on PW 55 Shri Chet Ram, who proved the various documents including Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari and mutation, etc. as Ex. PW 55/A to Ex. PW 55/G, which show that land of about 19 acres (156 Kanals 7 Marla) stood in the name of Tule Ram and he used to grow crops in the said agricultural land as he was a CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 128 of 199 pages 129 CBI case . No. 03/11 Khud Kastgir. That document D­109 further shows that Pale Ram also had 11 acres of land in his name. Thus, the defence has contended that Tule Ram was capable of giving gifts and loans as he was having agricultural land of 156 Kanals and 7 Marla during the year 1961­62 and remained in possession of the same till 4.5.1987 which is shown in the certificate issued by Patwari (D­4, Ex. X­1, Page 74­C to 78­C).

278.The defence has also relied upon PW 8 Shri N. K. Gupta, who deposed that Tule Ram was a rich and affluent Zamindar. PW 8 further deposed that in the year 1981, he had given a gift of Rs.5100/­ on the occasion of birthday party of son of accused(A­1) and also found 70­80 other persons giving gifts in the form of gold coins and silver coins. He further proved that he had given loan of Rs. 9,000/­ & Rs.20,000/­ to the accused(A­1) in the year 1985, which was repaid in the year 1988.

279.That PW 17 Vijay Kumar has deposed that Tule Ram had a good financial condition and that his land was very fertile and even three crops were taken from the land in a year. PW 44­Shri Brahm Pal, PW45 Shri Gopal Singh, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 129 of 199 pages 130 CBI case . No. 03/11 PW46 Karambir have also corroborated the deposition of PW17. That PW 35 Charan Singh has also deposed on the similar lines and stated that Tule Ram and Pale Ram were capable of gifting Rs.30,000/ to Rs.40,000/­ as they had financial dealings with several villagers.

280.It has also been contended by the defence that Tule Ram, being alone in the village, frequently used to visit accused(A­1), due to love for Kaushalya Bansal(A­2) and his children. That he used to invest his all savings in the name of his daughter in law, accused Kaushalya Bansal(A­2) and her children and that accused R. B. Bansal(A­1) had no role in acquiring the properties which stood in the name of his wife and children.

281.The defence has also taken a plea that initially accused(A­1) used to declare in the returns all the properties including the properties acquired by his wife but from the year 1988 he stopped showing the same when he came to know that any transaction entered by the family member from his/her own funds in his/her names do not attract the provisions of sub rule (2) and (3) of Rule

18. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 130 of 199 pages 131 CBI case . No. 03/11

282.That the Will, which has been proved as Ex. PW 65/DZ, further shows that Shri Tule Ram had already given major portion of his income to accused Ram Bhaj (A­1) in cash during his life time and as such all the immovable properties, after his death, he desired, will devolve upon Shri I. S. Bansal, elder brother of accused(A­1).

283.It has also been contended that the Succession Certificate, which is contained in the Ex. PW65/DZ2 (colly), suggest that as per will of deceased Tule Ram dated 15.11.99 an amount of Rs.8,64,060/­ were given to I. S. Bansal, which shows that Tule Ram was having good financial status even prior to his death on 14.1.2000.

284.The prosecution has not been able to controvert the above contentions of the defence. The documents, Ex. X­1 (D­4) and Ex. PW 4/A (D­7) produced by the prosecution itself, takes away the allegations of the prosecution, in this case. Besides two Valuation reports, relied upon by the prosecution, do not inspire any confidence. As such, the case of the prosecution falls flat on their own showing. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 131 of 199 pages 132 CBI case . No. 03/11

285.The case No. RC.1(A)/05/ACU­VII was registered by the CBI under section 120B read with section 420, 468, 471 IPC read with section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, against the MCD officials including the accused (A­1) on 1.2.2005. Searches were conducted at the residence of the accused (A­1) at M ­138, Greater Kailash - II, New Delhi, on 2.2.2005 but no document, connected with the aforesaid case, could be recovered. Inspector Rakha Sangwan, however, broomed the whole house and seized all the documents and prepared an observation memo, which are required for the purpose of a D. A. case. It is pertinent to mention here that no DA case was registered as on that date. That Inspector Rekha Sangwan, being incompetent authority, entered into the investigation of a DA case in utter violation of section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

286.That after keeping the matter pending for a period of more than 2 months, fresh FIR was registered in this case as against the accused persons alleging that during the period from 1977 to 2005, accused (A­1) had acquired movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 132 of 199 pages 133 CBI case . No. 03/11 97,48,558.67 in his name and in the name of his family members during the said period. The present case was registered on 5.4.2005. The investigation of this case was entrusted to Inspector Dhiraj Khetrapal, who did entire investigation for the period from 1977 to 2005. It appears from the circumstances that he concluded that the income of accused(A­1) and his other family members was much more than the assets acquired by them and no DA case was made out.

287.That in order to bring the accused (A­1) within the mischief of DA case, the check period of 1977­2005 given in the FIR was intentionally reduced to the period from 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1989 for which no record of income, expenditure and how the funds were arranged by accused (A­2) for acquiring assets in her name, could be available due to lapse of time. A careful analysis of record would show that no immovable property was acquired by accused (A­1) during the check period. The defence has asserted that taking the check period in this case from 1977 to 1989 is arbitrary as the check period in the FIR was upto 5.4.2005. It is also asserted that the check period was taken backward so that the accused persons may not CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 133 of 199 pages 134 CBI case . No. 03/11 be able to show the requisite documents in support of their defence, due to lapse of time.

288.In the case law reported as R. Vithaleshwar Rao vs. State of A.P., Manu/AP/0546/2007(AP), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that "many of the said transactions were prior to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, came into foce and as there was no Explanation to section 5(1)(e) of the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, like the Explanation (of 'known sources of income') to S. 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988, those amounts would have to be treated as the income to his known sources of income. The High Court accepted this argument and allowed income from those sale transactions which had taken place before the P.C. Act 1988 came into force, as lawful sources of income and included them in the income of the accused."

289. In the case law reported as G.V. Gopala Rao vs. State of A.P., 2006(2) AICLR 249 at PP 252­53, it has been held that in a case of disproportionate assets, the check period was during the period when the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was in operation and the charge was framed by the Special Judge under section 5(2) read with CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 134 of 199 pages 135 CBI case . No. 03/11 section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the trial was also conducted for the offence under the said provisions. However, on completion of the trial, the Special Judge convicted the accused under the equivalent provisions of section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the new Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In such circumstances, it was held that the conviction of accused under the provisions of the Act of 1988 was illegal and was accordingly set aside.

290.That it has been admitted by the prosecution in the chargesheet that the record for the relevant period was not available due to passage of time. It has also been contended that CBI cited 342 documents, which relate to the period from 1.4.1989 to 5.4.2005, showing income, assets and expenditure, which stood in the name of accused (A­1) and (A­2) and their other family members, justifying that the income of these persons were proportionate to the assets and expenditure, had the CBI taken the entire period of 1977 to 2005 as check period.

291.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Krishnan and Agnihotri Vs. State of M. P. , AIR 1977 SC 796, has CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 135 of 199 pages 136 CBI case . No. 03/11 held that Evidence Act, Section 101 to 104 provides that onus and proof, nature of onus of establishing a transaction as 'benami' is on the person who assets. That burden has to be discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character. Suspicion however, strong cannot take the place of proof.

292.In the present case, though, the prosecution has alleged that certain amount lying in the name of accused (A­1) and accused(A­1)'s wife i.e. accused (A­2) was an asset belonging to the accused(A­1) but no evidence at all has been led by the prosecution that the money lying in the fixed deposits in her name was ever provided by the accused (A­1).

293. In the case law reported as K. Goverdhan vs. State of A.P., 2001(4) CCR 224 at P. 229(A.P), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that ­:

" The mere fact that the ostensible owner had no source of income in itself would not lead to any inference that the property in question was purchased with the income of a particular person. The absence of any source of income to the ostensible owner would merely indicate CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 136 of 199 pages 137 CBI case . No. 03/11 that the property might have been acquired with the income flowing from some one else. As to who that some one else is a matter of evidence and proof. That circumstance cannot lead to an inference that the property in question was acquired with income from the accused person. It is a matter of evidence and not a matter of mere inference though the evidence may not be direct and may consist of circumstancial evidence. It was held that in the instant case, no circumstancial evidence of a definitive character had been placed on record to lead to an inference that it was the income of the accused which financed purchase of the alleged benami properties."

294. In the case law reported as Udai Nath Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000(1) Raj LR 640 at P. 644(Raj), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that "Where the prosecution alleges that certain properties are the benami properties of the accused, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that they are the benami properties of the accused. This burden is to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 137 of 199 pages 138 CBI case . No. 03/11 create suspicion because the Court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. No absolute formula or strait­jacket formula can be laid down to constitute a benami transaction. The conduct of the parties has to be considered in dealing with benami transaction. Title has to be looked, considering nature of possession of the alleged benami property after its purchase. The source from which purchase money came in the hands of purchaser and the motive for giving transaction as benami, have also to be seen".

295. In the case law reported as K. Goverdhan vs. State of A.P., 2001(4) CCR 224 at P. 230(A.P), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that ­:

"Where it was alleged that certain properties had been purchased by the accused public servant in a disproportionate assets case as benami properties in the name of some of his relatives, it was held that in the absence of any direct evidence the mere assertion that these relatives had no sources of income which had not been borne out by record and the fact that some cheques were issued by the accused in the names of such relatives did not lead to any inference that the said properties were benami for the benefit of the accused".

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 138 of 199 pages 139 CBI case . No. 03/11

296.The prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence to show that the money was provided by accused(A­1), R. B. Bansal to his wife, accused (A­2) for purchase of movable and immovable properties. That the accused(A­2) was filing income tax returns and paid the income tax and was assessed to income tax from the year 1974­75 till date. The original assessment order has been produced by the defence through DW3, which have been proved on record as Ex. DW 1/A (colly). The record being very old, the Income Tax Official could not produce the said record. At the same time, it is clear that the documents, which are assessment orders collectively produced and proved as Ex. DW1/A on the face of it, do not appear to be forged or fabricated or generated at a subsequent date as an after­thought. Since the defence is to probablise the defence from the circumstance obtaining on record it has to be inferred that accused (A­2) was having an independent identity as is clear from her income assessment orders as she never knew that present case would be registered in the year 2005 and she was preparing a defence in advance from the year 1975, onwards.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 139 of 199 pages 140 CBI case . No. 03/11

297. In case law reported as State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. J.

Satyanarayana VII(2008) SLT 43, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"In a corruption case of the possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of more than Rs.7 lakhs, house in Question was asset belonging to wife. The acquittal was held Justified. It was further observed that Income Tax return filed by wife could not be labelled as an after­thought. It had been filed much prior to even registration of case against respondent by ACB. Receipts of various loans shown by wife in return stood accepted by Income Tax Authorities. The evidence led by prosecution by filing of income­tax return of wife coupled with evidence of defence witnesses establish that house in question was an asset belonging to wife of respondent and not to respondent himself. Finding recorded by High Court was held correct and proper. Order of acquittal recorded by High Court was well merited and suffered from no illegality.

298.Thus, The income tax return filed by wife could not be labelled as an afterthought as it has been filed much prior to even registration of the case against the accused.

299. In case law reported as Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India 1994 CRI. L.J. 12, it was held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court that ­:

"Thus, where accused was charged with the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 140 of 199 pages 141 CBI case . No. 03/11 offence of having resources and property disproportionate to his income and trial Court failed to consider and evaluate the income­tax return which clearly established that the property included in the assets of accused and shown to be disproportionate is the wife's property bought from her own resources and should have been excluded from assets of the accused and the income which should have been taken as saving was taken as expenditure thereby overlooking the actual saving and expenditure, which if calculated, showed that income of accused was proportionate to his source of income, inclusion of property of wife, without evaluating the materials on record, which satisfactorily accounted for the assets disproportionate to income, do not establish the ingredients of the offence of disproportionate of assets.

300.For an offence punishable under section 13 (1) (e), the prosecution is required to prove the following essential ingredients:

(a) The accused is a public servant.

(b) What were his known sources of income

(c) The nature and extent of pecuniary resources of the property which were found in his possession and in the possession of his family members possessing the property for him and through him

(d) Such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known source of income.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 141 of 199 pages 142 CBI case . No. 03/11

(e) That the public servant is unable to account for such disproportionate assets.

301.The basic onus lies on the prosecution to prove these ingredients and once the same is proved, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the possession of disproportionate assets. The standard of proof the accused is required to lead is not so onerous as that of the prosecution. What he is required to do it as to bring out his defence by preponderance of probability. In other words, he is required to probabilise the defence to show his innocence. The law laid down in 'State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudev Ram Chandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC page 199 and N. Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad 1993, Cr. L. J. page 308, are referred to in this regard.

302.The case of the prosecution has been focused on the fact that late Tule Ram, father of accused (A­1) was not a man of means and was not financially capable of giving gifts as are reflected in the ITR filed by the accused (A­1) in his department and placed on record by the prosecution. The material placed on record, however, speaks CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 142 of 199 pages 143 CBI case . No. 03/11 otherwise. The prosecution even otherwise has not been able to substantiate that Shri Tule Ram was a poor person or had no means to give gifts, loans, etc. to his children and grand children. Document (D­7), which is a file, proved as Ex. PW 4/A by prosecution itself, at page 8/C reveals that Shri Tule Ram had given agricultural land of six acres through inheritance to accused (A1) in the year 1971­72, which was worth of Rs.30,000/­ at that time. That Shri Tule Ram, initially, purchased a plot bearing no. B­60, East of Kailash in the name of I. S. Bansal, his elder son in 1964, for a sum of Rs.20,000/­. That in the year 1971, the name of accused (A­1) was inserted and a separate lease deed was created to give share of 100 sq. yards to accused (A­1) out of love and affection. Further, the said file at page 15/C explains that construction amount of Rs.57,500/­ was generated by him. This indicates that even prior to the start of the check period, Shri Tule Ram enjoyed sound financial status.

303.PW 55 Chet Ram has proved the documents as Ex. PW 55/A to Ex. PW 55/G, which are Jamabadni, Khasra Girdawari, mutation, etc. These documents reveal that agricultural land, total of which measured as 156 Kanals 7 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 143 of 199 pages 144 CBI case . No. 03/11 Marla, which is about 19 acres, stood in the name of Shri Tule Ram and he used to grow crops in the said agricultural land. Document D­113, relied upon by the prosecution, shows that he was self cultivator. All this show that Shri Tule Ram has agricultural income and it would be fallacy to assume that he had no income. Since it was agricultural income, he was not required to file income tax return. Similarly, document (D­109), relied upon by the prosecution itself, shows that Shri Pale Ram had 11 acres of land in his name and he himself was the Kastgir. Further, it has come on record that Shri Tule Ram used to do money lending business and make money, in addition, to his agricultural income. Shri Tule Ram, therefore, has been shown by the documents of the prosecution itself as an affluent man capable of giving gifts, loans, etc.

304.The file (D­4) which is Ex. X­1, is an admitted document by the accused persons also. This file contains processing of complaint against the accused (A­1) by the Department of Vigilance of MCD. Perusal of 13/N, which is a note portion in the said file, clearly indicates that vigilance department found no irregularity and gave clean chit to CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 144 of 199 pages 145 CBI case . No. 03/11 accused (A­1) in respect of movable and immovable properties owned by him and by his other family members as on 5.1.1990, which is a date after the check period. This document shows that there was no case of DA made out as against the accused (A­1) in the Departmental Enquiry. The allegations of DA when could not sustain in the Departmental Enquiry, it has been asserted by the defence, then how it can be sustained in the court where more stringent evidence is required. In any case, the documents, Ex. X­1, has been relied upon by the prosecution itself and can be acted and taken as against the claim of the prosecution. The department fully absolved accused(A­1) from all the allegations made in the anonymous complaint of amassing of wealth by the accused(A­1) in his name and in the name of his other family members as on 05.1.1990, taking into consideration all the movable and immovable properties included in this case. On the basis of file, Ex. X­1, alone, case of the prosecution stands demolished.

305.PW65 has proved, in his deposition at page 3­4 on 6.6.13, the Vasiyatnama (Will) dated 15.11.1999 of Shri Tule Ram, being relied upon by the prosecution itself and cited CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 145 of 199 pages 146 CBI case . No. 03/11 as D­320, (which is Ex. PW 65/DZ). The said Will clearly shows that Tule Ram himself had given major portion of his income to accused (A­1) in cash and he bequeathed his remaining property upon his elder son, Shri I. S. Bansal, who is elder brother of accused (A­1) also. A bear perusal of the said Will shows that Shri Tule Ram had given major portion of his income to the wife of the accused (A­1) i.e. accused (1­2) and his children during his life time.

306.PW 65, who is IO of the case, has also admitted the document, Ex. PW 65/DZ­2 (colly), containing Succession Certificate of Shri I. S. Bansal, which he obtained from the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi. This document suggests that as per the aforesaid Will a sum of Rs.8,64,060/­ stood in the FDR of Shri Tule Ram, which were given to the elder brother of accused (A­1), Shri I. S. Bansal, and proves affluent financial status of Shri Tule Ram. It, therefore, cannot be said that shri Tule Ram was not a man of means. On the basis of the material placed on the record by the prosecution itself, it is abundantly clear that Shri Tule Ram was capable of giving gifts, loans, which are mentioned in the intimation in the property CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 146 of 199 pages 147 CBI case . No. 03/11 returns filed by the accused (A­1) in the file (D­7) which is Ex.PW 4/A and which were approved while processing the complaint as against the accused (A­1) in the file, Ex. X­1 (D­4).

307.The income of the accused (A­1) and (A­2) and their children have been tabulated by the prosecution as has been stated above also. Now lets us deal with the items, in respect of which the prosecution has not reflected the true and correct picture or amount which ought to have been taken under various heads.

Income of accused (A­1)

308. The prosecution has not taken into account the pay and allowances of accused(A­1) from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.89, (i.e. a portion of check period) which as per the documents (D­15 & D­17) placed on record by the prosecution, comes to Rs.29,003.20. During the course of arguments, this was not disputed by the prosecution. This amount, therefore, is required to be added to the income under the head of Pay and Allowances from 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1988. The document (D­15) has been proved on as Ex.PW10/A­2 and document D­17 has been proved as Ex.PW9/A­1. The pay CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 147 of 199 pages 148 CBI case . No. 03/11 and allowances of accused(A­1) during the check period, therefore, comes to Rs.2,79,687.24.

309.In the file, Ex. PW 4/A, there are documents Ex. PW 2/A & Ex. PW 2/B proved by the prosecution. The file Ex. PW 4/A contains property returns filed by accused (A­1) from the year 1969 to 2001. Page 8/C of the property returns file, Ex.PW4/C, shows that accused(A­1) acquired agricultural land of six acres by way of inheritance from his father. The property returns for the period 1976­77 in this file proved by the prosecution, shows that accused(A­1) mortgaged the said agricultural land for Rs.90,000/­ by two deeds for Rs.45,000/­ each. There is sufficient evidence on record placed by the prosecution itself that accused(A­1) had this income of Rs.90,000/­ by mortgaging his agricultural land. This income should have been included/added in the Income Head of accused(A­1).

310.In the file, Ex. X­1, (which is undisputed by the parties) at page 79­C and 80­C, it has been mentioned that accused (A­1) applied to Tehsildar for issuance of certificate showing his actual income from his agricultural land. He issued certificate in this regard showing that his actual CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 148 of 199 pages 149 CBI case . No. 03/11 agricultural income of Rs.13,000/­ was from the said land. The agricultural land admittedly, remained with the accused(A­1) from 1971­72 to 1977, as he mortgaged the said land in the year 1977. The Investigation Officer did not give benefit of this agricultural income to the accused(A­1) even though, the documents in this regard was available on record produced by the prosecution. The prosecution did not contradict this document as well. This is for a period of 5 years. This income comes to Rs.13,000 X 5 = Rs.65,000. This amount was required to be added in the income of accused (A­1).

311. The documents (D8, D10, D12, D13 and D17) relied upon by the prosecution itself, indicate that prior to the check period, accused(A­1) drew salary of Rs.47,134. However, no benefit of income by way of salary earned by accused(A­1) prior to the check period was given. If we deduct statutory 1/3rd towards the expenses from the said income, the income before the check period comes to Rs.31,425/­. There is no reason made available by the prosecution as to why this should not be added. The same is, therefore, required to be added under the Income Head of accused(A­1). The prosecution has placed and CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 149 of 199 pages 150 CBI case . No. 03/11 relied upon the document ( D 119) which is Ex. PW34/A. It reveals that accused(A­1) received total rent of Rs.75,020/­ for the period from November, 1974 to May, 1982 in respect of half portion of his share (The other half belonged to his brother I. S. Bansal, whom prosecution cited as a witness but withheld him from being examined perhaps for the reason that truth may not come on the surface). This amount of rent received by accused (A­1) from the property No. B­60, East of Kailash, has not been taken into account.

312.Document (D112) at page 10 reveals that a sum of Rs.

22,500 was paid by Shri I. S. Bansal vide draft dated 8.5.1982. the details of which are mentioned on the said page, to the accused (A­1). PW 65 admitted this and proved the said document as Ex. PW65/DZ­4. Accused (A­1) was therefore, entitled to have been shown to have this income of Rs.22,500/­.

313.If we add the aforesaid ignored income of accused (A­), which is born out from the documents placed and proved on record by the prosecution itself, the total income of accused(A­1) R. B. Bansal comes to Rs.5,63,632.04. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 150 of 199 pages 151 CBI case . No. 03/11 INCOME OF ACCUSED (A­2)

314.Now, we come to the income of accused (A­2). The file (D­7), which is proved as Ex. PW4/A, at page 64­C clearly indicates that wife of accused (A­1) i.e. accused (A­2) sold her gold ornaments on 7.11.1977 for a sum of Rs20,571.75 vide gold receipt dated 7.11.1977 to Shri Ram Hari Ram Jewellers, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. The said jeweller made payment by cheque dated 7.11.1977. Accused(A­1) intimated to his Department about this amount. As the same cannot be an after­thought, benefit of this sum should have been given in the Income Head of accused (A­2).

315.Accused (A­2) received gifts from her father­in­law from time to time which are reflected at page 19 /C, 64/C, 60/C, 56/C, 14/C, 58/C, of the document, Ex. PW 4/A (D­7), total of which comes to Rs.1,37,000/­. The intimation of this was given by accused(A­1) to his Department. There is no reason available on record as to why this amount should not be reflected in the Income Head of accused (A­2). Similarly, page 60/C of Ex. PW4/A (D­7), which is the property returns file of the accused(A­1) for the year 1979, CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 151 of 199 pages 152 CBI case . No. 03/11 clearly indicates that accused (A­2) received loan of Rs. 20,000/­ from her father­in­law, Shri Tule Ram, during the year 1979. This sum of Rs.20,000/­ should, therefore, also have been included in the Income of accused (A­2).

316. In the case law titled as Vemulakonda Anjaneyulu vs. State of A.P., 1996 Cri LJ 3897 at p. 3901(AP), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the loan amount would have to be allowed towards income.

317.In the case law reported as State of A.P. vs. J.

Satyanarayana, 2001(1) BCCR 300(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the receipt of various loans which had been shown by the wife in the income­tax return, thus, stood accepted by the income­tax authorities. In such circumstances, on the basis of the said income­tax return of the wife compuled with the evidence of defence witnesses, it was held that a particular house was an asset belonging to the wife of the respondent and not to the respondent himself; and on the basis of that finding, the order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the High Court was held to be well merited".

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 152 of 199 pages 153 CBI case . No. 03/11

318.Accused (A­2), while appearing in the witness box as DW 3, has deposed that she has been filing income tax returns and was assessed towards the same from the year 1974­75 to 1988­89. She has placed on record the Assessment Orders of the relevant period alongwith the other documents, which are Ex. DW1/A(colly). There is nothing available on record to indicate that these documents could have been forged or fabricated by the accused persons or that the same were generated as an after­ thought. Under the circumstance, the benefit of these documents (Income Tax assessment orders) can be given to accused (A­2). The computation of income, reflected for the check period comes to Rs.4,48,973/­ based upon the documents, Ex. DW1/A. Thus, the total income of accused (A­2) can reasonably be taken as Rs.10,04,377.75 after taking into the consideration the above income appearing on record.

INCOME OF BRIJESH BANSAL, SON OF ACCUSED (A­1),

319.It is pertinent to mention that he has neither been made an accused nor a witness by the prosecution. Admittedly, when the case was registered, he was major and was not dependent on the accused(A­1) and accused (A­2). The CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 153 of 199 pages 154 CBI case . No. 03/11 prosecution, as such, ought not to have clubbed his income, assets, etc. in this case. Assuming that the same can be included in this case, his income was not added by the Investigating Officer which was reflected in documents, Ex. PW4/A (D­7) and Ex. X­1 (D­4). A bare perusal of these documents shows that a gift of Rs. 20,000/­ was made to Brijesh Bansal as is reflected on page 40­C of Ex. PW 4/A. That a loan of Rs.82,480/­ reflected at the page 40­C, 42­C & 48­C of Ex. PW 4/A and the income tax returns for the assessment year 1982­83, 1983­84 and 1984­85 available at page 72, 70 and 69 in Ex.X­1 amounting to Rs.22,000/­ have not been taken into account by the IO. If the above said incomes are taken into consideration, the income of Brijesh Bansal comes to Rs.2,36,746.

INCOME OF KAVITA BANSAL.

320.The I.O. again has not taken into account the loans of Rs.33,200/­ reflected at page 38­C, 42­C and 48­C of the file, Ex. PW4/A (D­7), which was duly intimated by accused (A­1) to his Department. Loan of Rs.8,500/­ taken from Gopal Singh and loan of Rs.26,620 reflected at page 38­C and 42­C of the file, Ex. PW4/A, have not been CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 154 of 199 pages 155 CBI case . No. 03/11 reflected by the IO. Further, income of Rs.23,050/­ reflected in Ex. X­1 (D­4) at page 65, 66 and 68, have not been taken into consideration by the IO. If all these incomes are added, the total income of Kavita Bansal, as per record produced by the prosecution, comes to Rs.1,88,322.50.

INCOME OF NAMITA BANSAL

321. Again in respect of Namita Bansal, the IO has completely ignored the income of Rs.20,000/­ given as gift to her by Shri Pale Ram duly mentioned at page 40­C of the file, Ex. PW 4/A. The loan of Rs.28,200/­ and Rs.8,500/­ reflected at page 42­C of the file, Ex. PW 4/A and loan of Rs.6,620/­ reflected at page 38­C and 42­C of the file, Ex. PW 4/A and the income based upon the income tax returns for the year 1982­83, 1983­84 and for the year 1984­85, duly reflected in the file, Ex. X­1 (D­7) at page 61, 62 and 64, amounting to Rs.20,250/­ have not been taken into account by the I. O. There is no reason available on record or cited by the prosecution as to why all these figures are required to be ignored, especially when the prosecution has itself produced these documents and proved them on record. The total income of Namita CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 155 of 199 pages 156 CBI case . No. 03/11 Bansal, as per the record produced by the prosecution, comes to Rs.1,46,222/­ .

IMMOVABLE ASSETS OF KAUSHALYA BANSAL

322.Now , I come to the immovable assets alleged in the name of Kaushalya Bansal(A­2). In respect of house No. 138, Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi, the prosecution has relied upon the valuation report of PW 48, proved as Ex. PW 48/A­1 & Ex. PW 48/A­2. As discussed above, this report of the Valuer does not inspire confidence and has to be discarded for the following reasons:

(i) Ex.PW50/C­3(D­125) proved by the prosecution shows construction of this property from 1990 to 1999 (i.e. beyond the check period) which has not been contradicted by any evidence by the State.

(ii). Ex. PW 48/A1 shows assessed value as Rs.

24,82,000 for the construction from September, 1988 to March, 1993 without segregating as to which construction pertain to the period September, 1988 to March, 1989 (i.e. the check period). The defence has alleged that the plan itself was sanctioned in September, 1988 & no commencement of construction could take place before 1990 which is corroborated by Ex. PW 50/C. The same appears to be reasonable & plausible.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 156 of 199 pages 157 CBI case . No. 03/11

(iii) Ex.PW 48/A2 (a printed format) in Col. 3.1 mentions seven (7) documents supplied to PW48, which are - (1) Sale Deed (2) MCD Bldg. Deptt. Certificate dated 4.5.1990 (3) Form C - submitted to MCD, (4) Damage Notice - approval from MCD (5) Server Connection - MCD permission letter dated 27.3.91 (6) Letter of approval from MCD (7) Valuation Report of private valuer dated 20.12.1993, but none of them was enclosed with the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2. There is nothing to show that any of these documents was considered/gone into or was contradicted by PW 48. His report, Ex.PW 48/A­2 is, therefore, vague, unjustified and whimsical.

(iv) In Col. 2.1 of Ex. PW48/A­2 against the name of the owner 'not known to us' has been recorded. This indicates that owner was not known to PW 48 actually, what to talk of giving notice to her (i.e. A­2) and take feedback from her for corroboration/ contradiction of his valuation report.

(v) Period of construction was taken by PW 48 as September, 1988 to March, 1999 at the instance of CBI without ascertaining the year­wise construction & segregating it for the six months falling in the check period as valuation was done in 2007.

(vi) Col.4.3 of the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2, shows that 'no declaration of owner was sought or was available CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 157 of 199 pages 158 CBI case . No. 03/11 with PW 48' . He proceeded on the premises that CBI had informed it to be more than Rs.10 lakhs without any basis. He failed to ask for the basis and seems to have proceeded on whimsical & pre­guided basis.

(vii) As many as six carbon copies have been annexed in the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2 without affording any reason as to where the original of the same were? It, therefore, creates serious doubt on the authenticity of this report.

(viii) Each and every page of Ex. PW 48/A­2, does not bear the signatures of PW 48.

(ix) In cross­examination, this witness has given evasive answers so as to show that he has concealed more than reveal anything.

(x) Admittedly, PW48 has not taken the 'best method' to valuate the assignment given to him.

(xi) PW 48 did not consider & contradict the private valuation report dated 20.12.1993 given to him and as is mentioned in col. 3.1 of Ex. PW 48/A­1, which is written and signed by him.

323.Under the circumstance, when the Valuation Report placed and proved on record by the prosecution, is vague, whimsical and not pinpointing to the valuation relating to the check period, I am left with no other option but to CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 158 of 199 pages 159 CBI case . No. 03/11 hold that prosecution has failed to prove the Valuation as per law. There is nothing available on record to find out the valuation for a period of about six months i.e. September, 1988 to March, 1989 or that whether any construction took place at all, during this period? The burden, cast upon the prosecution, thus, has not been discharged. As such I have to take the value of the plot alongwith the total registration charges as the value of this asset, which comes to Rs.1,53,360/­. B 279 Okhla Industrial area, Phase­I, New Delhi.

324.The valuation report, placed and proved on record by the prosecution as Ex. PW58/A and Ex. PW58/B, is not admissible in evidence in asmuch as it is admitted case of the prosecution that the IO - (PW65) Inspector Dhiraj Khetrapal himself wrote a letter dated 13.7.2007, which is admitted by him and is Ex. PW 63/DX­1, asking the PW58 to re­evaluate the cost of the construction because the entire construction did not pertain to the check period. In other words, the IO himself was not satisfied and had rejected the valuation report furnished by this witness. Subsequently, however, the IO himself took a 'U' turn and instead of calling for a correct valuation report, he has CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 159 of 199 pages 160 CBI case . No. 03/11 acted on the already available wrong valuation report which has to be discarded for the following reasons :

(i) The IO wrote letter, Ex. PW 58/DX admittedly to this witness to make correct valuation as the report given was not for the correct period. The I.O., therefore, himself had rejected the valuation report when he had sought revaluation. Revaluation was not done by PW 58. Strangely, IO(PW65) without obtaining fresh correct report, filed report, Ex. PW 58/A & Ex. PW 58/B with the charge sheet. The prosecution has, thus, itself failed to prove its case qua these reports.

(ii) The entire report is handwritten and is not on prescribed printed format (as the report Ex.PW 48/A1 & Ex. PW 48/A2, despite the fact that PW 58 was from the same Organisation).

(iii) Before proceedings to ascertain valuation PW 58 admittedly had no documents or declared value with him by the owner, for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction.

(iv) In the report construction, period­wise, is not mentioned so as to show which part of the construction / valuation pertain to the check period.

(v) No notice to the owner was given for any feedback or for contradiction of her claim.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 160 of 199 pages 161 CBI case . No. 03/11

(vi) Letter, Ex. PW58/DX, was not acted upon by PW58 to give true and correct report.

325.The defence has asserted that their valuer had valued the cost of the construction during the check period as Rs. 3,25,000/­ as per the document, proved as Ex. PW31/A (D­313) which corroborates this fact. The defence has, after addition of the above cost of construction of Rs. 3,25,000/­ to the cost of plot pertaining to the portion of ownership of accused(A­2) arrived at a figure of Rs. 3,39,902/­, which appears to be acceptable under the circumstances. In any case, in the absence of any specific and cogent evidence on record, having been led by the prosecution, the cost of this asset can be taken as Rs. 3,39,902/­ on the admission of the defence, even though the prosecution has led no cogent evidence on the cost of construction even to show that it was Rs.3,25,000 as is fairly conceded by the defence.

326.There is no dispute raised by the defence regarding the other immovable properties except the immovable property at 1214, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place and 27 Ankur Vihar Plot, Ghaziabad. Regarding the immovable CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 161 of 199 pages 162 CBI case . No. 03/11 asset at 1214, Hemkunt Tower, Nehru place, it is stated that from out of the cost of this plot amounting of Rs. 2,77,869/­ a sum of Rs.62869/­ & Rs.93,000/­ was contributed by Shri Tule Ram vide cheques No.929835 & 656664 respectively from his own income and that admittedly, he was one of the Directors of Brijesh Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. as is established by the documents Ex.PW57/A (D­313), the document, produced and proved on record by the prosecution. It is, therefore, stated that the cost of this plot attributable to the accused(A­2) has to be reduced by a sum of Rs.1,55,869/­. The prosecution has not been able to counter this contention of the defence, on the contrary, PW49 has fully corroborated this. Hence, only Rs.1,22,000/­ can be attributed to accused (A­2) towards this asset.

327.Regarding the asset relating to 27, Ankur Vihar Plot, Ghaziabad, it is stated that this plot was booked by Shri Tule Ram and the plot was ultimately cancelled and refund was sent to the party on 6.9.2000. That a sum of Rs. 7,654/­ only was contributed by the accused (A­2). It has come on record in the covering letter of DLF that payment were made by the instruments drawn on Andhra Bank. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 162 of 199 pages 163 CBI case . No. 03/11 Since the prosecution has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record that the entire payment by cheque was made by the accused (A­2), we have no other option but to accept the contention of the defence that only a sum of Rs.7654/­ was paid by cheque by the accused (A­2). Thus, taking into consideration the correct picture obtaining on record, the total assets in the name of accused(A­2) comes to Rs.9,56,823.50. Immovable Assets in the name of Brijesh Bansal:

328.Regarding the flat No.1209­A, Pragati Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi, it is stated that the IO has not deducted the amount of rent already paid by the old tenants from the sale consideration. This figure comes to Rs.29,160/­. File, proved as Ex. PW 4/A (D­7) page 46­C, clearly authenticate this and, therefore, towards the assets on account of this property, Rs.96,840/­ ought to have been taken by the IO, after deducting Rs.29,160/­ (the amount of rent).

329.Regarding the plot No.101­C, Raja Towers, Nehru Place, PW 26 clearly deposed that sale consideration for this property was made by Tule Ram and, therefore, nothing CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 163 of 199 pages 164 CBI case . No. 03/11 can be attributed to Brijesh Bansal towards this asset. Thus, the assets in the name of Brijesh Bansal comes to Rs.96,840/­.

Immovable Assets in the name of Namita Bansal and Kavita Bansal:

330.Regarding the plot no. 101 D, Raja Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 26 Shri Jasbir singh deposed that sale consideration amounting to Rs.65,100/­ was paid by Shri Tule Ram, father of the accused(A­1) and therefore, this amount cannot be attributed to either of the accused or Namita Bansal and Kavita Bansal.

331.Regarding the flat No. 508, Pragati Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi, PW 49 deposed that a sum of Rs. 34,020/­, which was already given by the tenant as rent was adjusted in the sale consideration. Therefore, from the sale consideration of Rs.1,36,500/­, this sum was required to be reduced by the IO. Ex. PW 4/A page 48­C authenticates this transaction. Thus, total asset in the name of Namita Bansal and Kavita Bansal comes to Rs. 1,02,480/­ only.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 164 of 199 pages 165 CBI case . No. 03/11

332.Regarding the expenses during the check period by the accused persons, a sum of Rs. 71,781.16, being 1/3rd of net salary is not disputed by the defence and therefore, can be taken.

333.Regarding the other expenditure, prosecution has led no cogent and acceptable evidence on record. Therefore, the expenditure attributed to accused(A­1) comes to Rs. 71,781.16.

334.Expenditure pertaining to Brijesh Bansal, Namita Banal and Kavita Bansal has erroneously been taken as Rs.2340, Rs.2730 and Rs.651 respectively. As in view of the deposition of PW49 Arun Bahuguna, this amount was required to be paid by the tenants and same cannot be attributed to them. Therefore, their expenditure has to be taken as Nil. The following figures emerge as regards the incomes of all the family members of accused (A1) & (A2) :

A. INCOME of all members of family R. B. Bansal (A­1) Rs.5,63,632.04 Smt. Kaushalya Bansal(A­2) Rs10,04,377.75 Brijesh Bansal Rs.2,36,746.00 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 165 of 199 pages 166 CBI case . No. 03/11 Kavita Bansal Rs.1,88,322.50 Namita Bansal Rs.1,46,222.00 Total Income Rs21,39,300.29 B ASSETS at beginning of check period:

                     R. B. Bansal                                         Rs.1,07,500.00
                C  ASSETS  at end of check 
                   period: 
                     In the name of R. B. Bansal                           Rs.1,07,500.00
                     (A­1)
                     In the name of Smt. Kaushalya                         Rs.9,56,823.50
                     Bansal (A­2)
                     In the name of Brijesh Bansal                           Rs.96,840.00
                     In the name of Kavita & Namita                        Rs.1,02,480.00
                     Bansal 
                D                                                        Rs12,63,643.50
                     Total Assets at the end of 
                     check period 
                E
                     Expenditure during check 
                     period 
                     R. B. Bansal (A­1)                                       Rs.71781.16
                     Brijesh Bansal                                                       Nil
                     Kavita & Namita Bansal                                               Nil
                F. Total Expenditure during the                          (D)Rs.71781.16
                   check period

335. Disproportionate Assets are calculated by the following formula:

DA = Assets after the check period (B) ­ Assets before the check period (A) + expenditure during the check period (D) - Income during the check period.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 166 of 199 pages 167 CBI case . No. 03/11 Thus, in the present case, DA = Rs.12,63,643.50 - Rs.1,07,500.00 + Rs.71,781.16 - Rs21,39,299.54 = (­)9,11,374.88 Thus no DA case is made out by the prosecution.

336. In the case law reported as Jastinder Singh Vs. State 2001 Cri. L. J. page 11, Delhi High Court, it was held that­:

"A somewhat liberal view requires to be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes 'disproportionate' for purpose of S. 5(1)(e) of the Act. (which corresponds to sec. 13(i) (e) of the new Act of 1988) "

337. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above referred case by quoting the case of Supreme Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey V. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170: (1977 Crl. LJ 173, that­:

"......Another question that arises is what are the standards to be employed in order to Judge the truth or falsity of the version given by the defence? Should the accused prove his case with the same amount of rigour and certainty, as the prosecution is required, to prove the criminal charge, or it is sufficient if the accused puts forwards a probable or reasonable explanation which is sufficient to throw doubt on the prosecution case?..."

"...... The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. In fact, from the cardinal principles referred to above: it follows that. It is sufficient CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 167 of 199 pages 168 CBI case . No. 03/11 if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Sector 4 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probabilities of the version given by him throws doubt on the prosecution cannot be said to have established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the mode of proof, by standard of benefit of doubt, is not applicable to the accused, where he is called upon to prove his case or to prove the exceptions of the Indian Penal Code on which he seeks to rely. It is sufficient for the defence to give a version which competes in probability with the prosecution version, for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on the prosecution case entailing its rejection by the Court. This aspect of the matter is no longer res integra but is concluded by several authorities of this Court. In Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1965) 3 SCR 235 at P24:

AIR 1966 SC 97: (19966 Crl. LJ 82 at P.101), this court observed as follows (at page 86: of Crl. L. J.):

"But the question which often arises and has been frequently considered by judicial decisions is whether the nature and extent of the onus of proof placed on an accused person, who claims the benefit of an exception is exactly the same as the nature and extent of the onus placed on the prosecution in a criminal case: and there is consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case falls under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 168 of 199 pages 169 CBI case . No. 03/11 case falls under an Exceptions, law treats the onus as discharged if the accused person succeeds "in proving a preponderance of probability." As soon as the preponderance of probability is proved, the burden shifts to the prosecution which has still to discharge its original onus. It must be remembered that basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."

338. The same view was taken in a later case in State of U. P. V Ram Sarup, (1975) 1 SCR 409 at PP 416­17: AIR 1974 SC 1570: (1974 Crl. L J 1035 at P. 1576), as follows:

"That is to say an accused may fail to establish affirmatively the existence of circumstances which would bring the case within a general exception and yet the facts and circumstances proved by him while discharging the burden under section 105 of the Evidence Act may be enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution, in which event he would be entitled to an acquittal. The burden which rests on the accused to prove the exception is not of the same rigour as the burden of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is enough for the accused to show, as in a civil case, that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea."

339. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above referred case i.e. 2001 Cr. LJ page 11, that­:

"Needless to say that this Court in a series of decisions have laid down the guidelines in CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 169 of 199 pages 170 CBI case . No. 03/11 finding out the benami nature of a transaction. Though it is not necessary to cite all those decisions, it will be suffice to refer to the rule laid down by Bhagwati. J. as he then was in Krishnanand Agrihotri V. State of M. P., AIR 1977 SC 796: (1977 Crl. L J 566 : (1977) 1 SCC 816. In that case , it was contended that the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the name of one Shanti Devi was an asset belonging to the appellant and that Shanti Devi was a benamidar of the appellant. The learned Judge speaking for the Bench has disposed of that contention holding that:

"It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly ad reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmise as a substitute for proof."

340. Thus, in the above case, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi Court that the original onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case with the amount of rigors and certainty and the defence can prove its case by proving a preponderance of probability. For the purpose of proving defence plea accused can rely on the admissions made by CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 170 of 199 pages 171 CBI case . No. 03/11 the prosecution or on the documents filed by the prosecution. The prosecution cannot drive any strength or support form the weakness of the defence.

341.In case law reported as M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State DSP Hyderabad, 1993 CRI. L.J.308, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"An analysis of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to S. 13 (1) (e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that it is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law."

342.It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case that ­:

"In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused."

343.It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case that ­:

"It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 171 of 199 pages 172 CBI case . No. 03/11 this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is that the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties doe not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof."

344. Thus, in case of the recovery of the key of the locker from the house of the accused though the locker stood in the name of the daughter, it cannot be presumed that the father had been keeping the gold jewellary in the locker as benami as if the relationship of the party is considered, there is nothing strange in the conduct of daughter handing over the key to her mother.

345.It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199 that ­:

"The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct meaning, (1) the legal burden, i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 172 of 199 pages 173 CBI case . No. 03/11 proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities."

346. In case law reported as Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of M. P., AIR 1977 SC 796, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"The burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion, because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence."

347. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 173 of 199 pages 174 CBI case . No. 03/11 the above referred case that ­:

"The same story was put forward by the appellant as far back as October 1960 long before any departmental enquiry was contemplated against the appellant, when in reply to a letter addressed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner demanding information in regard to the purchase of the car in August, 1956, the appellant stated in his letter Ex. PW P­730 that he had purchased the car for a sum of Rupees 9,200/­ which was made up of Rs.7000/­ received from his father and Rs.2,500/­ representing the sale proceeds of the Austin car. We fail to see how in the face of this overwhelming evidence the Trial Court could hold that the sum of Rs.7,000/­ was not received by the appellant from his father."

348. In the case law titled as B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 at page 488, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the aforesaid decision in Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. State of MP, AIR 1977 SC 796 at P. 809 to the effect that if the excess was comparitively small (it was less than 10% of the total income in that case), observing that it would be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the accused were not disproportionate to his known source of income. The Supreme Court further explained that it is to be remembered that the said principle was evolved by the Supreme Court to give benefit of doubt, due to inflationary trend in the appreciation of the value of the assets.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 174 of 199 pages 175 CBI case . No. 03/11

349.The onus of proof lies on the prosecution to establish that a transaction is benami and this burden is to be discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character suspicion however, strong cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution has to prove that the money, for purchase of movable and immovable properties, was provided by the accused to his wife and no inference can be drawn from the fact that being the wife of accused must have got the money from the accused(A­1) for purchase of the property.

350.In case law reported as M. Sreeramulu Vs. State of A.P. 2003 CRI. L. J. 2956, it was held by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that ­:

"Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) under section 13 - Conviction in a case relating to alleged disproportionate assets, the Prosecution has to establish that the various items which it attributes to the public servant are held by him directly or even indirectly. Of the items included in list of assets, ownership in respect of these items accepted by prosecution on the basis of certain assumptions. Even the Investigating Officer was not sure about the ownership of the appellant vis­a­vis the said items. It was held that the appellant did not hold any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The conviction was held liable to be CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 175 of 199 pages 176 CBI case . No. 03/11 set aside."

351. The income, assets and expenditure of wife cannot be clubbed with the assets, expenditure and income of accused, automatically, especially when the wife [accused (A­2) in this case] was assessed to income tax since 1975 and had independent source.

352.In case law reported as D.S.P. Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran, 2005 X AD (SC) 368, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"As per Section 13 (1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where unaccounted money was recovered from the house in joint possession of premises by husband and wife, the raid by Income Tax Authorities was conducted in the house of accused. The raid yielded a huge amount of cash amounting to Rs.30 lakhs, 7 gold biscuits weighing 819 grams, $ 1118 and certain documents regarding purchase of immovable properties and also fixed deposit receipts. Disciplinary proceedings against the accused were held and parallel criminal proceedings was also taken by the Department. Special Judge found him guilty, convicted and sentenced but single judge held that unaccounted money did not belong to the accused. Whether the joint possession of premises by husband and wife and the unaccounted money which has been recovered from the house could be said to be in exclusive possession of the accused ? In appeal it was held that when respondent has explained the possession of unaccounted money, the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 176 of 199 pages 177 CBI case . No. 03/11 prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. The appeal of the state was dismissed."

353. Thus, it was held that joint possession of premises by husband, wife and recovery of money and possession of household articles from the house could not be said to be in exclusive possession of one accused.

354. If the prosecution fails to establish the property or any Benami property included in the assets of the accused as that of the accused, then the question of satisfactorily accounting for such assets property by the accused does not arise at all.

355. In case law reported as Subhash Vs. State of M. P., ­2000 (1) Crimes 361, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"Initial burden lay on prosecution to prove that alleged transaction was benami and funds were provided by appellant. The prosecution initially failed to establish that house was purchased and constructed benami by appellant. PW3 turned hostile to be thrown out in limine. The trial court committed error in not considering statement of this witness only on ground that he was declared hostile.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 177 of 199 pages 178 CBI case . No. 03/11 The Trial Court also committed error in considering defence of accused in golden scale."

356. That the initial burden lay on the prosecution to prove that alleged transactions were Benami and funds were provided by the accused.

357. In case law reported as Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"In case of P. Sirajuddin etc. Vs. The State of Madras etc., AIR 1971 SC 520; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, Supreme Court has categorically held that before a public servant is charged with an act of dishonesty which amounts to serious mis­demeanour and an FIR is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. Such a course has not been adopted by the prosecution though the law declared by this Court is binding on everyone in view of the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution, which would by all means override the statutory provisions of the Cr. PC and such an irregularity is not curable nor does it fall within the ambit of Section 465 Cr. PC."

358.In above referred case, it was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"In Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 178 of 199 pages 179 CBI case . No. 03/11 SC 526; Tori Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 399; and State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4230, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment and came to the conclusion that any information or statement made before the investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C requires corroboration by sufficient evidencce. In the absence of any corroboration thereof, it would merely be a case where some witnesses had stated a particular fact before the investigating officer and the same remained inadmissible in law, in view of the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C."

359. In above referred case, it was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"The document Ex.D­4 could not be rejected merely on the ground that it had been submitted after the lodging of the FIR. Not filing up the form under the mandatory requirement of Rule 19 of Rule 1981 may render the appellant liable for disciplinary proceedings under service jurisprudence, but that itself cannot be a ground for rejection of the said documents in toto without examination of the contents thereof. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the courts below have committed a grave error and the contents thereof should have been examined."

360.It was also held in the above noted case that the telephone bills and electricity bills, which have not been proved by primary evidence, were to to be reduced from the expenditure head.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 179 of 199 pages 180 CBI case . No. 03/11

361. In above referred case, it was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by quoting the case reported as State of Maharashtra V. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, AIR 1988 SC 88, that ­:

".... On a consideration of the matter it cannot be said that there is no disproportion or even a sizeable disproportion.... There are also other possible errors in the calculations in regard to point (C). The finding becomes inescapable that the assets were in excess of the known sources of income. But on the question whether the extent of the disproportion is such as to justify a conviction for criminal misconduct ..... a somewhat liberal view requires to be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitute "disproportion" for purpose of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act."

"In view of the above, at the most a sum of Rs. 2,71,613.69 remained unexplained. The appellant entered into in service in 1972 and there is no break up so far as assets and expenditure etc. are concerned in the charge­ sheet though the check period covered both the Acts i.e. PC Acts, 1947 or 1988. Even, if the said amount is spread over the period from 1987 to 1996, the alleged unexplained income remains merely a marginal / paltry sum which any government employee can save every year."

362. In case law reported as State of Maharashtra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, 1988 CRI. L. J. 183, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"However, the period must be such as to CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 180 of 199 pages 181 CBI case . No. 03/11 enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling over from the anterior period, if their existence is probabilised, would, of course, have to be given credit to on the income side and would got to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportion. It is for the prosecution to choose what according to it is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public servant in amassing wealth and characterise and isolate that period for special scrutiny."

363. In the above referred case, it was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"Possession of disproportionate of assets - Liberal view must be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportion". It was held that extent of disproportion between assets possessed and known sources of income of accused was not such as as to warrant his conviction. That the accused was rightly given benefit of doubt by the High Court."

364. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, that ­:

"Now coming to question, whether a man after serving for 22 years from 1946 to 1968, on the prosecution's own showing, is able to save CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 181 of 199 pages 182 CBI case . No. 03/11 Rs.1,38,822 ? Can it be said that the assets of Rs.1,41,495/­ as observed by us, are disproportionate assets as required under S. 5(1) (e) of the Act? In this connection, in our opinion, the difference is so negligible that it cannot be said to be disproportionate."

365. Thus, assets, spilling over from the anterior period, if probalized, would have to be given credit to on the income side.

366. In case law reported as State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Ors. 1991(I) RCR 383, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"It is mandatory that investigation of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act should be conducted by a designated officer. Investigation conducted by a non­designated officer without proper order is not valid. The Investigation was quashed."

367. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case while quoting the case reported as R. P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, 1960 (3) SCR 388 page 396, that ­:

"It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 182 of 199 pages 183 CBI case . No. 03/11 motive."

368.Investigation conducted by a non­designated officer, without proper order is not valid.

369.In case law reported as State Inspector of Police Visakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 VII AE (SC) 278, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"Provisions of the 1988 Act, no doubt, like the 1947 Act seek to protect public servant from a vexatious prosecution. Section 17 provides for investigation by a person authorized in this behalf. The said provision contains a non­ obstante clause. It makes investigation only by police officer of the ranks specified therein to be imperative in character. The second proviso appended to Section 17 of the Act provides that an offence referred to in clause

(e) of sub­Section (1) of Section 13, shall not be investigated without the order of a public officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Authorization by a Superintendent of Police in favour of an officer so as to enable him to carry out investigation in terms of section 17 of the Act is a statutory one. The power to grant such sanction has been conferred upon the authorities not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The proviso uses a negative expression. It also uses the expression "shall". Ex­facie it is mandatory in character. When the authority of a person to carry out investigation is questioned on the ground that he did not fulfill the statutory requirements laid down therefore in terms of the second proviso, the burden, undoubtedly, was on the prosecution to prove the same."

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 183 of 199 pages 184 CBI case . No. 03/11

370.In case law reported as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000 (2) Supreme (Cr.) 33, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"In the normal course the documents could not have been prepared in anticipation that the respondent would have to face such charges on a future date. The documents being the orders of assessment or return filed with the income­tax authorities on their face value supported the case of the respondent."

371.The documents like income tax returns, in normal course, could not have been prepared in anticipation that the accused would have to face such charges on a future date.

372.In case law reported as State of Rajasthan Vs. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC 210, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ­:

"Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down various steps to be followed in making a search. The recording of reasons is an important step in the matter of search and to ignore it is to ignore the material part of the provisions governing searches. If that can be ignored, it cannot be said that the search is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure: it would be a search made in contravention of the provisions of the Code."

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 184 of 199 pages 185 CBI case . No. 03/11

373.The search under section 165 Cr.PC is a process exceedingly arbitrary in character and, therefore, stringent statutory conditions are imposed on the exercise of the power under section 165 Cr. PC..

374.It is was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as State of Delhi Vs. Shri Ram Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 490, that statement of witnesses under section 164 Cr. PC, is not a substantive evidence but can only be used to corroborate or contradict that witness.

375.It is was held by Delhi High Court in the case reported as Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi, 139 (2007), Delhi Law Times 178, that fair and just investigation is hallmark of any investigation and it is not the duty of the investigation officer to strengthen the case of the prosecution by with holding evidence collected by him.

376. In the case law reported as State Inspector of Police vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, (2006) 7 SCC 172 at p. 178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ­:

"The least that a court of law would expect from the prosecution is that the investigation CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 185 of 199 pages 186 CBI case . No. 03/11 would be a fair one. It would not only be carried out from the stand of the prosecution, but also the defence, particularly, in view of the fact that the onus of proof may shift to the accused at a later stage. In the instant case, where the accused was charged for possession of disproportionate assets under section 13(1)

(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it was held that the manner in which the investigation was conducted, was codemnable and that the evidence of the IO doubts about his bona fide."

377. Based upon the true analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the above cited case law, it is apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, much less beyond reasonable doubt.

378.Even at the cost of repetition, it will be apt to reiterate that the case of the prosecution fails for the reasons listed below ­:

(i) This case was registered on 5.4.2005 for Disproportionate Assets for check period 1977­ 2004 without any preliminary enquiry. The documents were seized in other case on 2.2.2005 by the then Inspector Rekha Sangwan, on the basis of which present case was registered. The FIR, however, shows that it was based on 'source information'. In this case, Inspector Rekha Sangwan was neither cited as a witness nor as a CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 186 of 199 pages 187 CBI case . No. 03/11 complainant nor was examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. She, admittedly, was not the I.O. of this case. The seizure in this case was in contravention of section 165 Cr. PC by Inspector Rekha Sangwan. The record made under Section 165 (1) Cr. PC is undated & is made by MCK Mukund. There is no date mentioned under the signatures of either MCK Mukund or Rekha Sangwan.

In the photostat copy of list of seized items appearing on record, there is an overwritten signatures of Rekha dated 2.2.2005, which is unexplained by the prosecution. She also acted in contravention to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as she was not authorised to investigate the case. Thus, whatever she did prior to the investigation, relied upon, in this case of disproportionate assets, is not as per law.

(ii) Cash of Rs.12.85 lakh was recovered during search by Rekha Sangwan, which was returned to the accused persons, admittedly, for the reasons that even including this cash amount, no DA case was made out for the check period chosen in the FIR, which was recorded after two months of the alleged seizure made in this case, in contravention of Section 165 Cr. PC.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 187 of 199 pages 188 CBI case . No. 03/11

(iii) M­138 was shown to have been acquired for Rs. 21,25,248 in the initial data annexed with the FIR (on what basis is not known or shown). Subsequently the valuation was done in the vicinity of this amount, only by the valuer as if he had been given this feedback or was prejudiced. This is further fortified by the facts that valuer was given feedback by CBI that the property value was more than Rs. 10 lakhs (on what basis is not known when the value in the FIR was already recorded as Rs.21,25,248).

(iv) PW65 (IO) admits having sent letter, Mark PW 63/DX­1 to the valuer with enclosures but despite this letter no valuation was done again to ascertain the actual & true valuation.

(v) PW65 deposed that "since I am not the IO of the RC 1A/2005, therefore, I cannot say whether these documents were produced or deposited before the court during the intervening period between registration of RC No. 1A/2005 & RC2A/2005." (RC2A/2005) is the present case. Prosecution has failed to prove that the documents after seizure were kept in the Malkhana or produced before the court, as per law.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 188 of 199 pages 189 CBI case . No. 03/11

(vi) PW 65 deposed that "I have seen Ex. PW 65/A­2 ( the authorization) and I state that some pen ink marks are available at Pt. X­1, X­2 & X­3 on the same. I cannot say who had done it." The tempering on Ex. PW 65/A­2, therefore, can not be ruled out.

(vii) PW65 (I.O.) admitted that he did not send the copy of authorisation to the Court.

(viii) PW65(I.O.) gave evasive reply regarding sending of original or copy of the seizure memo prepared by him to the court.

(ix) In the charge sheet, there is no mention of the fact that certain documents were seized from the house of I. S. Bansal, brother of the accused though, some documents were seized, admittedly, from there.

(x) PW 65 did not remember nor could point out the name of the Judge before whom documents were produced or permission was taken (despite that such thing requires compulsory documentation) perhaps due to the reason that it was not done.

(xi) PW 65 admitted seizure of 'Will' of Tule Ram (father CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 189 of 199 pages 190 CBI case . No. 03/11 of A1) from the house of I. S. Bansal and he examined him and enquired about the Will (D­320) also. However, prosecution did not examine I. S. Bansal in the court for the reasons, that truth will come and prosecution's case will be shattered.

(xii) PW 65 admitted that the documents appended to applications dated 10.2.2005 & 12.4.2005 (moved by the IO) do not bear stamp /endorsement of the Malkhana or even of the Supt. of Police directing IO to scrutinize the documents. It shows that the same were not deposited in the Malkhana.

(xiii) PW 65(IO) admitted having sent documents from the file, Ex. PW65/DZ­3 (containing Kar Nirdharan Sansodhan Pritivedan) to the Valuation Office for valuation of the property at B 279, Okhla Industrial Area but the same found no mention in the report of the valuer PW 58.

(xiv) Ex.PW50/C­3(D­125) proved by the prosecution shows construction of this property from 1990 to 1999 (i.e. beyond the check period) which has not been contradicted by any evidence by the State.

(xv). Ex. PW48/A1 shows assessed value as Rs.24,82,000 CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 190 of 199 pages 191 CBI case . No. 03/11 for the construction from September, 1988 to March, 1993 without segregating as to which construction pertain to the period September, 1988 to March, 1989 (i.e. the check period). The defence has alleged that the plan itself was sanctioned in September, 1988 & no commencement of construction could take place before 1990 which is corroborated by Ex. PW50/C. The same appears to be reasonable & plausible. The assessment/valuation done by PW 48, therefore cannot be accepted.

(xvi). Ex.PW 48/A2 (a printed format) in Col. 3.1 mentions seven (7) documents supplied to PW48, which are - (1) Sale Deed (2) MCD Bldg. Deptt. Certificate dated 4.5.1990 (3) Form C - submitted to MCD, (4) Damage Notice - approval from MCD (5) Server Connection - MCD permission letter dated 27.3.91 (6) Letter of approval from MCD (7) Valuation Report of private valuer dated 20.12.1993, but none of them was enclosed with the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2. There is nothing to show that any of these documents was considered /gone into or was contradicted by PW 48. His report, Ex.PW 48/A­2 is, therefore, vague, unjustified and whimsical.

(xvii). In Col. 2.1 of Ex. PW48/A­2 against the name of the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 191 of 199 pages 192 CBI case . No. 03/11 owner 'not known to us' has been recorded. This indicates that owner was not known to PW 48 actually, what to talk of giving notice to him and take feedback from him for corroboration/contradiction of their valuation report. (xviii).Period of construction was taken by PW 48 as September, 1988 to March, 1999 at the instance of CBI without ascertaining the year­wise construction & segregating it for the six months of the check period as valuation was done in 2007. Resultantly, there is no specific valuation pertaining to the cheque period on record.

(xix). Col.4.3 of the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2, shows that 'no declaration of owner was sought or was available with PW 48' . He proceeded on the premises that CBI had informed it to be more than Rs.10 lakhs without any basis. He failed to ask for the basis and seems to have proceeded on whimsical & pre­guided basis.

(xx). As many as six carbon copies have been annexed in the report, Ex. PW 48/A­2 without affording any reason as to where the original of the same were? It, therefore creates serious doubt on the authenticity of this report. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 192 of 199 pages 193 CBI case . No. 03/11 (xxi) Each and every page of Ex. PW 48/A­2, does not bear the signatures/authentication of PW 48. (xxii). In cross­examination, this witness has given evasive answers so as to show that he has concealed more than reveal anything.

(xxiii). Admittedly, PW48 has not taken the 'best method' to valuate the assignment given to him.

(xxiv). PW 48 did not consider & contradict the private valuation report dated 20.12.1993 given to him and as is mentioned in col. 3.1 of Ex. PW 48/A­1, which letter is written and signed by him.

(xxv). The IO wrote letter, Ex. PW 58/DX admittedly to this witness to make correct valuation as the report given was not for the correct period. The I.O., therefore, himself had rejected the valuation report when he had sought revaluation. Revaluation was not done by PW 58. Strangely, IO(PW65) without obtaining fresh correct report, filed report, Ex. PW 58/A & Ex. PW 58/B with the charge sheet. The prosecution has, thus, itself failed to prove its case qua these irrelevant and incorrect reports. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 193 of 199 pages 194 CBI case . No. 03/11 (xxvi). The entire report, Ex. PW 58/B, is handwritten and is not on prescribed printed format (as the report Ex.PW48/A1 & Ex. PW48/A2, even though PW48 & PW 58 were from the same organisation bound to follow the same guidelines).

(xxvii). Before proceedings to ascertain valuation PW 58 admittedly had no documents or declared value by the owner.

(xxviii). In the report construction period­wise is not mentioned so as to show which part of the construction / valuation pertain to the check period.

(xxix). No notice to the owner was given for any feedback or for contradiction of her claim, by PW58. (xxx). Letter, Ex. PW58/DX, was not acted upon by PW58. (xxxi) The prosecution has not taken into account the actual income, expenditure and value of assets as is born out of the material, placed on record by the prosecution itself in this case. The Investigating Officer has not carefully taken and analyzed the contents of the file, Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. X­1. Had he correctly reflected and computed the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 194 of 199 pages 195 CBI case . No. 03/11 figures from these two files, no case of D.A. would have been made out.

(xxxii) The prosecution has not adduced any evidence that the money was provided by accused (A­1) to accused (A­2) and other family members to acquire assets. In the absence of cogent evidence, the same can not be clubbed. (xxxiii) The prosecution has failed to prove that Shri Tule Ram, the father of the accused (A­1), was not a man of means as the witnesses produced by them and the documents made available by the prosecution, fully contradict this.

(xxxiv) The prosecution has defied the provisions contained in section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 165 Cr. PC, as discussed herein above. (xxxv) The I.O. completely ignored the report of the Vigilance Department dated 5.1.1990 in the file, Ex. X­1, which was after the check period and gave clean chit to accused (A­1). Had it been taken into account, no case of DA for the check period in question could be made out against the accused persons.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 195 of 199 pages 196 CBI case . No. 03/11 (xxxvi) The IO seized the Will, Ex. PW 65/DZ, but did not take the same into consideration while analyzing the present case. Shri I. S. Bansal, the elder brother of accused(A­1) was examined by the IO but was not examined in the court for the fear that he may demolish the case of the prosecution. The I. O. was required to be fair in his investigation as well as to the court to arrive at the truth.

(xxxvii) The I.O. while computing the income of the accused(A­1) for the check period itself ignored the income of accused(A­1) i.e. income from salary, income by mortgage, agricultural income, pre­check period income from salary, rental income and half share of selling price of barsati floor. Similarly, he had not taken the income of other family members, which was clearly available in the documents relied upon by the prosecution and placed on record.

(xxxviii) The I.O. while computing the immovable assets also did not compute the correct figure, as is evident from the documents of the prosecution itself. (xxxix) The Investigating Agency completely flouted the CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 196 of 199 pages 197 CBI case . No. 03/11 directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in a number of judgments mentioned in the case law reported as Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363 as under :

"In case of P. Sirajuddin etc. Vs. The State of Madras etc.,AIR 1971 SC 520; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, Supreme Court has categorically held that before a public servant is charged with an act of dishonesty which amounts to serious mis­demeanour and an FIR is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. Such a course has not been adopted by the prosecution though the law declared by this Court is binding on everyone in view of the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution, which would by all means override the statutory provisions of the Cr. PC and such an irregularity is not curable nor does it fall within the ambit of Section 465 Cr. PC."

(xxxx). The true and correct computation of Income of accused (A­1), accused (A­2) & other family members of accused(A­1) and Assets, duly informed by him to his department, much prior to the registration of the case, which are reflected in Ex. PW 4/A, were completely ignored CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 197 of 199 pages 198 CBI case . No. 03/11 by the I.O.

(xxxxi). When no case of D. A. was made out for the check period registered in the FIR, it appears that it was antidated and vague and whimsical baseless pleas were adopted.

(xxxxii) PW1 has contradicted the version of the prosecution. PWs 5, 6, 7, 11, 17, 26, 35 & 45 have turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. PWs 27, 28, 29 & 30 were dropped. PWs 2, 19, 20 and PW 37 were formal in nature. The other witnesses could not prove the case of the prosecution.

379.From the position obtaining on record and as discussed above, it is abundantly clear that prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case as against both the accused persons, much less beyond reasonable doubt.

380.Under the circumstance, I am left with no other alternative or option but to acquit the accused persons.

381.Both the accused persons, namely, Ram Bhaj Bansal(A­1) & Kaushalya Bansal(A­2) are, hereby, acquitted. CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 198 of 199 pages 199 CBI case . No. 03/11

382.Their bail bonds are discharged.

383.File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik ) th on 26 October, 2013 Special Judge, PC Act CBI Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal & Anr. 199 of 199 pages