Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . R.P.S. Panwar & Ors. on 21 December, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAMRITA AGGARWAL : SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) CBI21 : ROUSE AVENUE COURT : NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. R.P.S. Panwar & Ors.
CBI No. 11/2019
RC No. 1(A)/2003/CBI/ACUVII/N.D.
CNR No. DLCT110000292019
IN THE MATTER OF :
CBI
............................... Prosecution
VERSUS
R.P.S. Panwar,
S/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal,
R/o 86A, Radhey Shyam Park,
Gali No. 2, Parwana Road, Delhi.
Laxmi Devi Panwar,
W/o Sh. R.P.S. Panwar,
R/o 86A, Radhey Shyam Park,
Gali No. 2, Parwana Road, Delhi.
Mukesh Kumar Panwar,
S/o Sh. R.P.S. Panwar,
R/o 86A, Radhey Shyam Park,
Gali No. 2, Parwana Road, Delhi.
Dinesh Kumar Panwar,
S/o Sh. R.P.S. Panwar,
R/o 86A, Radhey Shyam Park,
Gali No. 2, Parwana Road, Delhi.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
2
Gyan Prakash Agarwal @ G.P. Agarwal,
S/o Late Omkarmal Agarwal,
Chartered Accountant,
R/o D59, Anand Vihar, Delhi92.
Office at : D251/10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92.
.......................... Accused.
CBI No. : 11/2019
CNR No. : DLCT110000292019
Date of institution : 07.07.2006
Date of transfer of case to this court: 01.03.2018
Date of conclusion of arguments : 03.12.2022
Date of judgment : 21.12.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Corruption is a vice of insatiable avarice for self - aggrandizement by the unscrupulous, taking unfair advantage of their power and authority and those in public office also, in breach of the institutional norms. A growing impression in contemporary existence seems to acknowledge, the all pervading presence of corruption in almost every walk of life as if to rest reconcile to the octopid stranglehold of this malaise with helpless awe. Chronic corruption has severely hampered India's ardent pursuit of economic dynamism. It encourages defiance of the rule of law and the propensities for easy materialistic harvests, whereby the society's soul stands defiled and devalued. In this scenario one begins to wander whether we are CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 3 the same who rode to freedom with truth and sacrifice as our moto. By adopting a holistic approach in the process of anti corruption reform, a country can build its capacity to curtail corruption to a large extent. But none of this can be tackled without enlightened and determined masses and without a motivated and well lead public and private sector.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The present FIR bearing RC No. 1(A)/2003/CBI/ACUVIIND was registered on 12.09.2003 on the basis of a source information against the then public servant R.P.S. Panwar, General Manager, BSNL, Muzaffarnagar, U.P, since retired (A1) ; Laxmi Devi, Wife of R.P.S. Panwar (A2) ; Mukesh Kumar Panwar and Dinesh Kumar Panwar, both sons of R.P.S. Panwar (A3 & A4 respectively) ; Gyan Prakash Agarwal @ G.P. Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant (A5) U/s 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as P.C. Act) and Section 109 Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC). It is alleged that A1 R.P.S. Panwar while functioning as General Manager, BSNL, Muradabad and General Manager, BSNL, Muzaffarnagar acquired assets, both movable and immovable, which are highly disproportionate to his estimated "known source of income". The other accused persons abeted A1 in his endeavor to amass wealth, disproportionate to his total income.
3. It is the case of the Investigating Officer (IO) that R.P.S. Panwar CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 4 joined ES Home Trainees as TTC Jabalpur and thereafter worked in various capacities in BSNL. During the relevant time period i.e from 07.04.1999 to 16.06.2003 he was functioning as GMTD Muradabad and on 14.07.2003 he was transferred to the post of GMTD Muzaffarnagar, U.P from where he subsequently retired.
4. R.P.S. Panwar married Laxmi Devi on 14.02.1975 and had three sons namely Arun Kumar Panwar, Mukesh Kumar Panwar (A3) and Dinesh Kumar Panwar (A4). Laxmi Devi joined as PGT Teacher in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and was subsequently promoted as Vice Principal. At the time of joining of R.P.S. Panwar as GMTD, Muradabad all his sons were studying in various colleges.
5. The prosecution has culled out the check period w.e.f 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 since most of the assets were acquired by A1 in his own name and in the name of his family members during this period. It was this period only wherein heavy transactions took place in the bank account of A1 and his family members including significant amount of cash deposits which could not be sufficiently explained during investigation.
6. Investigation revealed that A1 R.P.S. Panwar was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 1,92,30,396/ as on 16.09.2003. He incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 17,32,466/ during the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 5 check period in addition to the acquisition of disproportionate assets while the gross income during the check period of his family including himself was Rs. 33,70,881/. Investigation further revealed that while posted as GMTD, Muradabad, R.P.S. Panwar issued work orders worth crores of rupees to various private firms which were much beyond his powers and for which departmental proceedings were also initiated against him.
7. It is alleged that Gyan Prakash Agarwal, being a Chartered Accountant, also actively and intentionally aided R.P.S. Panwar by way of issuing two cheques in the name of his son Mukesh Kumar Panwar amounting to Rs. 11 lakhs in lieu of cash amount of Rs. 11 lakhs received from R.P.S. Panwar.
8. Sanction for prosecution of R.P.S. Panwar was not required as he had already retired from service. On the basis of the investigation charge sheet was filed by CBI on 30.06.2006 upon which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 07.07.2006.
9. After supply of documents to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard and on 13.04.2018 charge U/s 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of P.C. Act, 1988 was framed against accused no. 1 R.P.S. Panwar and charge U/s 109 IPC read with 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act punishable U/s 13 (2) of P.C. Act was framed against Dinesh Kumar CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 6 Panwar. On 26.04.2018 charges were framed against accused Laxmi Devi Panwar U/s 109 IPC read with 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act punishable U/s 13 (2) of P.C. Act. Charge against accused Mukesh Kumar Panwar was framed on 28.04.2018 under the same sections and on 01.05.2018 charge was framed against Gyan Prakash Agarwal U/s 109 IPC read with 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act punishable U/s 13 (2) of P.C. Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to their charged offences and the trial proceeded. Accused persons admitted certain documents produced by the prosecution in support of its case at the stage of admission denial of documents.
10. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.
10.1 The prosecution examined 86 witnesses in support of its case. The witnesses examined by the prosecution to substantiate their case can be broadly classified into five categories. The first category of witness includes witnesses examined by the prosecution from the banks wherein the accused persons had their bank accounts. This category consists of the following witnesses :
PW10 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, PW13 Sh. Rajesh Mehra, PW14 Sh. Pramod Sharma, PW25 Sh. Vinay Sagar Gupta, PW27 Sh. Dal Chand, PW32 Sh. Vivek Saxena, CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 7 PW42 Sh. Ayodhya Prasad.
10.2 Second category of witness are the witnesses to prove the income of the accused persons during the check period. This category includes the following witnesses :
PW5 Sh. Hari Shankar Saxena, PW6 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, PW7 Sh. V. Radhakrishnan, PW8 Sh. Mukesh Chandra, PW19 Ms. Kanta Khurana, PW20 Sh. A.K. Sharma, PW22 Sh. Anil Kumar Sachdeva, PW23 Sh. Kanwar Sain Jain, PW26 Sh. Pranay Gupta, PW29 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW30 Sh. Mohinder Kumar, PW31 Sh. Satya Pal, PW51 Ms. Swaran, PW58 Sh. Ram Ratan Gupta, PW58 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, PW62 Sh. Kamta Prasad Singh.
10.3 Third category of witness includes witnesses examined by the
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
8
prosecution to prove the expenditure incurred by the accused persons during the check period including the expenditure incurred for creation of assets in the name of the accused persons. This category of witnesses covers :
PW1 Sh. Shyam Lal Goyal, PW2 Sh. Paramjit Singh, PW3 Sh. Ram Chandra Khatri, PW9 Sh. Sita Ram Bhuwalka, PW11 Sh. Siddhnath Yadav, PW12 Smt. Preeti Kumra, PW15 Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal, PW16 Sh. Mohit Singh, PW17 Sh. Dayanand Garg, PW18 Sh. Rajiv Gupta, PW21 Sh. Ahsan Ali Khan, PW28 Sh. Aakash Deep Chakravarti, PW33 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh, PW37 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, PW38 Sh. Karambir Singh, PW39 Sh. Gautam Mishra, PW41 Sh. Taukeer Ahmed, PW45 Sh. Rajesh Sharma, PW47 Sh. S.K. Mishra, PW48 Sh. S.C. Gupta, CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 9 PW49 Sh. Subhash Chand, PW50 Sh. Mangal Sen, PW52 Sh. Sudheer Kumar Gahlot, PW53 Sh. Surender Kumar Rekhi, PW54 Sh. Tulsi Ram, PW55 Sh. Shiv Kumar Bansal, PW56 Sh. Padam Chauhan, PW57 Sh. Mahavir Singh, PW61 Ms. Suman Anand, PW63 Sh. Sandeep Gupta, PW64 Sh. Asim Zafar, PW65 Sh. Gopal Krishna Gupta, PW66 Sh. Vijender Kumar, PW67 Sh. Bijoy Kant, PW68 Sh. Purushottam Kumar, PW69 Sh. Ajab Singh Chauhan, PW71 Dr. Manas Chauhan, PW72 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, PW73 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, PW74 Sh. R.K. Arora, PW81 Sh. Suresh Mohan Gupta, PW82 Sh. Saulat Husain Khan, PW85 Sh. Suryakant Daji Padyar.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
10
10.4 The fourth category of witness are the witnesses examined by
the prosecution from the office of accused persons. This category
encompasses :
PW40 Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora,
PW43 Sh. Suresh Chand Ojha,
PW79 Ms. Saroj Bala Sain,
PW83 Dr. M.C. Mathur.
10.5 The fifth category of witness are the official witnesses who
joined during investigation including the Investigating Officer himself. This category of witnesses comprise of :
PW4 Sh. Hemant Kumar, PW24 Sh. Phool Chand Jain, PW34 Sh. Lajpat Rai Sharma, PW35 Sh. Amar Nath Prasad, PW36 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, PW44 Sh. Ajit Singh Dhankar, PW46 Sh. Virender Kumar, PW59 Sh. Satwant Singh Grover, PW60 Sh. Vishnu P. Katkar, PW70 Sh. Tulsi Das Bajaj, PW75 Sh. Hari Kishan, PW76 Sh. Prem Prakash Bajaj, CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 11 PW77 Sh. Girdhari Lal, PW78 Sh. Pankaj Balchandani, PW80 Sh. D.R. Handa, PW84 Sh. R.K. Saini.
10.6 Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention in brief the role and deposition of the prosecution witnesses category wise as referred herein above. The detailed deposition of the witnesses is not being adverted to as the same shall be referred herein after while dealing with necessary ingredients of the offence with which accused have been charged vizaviz the rival contentions advanced by Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons.
10.7 Bank Witnesses 10.7 (1) PW10 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta who was posted in Khureji Khas Branch of SBI produced statement of account bearing no. 01190/015039 in the name of A2 Laxmi Devi for the period 08.05.2003 to 30.06.2003 as Ex.PW 10/A (colly.).
10.7 (2) PW13 Sh. Rajesh Mehra who was posted as Manager in Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Moradabad produced the cash slips by which cash was deposited in their branch in the account of Moradabad Development Authority as Ex.PW13/A (colly.) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 12 10.7 (3) PW14 Sh. Pramod Sharma, posted as Assistant Branch Manager in Vijaya Bank, Ghaziabad, U.P produced the statement of account bearing no.
50072 in the joint name of Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Shipra Estate for the period 01.01.2001 to 17.12.2003 as Ex.PW14/B. 10.7 (4) PW25 Sh. Vinay Sagar Gupta who was posted at Sector20, Noida Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce deposed that A4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar did not receive the payment with respect to cheque bearing no. 338098 of Rs. 30,000/ in his account till 13.02.2004. He exhibited the statement of account bearing no. 92304 as Ex.PW25/C. 10.7 (5) PW27 Sh. Dal Chand, posted as Postal Assistant at Sansad Marg, Head Post Office, New Delhi produced the account opening form of account no. 17716167 alongwith other documents i.e ledger copy and account statement in the name of R.P.S. Panwar for the period 01.01.1997 to 17.09.2005 and exhibited them as Ex.PW27/A (colly.).
10.7 (6) PW32 Sh. Vivek Saxena who was posted as Officer in Canara Bank, Amroha Gate, Moradabad Branch produced various challans issued in the name of A4, A5 and Arun Kumar Panwar for depositing the booking amount for MIG Flat in Mansarovar Scheme, Moradabad and exhibited them as Ex.PW32/A to Ex.PW32/D. 10.7(7) PW42 Sh. Ayodhya Prasad working as Deputy Manager, SBI, CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 13 Chandralok Building, Janpath produced statement of account no. 6606 of A1 from the period 08.12.1995 to 25.07.2003 exhibited as Ex.PW42/A. This was a salary account of A1 R.P.S. Panwar.
10.8 Income Witnesses 10.8 (1) PW5 Sh. Hari Shankar Saxena who was working as Cashier in GMT, Moradabad during the relevant time produced pay bill sheets for different periods with respect to A1 as Ex.PW5/B (colly.).
10.8(2) PW6 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Superintendent, Government Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya, Laxmi Nagar produced the pay bill register qua A2 Laxmi Devi Panwar and stated that no income tax was deducted from her net salary even after revision of her salary.
10.8(3) PW7 Sh. V. Radhakrishnan, Deputy Registrar (Accounts), IIT Haus Khas exhibited documents pertaining to Teaching Assistantship paid to Arun Kumar Panwar, son of A1, from 01.10.1997 to 01.05.1999 as Ex.PW7/B. 10.8(4) PW8 Sh. Mukesh Chandra posted as Lab Assistant in R.S.K.V, Laxmi Nagar brought original pay record of A2 Laxmi Devi for the period 1983 to 1989 as Ex.PW8/B (colly.).
10.8(5) PW19 Ms. Kanta Khurana, posted as PGT Teacher in GGSSS, CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 14 Gandhi Nagar, No. 2 proved statement of income from pay and other allowances of Laxmi Devi for the period 1990 to 1995 as Ex.PW19/A (colly.).
10.8(6) PW20 Sh. A.K. Sharma working as AO (Cash) in GMTD, Patel Nagar, Muzaffarnagar brought the original pay bill register of GMTD, Muzaffarnagar qua A1 from June 2003 to September 2003 as Ex.PW20/B (colly.) and stated that A1 was paid Rs. 62,885/ during the above said period as salary and allowances.
10.8(7) PW22 Sh. Anil Kumar Sachdeva working as Head Corporate Affairs in Reliance Infocom Ltd. brought the personal folder of Mukesh Kumar Panwar who was working in Reliance Infocom as Ex.PW22/A. 10.8(8) PW23 Sh. Kanwar Sain Jain who was posted as Superintendent in Rajkiya Pratibha School, Gandhi Nagar produced the record of the net salary drawn by Laxmi Devi Panwar from 1988 till 2002 which was also admitted by A2 as Ex.P69 (colly.).
10.8(9) PW26 Sh. Pranay Gupta who was running a company in the name of M/s P.R. Infotech Pvt. Ltd stated that A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar worked with their company for a short span of time and proved the ledger account pertaining to A3 as Ex.PW26/B. CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 15 10.8(10) PW29 Sh. Ajay Kumar working as Partner in M/s Globe Metal Industries, Kothiwal Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad deposed that he had issued a letter dated 08.03.2001 Ex.PW29/A by which he had furnished information regarding cheque Ex.PW29/B bearing no. 838692 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs. 1 lakh drawn on Bank of Baroda, Moradabad issued by Satya Pal in the name of Laxmi Devi at the instance of A1. This witness clearly stated that this cheque was paid from his personal account to A2 though this witness had never met or known A2 nor had the said cheque been issued on any ceremonial function of accused persons.
10.8(11) PW30 Sh. Mohinder Kumar working as Partner in M/s Globe Metal Industries, Kothiwal Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad deposed that he had issued a letter dated 10.05.2001 Ex.P50 by which he had issued a gift cheque Ex.P48 bearing no. 150862 amounting to Rs. 1 lakh drawn on Bank of Baroda, Moradabad in the name of Laxmi Devi bearing signatures of Satya Pal at the behest of A1. This witness clearly stated that this cheque was paid from his personal account to A2 though this witness had never met or known A2 nor had the said cheque been issued on any ceremonial function of accused persons.
10.8(12) PW31 Sh. Satyapal, working as Managing Director in M/s Globe Metal Industries, Kothiwal Nagar, Delhi Road, Moradabad deposed that he had issued a gift cheque Ex.PW31/B bearing no. 150861 amounting to Rs. 1 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 16 lakh drawn on Bank of Baroda, Moradabad in the name of Mukesh Kumar at the behest of A1. This witness clearly stated that this cheque was paid from his personal account to A2 though this witness had never met or known A2 nor had the said cheque been issued on any ceremonial function of accused persons.
10.8(13) PW51 Ms. Swaran, working in Directorate of Education, New Delhi as TGT produced certified copy of pay bill register in the name of A2 Ex.PW51/A (colly.).
10.8(14) PW58 Sh. Ram Rattan Gupta, posted as Accounts Officer, GMTD, BSNL, Moradabad produced Form16 of A1 for the assessment year 2002 2003 and 20032004. He also produced the certified copy of pay bill register qua A1 from April 1999 to May 2003 Ex.PW58/B. 10.8(15) PW58 Sh. Ramesh Kumar also produced the certified copy of salary drawn by A1 for the period April 1999 to May 2003.
10.8(16) PW62 Sh. Kamta Prasad Singh, working as Assistant Registrar in IIT, Delhi, deposed regarding assistanceship provided to Arun Kumar Panwar vide letter Ex.PW62/C, Ex.PW62/F, Ex.PW62/G, Ex.PW62/H. CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 17 10.9 Expenditure / Asset Creation Witnesses 10.9 (1) PW1 Sh. Shyam Lal Goyal, running electric shop in the name of M/s Venus Electricals, exhibited cash memo by which two instant geysers for Rs. 2500/ each and two ceiling fans for Rs. 1180/ each were sold to the customer as Ex.PW1/B. 10.9 (2) PW2 Sh. Paramjeet Singh, running the business of water purifier, produced bill no. 501 of Hitech India by which one Aqua Care Classic was sold to A3 for Rs. 5,000/ as Ex.PW2/B. 10.9 (3) PW3 Sh. Ram Chandra Khattri, working in Lease Administration of DDA, Vikas Sadan deposed that Plot no. 30, Block No. D, Sector8, Rohini was leased out to A1 and A2 and was alloted to them for an amount of Rs. 18,600/.
10.9 (4) PW9 Sh. Sita Ram Bhuwalka, who was dealing in import and export of timber, heavy melting scrap etc in M/s Sivinex Exim Pvt. Ltd stated that property no. SKII/164, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad was sold by his wife Ms. Indu Bala Kapoor to Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd through its Director Mukesh Kumar Panwar for Rs. 7 lakhs. The stamp duty of Rs. 1,36,100/ was also paid by A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar.
10.9(5) PW11 Sh. Siddhnath Yadav, posted as Clerk in Ghaziabad
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
18
Development Authority (GDA), produced file pertaining to Plot No. SKII/164 Indirapuram, GDA Ex.PW11/A. He also deposed in sync with PW9 and stated that Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd. through Mukesh Panwar purchased the above said property for Rs. 7 lakhs and an amount of Rs. 13,650/ was paid for registering the property in the name of M/s Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
10.9 (6) PW12 Smt. Preeti Kumra, posted as Administrative Officer in Mori Gate Branch of LIC, stated that premium amount of Rs.9196/ was paid by accused No.1 for the period 17.02.1999 to 17.02.2005 amounting to Rs.55,176/ and produced premium certificate Ex.PW12/A (colly).
10.9 (7) PW15 Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal, Proprietor of M/s. Amar Autos, stated that vide invoice Ex.PW15/A, a bullet motorcycle bearing no. DL7SK8474 was sold to accused No.4 for Rs.58,200/ which was paid by accused No.4 in cash, the receipt of which is Ex.PW15/B. 10.9(8) PW16 Sh. Mohit Singh, Managing Director of M/s Shipra Estate Ltd., produced letter dated 26.12.2000 Ex.PW16/K by which GDA was requested to arrange Registry of Flat No.54D, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad in favour of A3. This witness also produced allotment letter in respect of Flat No. 616B, Royal Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad in the name of A2, Mark PW16/X4 and allotment letter in respect of shop RTF08, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad in the name of Mukesh CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 19 Panwar dated 13.06.2001 Mark PW16/X7.
10.9 (9) PW17 Sh. Dayanand Garg, running a firm in the name of M/s. Jai Durge Furniture Udyog, produced cash memo Ex.PW17/A by which furniture mentioned therein was sold to A2 for Rs.36072/.
10.9 (10) PW18 Sh. Rajeev Gupta, running a firm M/s Floor & Furnishing, produced cash memo Ex.PW18/B to Ex.PW18/D by which mattress amounting to Rs.850/, fabric amounting to Rs.23505/ and pillow/bedsheet amounting to Rs.31450/ were sold to the accused persons.
10.9 (11) PW 21 Sh. Ahsan Ali Khan, working as Office Assistant in Medical College Katihar, Bihar deposed that transportation fee of Rs.1200/ and Rs.4500/ was paid by Dinesh Kumar Panwar in 2001 and 16.07.2003 vide receipts Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B respectively.
10.9 (12) PW28 Sh. Akash Deep Chakravarti, posted as Asstt. Post Master, General PLI, deposed that premium amounting to Rs.38412/ was paid by accused No.2 till July, 2004 by Ex.PW28/A. 10.9 (13) PW33 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh, working as Secretary, Moradabad Development Authority stated that Arun Kumar Panwar, Mukesh Kumar Panwar and Dinesh Kumar Panwar had applied for MIG Flats in CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 20 Mansarovar Colony on 26.04.2002 and deposited various amounts by way of bank drafts for the said allotment. However, vide Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW33/B and Ex.PW33/C, they applied for cancellation of said allotment which was approved and the amount deposited by them was refunded after deduction of 20% of registration money i.e. Rs.3,36,000/.
10.9 (14) PW37 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, posted as LDC in GDA, deposed that in lease deed Ex.PW37/B pertaining to Flat No.S F14, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, photograph of accused no. 3 is affixed whereas the said property is leased out in the name of Sh. Purushottam Kumar.
10.9(15) PW38 Sh. Karambir Singh, posted as Asstt. Administrative Officer, Shahdara, deposed that accused no. 2 deposited premium amount of Rs.54,440/ with respect to policy No.112767046 in her name Ex.PW38/A. 10.9(16) PW39 Sh. Gautam Mishra stated that he had sold car No. DL4CF 0988 to accused no. 3, Mukesh Kumar Panwar on 30.10.2001 vide Ex.PW 39/D. He also stated that when he joined as Sales Manager in M/s Shivalik Ganga Estate Pvt. Ltd., accused no. 2 & 3 deposited various amounts for booking property at M/s Shivalik Ganga Estate Ltd.
10.9(17) PW41 Sh. Tauqir Ahmed, working as Site Supervisor in M/s Shivalik Ganga Estate Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar stated that by way of registered sale CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 21 deed a property was sold to accused no. 2 for Rs.3,73,000/ by M/s Shivalik Ganga Estate Pvt. Ltd. bearing plot no. SG3/371 vide letter Ex.PW41/A. 10.9(18) PW45 Sh. Rajesh Sharma, working as Accountant in M/s Amar Auto, produced receipt by which one bullet bike bearing No. DL7SK8474 was sold to accused no. 4 for Rs.58,200/.
10.9(19) PW47 Sh. S.K. Mishra handed over STA file of vehicle No. DL 4CF3588 Ex.PW47/B by which the above said vehicle was transferred in the name of accused no. 4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar on 11.07.2003. This witness also produced file Ex.PW47/D by which vehicle No. DL4CF0988 was transferred in the name of accused no. 3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar on 30.10.2001.
10.9(20) PW48 Sh. S.C. Gupta proved the water charges from 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 as Ex.PW48/B for water connection No.48133 in the name of accused no. 2 worth Rs.1679/.
10.9(21) PW49 Sh. Subhash Chand stated that he had sold a land measuring 0.338 hectare to Ram Aadhar on 20.09.2002 vide sale deed Ex.PW49/A for which the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/ was paid by accused no. 3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar in cash.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 22 10.9(22) PW50 Sh. Mangal Sen sold land at Village Salempur, Rurki to Rajiv Kumar vide sale deed Ex.PW50/A. 10.9(23) PW52 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Gahlot stated that vide GPA Ex.PW52/A, he had sold shop no. SF25, Second Floor, Indirapuram Ghaziabad to accused no. 3 for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and had executed a Will Ex.PW52/B in his name alongwith agreement to sell Ex.PW52/E. 10.9(24) PW53 Sh. Surender Kumar Rekhi deposed that certain property by M/s Shipra Estate Ltd. was sold to the accused persons vide documents which have already been exhibited.
10.9(25) PW54 Sh. Tulsi Ram, working as Chief Accountant in MTNL, Laxmi Nagar produced statement of bill Ex.PW54/A for telephone No.22246070 (old) / 22546070 registered in the name of accused no.1 for which an amount of Rs.1,16,645/ was paid by accused no.1.
10.9(26) PW55 Sh. Shiv Kumar Bansal produced invoice Ex.PW55/A by which one Samsung Make AC was sold to accused no. 2 for Rs.20,000/ which was paid in cash by A2.
10.9(27) PW56 Sh. Padam Chauhan calculated the estimate of 22 Carrat Gold Ring 4.690 gm. to be Rs.2389/ vide receipt Ex.PW56/A. CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 23 10.9(28) PW57 Sh. Mahavir Singh produced the LPG Cylinder subscription of accused no.1 alongwith the rate during the check period vide document Ex.PW57/B. 10.9(29) PW61 Sh. Suman Anand exhibited the Sale Deed Ex.PW61/A by which she had sold her property to accused no.3.
10.9(30) PW63 Sh. Sandeep Gupta produced copy of electricity bill of shop No. SF23 Shipra Suncity, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Ex.PW63/B for which an amount of Rs.4630/ was paid by Anoop Kumar Vij.
10.9(31) PW64 Sh. Asim Zafar produced record of the tuition fee paid by accused Dinesh Kumar Panwar for his MBBS Course at Katihar Medical College from 1999 till 2003 alongwith the amount paid for mess by way of admitted document Ex.P31 to Ex.P37 and Ex.P27.
10.9(32) PW65 Sh. Gopal Krishan Gupta produced registration certificate for registration of M/s Laser Hospital, file Ex.P56, for which registration fee of Rs.5300/ was paid by A3.
10.9(33) PW66 Sh. Vijender Kumar produced the ledger of the electricity bill paid by accused no.1 for electricity connection in the name of accused No.1 at 86A, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51 as Ex.PW66/A alongwith the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 24 certificate under Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW66/B. 10.9(34) PW67 Sh. Bijoy Kant conducted valuation for construction of plot no. SGIII/370 and 371 at Shivalik Ganga Vihar, Haridwar in the name of accused no.1 and produced the valuation report Ex.PW67/B wherein the cost of construction of the abovesaid property was assessed to be Rs.3 8.94.700/ as on 31.03.2002.
10.9(35) PW68 Sh. Purushottam Kumar, cousin of Mukesh Kumar Panwar, stated that he had executed a GPA dated 10.08.2001 in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar for SF14, Shipra Sun City Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Ex.PW 68/B. This witness further stated that for the purchase of shop No. SF29, Shipra Sun City Indirapuram, Ghaziabad in the name of Manas Chauhan, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by Mukesh Kumar in cash/cheque. He further stated that SF29 was transferred by him to Mukesh Kumar on 15.01.2002 through sale deed Ex.PW68/D. 10.9(36) PW69 Sh. Ajab Singh Chauhan exhibited the registry of property bearing Khasra No. 31 & 196, Haridwar as Ex.PW69/B, property bearing Khasra No. 235 Ex.PW69/C, property bearing Khasra No. 11 Ex.PW69/D, property bearing Khasra No.230, Ex.PW69/E, property bearing Khasra No.229 Ex.PW69/F, property bearing Khasra No.218 & 221 Ex.PW69/G, property bearing Khasra No.216 Ex.PW69/H, property bearing Khasra CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 25 No.215 Ex.PW69/I all in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar A3 and property bearing Khasra No.226 Ex.PW69/J, property bearing khasra No.23 Ex.PW69/K, property bearing Khasra No.26 Ex.PW69/L, property bearing Khasra No. 24 Ex.PW69/M, property bearing Khasra No.21 Ex.PW69/N, property bearing Khasra No.22 Ex.PW69/O, property bearing Khasra No.25 Ex.PW69/P, property bearing Khasra No.419 Ex.PW69/Q, property bearing Khasra No.226 Ex.PW69/R all in the name of Dinesh Kumar Panwar.
10.9(37) PW71 Sh. Manas Chauhan stated that he had sold the shop SF29 Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad to Purushottam Kumar for Rs.5 lakhs vide Lease Deed Ex.PW71/A on 16.10.2001. This witness stated that the payment for the purchase of said shop was made by Mukesh Panwar and PW71 had also executed a Will Ex.PW71/B in the name of Laxmi Devi for the said shop.
10.9(38) PW72 Sh. Shivraj Singh allowed registration of SF14 and SF23 Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
10.9(39) PW73 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain produced ledger account prepared by Shipra Estate Ltd. in the name of accused no. 2 Ex.PW73/C by virtue of which an amount of Rs.15,84,829/ was paid by accused no.2 for Flat No. 616 B. This witness also produced ledger account Ex.PW16/DF by which an amount of Rs.359954/ was paid by Mukesh Panwar for shop No. RTF0008.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 26 10.9(40) PW74 Sh. R.K. Arora exhibited booking form qua shop No. 409, 2nd floor, at C134 Sector 61 Noida in the name of Mukesh Panwar Ex.PW 74/A alongwith the letter Ex.PW74/B and agreement Ex.PW74/C. This witness stated that accused no. 3 had issued two cheques of Rs.1,15,000/ Ex.PW74/H and 1,85,000/ Ex.PW74/G for purchase of the abovesaid shop alongwith certain cash amount.
10.9(41) PW81 Sh. Suresh Mohan Gupta stated that he and his wife sold shop SF22 2nd Floor Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad to Mukesh Kumar Panwar vide agreement to sell on 11.02.2003 for which an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ Ex.P128 was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar by way of pay orders/cheque.
10.9(42) PW82 Sh. Saulat Husain Khan stated that some Pukhraj, Monga, Moti stones were sold by his father vide slip Ex.PW82/A for Rs.39,700/.
10.9(43) PW85 Sh. Surya Kant Daji Padyar exhibited letter dated 06.07.2004 Ex.PW85/A by which M/s. Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. had provided booking advance to Mukesh Kumar Panwar. He stated that an amount of Rs.5000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar alongwith application form Ex.PW85/A for Flat No.A703, Plot No.52, Sector9, New Panvel, Mumbai. This witness also exhibited various receipts Ex.PW85/B to Ex.PW85/G by virtue of which various payments were made by Mukesh Panwar for allotment of the aforesaid flat.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 27 10.10 Witnesses from Office of Accused 10.10 (1) PW40 Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora, who was working as Senior P.A. in the Office of GMTD, BSNL Moradabad with A1 stated that the various forms Ex.PW40/A to Ex.PW40/C for registration of the residential plots at New Okhla Industrial Development Authority were filled up in the writing of R.S. Panwar (A1).
10.10(2) PW43 Sh. Suresh Chand Ojha, DGM, Vigilance, BSNL, Moradabad, identified the service book Ex.P9 of accused No.1 as well as the property return Ex.P10 of the accused No.1. This witness stated that accused No.1 while functioning as GMTD, Moradabad issued work order and executed the work order of more than Rs.5000/ at one time for day to day maintenance for which he had no power. He further stated that accused No.1 approved 1900 works pertaining to electrical and civil department from July, 1999 to March 2003 worth Rs.3.7 crores for which estimate was approved on a later date after the bills were received in the department. He further stated that accused No.1 also prepared false bills for siphoning of huge sum of money.
10.10(3) PW79 Ms. Saroj Bala Sen, Principal SKV1, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi submitted property return of accused No.2, Ex.PW79/K. 10.10(4) PW83 Dr. M.C. Mathur, working as Regional Director in Education Department, identified files pertaining to A2 wherein she had not filed any CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 28 application or intimation with regard to acquisition or disposal of any movable or immovable property till Dec.2003 to the Education Department.
10.11 Official Witnesses 10.11(1) PW4 Sh. Hemant Kumar, working as Income Tax Officer, produced the file relating to Income tax record of Mukesh Panwar for the assessment year 20022003 and 20032004 as Ex.PW4/A. 10.11(2) PW24 Sh. Phool Chand Jain stated that no assessment was filed by the owner of property No. 86A, Gali No.2, Parwana Road, Radhey Shyam Park for the purpose of property tax.
10.11(3) PW34 Sh. Lajpat Rai Sharma deposed that on 05.08.2005 and 23.02.2006 the specimen signatures, handwriting of accused No.5 G.P. Aggarwal were taken in his presence.
10.11(4) PW35 Sh. Amarnath Prasad also deposed that on 05.08.2005 and 23.02.2006 the specimen signatures, handwriting of accused No.5 G.P. Aggarwal, accused No.1, accused No.2, accused No.3 and accused No.4 were taken in his presence.
10.11(5) PW36 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta carried out the valuation of gold as well as silver ornaments and utensils of accused No.1 to 4 on 16.09.2003 vide CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 29 report Ex.PW36/A wherein the silver articles were valued at Rs.64,000/ and gold articles were valued at Rs.5,90,390/.
10.11(6) PW44 Sh. Ajeet Singh Dhankar, Registrar Chit Fund Office, stated that chit fund companies in Delhi were regulated under Madras Chit Fund at 1961 extended to U.T. of Delhi and Delhi Chit Fund Rules, 1964.
10.11(7) PW46 Sh. Virender Kumar exhibited the ITR of accused no.1 for the year 20022003 alongwith the revised return as Ex.PW46/A (colly). The IT return for the year 20032004 alongwith the revised return Ex.PW46/B, IT return for the year 20042005 were also exhibited as Ex.PW46/B (colly) and Ex.PW46/C (colly) respectively.
10.11(8) PW59 Sh. Satwant Singh Grover working as CTO in M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd. stated that accused No.1 was his DGM overseeing installation of electronic exchanges. He further stated that accused No.1 did not carry good reputation amongst people.
10.11(9) PW60 Sh. Vishnu P. Katkar, posted as Asstt. Registrar of Companies at Delhi and Haryana, exhibited the MOA and AOA of M/s Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
10.11(10) PW70 Sh. Tulsi Das Bajaj stated that on the order of Vigilance CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 30 Department DDA he joined the CBI Team for conducting search of 86A Radhy Shyam Park, Delhi and prepared search list Ex.PW70/A. 10.11(11) PW75 Sh. Hari Kishan deposed that on the order of Senior Officer, Station Superintendent Mujaffarnagar, he joined the CBI Team for conducting search at Patel Nagar, BSNL Office, Mujaffarnagar on 16.09.2003 and prepared search list Ex.PW75/A. 10.11(12) PW76 Sh. Prem Prakash Bajaj deposed that on the order of his department at DDA, he joined the CBI Team for conducting search of property in Trans Yamuna Area near Shahdara and prepared the search list Ex.PW 76/A. 10.11(13) PW77 Sh. Girdhari Lal joined the raiding team which went to Flat No.616B, Shipra Sun City Indirapuram Ghaziabad and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW77/A. 10.11(14) PW78 Sh. Pankaj Balchandani deposed that on 18.08.2005 A4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar had given his specimen signatures/handwriting in the presence of PW78 vide memo Ex.PW78/A. 10.11(15) PW80 Sh. D.R. Handa Retired Principal Scientific Officer and HOD CFSL prepared the CFSL report Ex.PW80/Z1 and sent the same to CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 31 CBI vide letter Ex.PW80/Z2.
10.11(16) PW84 Sh. R.K. Saini, Addl. S.P. CBI, Investigating Officer of the present case, identified FIR Ex.PW84/A and exhibited various seizure memos as Ex.PW84/B to Ex.PW84/Z54. This witness concluded the entire case of the prosecution by proving their case in entirety.
11. Statement of Accused 11.1 A1 R.P.S. Panwar in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C candidly admitted the pay bill sheets Ex.PW5/B, pay bill for June 2003 to September 2003 Ex.PW20/B as well as the premium certificate Ex.PW12/A for policy no. 112577043. However he stated that he was not paying any fees of his son Arun Kumar Panwar when he was studying in IIT during the check period as his son was receiving Teaching Assistanceship and was also giving private tuitions. This accused also denied to have any knowledge of the alleged gift made by Mohinder Kumar to A2 (wife of A1) by way of cheque Ex.P48. He also denied to have asked PW31 Sh. Satyapal to issue any alleged gift cheque Ex.PW31/B in favour of A3. He admitted that he had paid the booking amount for booking three flats at MIG flat Mansarovar Scheme for his three sons and also admitted that Rs. 3,36,000/ each was deducted by the developers for cancellation of the allotment. A1 stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C that he had nothing to do with the property acquired by his wife or his sons as they all had their independent sources of income. He also stated CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 32 that he was chargesheeted by his department in relation to some work orders but the same was quashed by CAT and the department has gone into appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is still pending. This accused also agreed to his statement of account in account no. 6606 Ex.PW42/A, his ITR Ex.PW46/C, telephone bills during the check period Ex.PW54/A, gas cylinder consumption as well as the cost of cylinders during the check period and the electricity bill during the check period. A1 further stated that he had paid the MBBS fees and other miscellaneous expenses of Dinesh Kumar Panwar from his salary as well as from his GPF account. Regarding this case, A1 stated that a false case has been filed against him at the behest of his corrupt colleagues to wreck vengeance against him.
11.2 A2 Laxmi Devi Panwar stated in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C that she did her job as a teacher and as a Vice Principal honestly and sincerely and had not indulged in any corrupt activities ever. She stated that it was due to the acts of her husband that she has been implicated in this case but she did not complain about her husband ever as that would not have yielded any results since her husband (A1) would have connived with the police officials as well.
11.3 A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar stated that he was in the business of property dealing and admitted the properties booked in his name stating that he had made the payment for all those properties from his own account.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
33
11.4 A4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C
candidly admitted that his father i.e A1 paid all his tuition fees and miscellaneous expenses for his MBBS studies and also used to give him Rs. 6,000/ to Rs. 8,000/ per month as pocket money. This witness narrated that he used to give tuitions to BMS students since 2000 and had made savings of about Rs. 20,000/ out of which he purchased his bike. His brother Arun Kumar Panwar contributed for the rest of the payment for bike. A4 went on to say that the property at MIG flat Mansarovar Scheme and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority was applied by his father A1 on his behalf and it was his father only who used to pay the bus charges as well as the mess charges of Rs. 800/ per month on his behalf. With respect to property at Khasra No. 226 Ex.PW69/J, A4 said that his brother Mukesh had purchased the said property for him without informing him about the said purchase and that he did not receive any sale consideration for the aforesaid property. The Maruti Zen in the name of A4 was in repayment to the loan given by the parents of A4 to Sh. V.B. Tanwar, as stated by A4.
11.5 A5 G.P. Agarwal in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C admitted that he had issued cheques bearing no. 621877 and 621885 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce in favour of Mukesh Panwar since Mukesh Panwar had applied for certain shares in M/s Inneeds Chits Private Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act, by depositing money in cash and thereafter requested for the refund of that money. That A5 refunded the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 34 abovesaid amount by way of cheques and signed the cheques in his capacity of Authorized Signatory of the company.
12. Defence Evidence 12.1 The defence examined 11 witness in its support. Accused R.P.S. Panwar examined himself as DW11 after seeking permission U/s 315 Cr.P.C. DW1 Bhopal Bhiduri stated that his father had given Rs. 11 lakhs to A1 around 2002 in cash as a settlement amount with respect to an agricultural land. However, this witness did not produce any document nor was there any bank record to prove transfer of Rs. 21 lakhs from his father to A1.
12.2 DW2 Sh. Ramesh, who ran meat shop, was examined as DW2 stated that the elder brother of A1 Sh. Data Ram had named his business of herding goats etc. in the name of A3 Mukesh as he did not have any children of his own. This witness further stated that he had purchased 500 goats from A3 and other 500 each were purchased by Telu Ram and Vijay Kumar at the rate of Rs. 1500/ per goat. This witness failed to state the year in which he had purchased the goats. Further, he also failed to produce any document to prove that Sh. Data Ram had named his business in the name of A3. Moreover, no document was produced to prove any payment by DW2 in favour of A3.
12.3 DW3 Sh. Nanu Ram stated that he had given Rs. 6,34,000/ in
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
35
cash to A3 for purchase of flat no. 616B, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad but the remaining amount was not paid as CBI raid was conducted at the house of A
1. During cross examination this witness stated that the document Ex.DW3/A (agreement to sell) qua the above stated property was notarized on 29.01.2004 and even the stamp vendor has mentioned the date on the said document of 29.01.2004. This witness failed to produce any receipt or document to prove that he had given Rs. 6,34,000/ to A3 nor did he file any court case to claim return of the said money even though the possession of the above stated property was never handed over to him. This witness further admitted that the above stated property is in the name of A2 only and not DW3.
12.4 DW4 Sh. Parish Rao prepared valuation report Ex.DW4/A with respect to cost of construction of property bearing no. SG 3/370 and SG 3/371, Khasra No. 469, Shivalik Ganga Vihar, Village Saleempur, Mehdood, Tehsil Haridwar and valued the same to be Rs. 23,23,184.60/. During cross examination this witness stated that the cost of construction was calculated to be Rs. 140/ per sq. feet as per the report.
12.5 DW5 Sh. Keerat Ram stated that A3 had agreed to sell plot bearing no. 370 and 371, Ganga Vihar, District Haridwar in the year 2000 at the rate of Rs. 9 lakhs to DW5. This witness also produced affidavit along with agreement to sell Ex.DW5/A bearing the signatures of the father of the witness. He further stated that amount of Rs. 9 lakhs was paid by his father to CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 36 A3 in cash. During cross examination this witness admitted that he has not got the possession of the above stated property nor has he filed any case to claim back his money. No receipt or any other document has been filed to prove payment of Rs. 9 lakhs by father of DW5 to A3. Further, this witness admitted that Ex.DW5/A is neither registered nor notarized and no date has been put on the said document.
12.6 DW6 Sh. Rakesh Chaudhary stated that he had purchased flat bearing no. 54D, Shipra Sun City from A3 and had paid Rs. 8 lakhs to A3 after execution of agreement to sell Ex.DW6/A. This witness admitted that the above said property is neither transferred in his name nor did he ask A3 to return back his money. Further, no document or receipt has been filed to prove payment of amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to A3.
12.7 DW7 Sh. Rinkeshwar, who runs a meat chicken shop, stated that his grandfather Sh. Data Ram had gifted 1500 sheeps to A3 and produced Mark D7/A to prove the said transaction. He further stated that his chacha ji purchased 500 sheeps at the rate of Rs. 1400/ per sheep. However, during cross examination this witness admitted that Mark D7/A does not bear any signatures and that no receipt or any other document has been filed to prove that any sheep was sold by A3.
12.8 DW8 Sh. Pala Ram stated that his father Sh. Telu Ram had
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
37
purchased 480490 sheeps from late Sh. Data Ram by way of document Mark D8/A. This witness also failed to produce any document or receipt to prove payment of any amount to A3.
12.9 DW9 Sh. Deepak Rathore brought certified copies of salary and allowances paid to A1 w.e.f 25.07.2003 to 30.04.2006 and exhibited the same as Ex.DW9/A. 12.10 DW10 Mohd. Sharik brought on record the photocopies of GPF account statement of A1 as Mark D10 and stated that no withdrawal was made from the PF account of A1 from 1999 to May 2003.
12.11 A1 R.P.S. Panwar entered into the witness box as DW11 and stated that in his earlier days he used to earn Rs. 110/ per month and after completing Electrical Engineering he started earning Rs. 120/ per month as training allowance. This witness also stated that his family income from selling and purchase of goats and sheeps was Rs. 18 lakhs per year. This witness also produced on record Ex.DW11/1 wherein he had shown his assets as on 01.04.1999 to be of Rs. 50,00,275/ and assets on 16.09.2003 to be Rs. 1,43,48,303/. He stated that the assets acquired during the check period are worth Rs. 93,48,028/ and the expenditure incurred during that period is Rs. 15,68,587/. As per this witness, the total income during the check period is Rs. 1,10,91,543/ and therefore there are no disproportionate assets acquired CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 38 by the accused persons during the check period. This witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI wherein he stated that he has not filed any documentary evidence to prove the figures mentioned in Ex.DW11/1. He also got exhibited his property tax return for the year 2000 as Ex.DW11/P1.
12.12 Thereafter, at the request of Ld. Defence Counsel, the defence evidence was closed.
13. Final Arguments on behalf of CBI 13.1 Ld. Public Prosecutor relying upon the deposition of the witnesses examined during the course of trial, was able to prove the following income as well as expenditure and assets of A1 to A4 during the check period. It has been prepared in the form of the Table for convenience purpose.
Statement 'A' (Total Assets as on 01.04.1999) (Immovable & Movable Assets) Sl.No. Details of Assets Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Agricultural land of 2000 sq. Yds. 12,00,000/ Ex.P Admitted Khasra 314, Village Sahurpur, 150 to by A1 Mehrauli, Delhi 167(D 247 272
2. House hold items as per 6,24,990/ Observation Memos dated 16.09.2003 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 39
3. Bank Balance in SB A/c No.16947 111/ Ex.P Admitted of Dinesh Kumar Panwar in Vijaya 124 by A4 Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi as on (D 03.02.1999 177)
4. Bank Balance in SB A/c No.16948 111/ (D178) Admitted of Mukesh Kumar Panwar in by A3 Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi as on 03.02.1999
5. Balance in SB A/c No.16946 of 882/ Arun Kumar Panwar in Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi.
6. Balance in SB A/c No.01190 3,99,944/ Ex.P51 Admitted 028176 of Laxmi Devi in SBI, (D284) by A2 Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
7. Balance in SB A/c No.8520 of 76,656/ Ex.P Admitted Laxmi Devi in Vijaya Bank, 171 by A2 Khureji Khas, Delhi. (D281)
8. Balance in SB A/c 1,842/ Ex.PW4 PW42 No.01190/06606 of RPS Panwar in 2/A SBI Chanderlok, Janpath, New (D286) Delhi.
9. ICICI Bond No.4719972 in the 15,000/ Ex.PW4 PW40 name of Laxmi Devi Panwar on 0/J 18.12.1998 (colly) (D549)
10. ICICI Bond No.4719968 in the 10,000/ Ex.PW4 PW40 name of RPS Panwar on 0/J 18.12.1998 (colly) (D549)
11. Balance in the NSS A/c No.17716 59,657/ Ex.27/A PW27 of RPS Panwar (D102) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 40 Total 23,89,193/ Property Acquired during the check period (1.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 ) by the accused persons.
Statement B
(Immovable Assets )
Sl.No Details of Property Amount Exhibit Proved
(Rs.) by
Witness
1. Cost of constructions in 38,94,700/ PW67/ PW67 respect of plot No.SG B III/370 & 371, Shivalik (D539) Ganga, Haridwar.
2. Purchase of Plot No.SG 4,05,000/ PW41/ PW41 III/370, Shivalik Ganga, B Haridwar (D222)
3. Purchase of Plot No.SG 3,73,000/ PW39/L PW39 III/371, Shivalik Ganga, (D78) Haridwar. & P 131 (D223)
4. Purchase of 616 B, Shipra 15,84,829/ PW73/ PW73 Suncity, Indirapuram, C U.P. (in the name of (D61) Laxmi Devi)
5. Purchase of Shop No.409, 11,75,000/ PW74/ PW74 2nd Floor, C134, Sector D 61, Noida (in the name of (D23 Mukesh Kumar Panwar on & 24) 02.08.2003).
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
41
6. Purchase of property SF 4,35,000/ PW PW68
14, Shipra Sun City, 68/B
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, (D230)
U.P. in the name of
Purshottam Kumar by
lease deed dated
18.08.2001 (Ex.PW37/B,
D95) who executed GPA
in favour of Mukesh
Kumar Panwar).
7. Purchase of shop No. SF 5,00,000/ PW68/ PW68, 29, Shipra Suncity, D PW71 Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, (D212) U.P. in the name of Manas Kumar Chauhan (Payment made by Mukesh Kumar Panwar & further sale deed executed in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar dated 15.01.2002)
8. Purchase of property 8,49,650/ PW PW9 & No.SKII/164, Shipra Sun (7,00,000 11/B PW11 City, Indirapuram, +1,36,100 (D220) Ghaziabad, U.P. in the +13,650) name of Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd. through Director Mukesh Kumar Panwar
9. Purchase of property SF 5,40,000/ P116 Admitte 23, Shipra Sun City, (D147) d Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, PW37 U.P. in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar (admitted by A3) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 42
10. Purchase of property A 5,55,000/ PW85/ PW85 703, Plot No.52, Sector9, AG New Panvel, Mumbai in (D13 the name of Mukesh & 14) Kumar Panwar
11. Purchase of property RTF 3,58,773/ PW PW73 006, 1st Floor, Shipra Sun 73/A & City, Indirapuram, PW73/ Ghaziabad, U.P. in the B name of Chandra Devi (D59 & D
60)
12. Purchase of property SF 4,50,000/ P128 PW81 22, Shipra Sun City, (D19) Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar.
13. Purchase of property RTF 3,59,954/ PW PW16 08, 1st Floor Shipra Sun 16/D7 (page 6) City, Indirapuram, & P89 & PW Ghaziabad, U.P. in the (admitte 73 name of Mukesh Kumar d) (D Panwar 58)
14. Purchase of property SF 5,00,000/ PW PW52 nd 25, 2 Floor, Shipra Sun (4,35,000/ 52/A to City, Indirapuram, +65,000/ PW Ghaziabad, U.P. in the cash) 52/F name of Mukesh Kumar (D179, Panwar 180, 181, 182 &
183)
15. Purchase of property 54 9,49,326/ PW PW37 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 43 D, IIIrd Floor, Shipra Sun 37/X City, Indirapuram, (D94) Ghaziabad, U.P. in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar
16. Purchase of property MB 4,50,000/ P admitted 17, Shipra Sun City, 108(D by A4 Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, 133), U.P. in the name of P113 Dinesh Kumar Panwar & P 114 (D139)
17. Purchase of Khasra No.31 1,50,000/ PW69/ PW69 & 196, area 0.4192 + 18,900/ B(D Hectare (in the name of (Registrati 105) Mukesh Kumar Panwar) on Charges)
18. Purchase of Khasra 50,000/ + PW69/ PW69 No.235, area 0.117 5400/ C (D Hectare (in the name of (Registrati 106) Mukesh Kumar Panwar) on Charges)
19. Purchase of Khasra No.11, 50,000/ + PW69/ PW69 area 0.120 Hectare (in the 5400/ D (D name of Mukesh Kumar (Registrati 107) Panwar) on Charges)
20. Purchase of Khasra 2,00,000/ PW69/E PW69 No.230, area 0.482 + 21,700/ (D108) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
21. Purchase of Khasra 80,000/ + PW69/F PW69 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 44 No.229, area 0.195 8,800/ (D109) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
22. Purchase of Khasra 50,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.218 & 221, area +11,300/ G (D 0.2506 Hectare in the (Registrati 110) name of Mukesh Kumar on Panwar Charges)
23. Purchase of Khasra 55,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.216 area 0.1481 +6,700/ H (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 111) Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
24. Purchase of Khasra 1,10,000/ PW69/I PW69 No.215, area 0.2742 +12,400/ (D112) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
25. Purchase of Khasra 2,70,000/ PW69/J PW69 No.226, area 0.636 +28,000/ (D113) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Dinesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
26. Purchase of Khasra No.23, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1076 Hectare in the +8,500/ K (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 114) Panwar on Charges)
27. Purchase of Khasra No.26, 21,000/ PW69/L PW69 area 0.541 Hectare in the +2,500/ (D115) name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati Panwar on CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 45 Charges)
28. Purchase of Khasra No.24, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1081 Hectare in the +4,900/ M (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 116) Panwar on Charges)
29. Purchase of Khasra No.21, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1076 Hectare in the +4,900/ N (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 117) Panwar on Charges)
30. Purchase of Khasra No.22, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1076 Hectare in the +4,900/ O (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 118) Panwar on Charges)
31. Purchase of Khasra No.25, 20,000/ PW69/P PW69 area 0.0536 Hectare in the +2,500/ (D119) name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati Panwar on Charges)
32. Purchase of Khasra 25,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.419, area 0.108 +2,250/ Q (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 120) Dinesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
33. Purchase of Khasra 60,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.226, area 0.140 +6,300/ R (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 121) Dinesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
34. Purchase of Khasra No.32, 1,50,000/ PW49/ PW49 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 46 Village Salempur, area + 15,300/ A (D 0.338 Hectare Mehdood (Registrati 226) Nagar, Pargana Rurki, on Tehsil & District Charges) Haridwar in the name of Ram Aadhaar (payment made by Mukesh Kumar Panwar as stated by PW
49)
35. Purchase of Khasra 3,00,000/ PW61/ PW61 No.203, area 2.072 +79100/ A (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 225) Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges) Total Rs.
1,53,80,98 2/ Statement B (Movable Assets acquired during the check period) Sl.No Details of Property Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Bullet Motorcycle No.DL7SK 58,200/ PW15/B PW15 8474 in the name of Dinesh & P41 (admitted Kumar Panwar on 29.07.2021 (D49) by A4)
2. Car DL4CF0988 in the name 63,000/ PW39/B PW39 of Mukesh Kumar Panwar on (D28) & 30.10.2001 PW47/D (D
28)
3. Maruti Zen Car DL4CF3588 80,000/ PW47/B PW47 in the name of Dinesh Kumar (D26) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 47 Panwar on 11.07.2003
4. Household items as on 3,24,205/ PW76/A PW76 16.09.2003 (D287) 86A Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi110051
5. Household items as on 2,15,000/ PW77/A PW77 16.09.2003 (D280) 616B Shipra Suncity, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
6. Household items as on 8,200/ P105 PW84 16.09.2003 (admitted by shop no. SF22, Shipra A3) Suncity,Indirapuram, (D126) Ghaziabad
7. Household items as on 1,11,390/ P107 PW84 16.09.2003 (admitted by rd flat no. 54D, Shipra Suncity, 3 A3) floor, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (D127)
8. Gold and Silver ornaments as 64,000/ PW36/A PW36 on 16.09.2003 (silver) (D283) 5,90,390/ (gold)
9. Furniture purchased by Laxmi 36,072/ PW17/A PW17 Devi (D159)
10. Mattress purchased from M/s 850/ PW18/B PW18 Floors & Furnishings (D160)
11. Fabric clothes purchased from 23,505/ PW18/C PW18 M/s Floors & Furnishings (D161)
12. Pillow bedsheet etc. purchased 31,450/ PW18/D PW18 from M/s Floors & Furnishings (D162)
13. 2 instant geysers and 2 ceiling 7360/ PW1/B PW1 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 48 fans (D163)
14. Pukhraj Monga Moti stones 39,700/ PW82/A PW82 slip recovered from residence M131/2003 of A1
15. Bank balance of Dinesh Kumar 3,60,239/ P124 Admitted Panwar, A/c No. 16947 Vijaya (D177) by A4 Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi
16. Bank balance of Laxmi Devi in 97,849/ Ex.PW10/A PW10 A/c No. 15039, SBI, Khureji (D176) Khas, Delhi
17. Bank balance of R.P.S. Panwar 5,50617/ Ex.PW42/A PW42 in A/c No. 01190/006606 SBI, on (D286) Chanderlok, Janpath. 15.07.200 3
18. Two ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 10,000/ Ex.P93 and Admitted Panwar bearing no. 00178582 Ex.P94 by A1 dated 22.03.2001 (D86)
19. Two ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 10,000/ Ex.P95 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 00178583 (D87) by A1 dated 22.03.2001
20. Four ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 20,000/ Ex.P96 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 2154398 (D88) by A1
21. Two ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 10,000/ Ex.P97 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 07518618 (D89) by A1
22. Six IDBI Bonds of Laxmi Devi 30,000/ Ex.P91 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 170047497 (D85) by A2
23. Bank balance of Laxmi Devi 11,76,036 Proceedings Admitted Panwar of A/c no. / of 14.01.2019 by A2 01190/028176 in SBI Gandhi Ex.P52 Nagar as on 16.09.2003 (D285)
24. Bank balance of Mukesh 6,24,363/ Ex.P172 Admitted CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 49 Kumar Panwar of A/c no. 5247 (D288) by A3 in PNB Ghaziabad as on 16.09.2003
25. Bank balance of Mukesh 35,271/ Ex.P308 Admitted Kumar Panwar of A/c no. (D471) by A3 0031050213886 in HDFC Bank, Delhi
26. Bank balance of M/s Laser 50,000/ Ex.P306 (D Admitted Hospital in Citizens Co 463) by A3 operative Bank, Noida, A/c no.
03CA00355001
27. Bank balance of M/s Laser 90,500/ Ex.P305 Admitted Hospital in Citizens Co (D462) by A3 operative Bank, Noida, A/c no.
03CA00334401
28. Bank balance of Laxmi Devi 22,66,000 Ex.P171 Admitted Panwar in account No.8520 of / (D281) by A3 Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi Balance as on 03.02.1999 -
76,656/
29. Balance in the NSS A/c 81,092/ Ex.27/A PW27 No.17716 of RPS Panwar (D102)
30. Room Cooler purchased on 3300/ PW55/B PW55 2.05.1999
31. A/C purchased by Laxmi on 20,000/ PW55/A PW55 08.06.2003 Total 70,88,589 70,88,589 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 50 Income during the check period (1.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 ) of the accused persons.
Statement C (Income) Sl.No. Details of Income Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Income of R.P.S. Panwar 6,65,972/ Ex.PW PW58 Ram from salary from 01.04.1999 58/B Rattan Gupta to September 2003 (D581 & & PW20 Muradabad + Muzzafar Nagar D498) & Ex.PW 20/B
2. Income of Laxmi Devi 3,91,848/ Ex.P69 PW23 Panwar from salary from (D46) & 01.04.1999 to July, 2002 Ex.P8 (D
6) August 2002 to Dec.2002 57,402/ (D35) Ex.P26 21.12.2002 to 30.09.2003 97,838/ (D45) Total: 5,47,088/ Ex.P86
3. Income of Laxmi Devi from 2,00,000/ Ex.P50 Admitted by Gift from Mohinder Kumar (D262) A2 and Ajay Kumar Ex.PW29/ PW29 & A PW30 (D263)
4. Income of Mukesh Kumar 78,000/ Ex.PW26/ PW26 Panwar during check period B (D3) from PR Infotech w.e.f.
01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 and 01.04.2000 to 30.06.2000 21,200/ 99,200/
5. Income of Mukesh Kumar 10,944/ P59 Admitted by CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 51 Panwar during check period 13,047/ (D104) A3 from Reliance w.e.f. July, 19,209/ 2002 to Sept.,2003 16,615/ 15,292/ 15,292/ 13,148/ 13,673/ 12,098/ 15,407/ 15,407/ 15,571/ 15,571/ 15,571/ 21,056/ Total: 2,27,901/
6. Income of Mukesh Kumar 3,80,000/ Ex.P85 Admitted by Panwar from Loan from C.A. (D39) A3, A4 & Coop. Thrift and Credit A5 Society
7. Income of Mukesh Kumar 2,00,000/ Ex.PW29/ PW29, PW Panwar from Gift from A, Ex.P48 30 & PW31 Kishanlal and Satyapal & Ex.PW31/ A (D260 & D261)
8. Income of Arun Kumar 4,515/ Ex.PW7/B PW7 Panwar from Krishna Institute (D166) of Information Technology for April and May, 1999
9. Income of Arun Kumar from 7,500/ Ex.PW62/ PW62 I.I.T. H (D166) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 52
10. Income from interest accrued 2,45,002/ on SB Accounts maintained by R.P.S. Panwar and his family members as per chargesheet Total 25,77,178 / Expenditure during the check period (1.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 ) of the accused persons.
Statement D (Expenditure) Sl.No Details of Expenditure Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Expenditure on the studies of 8,19,640/ Ex.P PW64 Dinesh Kumar (MBBS) from from 33, D Katihar Medical College 21.08.1999 68 to P31,D 16.08.2003 66 P32,D 67 P28,D 63 P34,D 69 P29,D 64 P35,D 70 P39,D 74 P38,D 73 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 53 P36,D 71 P37,D 72 P27,D 50 P30 D 65 Plus Hotel Mess expense s of Rs.
800/ per month
2. LIC Policy Premium for 43574/ Ex.PW PW38 policy no. 112767046 of Smt. (10976+ 38/B Laxmi Devi. 10866+ (D41) 10866+ 10866)
3. Expenditure for booking 1,00,000/ Ex.PW PW40 residential plot at New Okhla 40/A Industrial Development (D15) Authority on 29.01.2002 by R.P.S. Panwar
4. Expenditure for booking 30,000/ Ex.PW PW40 residential plot at New Okhla 40/B Industrial Development (D16) Authority on 29.01.2002 by Dinesh Panwar
5. Expenditure for booking 60,000/ Ex.PW PW40 residential plot at New okhla 40/C Industrial Development (D17) Authority on 29.01.2002 by CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 54 Laxmi Devi Panwar
6. Water charges from 1679/ Ex.PW PW48 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 in 48/B the name of Laxmi Devi (D40) connection no. 48133
7. Telephone charges from 1,65,560/ Ex.PW PW54 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 in 54/A the name of R.P.S. Panwar (D550) for telephone no. 22246070 later 22546070 from April 1999 to September 2003.
8. Gas charges M PW57 01.04.1999 - 31.12.1999 1,314/ 131/03 January 2000 to December 2,784/ Ex.PW 2000 2,676/ 57/A January 2001 to December 2,940/ 2001 2,169/ January 2002 to December 2002 January 2003 to September 2003
9. Expenditure incurred by 5300/ Ex.P56 PW65 Mukesh Kumar Panwar and (D27) Dinesh Kumar Panwar for registration of M/s Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
10. Electricitycharges 26.08.2002 7380/ Ex.PW PW66 to September 2002 66/A
11. Premium of LIC policy 36784/ Ex.PW PW12 bearing no. 112577043 of Sh. 12/A R.P.S Panwar D103
12. Premium of PLI policy 10296/ Ex.PW PW28 bearing no. DL/6016C of 28/A Laxmi Devi Panwar (D42) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 55
13. Expenditure for membership 2250/ Ex.P72 Admitted of CA Cooperative Thrift & (D7) document Credit Society Ltd.
14. Kitchen expenses of R.P.S. 2,17,937/ As per Panwar (1/3rd of net salary) chargesheet.
15. Expenses incurred by the 40,000/ ExP Admitted by accused Mukesh Panwar for Cash 54 A3 Tuition fee/Annual charge on 04.09.2000 in Maharishi Institute of Management.
16. Expenses incurred by the 25,000/ ExP Admitted by accused Mukesh Panwar for Cash 54 A3 Tuition fee/Annual charge on 04.09.2000 in Maharishi Institute of Management.
17. Expenses incurred by the 41,300/ ExP Admitted by accused Mukesh Panwar for Cheque 54 A3 Tuition fee/Annual charge on 20.06.2001 in Maharishi Institute of Management.
18. Loss towards cancellation of 67,200/ PW PW33 property C2/193, MIG Flat, (Rs. 33/A Mansarovar Colony,6,55,123/ (D53) Moradabad, U.P in the name paid for of Arun Kumar Panwar. allotment.
Refund made of Rs.
5,87,923/.
Difference
amount is
considered
as
expenditure)
19. Loss towards cancellation of 67,200/ PW PW33
property C2/191, MIG Flat, (Rs. 33/C
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
56
Mansarovar Colony, 6,55,123/ (D55)
Moradabad, U.P in the name paid for
of Mukesh Kumar Panwar. allotment.
Refund
made of Rs.
5,87,923/.
Difference
amount is
considered
as
expenditure)
20. Loss towards cancellation of 67,200/ PW PW33
property C2/200, MIG Flat, (Rs. 33/D
Mansarovar Colony, 6,55,123/ (D54)
Moradabad, U.P in the name paid for & P56
of Dinesh Kumar Panwar allotment.
(admitted by A3). Refund
made of Rs.
5,87,923/.
Difference
amount is
considered
as
expenditure)
Total Rs.
18,20,183/
Sl. No. DA Calculation Amount
1. Assets acquired before the check period, Rs. 23,89,193/
Statement A
2. Assets at the end of the check period, Rs. 2,24,69,571/
Statement B
Immovable = Rs. 1,53,80,982/
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
57
Movable = Rs. 70,88,589/
3. Asset acquired during the check period Rs. 2,00,80,378/
(BA)
4. Income during the check period, Rs. 25,77,178/
Statement C.
5. Expenditure during the check period, Rs. 18,20,183/
Statement D.
6. Likely savings (CD) Rs. 7,56,995/
7. Disproportionate Asset = (BA)(CD) Rs. 1,93,23,383/
8. Percentage DA (DA x 100 / Income) 750%
13.2 On the basis of the evidence gathered during trial, it is averred by
the Ld. PP for CBI that the accused No.1 with the help of A2 to A5 acquired movable and immovable assets during the check period i.e. from 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003, which were highly disproportionate to the estimated income of the family of A1, i.e the income from the known sources. The accused persons failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to the revenue resources in acquiring such assets and for incurring the expenses as proved during trial.
13.3 It is also averred by Ld. PP for CBI that A5 Gyan Prakash Agarwal assisted the accused family to make the illegal money of the family acquired through unknown sources/not accounted for, legal by issuing two different cheques of Rs.11 lakhs to accused Mukesh Panwar and R.P.S. Panwar in lieu of the cash received by him.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
58
13.4 It is vociferously contended by Ld. PP that during the check
period the income of the accused family (A1 to A4) from all known sources of income was Rs.25,77,178/, whereas his expenditures as proved through various prosecution witnesses during the check period were Rs.18,20,183/. The movable as well as the immovable assets acquired by the accused family during the check period amounted to Rs.2,24,69,571/ as proved with the help of prosecution witnesses whereas the assets of the family at the beginning of the check period i.e. as on 01.04.1999 were worth Rs.23,89,193/. The case of the prosecution that despite opportunities, accused persons failed to furnish reasonable explanation as to the source of resources for acquiring such huge amount of movable or immovable assets during the check period and for incurring such exorbitant amount of expenses from 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003.
13.5 It is contended by Ld. PP for CBI that since A1 R.P.S. Panwar failed to satisfactorily account for the above, he should be convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punished accordingly in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act.
13.6 Further, A2 to A5 also spent heavy amount in acquiring movable and immovable properties and transacted huge amounts in their bank account for which they failed to account for, thus, assisting A1 R.P.S. Panwar to legalize his illgotten wealth and thus, committed the offence of abatement under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec.13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1) (e) of Prevention of CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 59 Corruption Act, 1988.
13.7 It is urged by Ld. PP on behalf of CBI that the accused persons should not be exonerated of the serious charges levelled against them in the overwhelming prospective of the statutory intolerance against pervasive and pernicious escalation of corruption in public life.
14. Defence Arguments 14.1 Countering the contentions of Ld. P.P. for CBI, Sh. R.P. Kapur and Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Ld. Counsels for A1 to A5, led a multifaceted attack on the case of the prosecution. It is contended by the defence counsels that the whole case of the prosecution is unreliable being based on conjectures and surmises. The case of defence counsels is that the cost of construction of plot no. SGIII/370 & 371, Shivalik Ganga, Haridwar mentioned at Sl. No.1 of AnnexureB to be Rs.38,94,700/ is totally wrong as it was assessed as per the parameters of CPWD and not on the basis of the actual construction. PW67 himself had neither filed photographs nor had examined any construction material supplier to prove the valuation of the cost of construction of the abovesaid property Ex.PW67/B. Furthermore, DW4 who was examined as a defence witness had estimated the cost of construction to be Rs.23,23,184.60/.
14.2 It is also averred that property at Khasra No.32, Village Salempur, area 0.338 Hectare was purchased by Sh. Ram Aadhar and not by CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 60 Accused No.3 & 4 and that Accused No.3 had only got commission as a property agent from Ram Aadhar. Similarly, property bearing No. S14, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad was originally allotted to Purushottam Kumar (PW68) by way of Lease Deed Ex.PW37/B and was never sold to A
3. A GPA was executed in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar (A3) to enable him to only manage the property being a property dealer. Even property no. SF29, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram Ghaziabad was in the name of Manas Kumar Chauhan (PW) for which payment was made by Lavkush who was the Tauji of Purushottam Kumar. It is contended that property no. RTF06, First Floor, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram Ghaziabad was allotted in the name of Chandra Devi, Buaji of Purushottam Kumar(PW68) and her source of income is also explained by PW68 in his evidence.
14.3 Ld. Defence Counsels have also submitted that property bearing no. A703, Plot No.52, Sector9, New Panvel, Mumbai was jointly owned by A3 and one Kalyan Singh. Even all the payments were made through cheques but the IO did not make Kalyan Singh either an accused or a witness to the present case.
14.4 It is contended by Ld. Defence Counsels that the household items valuated at premises No.616B, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram ; 54D, third Floor, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram and Shop No. SF22, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. cannot be calculated as the value of movable CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 61 property of A1 to A4 as these premises were rented out as admitted by PW 76, PW77 and PW84. Further, household items valued at Rs.3,24,205/ at premises No.86A, Radhey shyam Park, Delhi is also not correct as there is no proof that the said articles were acquired during the check period or prior to it. Even the jewellery items as well as gold and silver utensils seized from the premises of the accused persons could not be added to their assets as they were not included as a part of DA in the chargesheet but were seized only as security for recovery purposes. Moreover, the rate of precious stones recovered from the premises of the accused persons cannot be included in their assets as PW82 himself stated that he was not sure as to whether the said stones were actually sold to someone or only an estimate was given.
14.5 As per defence counsels, it is not clear as to by whom the articles purchased from M/s Floor & Furnishings were purchased and therefore, they cannot account for the movable property of the accused persons. The account of Lakshmi Devi Panwar (A4) at Vijaya Bank bearing No.8520 reflects that on 01.04.1999 there was a balance of Rs.76,656/ in the said account. It is averred that the balance of the said account was carried forward till 08.05.2003 after which the balance amount of Rs.59,381/ was transferred on 08.05.2003 through DD No.267332.
14.6 It is contended by the defence counsels that the bonds purchased by the accused persons during the check period could not be counted as CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 62 expenditure as the same were redeemed by the concerned accused persons and hence, should be counted as their income.
14.7 Ld. Defence Counsel has also disputed the mess expenditure @ Rs.800/ per month of A4 stating that there is no document to prove this expenditure and even otherwise, PW64 himself stated that it was an arrangement between the students themselves for which college administration had no accountability. Similarly, the expenditure incurred for booking three residential plots at New Okhla Industrial Development Authority were refunded due to nonallotment of flats and hence, that cannot be included in AnnexureD to form part of expenditure of the accused family. The accused has also disputed his kitchen expenses to be 1/3rd of his next salary stating that four out of five family members of the accused had their own income and almost every member was living separately and therefore, the kitchen expenses cannot be calculated at the rate of 1/3rd of the salary of Accused No.1.
14.8 Ld. Defence Counsels have also disputed the telephone charges of Rs.1,65,560/ in the name of Accused No.1 stating that the said telephone connection was provided to A1 by MTNL in his official capacity being the General Manager, BSNL and thus, no charges for the said amount had to be incurred by A1.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
63
14.9 It is contended by Ld. Defence Counsels that the prosecution has
turned a blind eye towards the income of the accused persons as reflected in their income tax statement. It is averred by Ld. Defence Counsel that A1 himself entered into the witness box as DW11 and proved his actual assets, income as well as expenditures by way of Ex.DW11/1. It is also averred that the property bearing no. 86A, Radhey Shyam Park has not been included while PW24 has been examined for the assessment of this property as that would have diluted the present DA case.
14.10 On behalf of Accused No. 5, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that Accused No.3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar had approached InNeeds Chits Pvt. Ltd. and deposited Rs.11 lakhs in cash for allotment of shares in his name as per the rules of the company, however, the Board of Directors did not agree to the allotment of shares to Mukesh Kumar Panwar and therefore, two cheques bearing No.621877 and 621885 were issued in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar and signed by A5 in his capacity of authorized signatory for InNeeds Chits Pvt. Ltd.
15. Legal Postulations :
15.1 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by both the parties in light of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. I have also perused the precedents relied upon by Ld. PP for CBI as well as defence counsels in support of their respective contentions.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
64
15.2 Before delving into the multifarious contentions advanced by both
the parties in the background of the factual canvas painted by the prosecution witnesses, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the quintessential soul of the competing legal postulations with which Accused No.1 has been charged alongwith the necessary ingredients of the said Section, the onus of proving which lies upon the prosecution.
15.3 Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under :
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 65
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
15.4 Thus, in order to substantiate the charge under Section 13(1)(e) of CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 66 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove the following necessary ingredients :
(i) it must establish that the accused is a public servant,
(ii) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources as well as movable and immovable properties which are found in his possession,
(iii) it must prove the known sources of income of the accused,
(iv) it must prove objectively that such pecuniary resources as well as property found in possession of the accused was disproportionate to the known sources of his income.
15.5 A bare perusal of Section 13 of P.C. Act would reveal that the criminal misconduct of a public servant, as envisaged therein, would ensue if he / she or any person on his or her behalf was in possession of, at any point of time during the period of his / her office, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his / her known sources of income about which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. Significantly, for such a misconduct the possession of disproportionate pecuniary resources or property which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account for is essential. Further, this section enfolds in its sweep a definitive involvement and role of persons other than public servant, either as an abettor or a coconspirator in the actualization of the crime. The scheme of the act, thus ensures a stricter legislation to combat and eradicate corruption in public life and takes within its sweep not only the public servant but also those who abet and conspire with him in the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 67 commission of offences emanating therefrom. In 'State of M.P & Ors. Vs Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88' it has been held that :
"Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to afflict the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. Corruption is like a plaque which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like fire in a jungle. It is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage and therefore unless it is nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence, shaking the social - economic - political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
15.6 In 'Subramaniam Swamy Vs Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 682', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the corruption is an enemy of the nation and to track down the corrupt public servants and to punish them is the necessary mandate of 1988 Act and as such the purpose of law being either to eliminate public mischief or achieve public good, the classification militates against the same and in a way advances public mischief and protects the crime doer.
15.7 While dealing with the burden of proof in such type of cases where there are allegations of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act against the public servant, the courts time and again have observed that in all human affairs, absolute certainty is a myth and the law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. In 'Collector of CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 68 Customs, Madras & Ors. Vs D. Bhoormall (1974) 2 SCC 544' it was highlighted that all that was required on behalf of the prosecution in such type of cases is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on this basis believe in the existence of the fact in issue. It was exposited that legal proof is thus not necessarily perfect proof and is nothing more than a prudent man's estimate as to the probability of the case.
15.8 In 'Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs State of Tripura (2014) 4 SCC 747' it is expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in our criminal justice system, for recording the guilt of the accused, it is not necessary that the prosecution should prove the case with absolute or mathematical certainty but only beyond reasonable doubt and the criminal courts, while examining whether any doubt is beyond reasonable doubt, may carry in their mind, some residual doubt even though the courts are convinced of the accused persons guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
15.9 Thus, the proof beyond reasonable doubt is only a guideline and not a fetish. A guilty person cannot run away from it because under normal circumstances truth generally suffers from infirmity, when projected through human processes. In fact, it is generally seen that if a case is proved too perfectly then it is a made up case whereas if the case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, then it is a genuine case which has stood the test of evidence.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
69
16. PUBLIC SERVANT
16.1 Section 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines
public servant as :
"(c) "public servant" means,--
(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;
(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority;
(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;
(v) any person authorized by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court;
(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;
(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;
(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 70 authorized or required to perform any public duty;
(ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office bearer of a registered cooperative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board;
(xi) any person who is a ViceChancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations."
16.2 Thus, it cannot be disputed that A1 R.P.S. Panwar falls within the definition of public servant. Even otherwise, it is an admitted case of the defence that A1 was a public servant performing public duty. The only contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel is that A2 Laxmi Devi Panwar is also a public servant being a Vice Principal of Government Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and therefore sanction for the prosecution of CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 71 A2 was mandatory. It is also averred by Ld. Defence Counsel that A2 being a public servant should have been charged separately for possession of disproportionate assets (if any) and she cannot be made to carry the burden of her husband by being named as an abettor. The said question was raised by Ld. Defence Counsel earlier as well at the stage of framing of charge wherein while denying the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel it was held by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court that since Laxmi Devi Panwar (A2) has been chargesheeted as the wife of accused R.P.S Panwar as an abettor therefore in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Goura Venkata Reddy Vs State of A.P. 2004 SCC (Crl.) 473' sanction for her prosecution as an abettor was not required even if she was a public servant. Even the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while disposing of the revision petition filed by her against the dismissal of the aforesaid application held that there was no need to obtain sanction as provided U/s 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and that she was also not entitled to any protection U/s 197 Cr.P.C. The other argument raised by Ld. Defence Counsel that A2 should have been charged separately under the P.C. Act for disproportionate assets, if any, also does not hold much water as there are allegations against A2 that she allowed the illegally acquired property of her husband to be preserved in her name and thus, can be charged only as an abettor.
17. CHECK PERIOD 17.1 Ld. Defence Counsel has veraciously imputed that in the FIR CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 72 dated 12.09.2003 the IO, mentioned the check period to be from April 1999 to September 2001 but during the course of investigation the IO changed the said check period to be from 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 without any previous approval or without giving any prior intimation to the accused persons and therefore the accused persons had no opportunity to explain their source of income. This issue was also raised by Ld. Defence Counsels at the time of arguments on charge wherein in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Maharashtra Vs Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla AIR 1988 SC 88', it has been held that, it is for the prosecution to choose what according to it, is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public servant in amassing wealth is to be put up for special scrutiny and the contention raised on behalf of the accused persons is not sustainable. Even otherwise, the accused persons had obtained the copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents annexed therewith and the statement of witnesses after taking of cognizance by the court at the stage of supply of documents U/s 207 Cr.P.C and therefore the accused were very much aware of the check period and had full opportunity to explain disproportionate assets at the stage of charge or trial. Thus, this imputation of the accused persons is not acceptable.
17.2 For the offences with which the accused persons have been charged as stated above, there are basically four broad heads of scrutiny :
i) Income CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 73
ii) Expenditure
iii) Assets
iv) Abetment
18. INCOME 18.1 Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, being the gravamen of the charge against the accused persons provides that :
"Public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
The expression 'known sources of income' has been explained by way of an explanation in the said Section itself to mean income received from any lawful source and such income has been intimated in accordance with provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The lawfulness or legitimacy of the known sources of income of the public servant, to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources or property, alleged to be disproportionate, is thus the indispensable legislative edict. In 'C.S.D Swami Vs The State (1960) 1 SCR 461 it has been held that :
"The test of plausible explanation was inapplicable, as under the statue, the accused person was required to satisfactorily account for the possession of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to its known source of income and the word 'satisfactorily' used by the legislature deliberately did cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to acquire his large wealth but also to satisfy the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 74 court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. ..... 'Known source of income' must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case and it cannot be the resources known to the accused. The affairs of an accused person would be a matter within his special knowledge in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the source of income of a particular individual would depend upon his position in life, with particular reference to its occupation or avocation in life and in case of a government servant, the prosecution would naturally infer that his known source of income would be the salary earned by him during his active service.
(Emphasis supplied) 18.2 Further, in 'State of M.P Vs Avadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 691' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"The phrase 'known sources of income' in Section 13 (1)
(e) [old Section 5 (1)(e)] has clearly the emphases on the word 'income'. It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term 'income', it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue.
These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income'. Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake the character of income. Qua CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 75 the public servant, whatever return he gets from his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes, which conceivable are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by persons prime facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' of a public servant."
(Emphasis supplied) 18.3 On the touch stone of the above entrenched legal prescripts, the evidence on record would have to be assayed to derive the deductions as logically permissible. At the time of leading prosecution evidence, prosecution has limited its tally to six items under the Head Income during the check period, amounting to Rs. 33,70,881/. However, after examination of the witnesses prosecution was able to prove Rs. 25,77,178/ as the total income of the accused family (A1 to A4 as well as Arun Kumar Panwar) during the check period as per the table mentioned below :
Statement C (Income of accused family during the check period) Sl.No. Details of Income Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Income of R.P.S. Panwar 6,65,972/ Ex.PW PW58 Ram from salary from 01.04.1999 58/B Rattan Gupta to September 2003 (D581 & & PW20 Muradabad + Muzzafar Nagar D498) & Ex.PW 20/B
2. Income of Laxmi Devi 3,91,848/ Ex.P69 PW23 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 76 Panwar from salary from (D46) & 01.04.1999 to July, 2002 Ex.P8 (D
6) August 2002 to Dec.2002 57,402/ (D35) Ex.P26 21.12.2002 to 30.09.2003 97,838/ (D45) Total: 5,47,088/ Ex.P86
3. Income of Laxmi Devi from 2,00,000/ Ex.P50 Admitted by Gift from Mohinder Kumar (D262) A2 and Ajay Kumar Ex.PW29/ PW29 & A PW30 (D263)
4. Income of Mukesh Kumar 78,000/ Ex.PW26/ PW26 Panwar during check period B (D3) from PR Infotech w.e.f.
01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 and 01.04.2000 to 30.06.2000 21,200/ 99,200/
5. Income of Mukesh Kumar 10,944/ P59 Admitted by Panwar during check period 13,047/ (D104) A3 from Reliance w.e.f. July, 19,209/ 2002 to Sept.,2003 16,615/ 15,292/ 15,292/ 13,148/ 13,673/ 12,098/ 15,407/ 15,407/ 15,571/ 15,571/ 15,571/ 21,056/ CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 77 Total: 2,27,901/
6. Income of Mukesh Kumar 3,80,000/ Ex.P85 Admitted by Panwar from Loan from C.A. (D39) A3, A4 & Coop. Thrift and Credit A5 Society
7. Income of Mukesh Kumar 2,00,000/ Ex.PW29/ PW29, PW Panwar from Gift from A, Ex.P48 30 & PW31 Kishanlal and Satyapal & Ex.PW31/ A (D260 & D261)
8. Income of Arun Kumar 4,515/ Ex.PW7/B PW7 Panwar from Krishna Institute (D166) of Information Technology for April and May, 1999
9. Income of Arun Kumar from 7,500/ Ex.PW62/ PW62 I.I.T. H (D166)
10. Income from interest accrued 2,45,002/ on SB Accounts maintained by R.P.S. Panwar and his family members as per chargesheet Total 25,77,178 / The redemption of ICICI Bonds of A1, A2 and A4 as well as IDBI Bonds of Arun Kumar Panwar could not be proved by the prosecution or the defence witnesses and, therefore, that sum could not be included in the income of the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 78 accused family, though the same was mentioned in the table furnished along with the chargesheet.
18.4 Ld. Defence Counsel has refuted the said computation of income of the accused family during the check period stating that the prosecution has turned a blind eye towards the Income Tax Returns of the accused persons as the accused had income in addition to their respective salaries from the sale of sheep, goat etc and from the property dealing business of Mukesh Kumar Panwar. As per Ld. Defence Counsel, the income of accused family as per the IT Return is as under :
R.P.S. Panwar FY AY Income 99-00 00-01 311950/-
00-01 01-02 325583/-
01-02 02-03 330132/-
02-03 03-04 358700/-
Total Rs. 1326365/-
Laxmi Devi Panwar
FY AY Income
99-00 00-01 230051/-
00-01 01-02 224900/-
01-02 02-03 202320/-
02-03 03-04 195750/-
Total Rs. 853021/-
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
79
Income of Mukesh Kumar Panwar has been also proved by ITO as PW4 who has categorically stated year wise income of Mukesh Kumar Panwar is Rs. 11 lakhs. Therefore, income given at Sl. No. 1 to 7 is incomplete and cannot be accepted.
It is also submitted that income of Arun Kumar Panwar as reflected in serial no. 8 and 9 of the above table proved by the prosecution is totally incomplete. Accused persons could not get chance to produce Income Tax documents of Arun Kumar Panwar and that total income of family during check period was as under :
R.P.S. Panwar Rs. 1326365/ Laxmi Devi Panwar Rs. 853021/ Mukesh Panwar Rs. 1100000/ Arun Kumar Panwar Rs. 12000/ Total Rs. 3291386/
However, in 'Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT, Andhra Pradesh (1980) Suppl. SCC 13' it was held that the IT Returns and the orders in the IT Proceedings would not by themselves establish that such income as has been disclosed in the IT Return had been from the lawful source as contemplated in the explanation to Section 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act 1988 and that independent evidence would be required to account for the same. Similarly, in 'State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption Vs N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 709' it has been CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 80 held that :
"The property in the name of the income tax Assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee and if that proposition was accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences. In such an eventuality it will give opportunities to the corrupt public servant to amass property in the name of the known person, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law."
(Emphasis supplied) Thus, the mere filing of income tax returns by the accused persons does not go on to prove that the income mentioned by the accused persons in the ITR was derived from known sources as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act 1988. Even otherwise, perusal of the record shows that after the filing of the FIR in the present case in 2003 the accused persons filed revised returns for the year 2001 - 2002 and 2002 - 2003 in order to amplify their income to escape from the case of disproportionate assets.
18.5 Ld. Defence Counsel also examined certain witnesses in order to prove the additional income of the accused persons as DW1 to DW10 (already mentioned above). However, none of these witnesses could produce any legally admissible document in support of their evidence. DW1 who stated that his father had given Rs. 21 lakhs to A1 in 2002 in respect of a said compromise arrived for an agricultural land, failed to produce any document to show that the said huge amount of Rs. 21 lakhs was in fact paid by his father to A1. As per his averment, the said amount was paid in cash but neither this CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 81 witness filed any receipt nor any other document to prove his contention. Similarly DW2, who stated that the elder brother of A1 Late Sh. Data Ram had named his business of trade in sheeps, goats etc in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar, did not produce any document to prove the same. This witness further stated that he had purchased 500 goats from A3 around 20 years back at the rate of Rs. 1500/ each and produced a document Ex.DW 2/A in support of the same. Perusal of Ex.DW2/A clearly shows that the said document has been drafted on a plain piece of paper and does not bear any date. Further, it is stated that the amount for the said purchase was paid in cash and no proof of the same has been filed on record. In cross examination, this witness went on to say that he had no knowledge as to who had signed Ex.PW2/A and therefore his testimony is not trustworthy. DW3 stated that he had given Rs. 6,34,000/ to Mukesh Kumar Panwar for purchasing flat no. 616B, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. This witness also said that he had paid such huge amount of money in cash only after withdrawing his GPF. However, no statement of GPF has been filed on record to substantiate the said claim. Only an agreement to sell Ex.DW3/A has been filed on record on which the stamp vendor has mentioned the date of 29.01.2004 and even otherwise the document has been notarized on 29.01.2004 itself, which is much beyond the check period. Further, even when this witness failed to obtain the possession of the above mentioned flat because of this case, he did not file any suit for recovery of the already paid amount nor claimed the same from A3. This contention also seems to be untrustworthy. DW5 who stated that his father CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 82 had paid Rs. 9 lakhs to Mukesh Kumar Panwar for the purchase of two plots bearing no. 370 and 371, Ganga Vihar, District Haridwar failed to produce any receipt or any other document to prove such payment. Again, only one agreement to sell Ex.DW5/A was filed on record which bears the date of 16.01.2004, which is beyond the check period. He further admitted in his cross examination that the document Ex.DW5/A is neither registered nor notarized and he has not even signed the said document. Further, this witness did not file any document to show that due to non possession of the above said property he had filed any case against Mukesh Kumar Panwar for recovery of his money. Moreover, mere agreement to sell does not prove delivery of money or property by the parties. Thus, the evidence of DW5 is unreliable. DW6 stated that he had purchased one flat bearing no. 54D, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad from A3 and had paid Rs. 8 lakhs in cash to him. However, due to CBI case the said property could not be transferred in his name. This witness again only placed on record agreement to sell Ex.DW6/A which does not prove either transfer of money or property amongst the parties. He also stated that he did not claim back his money from Mukesh Kumar Panwar and admitted that the abovesaid property is still in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar only. DW7 had stated that his grandfather late Sh. Data Ram had given a gift of 1500 sheeps to son of A1. He further produced document Mark D7/A to prove that his chachaji has purchased 500 sheeps at the rate of Rs. 1400/ per sheep. However, the said document is drafted on a plain paper and is neither registered nor notarized. It does not even bear the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 83 date. Thus, this document cannot be relied upon. DW8 stated that his father had purchased 480 - 490 sheeps from late Sh. Data Ram vide document Mark D8/A and the money for the said transaction was paid to A3 and A4. However, no proof of the said transaction has been filed and even the document Mark D8/A is neither dated nor registered or notarized. This document also cannot be relied upon. The contention of the witnesses that late Sh. Data Ram had gifted his business to A3 and A4 is not proved by way of any document and seems to be a vague contention without any substance. Further, the evidence of all the defence witnesses reflect that all the payment was made by them in cash for which they had no receipt. Thus, their evidence seems to be a mere bald aversion in order to save the accused from the present case. In fact, DW11 i.e A1 R.P.S. Panwar himself stepped into the witness box and stated that he had started earning Rs. 110/ per month since the time of his training after completing electrical engineering. This witness further went on to state that his family was engaged in khatik community business which involved selling and purchasing of goats and sheeps and earned Rs. 18 lakhs per year as family income. However, as per the bank balance of the accused persons at the beginning of the check period i.e 01.04.1999 this contention seems to be nothing but a bundle of lies. No disclosure of said income was made by A1 in his department and even the income tax returns were later on revised after the present case was instituted against the accused. He also proved his own estimate of income and expenditure as well as assets of accused family by way of Ex.DW11/1 without furnishing any documentary CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 84 proof of such estimate. Thus, the testimony of DW11 cannot be relied upon.
18.6 A1 also examined DW10 to furnish complete details of the debit as well as credit amount of GPF account. Perusal of Mark D10 shows that withdrawal from GPF account of A1 was made by him only after the completion of the check period i.e in 2004 and not during the check period and thus it cannot be counted as an income of the accused. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove the income tax returns of himself and his family members through any cogent evidence and thus the ITR furnished by the accused cannot be relied upon in light of the judgments cited above. The accused family has also claimed certain rental income in their defence but neither any witness has been examined nor any rent receipt or any other document has been filed to prove that there was any rental income of the accused family or the specific amount of that income. It is also averred that accused no. 3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar was a property dealer having his separate source of income. However, no registration number of accused no. 3 or his firm / company as a property dealer has been filed on record. Moreover, all the properties purchased by Mukesh Kumar Panwar were in his own name or were in the name of his family / relatives which raises doubt regarding the veracity of this averment. Thus, this averment also is baseless.
18.7 Thus, the income of the accused and his family members during the check period i.e from 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 is proved to be Rs. 25,77,178/ only as proved by the prosecution witnesses. The above said CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 85 amount of Rs. 25,77,178/ includes income of Laxmi Devi from gift of Mahinder Kumar and Ajay Kumar as proved by PW29 and PW30 by way of Ex.PW29/A and Ex.P50 to be Rs. 2 lakhs and also the income of Mukesh Kumar Panwar from gift of Kishan Lal and Satya Pal as proved by PW29, PW30 and PW31 by way of document Ex.PW29/A, Ex.P48 and Ex.PW 31/A to be Rs. 2 lakhs. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 263' held that a gift is taken by a public servant as a motive or reward for abuse of office but the question of motive or rewards is wholly immaterial and acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted is forbidden because though not taken as a motive or any reward for showing any official favour, it is likely to influence the public servant to show official favour to the person giving such valuable thing. It was further held that if public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited in law, they would easily circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present.
18.8 In the present case, gifts in the form of cheques were given to Laxmi Devi and Mukesh Kumar Panwar at the instance of A1 R.P.S. Panwar though R.P.S Panwar had no family relations with the persons making the gift nor was there any occasion in the family of R.P.S. Panwar justifying the gifts as stated above. In fact, PW29 Ajay Kumar who had allegedly issued gift CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 86 cheque in favour of A2, failed to identify Laxmi Devi Panwar and PW30 clearly stated in his cross examination that he has no family relations with A1. PW31 Satya Pal who had given a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh to Mukesh Kumar Panwar as gift clearly stated in his examination in chief that he had no relation with R.P.S. Panwar nor the said cheque was given to Mukesh Kumar Panwar on the occasion of any ceremony. Thus, it clearly shows that these gifts were given by the above stated witnesses to A2 and A3 only at the instance of A1 without any basis and thus cannot be counted into the definition of income as per the above stated judgments.
18.9 Deducting the amount of gifts received by Laxmi Devi Panwar and Mukesh Panwar during the check period, the total income of the accused family during the check period comes down to Rs. 21,77,178/.
19. EXPENDITURE 19.1 In the chargesheet the prosecution had listed 13 entries in the column of expenditure showing the total expenditure of the accused family to be Rs. 17,32,466/. However, after examination of the witnesses the prosecution proved the expenses of the accused family to be Rs. 18,20,183/ during the check period which is depicted by way of the following table :
Statement D (Expenditure of accused family during the check period) Sl.No Details of Expenditure Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Expenditure on the studies of 8,19,640/ Ex.P PW64 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 87 Dinesh Kumar (MBBS) from from 33, D Katihar Medical College 21.08.1999 68 to P31,D 16.08.2003 66 P32,D 67 P28,D 63 P34,D 69 P29,D 64 P35,D 70 P39,D 74 P38,D 73 P36,D 71 P37,D 72 P27,D 50 P30 D 65 Plus Hotel Mess expense s of Rs.
800/ per month
2. LIC Policy Premium for 43574/ Ex.PW PW38 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 88 policy no. 112767046 of Smt. (10976+ 38/B Laxmi Devi. 10866+ (D41) 10866+ 10866)
3. Expenditure for booking 1,00,000/ Ex.PW PW40 residential plot at New Okhla 40/A Industrial Development (D15) Authority on 29.01.2002 by R.P.S. Panwar
4. Expenditure for booking 30,000/ Ex.PW PW40 residential plot at New Okhla 40/B Industrial Development (D16) Authority on 29.01.2002 by Dinesh Panwar
5. Expenditure for booking 60,000/ Ex.PW PW40 residential plot at New okhla 40/C Industrial Development (D17) Authority on 29.01.2002 by Laxmi Devi Panwar
6. Water charges from 1679/ Ex.PW PW48 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 in 48/B the name of Laxmi Devi (D40) connection no. 48133
7. Telephone charges from 1,65,560/ Ex.PW PW54 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 in 54/A the name of R.P.S. Panwar (D550) for telephone no. 22246070 later 22546070 from April 1999 to September 2003.
8. Gas charges M PW57 01.04.1999 - 31.12.1999 1,314/ 131/03 January 2000 to December 2,784/ Ex.PW 2000 2,676/ 57/A January 2001 to December 2,940/ 2001 2,169/ CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 89 January 2002 to December 2002 January 2003 to September 2003
9. Expenditure incurred by 5300/ Ex.P56 PW65 Mukesh Kumar Panwar and (D27) Dinesh Kumar Panwar for registration of M/s Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
10. Electricitycharges 26.08.2002 7380/ Ex.PW PW66 to September 2002 66/A
11. Premium of LIC policy 36784/ Ex.PW PW12 bearing no. 112577043 of Sh. 12/A R.P.S Panwar D103
12. Premium of PLI policy 10296/ Ex.PW PW28 bearing no. DL/6016C of 28/A Laxmi Devi Panwar (D42)
13. Expenditure for membership 2250/ Ex.P72 Admitted of CA Cooperative Thrift & (D7) document Credit Society Ltd.
14. Kitchen expenses of R.P.S. 2,17,937/ As per Panwar (1/3rd of net salary) chargesheet.
15. Expenses incurred by the 40,000/ ExP Admitted by accused Mukesh Panwar for Cash 54 A3 Tuition fee/Annual charge on 04.09.2000 in Maharishi Institute of Management.
16. Expenses incurred by the 25,000/ ExP Admitted by accused Mukesh Panwar for Cash 54 A3 Tuition fee/Annual charge on 04.09.2000 in Maharishi Institute of Management.
17. Expenses incurred by the 41,300/ ExP Admitted by accused Mukesh Panwar for Cheque 54 A3 CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 90 Tuition fee/Annual charge on 20.06.2001 in Maharishi Institute of Management.
18. Loss towards cancellation of 67,200/ PW PW33 property C2/193, MIG Flat, (Rs. 33/A Mansarovar Colony, 6,55,123/ (D53) Moradabad, U.P in the name paid for of Arun Kumar Panwar. allotment.
Refund made of Rs.
5,87,923/.
Difference
amount is
considered
as
expenditure)
19. Loss towards cancellation of 67,200/ PW PW33
property C2/191, MIG Flat, (Rs. 33/C
Mansarovar Colony, 6,55,123/ (D55)
Moradabad, U.P in the name paid for
of Mukesh Kumar Panwar. allotment.
Refund
made of Rs.
5,87,923/.
Difference
amount is
considered
as
expenditure)
20. Loss towards cancellation of 67,200/ PW PW33
property C2/200, MIG Flat, (Rs. 33/D
Mansarovar Colony, 6,55,123/ (D54)
Moradabad, U.P in the name paid for & P56
of Dinesh Kumar Panwar allotment.
(admitted by A3). Refund
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
91
made of Rs.
5,87,923/.
Difference
amount is
considered
as
expenditure)
Total Rs.
18,20,183/
Thus, the expenditure of the accused family includes the expenses incurred on the MBBS studies of Dinesh Kumar from Katihar Medical College, expenses on the studies of Mukesh Panwar from Maharishi Institute of Management, the premiums on various LIC policies paid by different family members, water charges, telephone charges, charges for the gas cylinder, electricity charges, kitchen expenses as well as the expenditure incurred for booking three residential plots at New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the loss incurred by the family on cancellation of the booking of property C2/191, C 2/193 and C2/200, MIG Flats, Mansarovar Colony, Moradabad, U.P proved by way of examination of various witnesses and documents mentioned corresponding to the details of each category of expenses as mentioned in the above table.
19.2 Ld. Defence Counsel has disputed the mess expenditure incurred at the hostel of Dinesh Kumar Panwar stating that PW64 himself mentioned that the mess was arranged by the students only and that college administration had no role to play in the above arrangement. However, in his statement U/s CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 92 313 Cr.P.C, accused Dinesh Kumar Panwar himself stated that the bus charges as well as the mess expenses of Rs. 800/ per month were paid by A1 on his behalf. Thus, there is a clear cut admission on behalf of A4 himself that mess expenditure used to be paid by A1. This accused went on to say that A1 i.e his father R.P.S. Panwar used to give Rs. 6,000/ to Rs. 8,000/ per month to him as pocket money which has not been accounted for by the CBI in the expenditures of the family.
19.3 Ld. Defence Counsels have also objected to the telephone charges of Rs. 1,65,560/ during the check period in the name of A1 on the ground that the said telephone was provided by MTNL to A1 in his official capacity being the General Manager, BSNL. They stated that the telephone bill Ex.PW54/A was in the category of 'NonOYTGENERAL' and the payment of the said bill was made by the department of telecom itself. However, PW 54 Sh. Tulsi Ram, who was working as Chief Accountant in the office of General Manager, MTNL distinctly alluded that since it is written on the bill Ex.PW54/A 'Non OYT GENERAL', the bill is not the official bill of MTNL. He said that if against the column 'category' the name of the employer is mentioned then the department makes the payment for the said bill. He clearly refuted the suggestion that the aforesaid connection was a service category connection for which the charges were paid by the department.
19.4 The expenditure mentioned at serial no. 3 to 5 of Annexure D of the above stated table are also refuted by the accused stating that the booking CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 93 amount of flats were refunded by Noida Authority due to non allotment and hence it cannot be included in the category of expenditure. However, no evidence has been brought on record by the accused or prosecution side to show that the booking amount was refunded to the accused family during the check period itself, though it is clearly proved by Ex.PW40/A to Ex.PW40/C that the expenditure on the booking of the above said flats was incurred on 29.01.2002 i.e during the check period by A1. PW25 Sh. Vinay Sagar Gupta stated that the refund cheque was issued in favour of the accused family but the cheque was not received by the bank for payment till 13.02.2004.
19.5 The kitchen expenses calculated at the rate of 1/3rd of the net salary of A1 is also disputed on the ground that four out of five family members had their own source of income and almost every family member was living separately, thus, deducting their respective kitchen expenses from the salary of A1 is not correct. However, this averment of Ld. Defence Counsels is without any basis since if the income of the family members is calculated on a joint basis even if the family members were residing separately for the purpose of this case, then the kitchen expenses should also be taken on a joint basis of the approximate expenditure out of the net salary of A1. The situation would have been different if the kitchen expenses were separately deducted at the rate of 1/3rd of the net salary from the income of each of the family members. Even otherwise, A1 R.P.S. Panwar had mentioned the name of all the family members in his service book Ex.P9 meaning thereby that all the family members were dependent upon A1. Moreover, A1 failed to CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 94 furnish any separate proof of the kitchen expenses of each of the family members and thus, reliance has to be placed upon the general formula.
19.6 With respect to three MIG flats at Mansarovar Colony, Moradabad, U.P, PW33 clearly stated in his evidence that Rs. 6,55,123/ were paid for allotment of each of the flats by the accused family out of which on an application for cancellation only Rs. 5,87,923/ each were refunded, thus, causing a loss of Rs. 67,200/ on each flat booked to the accused family which is counted as their expenditure in the above stated table. The accused have not disputed any of these entries. In Ex.DW11/1, the accused have mentioned expenses during the check period to be Rs. 15,68,587/ but have failed to prove the same by way of any cogent evidence.
Thus, the total expenses of the accused family during the check period is proved to be Rs. 18,20,183/.
20. IMMOVABLE ASSETS 20.1 The total worth of immovable assets of the accused family have been calculated to be Rs. 1,90,64,718/ in the chargesheet filed by the IO. However, after examination of the witnesses the total immovable assets of the accused family acquired by them during the check period could be proved to be amounting to Rs. 1,53,80,982/ as depicted by the table below :
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
95
Statement B
(Immovable Assets acquired during the check period ) Sl.No Details of Property Amount Exhibit Proved (Rs.) by Witness
1. Cost of constructions in 38,94,700/ PW67/ PW67 respect of plot No.SG B III/370 & 371, Shivalik (D539) Ganga, Haridwar.
2. Purchase of Plot No.SG 4,05,000/ PW41/ PW41 III/370, Shivalik Ganga, B Haridwar (D222)
3. Purchase of Plot No.SG 3,73,000/ PW39/L PW39 III/371, Shivalik Ganga, (D78) Haridwar. & P 131 (D223)
4. Purchase of 616 B, Shipra 15,84,829/ PW73/ PW73 Suncity, Indirapuram, C U.P. (in the name of (D61) Laxmi Devi)
5. Purchase of Shop No.409, 11,75,000/ PW74/ PW74 2nd Floor, C134, Sector D 61, Noida (in the name of (D23 Mukesh Kumar Panwar on & 24) 02.08.2003).
6. Purchase of property SF 4,35,000/ PW PW68 14, Shipra Sun City, 68/B Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, (D230) U.P. in the name of Purshottam Kumar by CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 96 lease deed dated 18.08.2001 (Ex.PW37/B, D95) who executed GPA in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar).
7. Purchase of shop No. SF 5,00,000/ PW68/ PW68, 29, Shipra Suncity, D PW71 Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, (D212) U.P. in the name of Manas Kumar Chauhan (Payment made by Mukesh Kumar Panwar & further sale deed executed in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar dated 15.01.2002)
8. Purchase of property 8,49,650/ PW PW9 & No.SKII/164, Shipra Sun (7,00,000 11/B PW11 City, Indirapuram, +1,36,100 (D220) Ghaziabad, U.P. in the +13,650) name of Laser Hospital Pvt. Ltd. through Director Mukesh Kumar Panwar
9. Purchase of property SF 5,40,000/ P116 Admitte 23, Shipra Sun City, (D147) d Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, PW37 U.P. in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar (admitted by A3)
10. Purchase of property A 5,55,000/ PW85/ PW85 703, Plot No.52, Sector9, AG New Panvel, Mumbai in (D13 the name of Mukesh & 14) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 97 Kumar Panwar
11. Purchase of property RTF 3,58,773/ PW PW73 006, 1st Floor, Shipra Sun 73/A & City, Indirapuram, PW73/ Ghaziabad, U.P. in the B name of Chandra Devi (D59 & D
60)
12. Purchase of property SF 4,50,000/ P128 PW81 22, Shipra Sun City, (D19) Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. in the name of Mukesh Kumar Panwar.
13. Purchase of property RTF 3,59,954/ PW PW16 08, 1st Floor Shipra Sun 16/D7 (page 6) City, Indirapuram, & P89 & PW Ghaziabad, U.P. in the (admitte 73 name of Mukesh Kumar d) (D Panwar 58)
14. Purchase of property SF 5,00,000/ PW PW52 nd 25, 2 Floor, Shipra Sun (4,35,000/ 52/A to City, Indirapuram, +65,000/ PW Ghaziabad, U.P. in the cash) 52/F name of Mukesh Kumar (D179, Panwar 180, 181, 182 &
183)
15. Purchase of property 54 9,49,326/ PW PW37 D, IIIrd Floor, Shipra Sun 37/X City, Indirapuram, (D94) Ghaziabad, U.P. in the name of Mukesh Kumar CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 98 Panwar
16. Purchase of property MB 4,50,000/ P admitted 17, Shipra Sun City, 108(D by A4 Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, 133), U.P. in the name of P113 Dinesh Kumar Panwar & P 114 (D139)
17. Purchase of Khasra No.31 1,50,000/ PW69/ PW69 & 196, area 0.4192 + 18,900/ B(D Hectare (in the name of (Registrati 105) Mukesh Kumar Panwar) on Charges)
18. Purchase of Khasra 50,000/ + PW69/ PW69 No.235, area 0.117 5400/ C (D Hectare (in the name of (Registrati 106) Mukesh Kumar Panwar) on Charges)
19. Purchase of Khasra No.11, 50,000/ + PW69/ PW69 area 0.120 Hectare (in the 5400/ D (D name of Mukesh Kumar (Registrati 107) Panwar) on Charges)
20. Purchase of Khasra 2,00,000/ PW69/E PW69 No.230, area 0.482 + 21,700/ (D108) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
21. Purchase of Khasra 80,000/ + PW69/F PW69 No.229, area 0.195 8,800/ (D109) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 99
22. Purchase of Khasra 50,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.218 & 221, area +11,300/ G (D 0.2506 Hectare in the (Registrati 110) name of Mukesh Kumar on Panwar Charges)
23. Purchase of Khasra 55,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.216 area 0.1481 +6,700/ H (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 111) Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
24. Purchase of Khasra 1,10,000/ PW69/I PW69 No.215, area 0.2742 +12,400/ (D112) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
25. Purchase of Khasra 2,70,000/ PW69/J PW69 No.226, area 0.636 +28,000/ (D113) Hectare in the name of (Registrati Dinesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
26. Purchase of Khasra No.23, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1076 Hectare in the +8,500/ K (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 114) Panwar on Charges)
27. Purchase of Khasra No.26, 21,000/ PW69/L PW69 area 0.541 Hectare in the +2,500/ (D115) name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati Panwar on Charges)
28. Purchase of Khasra No.24, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1081 Hectare in the +4,900/ M (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 116) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 100 Panwar on Charges)
29. Purchase of Khasra No.21, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1076 Hectare in the +4,900/ N (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 117) Panwar on Charges)
30. Purchase of Khasra No.22, 40,000/ PW69/ PW69 area 0.1076 Hectare in the +4,900/ O (D name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati 118) Panwar on Charges)
31. Purchase of Khasra No.25, 20,000/ PW69/P PW69 area 0.0536 Hectare in the +2,500/ (D119) name of Dinesh Kumar (Registrati Panwar on Charges)
32. Purchase of Khasra 25,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.419, area 0.108 +2,250/ Q (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 120) Dinesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
33. Purchase of Khasra 60,000/ PW69/ PW69 No.226, area 0.140 +6,300/ R (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 121) Dinesh Kumar Panwar on Charges)
34. Purchase of Khasra No.32, 1,50,000/ PW49/ PW49 Village Salempur, area + 15,300/ A (D 0.338 Hectare Mehdood (Registrati 226) Nagar, Pargana Rurki, on Tehsil & District Charges) Haridwar in the name of CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 101 Ram Aadhaar (payment made by Mukesh Kumar Panwar as stated by PW
49)
35. Purchase of Khasra 3,00,000/ PW61/ PW61 No.203, area 2.072 +79100/ A (D Hectare in the name of (Registrati 225) Mukesh Kumar Panwar on Charges) Total Rs.
1,53,80,98 2/ After completion of the evidence the prosecution has confined itself to the immovable assets acquired by the accused family during the check period only and not those existing prior to the check period. Thus, the agricultural land of 2000 sq yds at village Sahurpur, Mehrauli amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs was not included in the immovable assets of the accused family by the prosecution. The immovable assets acquired by the accused family in their names comprised of plot no. SGIII/370 and 371 Shivalik Ganga, Haridwar along with there cost of construction, purchase of various properties including shops as mentioned above at Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, purchase of various pieces of land at Haridwar as well as property at New Panvel, Mumbai.
20.2 Ld. Defence Counsels have disputed the value of these immovable properties on the ground that the cost of construction of plot no.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 102 SGIII/370 and 371, Shivalik Ganga, Haridwar mentioned at serial no. 1 in Annexure B has been wrongly calculated as it was assessed not on the basis of actual construction but on the parameters of CPWD and deliberately PW67 has not filed the photographs of the said property alongwith the valuation report to mislead the court. The witness PW67 proved the inspection and the valuation report dated 27.09.2004 Ex.PW67/B as per the cost of construction of the property which was assessed to be Rs. 38,94,700/ as on 31.03.2002 taking into consideration the cost index of Haridwar. In the cross examination, this witness clearly stated that he had calculated the cost of construction on the basis of the documents which were asked from the accused persons vide letter Ex.PW67/E. The accused persons had themselves got evaluated the cost of construction of the above said property by way of an independent witness DW4 Sh. Parish Rao who stated himself to be a government approved valuer. This witness calculated the cost of construction of the said property to be Rs. 23,23,184.60/ as per the valuation report Ex.DW4/A (colly.). This witness of the defence stated in his cross examination that he had assessed the cost of construction as per the cost index of the year 2001 on a general basis and not on the basis of a specific area. Further, this witness also stated that the site plan, plan and elevation of the structure, property tax etc were not supplied to him at the time of evaluation of the cost of construction whereas PW67 had calculated the cost of construction on the basis of plinth area rates taking into consideration the cost index of Haridwar on 31.03.2002. It cannot be disputed that the cost of construction of a particular property varies as per the area in CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 103 which the said property is being constructed depending upon the cost of raw material as well as the cost of labour prevalent in that particular area at a specific time. Thus, calculating the cost of construction as per the general formula without taking into consideration the area where the property is being constructed cannot be reliable. Further, the defence witness had not taken into consideration the building plan and other incidental expenses incurred at the time of construction of the property including water and electricity charges and thus the evaluation of cost of construction of the property done by him cannot be taken into consideration. The averment of the Ld. Defence Counsel that PW67 had calculated the said cost as per the CPWD rates and not as per the actual construction is without any basis since the construction plan is not approved till the time it is passed by CPWD and thus the construction has to be in compliance with the CPWD plan. Thus, the valuation report Ex.DW4/A (colly) cannot be relied upon.
20.3 It is averred by Ld. Defence Counsel that Khasra no. 32, Village Salempur, area 0.338 hectares was not purchased by the accused persons and was purchased by Ram Aadhar and thus the value of the said property cannot be included in the total assets of the accused persons. Perusal of the record shows that PW49 Sh. Subhash Chand who was the former owner of the said property clearly stated that Mukesh Kumar Panwar had approached PW49 and told him that he wanted to purchase the aforesaid property in the name of Ram Aadhar but Mukesh Kumar would only pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ in cash for the said property. This witness went on to say that the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 104 amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ and the registry expenses of Rs. 15,300/ were paid by Mukesh Kumar only and not by Ram Aadhar. During cross examination, this witness categorically denied that the entire amount for the purchase of Khasra no. 32 was paid by Ram Aadhar or that Mukesh Kumar was only a property dealer in the said transaction. The Hon'ble Court in 'Jaydayal Poddar (deceased through LRs) Vs MST Bibi Hazra & Ors. 1974 AIR 171' enunciated that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person ascertaining it to be so. The 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. It was propounded that the essence of benami is the intention of the party concerned and often such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. In this case, it was held that though the question whether a particular sale is benami or not is largely one of fact and for determining this question, no absolute formula or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid down, yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indica, the courts are usually guided by the following circumstances :
a) the source from which the purchase money came
b) the nature of possession of the property, after the purchase
c) notice, if any, for giving a transaction a benami colour
d) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 105 and the alleged benamidar,
e) custody of the title deeds after the sale and
f) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.
20.4 The emphases of the decision on benami purchase is that there has to be either some direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence to raise an inference that the property alleged to be benami had been purchased with the funds / resources of someone other than the person in whose name the property is shown in the document. In the present case, the above stated factors have to be considered on the anvil of the overall circumstances existing at the time of purchase of Khasra no. 32, Village Salempur. PW49 himself stated that he was paid Rs. 1,50,000/ in cash by Mukesh Kumar Panwar for the purchase of the above said property and he had discretely told PW49 that it was him only who wanted to purchase the above said property in the name of Ram Aadhar. In fact, the conduct of Mukesh Kumar Panwar in purchasing benami properties is substantiated from the evidence of PW71 Dr. Manas Chauhan whose property was also purchased by Mukesh Kumar Panwar in the name of Purshottam Kumar. This witness clearly stated in his examination in chief on Oath that Mukesh Kumar Panwar told him that his father i.e R.P.S. Panwar (A1) had asked Mukesh Kumar Panwar not to buy properties in his own name as he had many properties in his name already. Thus, the direct evidence of PW49 alongwith the circumstantial evidence of PW71 go on to CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 106 prove that the purchase of Khasra no. 32, Village Salempur, District Haridwar was a benami transaction in the name of Ram Aadhar whereas the said property remained in possession of Mukesh Kumar Panwar and the payment with respect to the said property was also made by him only.
20.5 Ld. Defence Counsels have also refuted the entries at serial no. 6, 7 and 11 of the above table stating that property bearing no. SF14, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram was originally allotted in the name of Purshottam Kumar, who is a relative of A1 to A4 and the said property was never sold to A3. In fact, only a GPA was executed in favour of A3 since A3 was a property dealer and could fetch good prices from the further sale of the said property. They have also disputed purchase of property bearing no. SF29, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad stating that the same is in the name of Manas Chauhan and the payment for the same was made by LuvKush, tauji of Purshottam Kumar. Similarly, property at RTF006, first floor, Shipra Sun City was allotted in the name of Chandra Devi who was a widow having no child and therefore the accused family has nothing to do with the said property.
20.6 With respect to property no. SF14, PW68 Purshottam Kumar stated in his examination in chief that the said property (shop) was purchased by him by way of a lease deed Ex.PW68/A (colly) for a total consideration of Rs. 4,35,000/ out of which Rs. 1,50,000/ was paid by him in cash and the remaining amount was paid by Chandri Devi, bua of PW68. However, this CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 107 witness admitted in his examination in chief itself that he had executed a Mukhtarnama (GPA) Ex.PW68/B on 10.08.2001 in favour of Mukesh Kumar Panwar with respect to SF14. This witness on resiling from his previous statement given to the IO was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and he stated that he was earning Rs. 36,000/ per month for the last five years acting as a driver of the vehicle of the contractor and the payment with respect to the above said property was made through cheque as well as cash. This witness admitted in his cross examination that the payment with respect to the property SF14 by way of cheque was issued from the account of Mukesh Kumar and not from his own account or account of his bua Chandri Devi. Further, this witness also forgot the amount of money paid by him in cash for the purchase of the above said property. In fact, he admitted that Ex.PW68/A i.e the allotment letter in respect of SF14 was in his name alongwith the name of Mukesh Panwar as allottee and the address mentioned in the said document is that of the residence of Mukesh Kumar and not PW68. This witness admitted that Ex.PW68/A bears the signatures of Mukesh Kumar and that the property in fact was purchased by Mukesh Kumar and therefore his signatures appeared at the given points.
20.7 PW68 Purshottam Kumar stated in his cross examination that A 1 was the real fufa of PW68 and A2 is his real bua and he is in good relation with the accused family. This statement of PW68 alongwith the deposition made by him in his cross examination regarding SF14 clearly goes on to prove that the property no. SF14 was purchased by Mukesh Kumar as a CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 108 benami transaction in light of the factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaydayal Poddar case (supra).
20.8 Shop No. SF29, Shipra Sun City was also stated by PW68 to be purchased in his name from Manas Chauhan for which ikrarnama (agreement to sell) Ex.PW68/C was executed. However, PW68 admitted in his examination in chief only that the money for the said property was paid by Mukesh Kumar by cash as well as cheque and in fact the said property was further transferred to Mukesh Kumar by him on 15.01.2002 through Hastantaran patra (sale deed) which bears the signature of Mukesh Kumar. This statement of PW68 clearly proves that Mukesh Kumar Panwar was in a habit of purchasing benami properties by making the payment for the same himself and securing his right over the property by executing some documents which would later prevent any dispute between him and benamidar.
20.9 Property RTF006, First Floor, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram is in the name of Chandri Devi as per the allotment letter dated 16.06.2001 Mark PW16/X9. Nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to dispute Ex.PW73/A and Ex.PW73/B by virtue of which it is proved that RTF006 was purchased by Chandri Devi and not by the accused family. Therefore, the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is admitted and this property cannot be counted in the list of immovable properties belonging to the accused family.
20.10 It is also submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that property no. A
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
109
703, Plot No. 52, Sector9, New Panvel, Mumbai was jointly owned by Mukesh Kumar Panwar and Kalyan Singh but the IO deliberately did not place on record the instruments through which payments were made with respect to the said property in order to save Kalyan Singh and implicate A3. The prosecution has examined PW85 Sh. Suryakant Daji Padyar who was working in M/s Haware Engineering and Builders Pvt. Ltd which had provided booking advice, receipts as well as application form to Mukesh Kumar Panwar with respect to this property. This witness identified the original receipt no. 016009 dated 30.11.2002 Ex.PW85/B by which Rs. 5000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar in cash for this property. He also identified receipt no. 024282 dated 06.05.2003 Ex.PW85/C by which Rs. 2 lakhs through two cheques were paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar only for the purchase of the above said property. Similarly, he identified receipt Ex.PW 85/D by which Rs. 1,50,000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar, receipt Ex.PW85/E by which Rs. 1 lakh was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar, Ex.PW85/F by which Rs. 50,000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar, Ex.PW85/G by which again Rs. 50,000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar, Ex.PW80/L a cheque by which Rs. 1 lakh was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar as well as Ex.PW80/M a cheque by which Rs. 50,000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar. All these payments were made by Mukesh Kumar Panwar through various cheques and thus it cannot be disputed that the payment with respect to this property was paid by none other than Mukesh Kumar Panwar only. Further, this witness stated in his examination in chief CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 110 that on 29.09.2003 (the time when the inquiry had already been initiated against the accused family by CBI) Mukesh Kumar Panwar had requested for the cancellation of the allotment of the above said flat and had specifically requested in the application for cancellation to transfer the receipts as well as the amount already paid to Kalyan Singh. This witness also produced the application Mark 85/B to show the payments made by Mukesh Kumar Panwar. From the calculation of the payments made through cheque by Mukesh Kumar Panwar it is clear that amount of Rs. 5,55,000/ was paid by Mukesh Kumar Panwar during the check period for purchase of the above property and not by Kalyan Singh.
20.11 The accused persons have not disputed any other entry in the list of immovable property in the name of accused persons and thus, the total assets in the name of the accused family, minus the cost of purchase of property RTF006, First Floor, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram is worth Rs. 1,50,22,209/ (Rs. 1,53,80,982/ minus Rs. 3,58,773/). The most surprising fact is that neither A1 nor A2 had disclosed these immovable properties which were specifically in their name in their property returns. In fact, property return of Laxmi Devi Ex.PW79/A, 20032004 showed her immovable property to be nil whereas as per the case proved by prosecution she had in her name plot no. SGIII, Shivalik Ganga, Haridwar as well as property no. 616B, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. This clearly shows the abetment of A2 Laxmi Devi in helping her husband A1 to CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 111 purchase property in her name without disclosing the same in her department.
21. MOVABLE ASSETS 21.1 The prosecution has proved 31 entries in the Statement B (Movable Properties) acquired by the accused family during the check period by way of the table mentioned below alongwith the witnesses and the documents through which those assets are proved to be acquired by the accused family.
Statement B (Movable Assets acquired during the check period) Sl.No Details of Property Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Bullet Motorcycle No.DL7SK 58,200/ PW15/B PW15 8474 in the name of Dinesh & P41 (admitted Kumar Panwar on 29.07.2021 (D49) by A4)
2. Car DL4CF0988 in the name 63,000/ PW39/B PW39 of Mukesh Kumar Panwar on (D28) & 30.10.2001 PW47/D (D
28)
3. Maruti Zen Car DL4CF3588 80,000/ PW47/B PW47 in the name of Dinesh Kumar (D26) Panwar on 11.07.2003
4. Household items as on 3,24,205/ PW76/A PW76 16.09.2003 (D287) 86A Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi110051
5. Household items as on 2,15,000/ PW77/A PW77 16.09.2003 (D280) CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 112 616B Shipra Suncity, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
6. Household items as on 8,200/ P105 PW84 16.09.2003 (admitted by shop no. SF22, Shipra A3) Suncity,Indirapuram, (D126) Ghaziabad
7. Household items as on 1,11,390/ P107 PW84 16.09.2003 (admitted by rd flat no. 54D, Shipra Suncity, 3 A3) floor, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (D127)
8. Gold and Silver ornaments as 64,000/ PW36/A PW36 on 16.09.2003 (silver) (D283) 5,90,390/ (gold)
9. Furniture purchased by Laxmi 36,072/ PW17/A PW17 Devi (D159)
10. Mattress purchased from M/s 850/ PW18/B PW18 Floors & Furnishings (D160)
11. Fabric clothes purchased from 23,505/ PW18/C PW18 M/s Floors & Furnishings (D161)
12. Pillow bedsheet etc. purchased 31,450/ PW18/D PW18 from M/s Floors & Furnishings (D162)
13. 2 instant geysers and 2 ceiling 7360/ PW1/B PW1 fans (D163)
14. Pukhraj Monga Moti stones 39,700/ PW82/A PW82 slip recovered from residence M131/2003 of A1
15. Bank balance of Dinesh Kumar 3,60,239/ P124 Admitted Panwar, A/c No. 16947 Vijaya (D177) by A4 Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 113
16. Bank balance of Laxmi Devi in 97,849/ Ex.PW10/A PW10 A/c No. 15039, SBI, Khureji (D176) Khas, Delhi
17. Bank balance of R.P.S. Panwar 5,50617/ Ex.PW42/A PW42 in A/c No. 01190/006606 SBI, on (D286) Chanderlok, Janpath. 15.07.200 3
18. Two ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 10,000/ Ex.P93 and Admitted Panwar bearing no. 00178582 Ex.P94 by A1 dated 22.03.2001 (D86)
19. Two ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 10,000/ Ex.P95 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 00178583 (D87) by A1 dated 22.03.2001
20. Four ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 20,000/ Ex.P96 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 2154398 (D88) by A1
21. Two ICICI Bonds of R.P.S 10,000/ Ex.P97 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 07518618 (D89) by A1
22. Six IDBI Bonds of Laxmi Devi 30,000/ Ex.P91 Admitted Panwar bearing no. 170047497 (D85) by A2
23. Bank balance of Laxmi Devi 11,76,036 Proceedings Admitted Panwar of A/c no. / of 14.01.2019 by A2 01190/028176 in SBI Gandhi Ex.P52 Nagar as on 16.09.2003 (D285)
24. Bank balance of Mukesh 6,24,363/ Ex.P172 Admitted Kumar Panwar of A/c no. 5247 (D288) by A3 in PNB Ghaziabad as on 16.09.2003
25. Bank balance of Mukesh 35,271/ Ex.P308 Admitted Kumar Panwar of A/c no. (D471) by A3 0031050213886 in HDFC Bank, Delhi CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 114
26. Bank balance of M/s Laser 50,000/ Ex.P306 (D Admitted Hospital in Citizens Co 463) by A3 operative Bank, Noida, A/c no.
03CA00355001
27. Bank balance of M/s Laser 90,500/ Ex.P305 Admitted Hospital in Citizens Co (D462) by A3 operative Bank, Noida, A/c no.
03CA00334401
28. Bank balance of Laxmi Devi 22,66,000 Ex.P171 Admitted Panwar in account No.8520 of / (D281) by A3 Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi Balance as on 03.02.1999 -
76,656/
29. Balance in the NSS A/c 81,092/ Ex.27/A PW27 No.17716 of RPS Panwar (D102)
30. Room Cooler purchased on 3300/ PW55/B PW55 2.05.1999
31. A/C purchased by Laxmi on 20,000/ PW55/A PW55 08.06.2003 Total 70,88,589 70,88,589 Thus, the total worth of all the movable assets acquired by the accused family during the check period was assessed by the prosecution to be Rs. 70,88,589/ comprising of two cars, one motorcycle, furniture, ICICI and IDBI Bonds, room cooler, AC as well as the bank balance of the accused persons.
21.2 Ld. Defence Counsel has disputed the entry of gold and silver
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
115
ornaments as well as precious stone which are included by the prosecution in the list of movable assets stating that the jewellery items were seized by the court only as a security and in fact those items were not even included in the list of movable assets filed by the IO alongwith the chargesheet since there was no proof of the fact that these jewellery items were purchased during the check period. I totally agree with the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel relating to the gold and silver jewellery and ornaments that these items should not be included in the list of movable properties acquired by the accused during the check period as there is no proof on record that these items were purchased during the check period. Similarly, item at serial no. 14 relating to Pukhraj Monga Moti should also not been included in the list of movable assets since PW82 himself stated in his cross examination that he was not aware as to whether the slip Ex.PW82/A was only an estimate prepared by his father regarding the value of those stones or whether those items mentioned in the slip were actually sold to the accused persons.
21.3 Ld. Defence Counsel has also refuted the value of the household items assessed by the valuer qua property no. 86A, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi, 616B, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, shop at SF22, Shipra Sun City Indirapuram and Flat no. 54D Shipra Sun City, Third floor, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad on the ground that property no. 616B, 54D and SF22 were rented out. It is not disputed that all the three properties mentioned above were rented properties and the same has been stated by PW84 i.e the IO himself and PW77 who participated in the raiding team in his cross examination.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 116 Likewise, the prosecution has included the value of the household items at property no. 86A, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi as on 16.09.2003 amounting to Rs. 3,24,205/ in the list of movable properties whereas even in the value of movable properties as on 01.04.1999 the value of household items as per observation memos is shown to be Rs. 624990/ which includes the value of the articles at Radhey Shyam property. Undeniably, the value of the household items at this property would have increased in 2003 as compared to 1999 more so in the light of the fact that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution that any new item has been added in the said list of household items in 2003 which was not included in 1999. Further, it is also not clearly stated in Annexure A i.e movable assets as on 01.04.1999 as to the properties to which these household items relate. Thus, the value of the household items should not be included in the list of movable properties as on 16.09.2003 as well as the list of movable properties as on 01.04.1999.
21.4 The receipt of mattress, fabric clothes, pillows, bedsheets etc purchased from M/s Floors & Furnishings were recovered from the house of accused persons during search but it has nowhere been mentioned in the receipts Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C as to who had bought these items. Thus, merely on the ground that these receipts were recovered from the house of accused persons does not go on to prove that these items were purchased by the accused persons only. Thus, entries at serial no. 10, 11 and 12 cannot be included in the value of the list of movable properties.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
117
21.5 The accused have also refuted the value of the ICICI and IDBI
Bonds stating that these bonds were redeemed by the accused persons and hence, should be counted as the income of the accused persons. However, perusal of documents admitted by A1 and A2 i.e Ex.P93, Ex.P94, Ex.P95, Ex.P96, Ex.P97, Ex.P91 clearly shows that these bonds were purchased during the check period by the accused persons. However, there is no document or any other proof filed on record which go on to prove that these bonds were redeemed during the check period and thus should be counted as the income of the accused persons during that period. If these bonds were redeemed after the check period then that would not be a matter for consideration for this court as this court is concerned only with the assets of the accused existing on the beginning of the check period i.e 01.04.1999 and the income / assets of the accused persons at the end of the check period i.e 16.09.2003. Since, there is no document to prove that these bonds were redeemed during the check period they cannot be counted as an income of the accused during this period.
21.6 Ld. Defence Counsels have also disputed the bank balance in the Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Account of Laxmi Devi bearing no. 8520 stating that the said account was existing on 01.04.1999 but was closed on 08.05.2003 when the balance amount in this account of Rs. 59381/ was transferred to the SBI Account, Khureji Khas of Laxmi Devi bearing no. 15039. The prosecution has proved three bank accounts of Laxmi Devi in the list of movable properties as on 16.09.2003 i.e :
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 118
a) SBI, Gandhi Nagar, Account no. 01190/028176.
b) SBI, Khureji Khas, Account no. 15039.
c) Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Account no. 8520.
There is no dispute with regard to the amount existing in the SBI Gandhi Nagar account of Laxmi Devi on 16.09.2003. The dispute is only with regard to the fact that Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas account of Laxmi Devi which is alleged to be closed on 08.05.2003 when the balance in the said account was transferred through DD No. 267332 to SBI Account Khureji Khas of Laxmi Devi.
21.7 Perusal of the account statement of Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas bearing no. 8520 shows that the balance amount existing in the said account on 08.05.2003 alongwith the interest credited therein was Rs. 59381/ after which the said account was closed and the balance of Rs. 59381/ was transferred vide DD No. 267332. Further, perusal of evidence of PW10 and statement of account of SBI Bank, Khureji Khas of Laxmi Devi bearing account no. 15039 Ex.PW10/A (colly) shows that on 12.05.2003 amount of Rs. 59381/ was deposited in that account from Vijaya Bank Account of Laxmi Devi. Thus, the balance existing in the Vijaya Bank Account of Laxmi Devi cannot be included separately in the list of movable assets as the said amount has already been included in the amount reflected in the SBI account, Khureji Khas of Laxmi Devi.
21.8 Ld. Defence Counsel has also disputed the balance in the NSS
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
119
account stating that PW27 himself stated that it is an old account existing prior to the check period. Perusal of the record shows that the balance in NSS account of R.P.S. Panwar bearing no. 17716 was shown to be Rs. 59657/ on 01.04.1999 whereas the balance in the same account was shown to be Rs. 81092/ on 16.09.2003. Thus, there has been an increase in the movable assets of the A1 as per this account.
21.9 The prosecution has also proved the purchase of room cooler on 02.05.1999 Ex.PW55/B and AC on 08.06.2003 Ex.PW55/A by the accused family and therefore there value have been added in the list of movable assets being acquired by the accused during the check period. There is no dispute with respect to entries at serial no. 1, 2, 3, 9, 13, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 in the list of movable property Statement B proved by the prosecution.
21.10 Thus, the value of movable assets of accused family as on 16.09.2003 would be (Sl. 1 + Sl. 2 + Sl. 3 + Sl. 9 + Sl. 13 + Sl. 15 + Sl. 16 + Sl. 17 + Sl. 18 + Sl. 19 + Sl. 20 + Sl. 21 + Sl. 22 + Sl. 23 + Sl. 24 + Sl. 25 + Sl. 26 + Sl. 27 + Sl. 29 + Sl. 30 + Sl. 31). The value of household items of either of the properties, value of gold and silver ornaments, value of articles purchased from M/s Floors & Furnishing, value of Pukhraj Monga Moti and the bank balance of Laxmi Devi in account no. 8520 Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas will not be taken into consideration by calculating the value of the movable assets as on 16.09.2003.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 120 The total value of movable assets of the accused family as on 16.09.2003 is Rs. 34,13,899/.
The total value of movable and immovable assets of accused family as on 16.09.2003, therefore, is Rs. 34,13,899/ plus Rs. 1,50,22,209/ which is equal to Rs. 1,84,36,108/.
22. Total Assets (Movable & Immovable) as on 01.04.1999. 22.1 The total immovable and movable assets of the accused family at the beginning of the check period i.e on 01.04.1999 is proved to be Rs. 23,89,193/ by the prosecution as per the list mentioned below :
Statement 'A' (Total Assets as on 01.04.1999) (Immovable & Movable Assets) Sl.No. Details of Assets Amount Exhibit Witness (Rs.)
1. Agricultural land of 2000 sq. Yds. 12,00,000/ Ex.P Admitted Khasra 314, Village Sahurpur, 150 to by A1 Mehrauli, Delhi 167(D 247 272
2. House hold items as per 6,24,990/ Observation Memos dated 16.09.2003
3. Bank Balance in SB A/c No.16947 111/ Ex.P Admitted of Dinesh Kumar Panwar in Vijaya 124 by A4 Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi as on (D CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 121 03.02.1999 177)
4. Bank Balance in SB A/c No.16948 111/ (D178) Admitted of Mukesh Kumar Panwar in by A3 Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi as on 03.02.1999
5. Balance in SB A/c No.16946 of 882/ Arun Kumar Panwar in Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi.
6. Balance in SB A/c No.01190 3,99,944/ Ex.P51 Admitted 028176 of Laxmi Devi in SBI, (D284) by A2 Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
7. Balance in SB A/c No.8520 of 76,656/ Ex.P Admitted Laxmi Devi in Vijaya Bank, 171 by A2 Khureji Khas, Delhi. (D281)
8. Balance in SB A/c 1,842/ Ex.PW4 PW42 No.01190/06606 of RPS Panwar in 2/A SBI Chanderlok, Janpath, New (D286) Delhi.
9. ICICI Bond No.4719972 in the 15,000/ Ex.PW4 PW40 name of Laxmi Devi Panwar on 0/J 18.12.1998 (colly) (D549)
10. ICICI Bond No.4719968 in the 10,000/ Ex.PW4 PW40 name of RPS Panwar on 0/J 18.12.1998 (colly) (D549)
11. Balance in the NSS A/c No.17716 59,657/ Ex.27/A PW27 of RPS Panwar (D102) Total 23,89,193/ CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 122 22.2 However, household items as per observation memos at serial no. 2 will not be included in the said list as has already been explained above.
Thus, the value of the assets of accused family as on 01.04.1999 would be Rs. 2389193/ minus Rs. 624990/ which is equal to Rs. 17,64,203/.
Further, PW43 Suresh Chand Ojha, DGM, Vigilance, BSNL clearly stated in his evidence that A1 while functioning as GMTD, Moradabad issued work order of more than Rs. 5,000/ at one time and got it executed whereas no power has been given to GMTD to issue such huge amount of work order himself. This witness went on to say that A1 gave approval of around 1900 works pertaining to electrical and civil department worth Rs. 3.7 crores from July 1999 to March 2003 for which bills of work were received in advance without any prior approval of estimate as required. Even as per the record, false bills were prepared by A1 to siphon off money. PW59 Satwant Singh Grover also stated in his examination in chief that since he was working with R.P.S. Panwar and reporting to him, he knew that people did not carry good reputation of A1 R.P.S. Panwar.
22.3 In view of the above stated discussion, the final table for DA calculation would be as follows :
Serial DA Calculation Amount No. 1. Assets existing on the beginning of the Rs. 17,64,203/.
check period i.e 01.04.1999 Statement A
2. Assets at the end of the check period i.e Rs. 1,84,36,108/.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal)
Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022
123
16.09.2003 Statement B Movable +
Immovable
3. Assets acquired during the check period Rs. 1,66,71,905/
(BA)
4. Income during the check period Statement Rs. 21,77,178/.
C
5. Expenditure during the check period Rs. 18,20,183/.
Statement D
6. Likely savings (CD) Rs. 3,56,995/
7. Disproportionate Assets = (BA) - (CD) Rs. 1,63,14,910/
8. Percentage DA (DA x 100 / income) 749.36 %
22.4 Thus, it has been proved that the accused acquired
disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 1,63,14,910/ during the check period i.e 01.04.1999 to 16.09.2003 for which he could not satisfactorily account for even after completion of evidence. Thus, A1 is liable to be convicted for offence U/s 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) P.C. Act, 1988.
23. Accused No. 2 to Accused No. 423.1 In usual parlance, a person is held to be liable only if he or she has personally committed a crime. Detouring from the usual concept, the law on abetment says that he who has helped the criminal and provided him with any assistance in any form can also be held to be liable. Abetment is constituted by :
a) instigating a person to commit an offence,
b) engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence, or CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 124
c) intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence.
23.2 Abetment by aid is abetment by intentionally helping (by an act or illegal omission) the doing of any criminal offence. Explanation (2) of Section 107 IPC clarifies that a person is said to aid the doing of an act, who either prior to or at the time of commission of an offence, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act. In 'P. Nallammal & Anr. Vs State (1999) 6 SCC 559' it was held that the acquisition and possession of any property by a public servant is capable of being abetted and there is neither any express or any implied exclusion of the 1988 Act to deal with such a situation. Under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try not only an offence punishable under the said statue but also one for conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of any offence there under. The private individuals could be prosecuted by the Special Court under the Act on the ground that they had conspired with or abetted the act of criminal misconduct committed by a public servant within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act, 1988.
23.3 Thus, provoking, encouraging and aiding anyone for doing any criminal act is punishable by law under abetment.
23.4 A2 Laxmi Devi, A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar and A4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar have been charged with the offence of abetting the accused no.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 125 1 in amassing wealth disproportionate to the known source of income of the entire family. It has been proved from the evidence lead by the prosecution that A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar purchased several properties in his own name and in the name of benamidars after making the payment for the same himself. The income of Mukesh Kumar Panwar as proved during trial was much less than the expenditures incurred by him on acquiring the movable and the immovable assets in his name. Mukesh Kumar was unable to prove as to how he was able to amass wealth to be able to purchase these immovable assets and thus it is proved that Mukesh Kumar Panwar being the son of A1, helped him in amassing wealth by purchasing properties in his own name out of the disproportionate wealth amassed by his father.
23.5 A4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar was a student of MBBS during the check period and several expenses were incurred on his studies by A1. The defence was unable to prove the source of income of accused no. 4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar during the check period. Dinesh Kumar Panwar vaguely argued that he used to give tuitions at the time when he was studying out of which he was able to earn a meager amount. However, that amount was not large enough to enable him to buy immovable properties in his name as shown in Statement B. Thus, Dinesh Kumar Panwar, being the son of A1 also helped him in amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income by purchasing immovable properties in his name without having any income and thus abetted A1 in the commission of offence U/s 13 (1) (e) read CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 126 with Section 13 (e) (2) P.C. Act, 1988.
23.6 Laxmi Devi Panwar, wife of A1 R.P.S. Panwar, deposited huge amount of cash in her Vijaya Bank account as has been admitted by her in Ex.P214 to Ex.P239. No explanation has been given as to the source of this cash. Further, she purchased property no. 616B, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram amounting to Rs. 15,84,829/ in her own name as proved by PW 73 by way of Ex.PW73/C. The entire income of Laxmi Devi Panwar was not that much which could enable her to purchase this property alone. In fact, she had purchased one more property in her name at Shivalik Ganga, Haridwar. Further, to add on to it, the intimation regarding the purchase of both these properties was not given by her to her department as the property return Ex.PW79/A of A2 showed nil as immovable property. This clearly proves the intent of Laxmi Devi as well as her act to help her husband A1 in amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income as there is no distinct proof that Laxmi Devi Panwar had amassed wealth by her own sources. In her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, Laxmi Devi Panwar went on to say before this court that it was due to the acts of her husband that she has been implicated in this case and that she did not complain about her husband as that would not have yielded any results as her husband i.e A1 would have connived with the police officials as well. Thus, the offence of abetment is proved against Laxmi Devi Panwar as well.
Thus, A2, A3 and A4 are liable to be convicted for offence U/s CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 127 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act.
24. Accused No. 5. Gyan Prakash Agarwal 24.1 The prosecution has cassiduously pleaded that accused no. 1 R.P.S. Panwar had given cash of Rs. 11 lakhs to Gyan Prakash Agarwal, a Chartered Accountant, who was also running a C.A Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society, for issuing cheques in favour of his son Mukesh Kumar Panwar. During the course of search, the Investigating Authority recovered photocopy of two cheques, one for Rs. 6 lakhs dated 22.07.2003 Ex.P4 (admitted by A1 himself) and another cheque amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs dated 22.06.2003 Ex.P4 (admitted by A1) issued by A5 from the residence of A1 having notings upon it in the handwriting of A1 himself. It is the case of the prosecution that A5 has thus helped the accused family in creating illegal wealth by converting their cash into white money and thus is punishable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) P.C. Act.
24.2 In refutation of the imputation it is averred by Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of A5 that A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar approached in In Needs Chit Pvt. Ltd and deposited Rs. 11 lakhs cash for allotment of shares in his name as per the rule of the company since cash amount for the purchase of shares was allowed until the amendment of 2014 in Companies Act. In Needs Chit was a Private Ltd. Company controlled by the Board of Directors. Only the Board of Directors were responsible for daytoday affairs of the company and A5 had no role to play in that. It was the wish and command of the CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 128 Board of Directors not to issue shares in favour of A3. Hence, A3 applied for refund of the share money for which the money was returned through cheques Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 wherein A5 had signed those cheques in his capacity of Authorized Signatory of those cheques.
24.3 I have heard the averments of both the parties and have perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that there is a handwritten note on Ex.P4 at Q396 as well as Ex.P5 at Q221 of A1 R.P.S. Panwar. As per Q 396, it is written 'received from G.P. Agarwal, CA, in lieu of cash of Rs. 6 lakhs received in lieu of selling of plot for Rs. 9 lakhs bank draft no. of three lakhs each on the name of Laser Hospital.' This portion is admitted by A1 to be in his handwriting. On Ex.P5 as well there is a noting Q221 stating 'taken from Sh. G.P. Agarwal after paying him Rs. 5 lakhs in cash from my pocket.' This portion is also admitted by A1 to be in his handwriting. Further, both Q 396 and Q221 were sent for handwriting examination to CFSL and examined by the Principal Scientific Officer of CFSL PW80. As per the report, Ex.PW 80/Z1, both these questioned handwritings are the handwritings of A1 R.P.S. Panwar only. Thus, from the admission of A1 as well as from the CFSL report Ex.PW80/Z1 it stands proved that both the handwritten portions on Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 were written by A1 R.P.S. Panwar only. From these handwritten notes, it is clear that cheques were issued to A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar in lieu of the cash given by R.P.S. Panwar to A5. Now the only defence taken by A5 is that these cheques were issued for purchase of shares of In Needs Chit Fund Company and since those shares could not be procured, CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 129 the amount was returned by way of cheques to A3 from the account of In Needs Chit Funds Ltd by A5 as the Authorized Signatory of the said company. To buttress this imputation, Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the signature portion of the cheque Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 wherein accused no. 5 has signed as the Authorized Signatory and it bears the stamp 'for In Needs Chits (P) Ltd.'. However, it is an admitted fact that In Needs Chit Fund Company was a private limited company as stated by Ld. Defence Counsels and therefore its shares could not have been floated to public for sale or listed in a stock exchange. The best case of the defence could have been that this amount was given in cash to A5 for investment purposes in In Needs Chit Fund Company. But if that would have been the case, then some proof of investment should have been given by the In Needs Chit Fund Company to A1 in the form of a receipt or any other document. The defence has failed to place any such proof of investment on record. Moreover, the account statement of In Needs Chits Fund Company has not been filed on record to prove that the said cheque amount was deducted from the account of the company and not the private account of accused no. 5. Thus, accused no. 5 has failed to discharge the onus of proof on his shoulders and therefore A5 is liable to be convicted for the offence U/s 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) P.C. Act, 1988.
25. CONCLUSION
1. A1 R.P.S. Panwar is convicted for offence U/s 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) P.C. Act, 1988.
CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022 130
2. A2 Laxmi Devi Panwar is convicted for offence U/s 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) P.C. Act.
3. A3 Mukesh Kumar Panwar is convicted for offence U/s 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) P.C. Act.
4. A4 Dinesh Kumar Panwar is convicted for offence U/s 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) P.C. Act.
5. A5 Gyan Prakash Agarwal @ G.P. Agarwal is convicted of the offence U/s 109 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) P.C. Act.
Dictated & Announced in the open court today dated 21.12.2022 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex/New Delhi CBI No. 11/2019 (Namrita Aggarwal) Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI21/21.12.2022