C.B.I. vs . 1. Akhtar Ali Farooquee on 23 December, 2014

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . 1. Akhtar Ali Farooquee on 23 December, 2014

IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) 01, CBI,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CC No.08/12
Unique Case ID No.02406R1110372008

C.B.I. Vs. 1. Akhtar Ali Farooquee
Sh. A.J. Farooquee
D1 Type Duplex Flats,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

Permanent resident of :
PO Champ, Village Panchrukhia,
Distt. Siwan, Bihar.

2. Mst. Razia Sultana
W/o Sh. Akhtar Ali Farooquee
D1 Type Duplex Flats,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

RC No. : 19(A)/2005
u/Ss : S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 and 109 IPC r/w
S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988

Judgment delivered on : 20.12.2014
Order on Sentence : 23.12.2014

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 1 of 7
ORDER ON SENTENCE

Present: Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI

Convicts AA Farooquee and Razia Sultana are present with Sh.

Hari, Advocate

Convict A1 AA Farooquee has been convicted for the offence

u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 and convict Razia Sultana has

been convicted for the offence u/S.109 IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of

POC Act, 1988.

1.0 Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that maximum

punishment be awarded to the convicts. It has been submitted that in view of

Section 16 of POC Act, appropriate fine be also imposed taking into account

the amount of disproportionate assets. Ld. PP has also submitted that

disproportionate assets be confiscated in exercise of the power conferred u/S.

452 Cr.P.C.

2.0 Sh. Hari, Ld. Counsel for convict AA Farooquee assisted by Sh.

Vishnu Sharma and Sh. Athar Alam, Advocates have made a detailed

arguments to submit that a lenient view may be taken against the convicts.

Ld. Counsel has detailed following mitigating factors for taking a liberal

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 2 of 7
view against the convicts :

a) Convict AA Farooquee is around 59 years of age and convict Razia

Sultana is around 61 years of age ;

b) Convicts are not keeping good health. Convict AA Farooquee is

suffering from various ailments and convict Razia Sultana has

undergone brain surgery. Medical documents in this regard have also

been placed on record ;

c) Convict AA Farooquee was placed under suspension immediately

after the raid was conducted in the present case and therefore, he has

already suffered a lot during the trial ;

d) Convict AA Farooquee is the sole bread earner of his family. Both his

children i.e. Imkan Ali and Sana Farooquee are still studying. Imkan

Ali is a college student and Sana Farooquee is still in the school ;

e) Convicts have been leading a simple life style as has been reflected

even from the case of the prosecution ; and

f) Convicts have been quite regular and punctual during the trial and they

have never misused the liberty granted to them by the court.

Sh. Hari, Ld. Counsel for the convicts has further submitted that

the convicts have already suffered a lot and therefore, a lenient view may be

taken against them.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 3 of 7
3.0 Convict AA Farooquee has been convicted for holding the

disproportionate assets in the sum of around Rs.60 lakhs and convict Razia

Sultana has been convicted for instigating, aiding or abetting the commission

of offence. Convict AA Farooquee was a senior police official and as per

record, he misconducted himself and amassed disproportionate assets during

the period he was a public servant.

3.1 The society looks upon at the senior officers with great

expectation and if any misdemenour is found on their part, negative message

goes to the society. The society also expects from the court that if a person is

found guilty for an offence, then such convict should be dealt with in a harsh

manner. It is a matter of common knowledge that corruption is spreading like

cancer in this country and therefore, the Apex Court time and again has

reiterated that harsh sentence is liable to be awarded in such cases. In the

case of State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (2006) 8 SCC 693, it was

inter alia observed as under :
"It is difficult to accept the prayer that a lenient view be taken in this case.
The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has
spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by
the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the
functioning of the entire country. Largescale corruption retards the
nationbuilding activities and everyone has to suffer on that count.
Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the
body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and
demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would
improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 4 of 7
does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself
assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post."

4.0 Sentencing is a very difficult task. The court has to maintain a

balance while awarding sentence and has to take into account the various

components i.e. age, educational background and record of the offender. In

Giassudin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1932, it has been

inter alia held as under :
"a proper sentences is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of
offence, the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence, the
prior criminal record (if any) of offender, the age of the offender, the
record of offender as to employment, the background of offender with
reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the
emotional and mental condition of offender, the prospects for
rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of offender to
normal life in the community, the possibility of the treatment or training of
offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime
by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for
such a deterrent in respect to particular type of offence. These factors have
to be taken into account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate
sentence."

In the present case, convicts are highly qualified persons. The

record also indicated that convict AA Farooquee has been a literary person.

Similarly, convict Razia Sultana has also been a literary person. The defence

witnesses deposed on oath that she had been in the work of translating and

had also taken part in the All India Radio programme.

While awarding the sentence, the court has to take into account

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 5 of 7
the interest of the society and the interest of an individual and also the object

which legislature wants to achieve by awarding punishment.

5.0 As discussed above, in the present case convict AA Farooquee

was a senior police officer. The offence proved agianst him is

disproportionate assets in the sum of Rs.61,42,292/. However, I consider that

taking into account the educational background, age and health condition,

convict AA Farooquee is sentenced to RI for 3 years u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.

13(2) POC Act, 1988. In regard to the payment of fine S.16 of POC Act

provides that while awarding the quantum of fine, the court has to take into

consideration the amount of value of the property for which the convict is

unable to account satisfactorily. This court has consistently held that

corruption can never be a profitable proposition. The fine should be

proportionate to the property which has been amassed disproportionately.

In the present case, the court has reached to the conclusion on

the basis of material on record that the convicts have failed to explain

satisfactorily the expenditure incurred on the construction of Batla house

property. CBI has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cost of

construction of this Batla house property was around Rs.64 lakhs. This

amount was allegedly spent from the period 2003 to 2005. I consider that

taking into account the entire facts and circumstances, fine of Rs.25 lakhs in

default SI for 2 years u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act is imposed on

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 6 of 7
convict AA Farooquee.

5.1 Convict Razia Sultana has been convicted for the offence u/S.

109 IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act 1988. Section 109 IPC

provides that the convict has to be punished with the punishment provided

for the substantive offence. Convict Razia Sultana is an old lady of around 61

years of age. She has also been suffering from various ailments and has also

undergone brain surgery. I consider that taking into account the entire facts

and circumstances, convict Razia Sultana is sentenced to RI for 2 years

and fine of Rs.10 lakhs in default of payment of fine SI for 1 year u/S.109

IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act.

6.0 A copy of the judgment alongwith order on sentence be given to

the convict free of cost.

File be consigned to RR.

Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
on 23.12.2014 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 7 of 7
IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) 01, CBI,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CC No.08/12
Unique Case ID No.02406R1110372008

C.B.I. Vs. 1. Akhtar Ali Farooquee
Sh. A.J. Farooquee
D1 Type Duplex Flats,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

Permanent resident of :
PO Champ, Village Panchrukhia,
Distt. Siwan, Bihar.

2. Mst. Razia Sultana
W/o Sh. Akhtar Ali Farooquee
D1 Type Duplex Flats,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

RC No. : 19(A)/2005
u/Ss : S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 and 109 IPC r/w
S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988

Date of Institution : 24.07.2008
Received by transfer on : 03.04.2012
Arguments Concluded on : 10.12.2014
Date of Decision : 20.12.2014

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 8 of 7
Appearances:
Sh. Surender Sinha, Ld. Spl. PP for CBI
Sh. Hari and Sh. Vishnu Sharma, Ld. Counsels for A1 AA Farooquee
Sh. Athar Alam, Ld. Counsel for A2 Razia Sultana

JUDGMENT

1.0 A1 AA Farooquee has been tried for the offence u/S.13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "POC Act") and A2 Razia Sultana has been tried for the offence u/S.109 IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w u/S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988.

A1 AA Farooquee after having done his post graduation from Aligarh Muslim University joined DANIPS (Delhi & Andaman Nicobar Island Police Service) in the year 1978 and in the year 1979 got married to A2 Razia Sultana, a post graduate from Aligarh Muslim University and only child of her parents. A1 and A2 were blessed with two children namely Imkaan Ali Farooquee and Sana Farooquee. Father of A2 Razia Sultana who was employed in postal department of Kolkata died in the year 1971. Mst. Jamila Khatoon mother of A2 shifted to Delhi in the year 1985 and expired in December 2003. During this period she stayed with the accused persons.

Case RC No.19(A)2005, Ex.PW67/A was registered on 05.04.2005 on the basis of source information against A1 and A2 alleging that accused persons have amassed disproportionate assets in the sum of Rs. 82,13,446/. During investigation, the check period was fixed from January CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 9 of 7 1985 to 05.04.2005. A1 was found to be in possession of assets in the sum of Rs.3,68,691/ before the check period, the details of which are as follows :

TABLE A Sl. No. Details of the Property Amount 1 Articles held prior to Jan. 1985 as per the inventory prepared at the residence of Sh. AA Farooquee during his house search on 06.04.2005 (claimed to be purchased) 11,500.00 2 Cost of the Jewellery items (649.40 gms) as valuated by the Govt. approved valuer found at the resident of Sh. Farooquee during his house search (claimed to be gifted) 357,191.00 TOTAL 368,691.00 Investigation revealed that A1 AA Farooquee had following income and other receipts during the check period :

TABLE B Income and receipts of A1 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Net Salary of Sh. AA Farooquee during his posting w.e.f.

           January 1985 to 04.04.05                                                      1,580,180.00
2          Survival benefit received from LIC, Moti Nagar, New Delhi by

Sh. AA Farooquee in respect of LIC Policy No.110393575 including survival benefit (Rs.45,000/, 24.10.1993, Rs.

45,000/, 24.10.1988, Rs.45,000/, 24.10.2003) 135,000.00 Loan availed from LIC, Moti Nagar, New Delhi by Sh.

Farooquee by assigning the policy No.110393575 on 3 18.05.2004 141,000.00 HB Loan availed from HDFC, Munirka for plot in Police Cop. Gp. Housing Society, Greater Noida by Sh. AA Farooquee on 4 02.05.2001 320,000.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 10 of 7 Sale of two scripts to M/s. Vibhore Video Vision (P) Ltd. on 5 21.12.1999 by Sh. AA Farooquee 45,000.00 Interest earned from RD Account 243013 of post office in r/o 6 Sana D/o Faridajalal w.e.f. 18.06.1998 to 05.08.2003. 4,868.00 Interest earned from RD Account 234690 of post office in r/o 7 Master Shariq Imam s/o Razia w.e.f. 08.08.1994 to 14.09.1999. 2,356.00 Interest earned from RD Account 234691 of post office in r/o Master Imkan Ali Farooquee S/o Razia w.e.f. 08.08.1994 to 8 14.09.1999. 2,356.00 Interest earned from FD Account 417499 of post office in r/o 9 Sana on 16.08.2003 1,192.00 Interest earned from NSS Account 9102387 of post office in 10 r/o Sh. AA Farooquee w.e.f. 1989 to 16.07.1997 4,640.00 Interest earned from Account 51064 of Bombay Mercantile 11 Bank, Daryaganj. 92.00 Interest earned in SB A/c No.20657 in r/o Sh. Farooquee with 12 SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 24.12.91 to 05.04.2005. 3,902.00 Interest earned in SB A/c No.25534 in r/o Master Farooquee 13 with SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 30.04.96 to 05.04.2005 7,128.00 Interest earned in SB A/c No.50617 in r/o Baby Sanna with 14 SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 18.02.2000 to 05.04.2005 477.00 Personal loan availed from SBI Daryaganj on 04.09.2001 15 through A/c No.01593007891 85,000.00 Personal loan availed from SBI Daryaganj on 02.06.2004 16 through A/c No.0159300789100 167,000.00 Loan availed from elder brother Sh. Iqbal Ali Farooquee in 17 1998 29,000.00 Award received from Urdu Academy for Creative Prose in the 18 year 1997 21,000.00 19 Car loan availed from department on 16.06.89 55,000.00 20 HBA availed from department on 22.12.87 121,500.00 Non refundable GPF availed from department on 01.05.2002 21 for purchase of plot. 70,000.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 11 of 7 Non refundable GPF availed from department on 13.10.2003 22 for payment to police Coop. Gp. Housing Society 100,000.00 23 Computer advance availed from department on 05.02.99 80,000.00 Non refundable GPF availed from department on 29.06.04 for 24 attention of Mayur Vihar Flat 70,000.00 Non refundable GPF availed from department on 21.02.05 for 25 treatment of wife. 100,000.00 26 Refundable GPF availed from department on 23.08.93 21,600.00 27 Refundable GPF availed from department on Jan 1991 10,500.00 28 Refundable GPF availed from department on 30.03.96 37,080.00 Refundable GPF availed from department on 18.10.2004 for 29 religious ceremony 50,000.00 Interest earned from Siwan Shetariya Gramin Bank Chap, 30 Siwan w.e.f. 28.03.85 - 05.04.2005 628.00 Non refundable GPF availed from department on 07.02.2000 31 for purchasing the consumer durables. 65,000.00 TOTAL 3,331,499.00 A2 Razia Sultana had following income during the check period:

Income of A2 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Interest earned in RD A/c No.241574 in r/o Farida Jalal with post office, Ramesh Nagar w.e.f. 06.01.1998 to 12.03.2003. 5,922.00 2 Interest in FD A/c No.416287 in r/o Razia Sultana with post 5,585.00 office, Ramesh Nagar w.e.f 16.01.2002 to 17.01.2005.

Interest in SB A/c No.20658 in the name of Smt. Razia Sultana with SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 01.10.1994 to 3 05.04.2005 3,795.00 4 Interest in SB A/c No.20659 in the name of Smt. Razia 2,794.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 12 of 7 Sultana and Sh. AA Farooquee with SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 22.04.1989 to 05.04.2005 Interest in SB A/c No.21728 in the name of Smt. Jamila Khatoon and Smt. Razia Sultana with SBI, Rajouri Garden 5 w.e.f. 30.04.1996 to 05.04.2005. 2,025.00 Car Loan availed for purchasing the WagonR car No.DL 9CE 6095 from ICICI Bank on 13.12.2002 in the name of Smt. 6 Razia Sultana 250,000.00 7 Income from the disposal of plot of Solan. 16,000.00 8 Income from Mehar 260,000.00 9 Income from STD Booth. 150,785.00 TOTAL 696,906.00 Investigation also revealed that A1 AA Farooquee had following expenditure during the check period :

TABLE C Expenditure of A1 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Unverifiable kitchen expenditure i.e. 1/3 (Gross income Rs.

30,25,671/ minus Income tax paid Rs.1,67,192/ divided by 3 = Rs.9,33,614/ 933,614.00 2 Expenditure towards schooling of Master Imkan in DPS, RK Puram w.e.f. 199697 to 19992000 55,575.00 Expenditure towards schooling of Master Imkan in DPS, RK 3 Puram w.e.f. 199900 to 20032004. 86,575.00 Education expenses of Imkan and Baby Sana in Sanskriti 4 School till 05.04.2005. 177,608.00 5 Expenses towards Indian Bank card including interest of in r/o 163,384.00 of card No.5420343009445904 and 5420343021042408 in the name of Sh. AA Farooquee w.e.f. 08.04.1995 to 06.09.1998 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 13 of 7 and 04.12.1988 to 03.12.2001 respectively Expenses towards repayment of loan to HDFC, New Delhi 6 w.e.f. 2001 to 05.04.2005. 15,895.00 Expenses towards premium of policy No.110393575 in the name of Sh. Farooquee including late fees w.e.f. Oct. 1988 till 7 05.04.2005. 267,226.00 Expenses towards Hobby classes of children w.e.f. April 2003 8 to 05.04.2005. 16,890.00 Expenses towards filling up of earth in Plot No.518A, Batla 9 House, New Delhi in 1990 20,000.00 10 Expenses on the salary of servant Mohan Singh w.e.f. 2003 to 05.04.05 54,000.00 11 Payment towards policy No.29791922 in 1985 275.00 12 Service charges paid in r/o flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar w.e.f.

Jan. 1990 to December 2004. 23,340.00 13 Ground rent paid in r/o flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. 2,223.00 14 Expenses towards premium of policy No.112950631 in the name of Sh. Farooquee including late fees w.e.f. 28.3.2001 till 05.04.2005. 31,426.00 15 Expenses towards Credit Card No.4129037100039460, 4541982320020818 and 4541982326015788 in the name of Sh. Farooquee since inception till 05.04.2005. 118,050.00 16 Expenses towards Credit Card No.5177194066145001 in the name of Sh. Farooquee since the inception of card till 05.04.2005. 1,300.00 17 Expenses towards Citi Bank Credit Card No.456822930149 in the name of Sh. Farooquee since the inception of card till 05.04.2005. 75,500.00 18 Expenses towards the purchase of shares of consolidated fibers and chemicals Ltd. Herdillia Polymers Ltd. and Herdillia Unimers Ltd. found during the house search of the accused (Total shares 3700 @ Rs.10 each) 37,000.00 19 Expenses towards payment of Mehar Rashi to Razia Sultana 260,000.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 14 of 7 TOTAL 2,339,881.00 A2 Razia Sultana had following expenditure during the check period :

Expenditure of A2 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 Expenditure towards insurance of car No.DL 9C E 6095 in the name of Smt. Razia Sultana 16,874.00 2 Expenditure towards purchase of rifle by Smt. Farooquee on 12.05.2000 39,670.00 Expenditure towards preparation of map in r/o F13, Batla 3 House 5,000.00 Expenditure towards repayment of the car loan to ICICI Bank 4 w.e.f. 13.12.2002 to 12.03.2005 267,950.00 Payment made to Sh. Sanjeev Nanda, CA towards filing of the IT returns and to process the application in respect of Imkan 5 International 7,000.00 Payment made to Apparel Export promotion council as fees 6 w.e.f. 199899 to March 2000 for M/s. Imkan International 2,500.00 Payment made to M/s. DD motors towards the service charge 7 of the car. 5,636.00 Payment made towards the phone No.25155949 by Smt. Razia 8 Sultana w.e.f. 12.04.2002 to 26.04.2004. 17,474.00 Payment made toward the purchased to two machine for STD 9 Booth. 24,096.00 10 Payment made toward the scheme Sahara Swarn Yojna 20,000.00 TOTAL 406,200.00 Investigation revealed two major items of immovable properties CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 15 of 7 in the name of A1 and A2.

Allegedly, A1 AA Farooquee purchased land measuring 2 katha one dhur at village Champ, PS Panchrukhi, Distt. Siwan, Bihar (mentioned at Sr. No.17 in Table D) from his brother Iqbal Ali Farooquee on 24.09.2001 at a consideration of Rs.10,000/. The original title deeds pertaining to it were found during the house search and SubRegistrar, Siwan also confirmed the transaction. On the aforesaid plot, two residential units were constructed.The property was got valued through the income tax department and as per the valuation report, the cost of the built up property was found to be Rs.25.20 lakhs. The plea of A1 was that out of this two, one plot belonged to him and other one belonged to his brother and therefore, both units were valuated separately and were found to be of Rs.9.17 lacs and Rs.16.03 lacs. Though, the entire land upon which both the units were constructed is in the name of A1 AA Farooquee, the benefit of Rs.16.03 lakhs was given to A1 and only one unit which was admitted by A1 AA Farooquee as of his own and assessed as Rs.9.17 lacs was taken as an assets of A1 AA Farooquee. The title deed of the immovable property mentioned at Sr. No.22 to 25 were also found during the house search and the cost of the same was taken as mentioned in the documents.

The fate of this entire case would depend upon the other property measuring 1355 sq. yds situated at 518A, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi (Khasra No.166, Village Joga Bai Extension, CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 16 of 7 Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi). Investigation revealed that the property is in the possession of A1 and A2 and a girls' hostel namely "Sultanat" was being run in the property. As per valuation done by Income Tax Department, it was valued as of Rs.64,77,800/. The plea of A1 AA Farooquee was that this property belonged to his mother in law Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. However, CBI did not accept the plea and reached to the conclusion that Batla House property belonged to A2 Razia Sultana primarily on the following grounds :

a) A1 AA Farooquee failed to provide the original documents regarding ownership of Mst. Jamila Khatoon, in respect of the Batla House property and falsely took a plea that the documents pertaining to this property were found missing after the search conducted by CBI team and a report in this regard was lodged at PS Rajouri Garden ;

b) During search, original documents dated 08.03.85 namely agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney in respect of plot measuring 500 sq. yds. in khasra No.166, village Joga Bai Extn. Jamia Nagar, Okhla executed by Charna @ Charan Singh in favour of A2 Razia Sultana regarding sale of plot measuring 500 sq. yds. for a consideration of Rs.

20,000/ were found. The documents were duly witnessed by PW3 Sh. Gopal Singh, PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob and PW8 Abdul Mannan. During investigation said Sh. Charna, Sh. Gopal Singh, Mohd. Yaqoob and Abdul Mannan confirmed that the property was sold to A2 Razia CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 17 of 7 Sultana Farooquee. PW14 Mst. Abida Begum also stated that the documents were signed in her presence and the property was purchased by A2 Razia Sultana.

c) Sh. Mohd. Yaqoob also stated that he also purchased adjacent piece of land measuring 350 sq. yds. from Charan Singh and another adjacent plot measuring 150 sq. yds. was purchased by A1 AA Farooquee.

d) During the house search, photocopy of another agreement dated 23.02.85 between Mst. Razia Sultana and Charan Singh regarding sale of one bigha of land at khasra No.166, Village Joga Bai Extn. Delhi at a consideration of Rs.20,000/, photocopy of the receipt dated 23.02.85 issued by Charna in favour of Razia Sultana for sale of plot measuring 1000 sq. yds. and affidavit dated 08.03.85 issued by Charna in favour of A2 Razia Sultana were also found. In both these documents there is an alteration in the measurement of the plot by over typing it. However, the documents were typed one and had signatures of A2 Razia Sultana and Charna @ Charan Singh and were duly notarized.

e) Investigation revealed that the original documents found during the house search of the accused regarding the purchase of 500 sq. yds. of land by A2 Razia Sultana, affidavit and receipt issued by Charna @ Charan Singh were missing and it appeared that these documents issued by Charna were misused by A1 AA Farooquee by making CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 18 of 7 alterations in the measurement of plot for effecting entries in the girdawari register. Thus, three types of document were found in respect of sale of aforesaid plot :

• Original documents i.e. agreement to sell and General power of attorney of 500 sq. yds by Charna in favour of A2 Razia Sultana dated 08.03.85.

• Photocopy of agreement dated 23.02.85 between A1 Razia Sultana and Charna regarding sale of 1 bigha of land for a consideration of Rs.20,000/ • Photocopy of receipt dated 02.03.85 of Rs.20,000/ issued by Charna in favour of A2 and affidavit dated 08.03.85 and both these documents have alteration in the measurement of plot.

The plea of the defence is that Sh. Charna had sold entire plot of one bigha to his mother in law Mst. Jameela Khatoon and another plot of 400 sq. yds. was purchased by Mst. Jamila Khatoon from Musaddi. However, accused could not furnish original title deeds in respect of these transactions.

Investigation revealed that in the original house tax file in respect of Batla house property collected from house tax department, notice for house tax in respect of 518A Batla house was issued in the name of A2 Razia Sultana on 26.03.85 on PPO basis and house tax was valuated at Rs.

1,080/. Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon vide her letter dated 14.06.90 requested to CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 19 of 7 correct the name of the owner and stated that A2 Razia Sultana was only a caretaker and she herself was the actual owner. She also enclosed NOC from Razia Sultana, self attested copy of agreement dated 23.02.85 between Sh.

Charan Singh and Jamila Khatoon, copy of affidavit dated 02.03.85 and receipt of Rs.20,000/ regarding the purchase of 1000 sq. yds. of land. On the basis of these documents, name of A2 Razia Sultana was modified as Jamila Khatoon in the capacity of PPO vide note dated 13.07.90. Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon had also submitted another application dated 22.07.99 to the Asstt.

Assessor and Collector, MCD to mutate the aforesaid property in her name instead of in the name of her daughter Mst. Razia Sultana. Alongwith the application, a transfer fees of Rs.1,050/, affidavit, indemnity bond and self attested photocopies of the agreement dated 23.02.85 between Sh. Charna Singh and herself regarding the sale of one bigha of land at a consideration of Rs.20,000/ and affidavit of Sh. Charna and receipt of Rs.20,000/ issued by Charna to Mst. Jamila Khatoon were also submitted. Mst. Jamila Khatoon also produced self attested photocopies of another agreement dated 22.04.85 between Musadi and Mst. Razia Sultana as her attorney for the purchase of 400 sq. yds. of land in khasra No.166, village Joga Bai, Okhla and on the basis of these documents the then Asstt. Assessor and Controller mutated the 1400 sq. yds. of land in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon on 23.07.99.

1.1 During investigation, CBI sent the original agreement to sell CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 20 of 7 dated 08.03.85 and General Power of Attorney dated 28.03.85 regarding the sale of 500 sq. yds. of land at Khasra No.166, Village Joga Bai Extn. to Mst.

Razia Sultana having the signature of Charna and photocopy of the agreement dated 23.02.85 between Sh. Charan Singh and Mst. Jamila Khatoon regarding the sale of one bigha of land, photocopy of the affidavit of Sh. Charna and photocopy of receipt of Rs.20,000/ issued by Sh. Charna to Mst. Jamila Khatoon for plot measuring one bigha, to CFSL, with a request to compare the signature of Sh. Charan Singh @ Charna on both set of documents found during the house search of the accused and produced by Mst. Jamila Khatoon for mutation of property. CFSL vide its report dated 27.02.2007 confirmed that signature of Sh. Charan Singh @ Charna on the original documents does not tally with the signature of Sh. Charna available on photocopies produced by Mst. Jamila Khatoon to MCD for mutation purpose.

An agreement dated 22.04.85 regarding sale purchase of 400 sq. yds. of land by late Mst. Jamila Khatoon from Sh. Musaddi was submitted to MCD for mutation purpose was also sent to CFSL. In the said agreement dated 22.04.85 signed by Sh. Musaddi and A2 Razia Sultana, on the first page of this agreement, the word "attorney" has been prefixed before the name of Razia Sultana. Similarly, on the second page of the agreement the words "attorney on behalf of Mrs. Jamila Khatoon 242 Bellilious Road, Howrah" had been typed after the signature of A2. CFSL opined that the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 21 of 7 word "attorney" before the name of A2 Razia Sultana on the first page of the agreement has been added subsequently by hand and the words "attorney on behalf of Mrs. Jamila Khatoon 242 Bellilious Road, Howrah" on the second page of the agreement, have been typed from a different typewriter. During search, the photocopy of the agreement dated 22.04.85 and General Power of Attorney between Sh. Musaddi and A2 Razia Sultana were found and in these documents neither any word "attorney" was found added on the first page of the agreement nor the words "attorney on behalf of Mrs. Jamila Khatoon, 242 Bellilious Road, Howrah" was found typed below the signatures of Razia Sultana.

Investigation also revealed that one civil case pertaining to the dispute of the aforesaid property was pending in the civil court between A1 AA Farooquee and Abida Begum. In these proceedings, A1 AA Farooquee had relied upon agreement dated 22.04.85 between Sh. Musaddi and Mst. Jamila Khatoon and therefore, in regard to this property also there are three sets of transactions which also indicate manipulations on the part of accused persons.

Investigation further revealed that as per Girdawari register of the year 1985 one bigha of land has been shown to be transferred in the name of Razia Sultana from Sh. Charan Singh and further transfer of 400 sq. yds. of land in khasra no.166 in the name of A2 Razia Sultana. Further, one bigha 8 biswa (1400 sq. yds. of land) was transferred from A2 Razia Sultana to CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 22 of 7 Mst. Jamila Khatoon as per the Girdawari Register of Fasal Kharif 1989. Investigating agency has submitted that the land at khasra no.166 was purchased by A2 Razia Sultana. However, in view of the complaint made by Mst. Abida Begum in the end of year 1989 the same were shown in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon.

Investigation revealed that construction of the building "Sultanat" was started in May 2003 and main structure was completed within a span of 810 months whereas, the finishing work was still under progress. Investigation also revealed that the drawings of the building Sultanat was prepared by PW25 Mohd. Yameen and completed on 24.04.2003 on the directions of A1 AA Farooquee and A2 Razia Sultana. During house search, a receipt containing the details of Rs.25.30 lakhs issued by Sh. Khursheed Ahmed to A2 Mst. Razia Sultana was found. During search, other documents were also found indicating the expenditure made by A2 Razia Sultana for this construction. It was also found that inauguration ceremony of the computer institute of Sh. Abdul Mannan was held on 28.04.2002 where building Sultanat was built later on. Therefore, as on 28.04.2002, there was no building and the plot was lying vacant. It is pertinent to mention here that vide will dated 04.10.90 written in Urdu seized from the house of accused Mst. Jamila Khatoon bequeathed all her property in favour of A2 Razia Sultana after her death.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 23 of 7 1.2 After investigation, A1 and A2 were found to be in possession of the following assets.


Movable Assets of A1

 Sl. No.                          Details of the Property                                 Amount 
      1    Last   balance   in   FD   A/c   No.417499   in   Post   Office   Ramesh 
           Nagar in r/o Baby Sana opened on 16.08.2003                                      16,000.00
      2    KVP in the name of Master Imkan Ali purchased on 14.09.99                         8,000.00
      3    KVP   in   the   name   of   Master   Shariq   Iman   purchased   on 
           14.09.99                                                                          8,000.00
      4    Last   balance   in   SB   A/c   No.20657   in   the   name   of   Sh.   AA 
           Farooquee with SBI, Rajouri Garden                                                1,043.00
      5    Last balance in SB A/c No.25534, SBI, Rajouri Garden in the 
           name of Imkan and Razia Farooquee                                                 2,105.00
      6    Balance in SBI SB A/c No.50617 in the name of Baby Sana, 
           Rajouri Garden                                                                    5,277.00
      7    Balance in Bombay Mercantile Bank, Daryaganj, in SB A/c 
           No.51064 in the name of Sh. Farooquee                                               693.00
      8    Household article observed during house search at PS Rajouri

Garden purchased during check period including Cash of Rs.

           54,590/                                                                       300,525.00
      9    Maruti 800 Car No.DAJ 2310 purchased on 28.11.88                                83,840.00

10 Actual Cost of TC (22,350/) Fridge (30,800/), Washing Machine (19,400/) and AC (26,990) 99,540.00 11 Actual cost of Rifle purchased by Sh. Farooquee on 24.08.93 22,727.00 12 Balance in SB A/c No.107 at Siwan Shetriya Bank, Siwan 1,176.00 13 Actual cost of the computer purchased by Sh. Farooquee after availing the computer loan as intimated to his deptt. 105,000.00 14 STDR in the name of Imkan Ali under Guardianship of AA Farooquee and Razia Sultana with SBI Rajouri Garden 22,820.00 TOTAL 6,76,746.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 24 of 7 Immovable Assets of A1 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 15 Flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar, Delhi Police Housing Society 1,90,710.00 16 Cost of Plot measuring 250 Sq. Mtrs. Acquired in Delhi Police 6,29,890.00 Officer's Society at Noida 17 Cost of construction in respect of built up property of AA 9,17,000.00 Farooquee at Village champ, Siwan + cost of land 10,000.00 Total 17,47,600.00 Movable Assets of A2 Sl. No. Details of the Property Amount 18 Balance in SB A/c 20658, SBI, Rajouri Garden 887.00 19 Balance in SB A/c 20659, SBI, Rajouri Garden 1,892.00 20 Balance in SB A/c 21728, SBI, Rajouri Garden 533.00 21 Maruti Wagon R No.DL9CE 6095 purchased on 06.01.2003 3,85,312.00 TOTAL 3,88,624.00 Immovable Assets of A2 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 22 Agricultural land measuring 6 Katha, 15 Dhur located at 47,500.00 Village JasoliPakoli, Post Vara, PS Pachrukhi, Distt. Siwan, Bihar acquired through Sale Deed/Bainama Khatmi by Mst. Razia Sultana from Mst. Wajifoonisha mother of accused on 28.05.2003.

23 Agricultural land measuring 6 Katha, 15 Dhur located at 47,500.00 Village JasoliPakoli, Post Vara, PS Pachrukhi, Distt. Siwan, Bihar acquired through Sale Deed/Bainama Khatmi by Mst. Razia Sultana from Mst. Wajifoonisha mother of accused on 28.05.2003.

24 Land measuring 1 Bigha Khasra No.590/1 Village Kilokari 45,000.00 Tehsil Mehrauli on 26.05.1986 (Original papers found during CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 25 of 7 house search) 25 Land measuring 30 Katha Khata No.157, Khasra No.2572 in 40,000.00 Village - Champ Distt. Siwan, Bihar on 01.09.1992 (Original papers found during house search) 26 Property No.518A, Batla House Jamia Nagar, New Delhi 64,77,800.00 including cost of land. 26,000.00 TOTAL 66,83,800.00 Total assets acquired by A1 and A2 during the check period are in the sum of Rs.94,96,770/ (6,76,746 + 17,47,600 + 3,88,624 + 66,83,800).

During investigation it was found that A2 Razia Sultana had filed Income tax returns for the period 199596 and 199899 to 200506 and she had claimed total income of Rs.5,89,050/. For the year 199596 she has shown the income from business, from 199899 to 200405 from boutique and for 200506 from garments and PCO rent. However, since A2 has not produced any document except an income of Rs.1,50,785/ from STD booth, therefore, the income as shown in the ITRs were not taken into account. The plea of A2 Razia Sultana that she had started two companies namely M/s. Imkan International for the export of the garments and M/s. Sana Creations for trading of the ready made clothes. She also produced certified copies of bank accounts of these firms. However, in the bank accounts also, no major credit transactions were found except four major credit entries in account No. 6329 of Rs.58,000/ dated 30.05.2000, Rs.50,000/ dated 29.11.2001, Rs. 10,625/ dated 17.08.2002 and Rs.18,125/ dated 05.09.2002. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 26 of 7 CHARGE 2.0 Vide detailed order dated 25.11.2009, the charges u/S.13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(e) of POC Act 1988 was framed against A1 AA Farooquee and charge u/S.109 IPC r/w S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(e) of POC Act 1988 was framed against A2 Mst. Razia Sultana.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.0 The prosecution examined 72 witnesses in support of its case. 3.1 PW1 Sh. Sanjay Sharma proved the file maintained at transport authority in respect of Car bearing No.DJA 2310 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. He stated that as per insurance policy its value was Rs. 84,000/ as on 24.11.88 and the insurance amount in the sum of Rs.2,876/ was paid.

3.2 PW2 SI Sunita Sharma proved the salary details of A1 as Ex.PW2/B. However, since it has not been disputed therefore, there is no need of its further discussion.

3.3 PW3 Gopal Singh is a material witness regarding Batla House property and therefore, would be discussed alongwith other witnesses CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 27 of 7 concerning Batla House.

3.4 PW4 Sh. V. Vishwanathan, Manager (Operations), HDFC proved the documents regarding loan account No.712710 of A1 AA Farooquee alongwith letter dated 18.01.2006, Ex.PW4/A vide which the documents concerning to it were handed over to CBI. A1 was sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,20,000/ for acquiring a plot in Greater Noida from Police Cooperative Group Housing Society on 02.05.2001. The payment of EMI started w.e.f. June 2001 and till April 2005, an amount of Rs.1,79,377/ had been repaid with each monthly installment of Rs.3,916/. 3.5 PW5 Sh. Rohit Kumar was an important witness. He was part of the search team. Sh. Rohit Kumar stated that both the accused were present in the house and they did not object to anything and asked the CBI team to carry out is proceedings as per law. CBI team conducted search of the house room by room and whatever things were considered important were brought to the central hall/ baithak and scrutinized the same. He stated that some documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and the documents seized were duly mentioned in the memo Ex.PW5/A. PW5 stated that all the documents which were seized were signed by him at point A. The documents were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW5/A1. The witness also proved another bunch of documents marked D4/31 to 4/75 as Ex.PW5/A2 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 28 of 7 (colly). The witness also identified his signatures on documents D4/80 to D4/90, 4/92, 4/94 to 4/132. However, he stated that the documents D4/77, 4/78 and 4/79 did not bear his signatures. The observation memo was also proved as Ex.PW5/B. The witness stated that year of acquisition, mode of acquisition and approximate cost of the various articles mentioned in the observation memo was recorded with the consultation of A1 AA Farooquee. In the cross examination on behalf of A1 AA Farooquee, the witness stated that he had never taken part in any such proceeding prior to this. He further stated that the search started at 8:30am. The witness stated that he was not informed about the legal procedure adopted for conducting search. The witness admitted that there is a cutting at point X in Item No.21 of Ex.PW5/A (D4/8). However, the witness stated that he is not aware that who made the cutting nor it had been initialed by him. Similarly, the witness admitted that in Item No.38 of the memo Ex.PW5/A on page D4/10 the number of bunch of papers had not been mentioned. The witness could not explain the cutting at point Y on D4/10. PW5 stated that it seemed that this item was included in the seizure memo later on. In the cross examination, the witness stated that while search was conducted in every room, the articles found were not being listed simultaneously and were sent to CBI team in the Central Hall and during this period he continued to be a part of the search conducted from room to room. It also came in the cross examination that the witness was not present in the Central Hall. It also came in the cross CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 29 of 7 examination that one SP whose name he did not know, had visited the premises for 10 minutes and left after meeting the CBI team. The witness was not aware that who visited the premises during house search while he was busy in room to room search.

3.6 PW6 Sh. Abdul Rehan is again an important witness in respect of the Batla House property and therefore, would be discussed with the concerning witnesses.

3.7 PW7 Insp. Pawan Singh Rana had handed over the letter dated 09.07.2007 sent by Insp. Prem Nath, Ex.PW7/A to CBI regarding payment made by A1 AA Farooquee in favour of Police Sewa Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.

3.8 PW8 Sheikh Abdul Mannan is a star witness relating to Batla House property and would be discussed in later part of judgment. 3.9 PW9 Sh. Lalit Narang taught Kathak dance to Ms. Sana Farooquee and English conversation and western dance to Imkaan. Sh. Lalit Narang charged Rs.500/ pm in the year 2003 and Rs.600/ in the year 2004. The witness has charged total fee of Rs.18,000/ in respect of Imkaan and Sana Farooquee. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 30 of 7 payment was made by A2 Razia Sultana.

3.10 PW10 Sh. Sanjeev Nanda, Chartered Accountant filed the Income Tax return in respect of A2 Razia Sultana for the Assessment Year 199697, 199899 to 200405 and the same were seized by CBI vide memo Ex.PW10/A. The documents seized by CBI were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW10/A1 to A35.

3.11 PW10A Amit Malik, UDC had handed over original file pertaining to vehicle No. DL 9C E 6095 in the name of A2 Razia Sultana. He proved that as per invoice, the cost of the vehicle was Rs.3,85,312/. 3.12 PW11 Sh. Vaibhav Joshi, Asstt. Vice President, Citi Bank proved letter dated 03.03.2007 as Ex.PW11/A. He stated that A1 AA Farooquee was having two credit cards. The credit card statement has been proved as Ex.PW11/A1 to A17. A1 AA Farooquee had made a total payment of Rs.75,500/. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that A1 had made a cash withdrawal of Rs.28,500/ from bank. The witness admitted that payment can be deposited by anyone in respect of transaction conducted through credit card.

3.13 PW12 Sh. Ghayas Raja proved the letter dated 03.04.2007 of CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 31 of 7 Sh. MH Abidi, Secretary of Urdu Academy Delhi vide which it was informed to CBI that an Award of Rs.21,000/ for Creative Prose in Urdu for the year 1997 was conferred to A1 and he has received this award in his Pen name "Paigam Afaqui". It came in the cross examination of this witness that A1 is a known Novelist.

3.14 PW13 Sh. Iqbal Ahmed is also an important witness concerning Batla House property and would be discussed lateron. 3.15 PW14 Mst. Abida Begum is also an important witness concerning Batla house property and would be discussed later on. 3.16 PW15 Sh. Nidhi Dass, Legal Manager, Standard Chartered Bank proved the letter dated 20.03.07 as Ex.PW15/A regarding card ending No.5788 and 9460 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. As per document Ex.PW15/A a payment of Rs.19,971.10 was received against card ending No. 5788 and payment in the sum of Rs.98,078.73 was received against card ending No.9460. It was also informed that there is an outstanding balance of Rs.1,06,404.53 against card ending No.5788 and Rs.1,07,602.06 against card ending No.9460, as per statement dated September 2005. The statement of account of credit cards were proved as Ex.PW15/B1 to B48. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 32 of 7 3.17 PW16 Sh. SK Jain from State Bank of India proved the letter dated 26.03.2007 regarding the housing loan taken by A1 AA Farooquee as Ex.PW16/A. It was proved that a personal loan in the sum of Rs.85,000/ was sanctioned on 04.09.2001 to A1 AA Farooquee against a EMI of Rs.2,992/. This account was closed on 02.06.2004. He stated that further a loan of Rs. 1,67,000/ was granted on 02.06.2004 against EMI of Rs.4,450/. As on 05.04.2005, there was a balance of Rs.1,56,604.84ps. The documents regarding personal loan were proved as Ex.PW16/C1 to C26 and the statement of account as Ex.PW16/D1 to D4.

3.18 PW17 Sh. Ashok Chauhan from LIC proved the letter dated 03.04.2007 as Ex.PW17/A in respect of policy No.112950631 of A1 AA Farooquee. The status report filed alongwith letter is proved as Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C. 3.19 PW18 Sh. DS Chauhan from M/s. BD Engineers proved the communication dated 02.04.2005 as Ex.PW18/A. The witness proved the invoice / cash memo Mark PW18/X vide which a sum of Rs.12,000/ was received from A2 against sale of PCO machine. As per communication dated 24.04.2005, Ex.PW18/A, two STD machines installed at Zakir Nagar, Okhla, Delhi, were sold to A2 Razia Sultana on 17.01.2003 and 29.08.2001 for a sum of Rs.12,096/ and 12,000/, respectively. The payments of both the machines CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 33 of 7 were made in cash.

3.20 PW18A Sh. GC Bhatia, Addl. Sr. General Manager, HDFC has again inadvertently been examined as PW18. This witness was also regarding sanction of housing loan to A1 AA Farooquee in the sum of Rs.3,20,000/. The certified copy of loan agreement has been proved as Ex.PW18/A. The witness also proved the certified copy of promissory note and copy of statement of account as Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C, respectively. The witness stated that the loan was taken for purchase of Land from Police Services Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Greater Noida and the cost of the land as mentioned in the application form is Rs.4,60,000/. A1 submitted a copy of receipt dated 18.02.2001 Ex.PW18/D showing deposit of Rs.1,40,000/ directly to the Society. The statement of account upto January 2006 has been proved as Ex.PW18/C. 3.21 PW19 Sh. Aji Kumar proved the education expenses of Sana Farooquee and Imkaan Ali Farooquee vide documents Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/C. 3.22 PW20 Sh. Bishan Swarup, Asstt. Manager, United India Insurance proved the letter dated 27.04.2006 as Ex.PW20/A to prove the record of insurance of Maruti Wagon R bearing registration No. DL 9C E CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 34 of 7 6095 in favour of A2 Razia Sultana. The documents regarding policy has also been proved as Ex.PW20/A1 to A11.

3.23 PW21 Sh. DK Garg from DPS School, RK Puram proved the communication dated 15.02.2007, Ex.PW21/A vide which education expenses in respect of Imkaan Ali Farooquee were forwarded. Copy of the fee bills have been proved as Ex.PW21/B1 to B4.

3.24 PW22 Sh. Rajeev Tyagi from ICICI Bank proved the statement of account of credit card ending No.45001 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. He proved that a payment of Rs.1,300/ was received against the said card for the bill raised for the period 20.12.2004 to 20.01.2005 and proved the statement as Ex.PW22/A. 3.25 PW23 Sh. BS Tyagi, Honorary Secretary of Delhi Police Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society proved the communication dated 04.08.2005 as Ex.PW23/A vide which details of payments made by flat owner of flat No.C5S, Police Apartments, Mayur Vihar towards the cost of flat service charges, water charges and land rent paid to the society were furnished. The witness stated that as per record, cost of the flat was Rs. 1,90,000/ and service charges including water charges of Rs.2,223/ were paid. The witness also proved the attested copy of the extract of the ledger CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 35 of 7 containing details of payment made by A1 AA Farooquee as Ex.PW23/B. It came in the testimony of this witness that A1 had never lived in this house and had always been rented out. The witness was cross examined by the prosecution regarding occupation of the flat.

3.26 PW25 Sh. Mohd. Yamin is also an important witness concerning Batla House property and would be discussed lateron. 3.27 PW26 Sh. BR Kaushik proved the letter dated 13.06.2007 of Sh. Rajan Bhagat as Ex.PW26/A vide which details of Income tax for the period 198788 to 198990 in respect of A1 AA Farooquee was furnished. 3.28 PW27 Sh. Mahender Singh did not state anything material and remained totally ignorant.

3.29 PW28 Sh. Murlidharan proved the seizure memo dated 22.05.2006 as Ex.PW28/A regarding seizure of documents from Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj. The documents regarding account No.51064 have been proved collectively as Ex.PW28/B. 3.30 PW29 Sh. Jaspal Singh from DPS, Dwarka proved the communication dated 20.02.2007 as Ex.PW29/A regarding the education CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 36 of 7 expenses of Imkaan Ali Farooquee for the period 19992000 to 200304 3.31 PW30 Mst. Renu Thukral from LIC proved the communication dated 17.08.2005 as Ex.PW30/A regarding policy No. 110393575 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. The detail of premium paid has been proved as Ex.PW30/B, as per which total payment of Rs.2,67,225.90 has been paid under this policy and a sum of Rs.1,35,000/ was received back as money back. The photocopy of the ledger sheet concerning this policy has been proved as Ex.PW30/C. The original proposal form of A1 AA Farooquee has been proved as Ex.PW30/E. The witness also proved the communication dated 05.03.2007 as Ex.PW30/G vide which a loan of Rs. 1,41,000/ was granted to A1 AA Farooquee on 18.05.2004 and as on date the loan outstanding was Rs.41,000/.

3.32 PW31 Sh. Girish Nijhawan from DD Motors proved the documents relating to payment made by A2 Razia Sultana to DD Motors, as Ex.PW31/A to Ex.PW31/G. The witness stated that DD Motors received a total sum of Rs.3,90,948/ against this car including price of the car, registration charges and service charges.

3.33 PW32 Sh. SC Jain from State Bank of India furnished the details of the account of A1 AA Farooquee and members of his family vide CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 37 of 7 communication dated 08.03.2007 and proved the same as Ex.PW32/A. The witness proved the statement of account and documents of A/c No.SB20657 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee, A/c No.SB20658 in the name of A2 Razia Sultana and A/c No.SB20659 in the joint name of A1 AA Farooquee and A2 Razia Sultana. He also proved the statement of account of A/c No.SB21728 in the joint name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon and A2 Razia Sultana, A/c No.SB255344 in the name of Imkan Ali Farooquee under the guardianship of A1 AA Farooquee and of A/c No.SB50617 in the name of Baby Sana Farooquee under the guardianship of A2 Razia Sultana. The documents relating to these accounts were proved as Ex.PW32/B to Ex.PW32/K1. The details of the same have not been discussed as it has not been disputed. The witness also proved account bearing No.1678 in the name of M/s. Imkan International being operated by A2 Razia Sultana and proved the photocopy of ledger as Ex.PW32/L. The letter dated 09.08.2007 was proved as Ex.PW32/M as per which a FDR of Rs.24,279/ in the name of Imkan Ali Farooquee under the guardianship of A1 and A2 is held with them.

3.34 PW33 Sh. Amar Singh from Post Office proved the communication dated 08.05.2006 forwarded to CBI regarding RD Accounts, Fixed Deposit, NSS Account in the name of Farida Jalal, Baby Sana Farooquee, Master Shariq Imam, Master Imkan Ali Farooquee, Razia CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 38 of 7 Sultana, AA Farooquee and proved the documents regarding these accounts as Ex.PW33/B1 to Ex.PW33/G2. The witness also proved the documents regarding NSS certificate and Kisan Vikas Patras as Ex.PW33/H to J8. 3.35 PW34 Sh. Sanjay Singhal from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. proved the insurance particulars of Maruti car bearing No. DJA 2310 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee as Ex.PW34/A to E. 3.36 PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob and PW36 Sh. Khursheed Ahmad are witnesses regarding Batla house property and would be discussed with other concerning witnesses.

3.37 PW37 Sh. Mahender Jeet Singh Mattoo, Retd. ACP stated that as per official record no loan or advance was taken from the branch during the period January 1985 to November 1985 by A1 AA Farooquee. 3.38 PW38 Sh. Ratneshwar Upadhyay from LIC proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW38/A to C regarding the insurance policy in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. He also proved the original proposal form, Photocopy of ledger, application for conversion, receipt dated 22.07.1987, application for refund of deposit money, advance receipt and letter of LIC dated 29.07.87 as Ex.PW38/A1 to A7.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 39 of 7 3.39 PW39 Sh. Rajender Arora proved the bill dated 21.11.1999 and bill dated 22.02.2000 vide which payment of fully automatic washing machine and 390 ltrs. Double door frost free refrigerator and 53 cm colour television were made.

3.40 PW40 Sh. Ashok Kumar Hira, an officer from Bank of India proved the communication dated 19.07.2005 as Ex.PW40/A regarding saving bank account No.918572 of A1 AA Farooquee. The documents were collectively proved as Ex.PW40/B. A communication dated 08.08.2005 was also proved as Ex.PW40/C regarding documents pertaining to card No. 5420343009445904 and 542034302104 in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. Other documents and statement of account regarding these cards were proved as Ex.PW40/D to E. 3.41 PW41 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Katyal Assistant in State Bank of India proved account opening form of Imkan International as Ex.PW41/A. The certified copy of statement of account is proved as Ex.PW41/B and certificate u/S.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/C. The statement of account has been proved as Ex.PW41/D and seizure memo of these documents has been proved as Ex.PW41/E. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 40 of 7 3.42 PW42 Sh. Nityanand Yadav proved the account opening form of Imkan International as Ex.PW42/A and other documents as Ex.PW42/B to H. The statement of account has been proved as Ex.PW42/J to K. PW42 also proved the seizure memo Ex.PW42/L vide which the documents were handed over to CBI.

3.43 PW43 Sh. Vinod Kumar is the witness regarding Batla House property and would be discussed with concerning witness. 3.44 PW44 Sh. Ashok Kumar Marwah Manager from Oriental Bank of Commerce proved the communication dated 28.07.2005, Ex.PW44/A vide which the documents pertaining to the bank account in the name of M/s. Sana Creations operated through Ms. Razia Sultana were handed over. He stated that account was introduced by account holder of Vikas Chemist having current account No.2512 and A2 Razia Sultana had also filed Income tax returns for AY 19992000, Ex.PW44/B alongwith certificate dated 26.05.2012 Ex.PW44/C. The witness also proved the specimen signature card as Ex.PW44/D and statement of account for the period 26.05.2000 to 23.08.2004 as Ex.PW44/E. 3.45 PW45 Sh. Ganesh Ram and PW46 Sh. Prafulla Verma had taken part in the search cum seizure proceedings conducted on 06.04.2005 at CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 41 of 7 the office of DCP, Supreme Court Security and proved the search cum seizure memo as Ex.PW45/A. 3.46 PW47 Sh. Krishan Gopal and PW49 Sh. Anupam Jain had taken part in the search alongwith other witnesses conducted at premises F13 (khasra No.166), Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi 25 and proved the same as Ex.PW47/A and Ex.PW49/A. 3.47 PW48 Sh. Man Singh is also a witness in respect to the Batla House property and would be discussed with the concerning witnesses. 3.48 PW50 Sh. Nanakchand, Income tax Officer, Ward 36(4) proved the communication dated 1819 July 2007 as Ex.PW50/A vide which the certified copy of Income tax returns filed by A2 Razia Sultana were forwarded to CBI. The documents so forwarded were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW50/B. 3.49 PW51 Sh. Ravi Kohli Commercial Officer, BSES deposed that electric connection No.2641T8010428 (new) [old No. PB8111431759] was applied in the name of A1 AA Farooquee on 4/6/1990 and the meter was installed at Flat No.1, PS Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 14/7/90. PW51 stated that the total payment made by A1 AA Farooquee was Rs. 1,54,546/ CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 42 of 7 upto 5/4/05. The record regarding this was proved as Ex.PW51/A to C. 3.50 PW52 Sh. Deepak Raj Handa, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL stated that the documents were sent to him alongwith communication dtd. 9/2/07 Ex.PW52/A. The document Q1 Ex.PW52/B was sent alongwith specimen writing of Khursheed Ahmed Mark S1 to S36 Ex.PW52/C(collectively). The witness proved the report as Ex.PW52/D in which he opined that the handwriting evidence points towards the writer of the specimen English writings marked S1 to S36, Ex.PW52/C attributed to Khursheed Ahmed being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writing Mark Q1. The report was sent alongwith communication dated 18.04.2007, Ex.PW52/E. 3.51 PW53 Sh. Ravi Bahl, Manager in Baxi Gun House proved the letter dated 09.05.2006 as Ex.PW53/A alongwith which photocopy of cash memo dated 12.05.2000 in the name of A2 for purchase of one 315 NPB Rifle in the sum of Rs.39,760/. The other documents D39/2 to 11, forwarded alongwith this communication were also proved as Ex.PW53/B (colly).

3.52 PW54 Retd. SI Rajkumar proved the communication dated 09.08.2007 of Ms. Shalini Singh the then Dy. Commissioner of Police, CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 43 of 7 Vigilance, Delhi as Ex.PW54/A. Alongwith the communication the documents D63/2 to D63/11, collectively Ex.PW54/B were also forwarded to CBI. The witness also proved the letter dated 04.07.2007 of Ms. Shalini Singh the then DCP (Vigilance), Delhi to SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi as Ex.PW54/C. Alongwith this, the documents D7/2 to D7/139, collectively Ex.PW54/D were also forwarded. PW54 also proved the communication dated 3/10/07 of Sh. Sharad Agarwal, the then DCP (Vigilance) Delhi as Ex.PW54/E. Alongwith this, the documents D64/2 to D64/20 collectively Ex.PW54/F were forwarded. In the letter Ex.PW54/A, it was informed that A1 had taken a temporarily GPF advance of Rs.50,000/ on 14.10.2004 for Hakika Ceremony of his son. Similarly, a non refundable GPF Advance of Rs.65,000/ was taken by A1 for meeting the cost of consumer durables which was sanctioned on 07.02.2000. A1 had also taken a non refundable GPF advance of Rs.70,000/ for purchase of plot for house of Delhi Police Housing Society which was sanctioned on 24.04.2002. A1 had also taken a non refundable GPF advance of Rs.21,600/ on 23.08.93. Vide letter Ex.PW54/C, the entire detail of loan, income tax & salary, certified copies of PBRs received from various Distts./Units for the entire period pertaining to A1 were compiled and sent to CBI. The details of the documents are as follows :

a) Document D7/2 to 8 is the detail of pay and allowances of A1 from January 1985 to April 2005 ;

b) Document D7/9 & 10 is the details of Motor Car Advance ;

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 44 of 7

c) Document D7/11 to 13 is the details of House Building Advance ;

d) Document D7/14 is the details of computer advances ;

e) Document D7/15 & 16 is the details of personal loan taken from State Bank of India and HDFC Bank, respectively ;

f) Document D7/17 is the details of permanent GPF Advance ;

g) Document D7/18 & 19 is the details of GPF Advance ; and

h) Document D7/20 & 21 is the details of Income tax deducted.

Alongwith the communication dated 03.10.2007, Ex.PW54/E, copy of the complaint of Abida Begum alongwith proceedings were also sent.

3.53 PW55 Sh. Devender Chopra had forwarded certain documents to CBI alongwith communication dated 23.01.2006, Ex.PW55/A on behalf of her sister Mst. Raksha Kapoor, proprietor M/s. Vibhore Video Vision. The documents were proved as Ex.PW55/A1 to A7. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that A1 is an author/writer. A1 is a prominent figure in Urdu Literature and has authored some books in Urdu Literature and a serial was also made on one of his novel.

3.54 PW57 Sh. Jagdish Chand proved the communication Ex.PW57/A vide which the documents relating to sale of property by A2 Razia Sultana to Mst. Roop Rani at District Solan in April 1988 were forwarded to CBI.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 45 of 7 3.55 PW58 Sh. Vinod Kumar proved the communication of MTNL dated 10.05.2007 as Ex.PW58/A alongwith which the information pertaining to telephone No.25447100 (old No.25926110) and telephone No.25155949 in the name of A2 Razia Sultana was given and documents D50/1 to 18 were handed over.

3.56 PW59 Sh. OP Malhotra, Govt. Registered Valuer for Jewellery proved his report dated 06.04.2005 as Ex.PW59/A. Sh. OP Malhotra had valued the Jewellery items of various description at Rs.3,57,191/. 3.57 PW60 Sh. Ziyauddin Ansari proved the communication dated 24.09.2007 of Asstt. Vigilance Officer sent to CBI vide which the information regarding STD/PCO phone of A2 Razia Sultana were furnished. The witness had forwarded a statement regarding the telephones and proved the same as Ex.PW60/B. In the cross examination the witness admitted that the particulars of a private telephone No.26311595 in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon were also furnished.

3.58 PW61 Sh. Ram Sharan Tiwari proved the document Ex.PW61/A in which the investment made by A2 Razia Sultana in the sum of Rs.20,000/ on 15.04.2004 is reflecting and this was forwarded to CBI vide communication Ex.PW61/B. In the cross examination, the witness stated that CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 46 of 7 he has no personal knowledge about the investment as reflected in the record. 3.59 PW62 Sh. KC Ajit Kumar, Managing Director of Sharex Dynamic India Pvt. Ltd. proved the communication dated 07.09.07 as Ex.PW68/A vide which it was informed that as per record A1 AA Farooquee was holding 300 shares. Alongwith the communication, copy of relevant record was also furnished.

3.60 PW63 Sh. Ajay Krishna Mishra the then SubRegistrar, Distt. Siwan proved the letter dated 20.06.2007 as Ex.PW63/A vide which the documents D44/2 to 44/31, Ex.PW63/B relating to A1 and A2 were sent to CBI. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he has no personal knowledge about this document.

3.61 PW64 Insp. AV Bhardwaj had led the team to conduct search at premises No.F13, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi on 06.04.2005 and proved the search cum seizure memo Ex.PW47/A. The witness deposed on oath that incriminating documents found during the search were seized and the videography of the premises which was a four storeyed structure i.e. ground, first, second and third floor was conducted. Insp. AV Bhardwaj had also proved search cum observation memo Ex.PW49/A. He stated that in the said structure a girls' hostel by the name of CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 47 of 7 "Sultanat" was running. It also came in the testimony of this witness that the videography of the entire premises was conducted with the help of Insp. Prem Nath who was called from the office for the purpose of videography. In the cross examination, the witness stated that it was not prescribed in the rules and procedures of CBI that the independent witnesses should be from the locality of the premises under search. The witness also stated that according to the rules and procedures of CBI, it is not required that any arrangements for security should be made to prevent the access of any outsider during the time of search and seizure. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that he did not prepare separate list of the documents as reflected in item No.1 in D2/2, Ex.PW47/A. He also stated that the property was partly under construction and was not finished. It also came in the cross examination that the second floor was not completely finished and on the top floor there were only RCC slabs and only one floor was completely finished. 3.62 PW65 Sh. SM Javed Hasan from the office of Registrar, Jamia Milia Islamiya University deposed on oath that on 28.04.2002 he had attended a function organized by one Sheikh Abdul Manan, owner of Texas Computer Education. He stated that at that time there was only a tent erected on the premises and there was no hostel building. The construction started on the plot in the year 2003 and a hostel building came up which presently carries the name of "Sultanat". In the cross examination, the witness CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 48 of 7 admitted that he has come alongwith Abdul Mannan in the court. However, he denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of Abdul Mannan.

3.63 PW66 Sh. KC Dhiman proved the valuation report dated 25.05.2007/01.06.2007 in respect of property of A1 AA Farooquee at Village Champ, Siwan, Bihar as Ex.PW66/A (colly). The witness stated that the assessed cost as indicated in the report is Rs.25.20 lacs an the details of the valuation are reflected in the valuation report. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that Ex.PW66/A is not his valuation report and he has no personal knowledge about the valuation or the method of valuation of the property in question. The witness further stated that he shall not be able to depose or answer any question as to the contents of the valuation report. It was admitted by the witness that the valuation of the property as Rs.25.20 lacs is in respect of two properties, out of which one property is valued at Rs. 9.17 lacs and the other is valued at Rs.17.03 lacs. The witness also admitted that A1 had submitted that registered valuers report in respect of the valuation of the subject property as reflected in D40/3 (Ex.PW66/A). He admitted that the registered valuer report submitted by accused is not on record of this file.

3.64 PW67 Insp. Sanjay Dhall was the second IO. He proved the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 49 of 7 FIR as Ex.PW67/A. The investigation was transferred to PW67 on 23.08.2007 from Sh. NK Jain (PW69). Insp. Sanjay Dhall proved the communication from Unimers India Limited as Ex.PW67/B vide which the information regarding shares alloted to A1 was forwarded. He also proved the seizure memo Ex.PW67/C vide which the CD furnished by Abdul Mannan regarding inaugural function held on 28.04.2002 in respect of Texas Computer Education was seized. Insp. Sanjay Dhall proved the documents regarding the intimation given by A1 AA Farooquee regarding purchase of . 315 bore rifle as Ex.PW67/D. The documents regarding intimation given by A1 regarding purchase of personal laptop Toshiba Computer have been proved as Ex.PW67/E1 to E4. The intimation regarding purchase of LG Washing machine has been proved as Ex.PW67/F1 to F4. The intimation regarding purchase of LG TV, LG Refrigerator and LG Air Conditioner has been proved as Ex.PW67/G1 to G9. PW67 Insp. Sanjay Dhall stated that as per record Mst. Abida Begum submitted a letter enclosing the certified photocopies collected from the court of Sh. Navin Arora, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi regarding the certified copies of girdawari register, agreement to sell dated 23.02.1985 between Sh. Charan Singh and Mst. Jamila Khatoon for the sale of one bigha of land in khasra no. 166 Village Jogabai, New Delhi, certified copy of affidavit sworn by Sh. Charan Singh regarding the sale of plot measuring one bigha in khasra no. 166 to Mst. Jamila Khatoon, the certified copies of the receipt of Rs. 21,000/ issued by Sh. Charan Singh CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 50 of 7 to Mst. Jamila Khatoon for the sale of plot measuring one bigha, photocopy of agreement dated 22.04.1985 between Sh. Mussadi and Mst. Jamila Khatoon regarding the sale of 400 sq. yard of land in khasra no. 166 in Joga Bai, affidavit dated 23.04.1985 of Sh. Mussadi regarding the aforesaid sale of 400 sq. yard, photocopy of the receipt of Rs. 2,000/ issued by Sh. Mussadi to Mst. Jamila Khatoon and photocopies of other related papers of MCD Delhi. The documents were collectively proved as Ex. PW67/H1 to Ex. PW67/H26 (colly). The documents pertaining to Standard Chartered Bank were proved as Ex.PW67/J1 to J13 (colly). The Girdawari register for the period for the period 19861990 of Village Joga Bai, copy of partal etc from Sh. Chattarpal Singh, Record Keeper Tehsil Hauz Khas Office of SDM Hauz Khas were proved as Ex.PW67/K1 to Ex. PW67/K9 (colly). The original file pertaining to the vehicle no. DL9CE6095 pertaining to A2 Mst. Razia Sultana is proved as Ex.PW67/L1 to Ex. PW67/L33 (colly).

In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the residence of accused persons at Rajouri Garden was also searched. The witness after initial reluctance also admitted that the searches were conducted at Laxmi Nagar, Mayur Vihar and Wazirabad and search cum seizure memo and observation memo were duly prepared. The witness admitted that he had not filed the search cum seizure memo and observation memo relating to said three searches. He admitted that nothing incriminating was found against the accused in these searches. Insp. Sanjay Dhall admitted that he could not CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 51 of 7 examine Mr. Charna because he had already expired before he took over the investigation. IO was not knowing that when did Charna died. However, he admitted that Charna was alive when the case was registered. Io stated that Charna was examined by the first IO Sh. NK Jain. However, he admitted that there is no statement of Charna on record. IO denied the suggestion that CBI never wanted to reach to the truth of the matter and that is why the statement of Charna was not recorded, though he was the seller of the plot in question. The witness admitted that the document, Ex.PW69/C will of Mst. Jamila Khatoon was found during the search. Interestingly, the witness stated that since it is in Urdu hence, he is unable to comment on the contents of the said will. Witness admitted that there is no translation of the will on record of this court. The witness also admitted that A2 Mst. Razia Sultana is the only legal heir of late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The witness denied the suggestion that A1 Sh. AA Farooquee and A2 Mst. Razia Sultana did not have any connection with Batla House property.

3.65 PW68 Sh. MC Gupta had conducted the valuation of property No.F13, Khasra No.166, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia/Zakir Nagar, New Delhi. The witness stated that he had gone alongwith IO and preapared the valuation report truly and correctly. The valuation was conducted in the presence of its owner i.e A1 AA Farooquee. The witness stated that as per valuation report, Ex.PW56/A the cost worked out was Rs.64.78 lacs CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 52 of 7 (excluding cost of land). The witness found that certain portion of the building was under construction and certain portion was complete. The cost was worked out taking into account this aspect. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that document Ex.PW56/A mentions about two CBI letters dated 16.05.2005 and 24.08.2006 and both the documents are not available on record. The witness admitted that he prepared the valuation report on the basis of information and particulars supplied to him by CBI besides, what he observed on the ground. The witness also admitted that certain documents as mentioned in clause No.3.1 and 3.2 of Ex.PW56/A supplied to him by CBI are not on record. The witness admitted that the valuation report is on the basis of information supplied to him by the CBI that the construction of the property was between the period May/June 2003 to December 2004. The witness also admitted that he took around 7 months to prepare the report after the inspection as some more documents were called from the assessee or the owner. The witness admitted that he had mentioned in report that his remark in report regarding 100% share of the assessee in the property is recorded by him as per the information given by the CBI. The witness admitted that he was asked to assess the valuation of the property as on May June 2003 to December 2004, however, he gave the valuation report as on 31.10.2006 as at that time also the construction was in progress and he could not make out that which construction was carried out till December 2004. The witness could not tell that which particular construction was carried out CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 53 of 7 between the period December 2004 to 31.10.2006. The witness admitted that the data on which valuation is made is primarily provided by the CPWD. The witness deposed in the cross examination that he followed the approved method for valuation without any modification.

3.66 PW69 Sh. NK Jain, was the initial IO. He conducted the search on 06.04.2005 at the residence of A1 at Qtr. No.1, Rajouri Garden Police Station Campus as well as the search was conducted at other places under his instructions. The witness proved the search cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and observation memo Ex.PW5/B. IO proved the letter dated 18.08.2005 from Consolidated Fibers and Chemicals Ltd. regarding shares held by A1 and A2 and proved the same as Ex.PW69/B. IO proved the document D75/1 as Ex.PW69/C which was in Urdu and was found during the course of search of residential premises of accused persons. Insp. NK Jain stated that during his tenure i.e. till January 2007, major issue of the case was the property of Batla House, Khasra No.166, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, part of which, about 500 sq. yds., was purchased by A2 Razia Sultana from one Charna. The documents of this were seized during the search. In the cross examination, the witness stated that the investigation was entrusted to him after registration of FIR. The witness was not able to tell that at what time the search operations commenced and it was completed in late hours of the day. IO stated that he knew Mst. Abida Begum and Sh. Abdul Mannan. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 54 of 7 However, he did not remember whether they have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the present case. IO admitted that there is some alteration/correction on Ex.PW5/A (D4/8) item No.21. He stated that the correction / alteration might have been done while finally checking the documents and there only his initials are appearing. The witness also admitted that there is alteration/correction after para No.30 in Ex.PW5/A (D4/10) . The witness denied that the documents have been malafidely tampered. IO stated that it is not to his knowledge whether any person had come to the search premises or left the search premises at any time during the course of search operation. It also came in the cross examination of this witness that the items found during the search on the different floors / rooms were not listed on the spot while conducting the search and were got collected on the ground floor. IO denied the suggestion that certain documents belonging to Mst. Jamila Khatoon and Razia Sultana were taken away by him without mentioning the same in the seizure memo and he had made ambiguous entry of number of documents in the seizure memo without specifying the documents itself. IO stated that he had not seized the documents Mark PW69/DA. He stated that the documents which are reflected in the seizure memo were seized. IO stated that during the investigation remained with him, neither he contacted anyone named Charna nor recorded his statement. IO specifically stated that he cannot say whether he had recorded his statement at any point of time during the course of CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 55 of 7 investigation. IO denied the suggestion that no document relating to the alleged purchase of property at Batla House of 500 sq. yds. plot was recovered in the search of residential premises of the accused on 06.04.05. 3.67 PW70 Ms. Shehnaaz Khan proved her signature on search cum seizure memo Ex.PW47/A and on search cum observation memo Ex.PW49/A. In the cross examination, the witness stated that memos Ex.PW47/A and Ex.PW49/A were written by Insp. AV Bhardwaj. However, she was not able to tell the time of commencement of the raid and the time when the raid was completed. She stated that the security arrangements were made to ensure that nobody could come in or go out from the search premises during the period of raid.

3.68 PW71 Insp. RS Bedi proved his signatures on observation memo Ex.PW5/B. Insp. Bedi was leader of the team and author of the documents. In the cross examination, he stated that the search commenced at about 6:45am and completed at around 5 pm. He stated that he did not make any security arrangements at the searched premises to ensure that there is no entry or exit of any person during the search proceedings. 3.69 PW72 Sh. Jitendra Kumar Singh the then Desk Officer, UTS II in the Ministry of Home Affairs, proved the sanction for prosecution CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 56 of 7 accorded against A1 AA Farooquee as Ex.PW72/A. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he had only conveyed the sanction. The witness denied the suggestion that sanction was granted and conveyed mechanically without proper application of mind.

3.70 The prosecution has examined PW3 Sh. Gopal Singh, PW6 Sh. Abdul Rehan, PW8 Sh. Sheikh Abdul Mannan, PW13 Sh. Iqbal Ahmed PW14 Mst. Abida Begum, PW24 Sh. Bir Singh, PW25 Mohd. Yamin, PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob, PW36 Sh. Khursheed Ahmed, PW43 Sh. Vinod Kumar, PW48 Sh. Man Singh and PW56 Sh. Hardeep Singh in respect of property situated at Khasra No.166, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.

PW3 Sh. Gopal Singh, nephew of Sh. Charna identified the signatures of Sh. Charna on affidavit Ex.PW3/A (D4/129). PW3 Sh. Gopal Singh was also signatory on the receipt (D4/130), Ex.PW3/B as well the agreement (D4/131 & 132), Ex.PW3/C. The witness also identified the signature of Charna on Ex.PW3/C at point B on both the pages. Sh. Gopal Singh stated that through these documents his Uncle (Chacha) had sold his land to A2 Razia Sultana for Rs.20,000/ about 2425 years ago. It is pertinent to mention here that all these documents were photocopies. In the cross examination on behalf of A1, the witness stated that Sh. Charna was survived by 4 sons and 4 daughters. He also stated that children of Sh. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 57 of 7 Charna used to live with him. However, the witness was not aware about the age of his children. Sh. Gopal Singh stated that he was related to Sh. Charna by blood. However, he could not tell the age of Charna when he expired. The witness stated that he signed the agreement Ex.PW3/C at the house of said Sh. Charna in the presence of members of his family. The witness stated that Sh. Charna had received a packet of Rs.20,000/ in his presence and only thereafter, asked him to sign the agreement. The witness also identified his signatures on GPA (D59/9 & 59/10), Ex.PW3/DB dated 08.03.85. The witness stated that he does not know any Mst. Abida Begum. However, he knew Sh. Musaddi who belonged to his caste.

PW6 Sh. Abdul Rehan deposed on oath that he had been residing at H.No.D45, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi since 1986. He stated that F13, Khasra No.166, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi is at a distance of about ½ km from his house. He further deposed that on 28.04.2002 a function was organized on this plot by his elder brother Sh. Abdul Mannan for inauguration of computer centre by the name of Texas Computer Centre. It also came in the testimony of this witness that earlier it was a vacant plot and the construction work of this plot started in May 2003 and continued about 78 months. He further stated that the building was constructed by A1 and the building is in the name of A2 Razia Sultana. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that he does not have documentary proof to show that the said property belonged to A2 Razia CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 58 of 7 Sultana. He admitted that he made the statement as having been heard.

PW8 Sheikh Abdul Mannan deposed on oath that he has been running a computer institute at ground floor of F13/5, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi since 2002. The witness stated that this property was measuring 120 sq. yds. and he is the owner of the same and had purchased it from the accused persons. The witness stated that the accused persons had got the documents prepared in the name of late Mst. Jamila Khatoon on the pretext that the property was mutated both in the name of A2 Razia Sultana and Mst. Jamila Khatoon. It was also informed that A2 had transferred her share in the property in the name of her mother Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The witness further deposed on oath that he paid some amount towards the purchase of this plot measuring 500 sq. yds. and it was agreed between him and A1 that out of this plot, 200 sq. yds. of land would be of the witness and remaining 300 sq. yds. would be of A2 Razia Sultana. The witness further deposed that a room was constructed on this plot of 500 sq. yds. for supervision. The witness went to Saudia Arabia and returned in February 1992 and on returning back, he requested A1 to transfer the land measuring 200 sq. yds. in his name for construction. A1 took Rs.60,000/ from the witness and transferred 120 sq. yds. of land in the name of Mst. Anjum Ara i.e. wife of the witness. The documents were executed by Mst. Jamila Khatoon in the name of his wife. The witness stated that he demanded remaining 80 sq. yds. of land on which A1 stated that 80 sq. yds. would be a CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 59 of 7 common passage and he would also give 120 sq. yds. of land from his portion of 300 sq. yds. for developing a common park. However, in May 2003, A1 started raising construction in the entire plot of 300 sq. yds. without leaving 120 sq. yds. land for park. The request of the witness for closing his windows during the said construction was not heard by A1, A2 and Mst. Jamila Khatoon. PW8 stated that the construction was completed by A1 in January 2004 and thereafter, he started raising construction on the common passage i.e. 80 sq. yds. of land which was the share of PW8. A1 did not hear the request of this witness to not raise construction on the 80 sq. yds. belonging to him i.e. PW8 and rather raised 4 pillars in front of his door. PW8 filed a civil suit against both the accused persons. The witness stated that A1 and A2 were in possession of 1400 sq. yds. since 1989. He further stated that A2 had purchased 500 sq. yds. of land from Charna in March 1985. A2 purchased another 400 sq. yds. of land from Musaddi. Sheikh Abdul Mannan was witness to both the transactions. He further stated that during the time of execution of documents in respect of 500 sq. yds. of land, 350 sq. yds. of land was purchased in the name of Mohd. Yaqoob and 150 sq. yds. of land was purchased in the name of Mohd. Farooq. In the year 1989, Mohd. Yaqoob sold that 350 sq. yds. of land to Muquid Siddiqui and in the same year Muquid Siddiqui sold 350 sq. yds. of land to Mst. Abida Begum. The witness stated that when A1 AA Farooquee became aware of it, he took the possession of the entire land measuring 350 sq. yds., 150 sq. yds. and CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 60 of 7 900 sq. yds. and came in possession of entire 1400 sq. yds. of land. The witness also stated that in February 1989, he got certain papers from Charna in respect of 1000 sq. yds. of land but this transaction could not be completed as that 1000 sq. yds. of land was to be sold for Rs.40,000/ and as A1 AA Farooquee could not pay Rs.40,000/, the transaction was not completed. Out of this 1000 sq. yds. of land, 500 sq. yds. of land was given to A2 and 350 sq. yds. of land was given to Mohd. Yaqoob and 150 sq. yds. of land to Mohd. Farooq. The witness stated that the documents Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/C are forged and fabricated as papers were executed for 500 sq. yds. and after making forgery this were converted as to of 1000 sq. yds. However, the witness identified his signatures on Ex.PW8/A and agreement dated 22.04.1985 regarding sale of plot measuring 400 sq. yds. out of khasra No. 166 in favour of Razia Sultana by Musaddi and identified signatures of Musaddi at point A on Mark PW8/B. He also identified signatures of Musaddi, Charna and Razia Sultana on original agreement, Ex.PW8/C and identified signatures of PW3 and Mohd. Yaqoob on the same.

The witness also deposed that an inaugural function of his computer institute which was held on 28.04.2002 and attended by A1 as well as Vice Chancellor of Hamdard University and Mr. Parvez Hashmi, the then Local MLA, the videography was done in which the said plot is seen as vacant. The witness also stated that receipt Ex.PW8/D was initially in the name of A2 and later on it was forged in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 61 of 7 He also stated that his signatures are appearing on the same at point A. However, the signatures at point B are forged. The witness also stated that affidavit Ex.PW8/E of Musaddi was initially in the name of A2 but later on, it was forged in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The witness identified the handwriting of A2 at page 7, 8, 9 and 10 and proved the same as Ex.PW8/F. The CD Ex.PW8/G was played in the court which showed that a tent was fixed in front of the house of PW8 and the space in front of the house of PW8 till the main gate is an open space.

In the cross examination on behalf of A1, the witness admitted that he purchased the plot measuring 120 sq. yds. in the year 1992 and proved the certified copy of agreement to sell regarding this as Ex.PW8/D1. The witness admitted that the agreement to sell bears the signature of Mst. Jamila Khatoon. He also admitted that as per certified copy of receipt Ex.PW8/D2, a sum of Rs.15,000/ was paid to Mst. Jamila Khatoon. However, the witness voluntarily stated that he had paid the amount to A1. The witness admitted that he does not have any receipt executed by A1. The witness admitted that the certified copy of the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by his wife Anjum Ara against the accused persons and proved as same as Ex.PW8/D3. It was admitted that Mst. Jamila Khatoon was not alive when this suit was filed. The witness denied that he has concocted a false story regarding common passage. He also admitted that there is no document regarding 80 sq. yds. of land for common passage and CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 62 of 7 120 sq. yds. for developing a common park. The witness admitted in the cross examination that he does not have any proof to show that A1 AA Farooquee has constructed the said property. However, he voluntarily stated that A1 AA Farooquee used to come there when the construction was in progress. The witness also admitted that he does not have any paper regarding 200 sq. yds. of land. The witness stated that for that land a verbal agreement had taken place between him and A1 AA Farooquee. The witness denied the suggestion that Mst. Jamila Khatoon was owner of 1000 sq. yds. of land which was purchased by her on 23.02.1985. The witness also denied the suggestion that Mst. Jamila Khatoon further purchased 400 sq. yds. of land from Mussadi in April 1985 and therefore, Mst. Jamila Khatoon was in possession of 1400 sq. yds. of land since 1985. The witness denied the suggestion that documents Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/C are forged and fabricated documents. The witness also stated that document Ex.PW8/C was never executed and document Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B were executed but they were forged to make it from 500 sq. yds. to 1000 sq. yds. The witness admitted that out of this land of 1400 sq. yds. a civil litigation is pending between Abida Begum and A2 Razia Sultana and A1 AA Farooquee in respect of 350 sq. yds. of land.

PW13 Sh. Iqbal Ahmed was examined in respect of Batla house property. However, he was ignorant about the ownership of this building. The witness stated that the building was not in existence in CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 63 of 7 19982002 but he did not know when it was constructed.

PW14 Abida Begum widow of Mohd. Faroque Khan deposed on oath that her cousin brother Mohd. Yakub had studied with A1 AA Farooquee at Aligarh Muslim University. PW14 Mst. Abida Begum deposed that her cousin Mohd. Yakub and A1 AA Farooquee had purchased adjoining properties in khasra No.166, Village Joga Bai which is also known as Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi, from Sh. Charan Singh @ Charna and the documents were executed in favour of A2 Razia Sultana. She stated that the documents were prepared by her late husband Sh. Mohd. Faroque and she was present alongwith Mohd. Yakub and PW8 Abdul Mannan. The witness further stated that her cousin Mohd. Yakub and her husband had also purchased the land from the same seller measuring 350 sq. yds. and 150 sq. yds., respectively. The witness identified the signatures of Sh. Charan Singh on document Ex.PW8/C which is agreement to sell dated 08.03.1985 and identified the signatures of her cousin Mohd. Yakub at point C on page 1 para 4 as well as signatures of A2 at point D on page 2. The witness further stated that a building was constructed on said piece of land in the year 2003 and now days a girls' hostel by the name of Sultanat Girls Hostel is being run there. In the cross examination on behalf of A1, the witness admitted that she was arrested in the murder case of her husband and remained in jail for more than 2 years. The witness denied the suggestion that she had come to depose in this case because litigation is going on between the accused persons and CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 64 of 7 herself. The witness admitted that she does not have any documentary proof to show that the said girls hostel building was constructed by the accused persons. However, she placed on record the photographs of same in the court which were collectively marked as Mark Z. The witness stated that till the time Sultanat building was not constructed, the plot was lying vacant. In the cross examination, the defence also put the entire case to the witness which was denied by her.

PW24 Sh. Bir Singh the then Asstt. Zonal Inspector from MCD deposed on oath that he was posted in MCD from January 1996 to September 2007 and during the relevant period, he worked in the area of Jamia Nagar, Batla house and dealt with the house tax file related to the property of Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. The witness proved the file from Assessment and Collection Department relating to property No.518A Batla house and proved the same as Ex.PW24/E. The witness proved the undated application moved by Mst. Jamila Khatoon as Ex.PW24/A for effecting mutation of property No.518A, Batla house in her name in place of Mst. Razia Sultana in whose name it was mutated wrongly. The witness stated that the application was accompanied with the affidavit of Mst. Jamila Khatoon, Ex.PW24/B, Indemnity bond, Ex.PW24/C and photocopy of receipt executed by Sh. Musaddi in favour of Mst. Jamila Khatoon (already exhibited as Ex.PW8/D). The witness stated that he had effected the mutation on these documents and never compared the photocopy of the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 65 of 7 documents with original. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he effected the mutation as per procedure and practice. In the cross examination the witness admitted that Mst. Jamila Khatoon was having a ration card at the address of 518A, Batla house, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and proved the attested copy of ration card as Ex.PW24/DA. The witness also proved that as per Ex.PW24/B, property No.518A, Batla House has duly been mutated in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The witness reaffirmed that the mutation had been done under his signatures. The witness stated that all the documents were in order. It came in the cross examination of this witness that he had told the CBI that at the time of execution of mutation in July 1999, he had visited the aforesaid property for the survey and found that there was no change in the status of the property after March 1985 and it was still having one room as mentioned in the original notice issued in the year 1985.

PW25 Sh. Mohd. Yamin having diploma in civil engineering deposed on oath that he had prepared the drawing of a building in Batla house belonging to one Mrs. Razia Sultana. A2 Razia Sultana wanted to construct a hostel and at her request, he prepared the drawing and handed over the same to her against charge of Rs.5,000/. The witness stated that he had handed over the drawing, Ex.PW28/B to CBI which was seized vide memo Ex.PW28/A. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he did not know as to whom the property in question belonged to. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 66 of 7

PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob deposed that he knew A1 AA Farooquee and has been his friend since college days. The witness stated that on the agreement to sell Ex.PW8/C it appeared that his signatures are appearing at point B. The witness also stated that handwritten portion at point C is also in his handwriting.

PW36 Sh. Khursheed Ahmad was an important witness for the prosecution. However, he did not support the case of the CBI. Sh. Khursheed Ahmad stated that in March 2006 he did the work of construction and supervision work in connection therewith. He stated that in the year 2003, he came to know that construction work of a building at Batla House has been left by someone in between and therefore, he met Mst. Jamila Khatoon and introduced himself and offered to complete the construction work on percentage basis. Sh. Khursheed Ahmad deposed that he met Mst. Jamila Khatoon and her brother Mr. Umar and during this he also met A2 Mst. Razia Sultana. The witness stated that he never had any discussion with A1 AA Farooquee regarding the construction of this building. He also stated that the total expenditure on the construction of this building during his supervision was around Rs.2830 lacs and he received around 4% of this amount as his supervision charges. He also stated that the payments were mostly made by Mst. Jamila Khatoon and her brother Mr. Umar and only once or twice, payment was made by A2 Razia Sultana. The witness identified the document Ex.PW36/A which the detail of the payments CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 67 of 7 totaling to 25,30,000/.

PW43 Sh. Vinod Kumar Asstt. Zonal Inspector in House Tax Department, MCD had dealt with the issue of Batla house property since October 2004. He stated that before the introduction of Unit Area method of house tax, they used to conduct the survey and notices were used to be issued on PPO (Present Property Occupier) basis irrespective of ownership occupier. He further stated that in case of change of title, the mutation used to be done in the name of the transferee. The witness stated that as per record notice dated 28.03.84, Ex.PW43/A was issued to Razia Sultana. He further stated that as per record, a survey was conducted in this area by Insp. KS Arya and at that time it was a vacant plot with only one room 10X12 constructed thereon. The rateable value was assessed at Rs.1,080/ from the period 01.04.84 and the same was confirmed on 31.07.86. The witness also proved that an application dated 14.06.90, Ex.PW43/B was received from Mst. Jamila Khatoon for mutation of property in her name and she also submitted that documents regarding sale & purchase of the said property alognwith affidavit, copy of agreement to sell & purchase, ration card bearing photo.

PW48 Sh. Man Singh deposed on oath that around 1988 or 1989 A1 AA Farooquee had approached him for purchase of land in Khasra No.166, Joga Bai but the transaction could not be completed as A1 AA Farooquee did not pay the money. PW48 also stated that A1 AA Farooquee CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 68 of 7 had given him the contract of earth filling in his plot which was located in Joga Bai itself. The witness stated that he had done the earth filling of around 2025 ft deep and AA Farooquee had agreed to pay Rs. 8085,000/ but he paid him only Rs.20,000/ and refused to pay the remaining amount. He further stated that A1 was police officer and when he demanded, A1 threatened him with dire consequences. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he had no documents or evidence to show that he was paid Rs.20,000/ by A1 Farooquee. The witness admitted that the plot on which he had done the filling work, already a room was built on the said plot. Interestingly, a suggestion was put to the witness that he is motivated witness because the accused had not paid him the dues.

PW56 Sh. Hardeep Singh proved the communication dated 14.05.2007/25.05.2007 vide which the valuation report of property No.F13 (Khasra No.166), Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia/Zakir Nagar, New Delhi was forwarded to CBI. The report D35/1 to D35/14 was collectively proved as Ex.PW56/A. As per this valuation report, the valuation of the property was assessed at Rs.64,77,800/ as on May/June 2003 to December 2004. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he had not conducted the valuation of this property and valuation was conducted by Sh. MC Gupta. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 4.0 In his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, A1 AA Farooquee stated that CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 69 of 7 search cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/A has been manipulated. In the same, items and documents were added, whereas the same were not recovered from his house. A1 stated that the details of payment to Khursheed, and sale papers of purchase by A2 from Charna and Mussadi were not recovered from his house and the same have been wrongly added in the search cum seizure memo. Similarly, the original document between Charna and Mst. Jameela Khatoon and Mussadi and Mst. Jameela Khatoon and records of business of A2 were not shown in the search cum seizure memo whereas the same were found in his house during the search. It has been submitted that out of the cash recovered from his house Rs. 45,000/ belonged to Dr. Ghazanfer (DW4) who had kept this money while going to Jodhpur from Lucknow. In respect of the property at Distt. Siwan, Bihar, A1 stated that infact this property was not purchased by paying any cash and he had got the same in family settlement of partition of properties. Similarly, in regard to the construction, it was stated that the value of the house was more than Rs. 2 lakhs and it was made progressively over 4045 years in phases. The valuation asessed by CBI is based on wrong facts and are not to be believed. In respect of the investment in shares of Consolidated Fibers and Chemicals Ltd., Herdillia Polymers Ltd. and Herdillia Unimers Ltd., A1 stated that half part of the investment was made by his father. In respect to the tuition fee of his children, accused stated that these expenses were made by A2 out of her own earnings and savings. In respect to the expenditure on account of credit CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 70 of 7 card payment, A1 stated that the payments made by credit cards also include simple return of the money drawn in cash and are not expenditures. A1 stated that the cards were mostly used by some friends in need who also repaid the same from their pocket. In regard to the educational expenses of the children, accused stated that the payments were made by A2 and only she can make objective comments as to the source of this expenditure. In regard to the expenditure in the sum of Rs..23,340/ and Rs.2,223/ towards service charges including water charges and ground rent, in respect of Flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi, the accused stated that these expenses were paid by Sh. Mirza Agam Beg and his son Mirza Farhan Beg who were using these premises. In respect to the statement made by PW48 Sh. Man Singh, accused stated that the statement made by PW48 is false. A1 stated that he never contacted PW48 Man Singh.

In regard to the Batla House Property, A1 stated that this property was inherited by his wife A2 being the only legal heir of Late Mrs. Jameela Khatoon.

A1 stated that sanction for prosecution has been granted in a mechanical manner. A1 stated that PW14 Mrs. Abida Begum and PW8 Abdul Manan have fabricated documents and have made a false statement to implicate him. In regard to the agreement to sell dtd. td. 8/3/95 between Sh. Charan Singh @ Charna and A2 Razia Sultana showing sale of land measuring 500sq yards out of khasra No. 166, Joga Bai (Nafees Road, Jamia CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 71 of 7 Nagar) for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ Ex.PW8/C and original GPA dtd. 8/3/85 executed by Charan Singh @ Charna Ex.PW3/DB, A1 stated that no such document were recovered from his residence and these are forged documents with forged signatures of Charna. Similarly, accused stated that the document Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B regarding purchase of 400 sq yards by A2 from Mussaddi are false and fabricated documents created by PW8 Abdul Manan and PW14 Abida Begum. In respect to the purchase of 120 sq yards of land by PW8 Abdul Manan, allegedly from the accused persons, A1 stated that this land was purchased by PW8 Sh. Abdul Manan and Ms. Anjum Ara from Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/ paid to Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon only. A1 also stated that these persons have falsely asked for 15 ft. wide raasta in place of 5ft. A1 sated that infact PW8 Abdul Manan had purchased the plot of 120sq yards in the name of his wife Ms. Anjum Ara and he knew very well that Mst. Jameela Khatoon had purchased 1000 sq. yards of land from Charna. A1 stated that he or his wife A2 had nothing to do with this transaction. The accused stated that he was not at all associated with the construction at any stage. Accused stated that in the year 2003, construction was carried out by Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon and her brother. The accused took a plea that he or his wife A2 never purchased any property in Batla House from Charna or Mussadi or anybody else. He further stated that A2 came in possession by right of inheritance after death of Mst. Jameela Khatoon in 2003. The accused stated CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 72 of 7 that CBI has relied upon the false pleas of Abdul Manan and Abida Begum. The accused stated that the documents executed in favour of A2 have been forged and fabricated only in order to show that Mohd. Yaqoob and Farooq had purchased 350 yards and 150 yards out of 1000 yards of Charna on 8/3/85 whereas fact of the matter is that entire 1000 yards of Charna's share had been purchased by Mst. Jameela Khatoon on 23/2/85. A1 stated that the documents relating to Mst. Jameela Khatoon and Charna and Mst. Jameela Khatoon and Mussadi are genuine and as per his knowledge no changes have been made on them. The accused stated that there is overwhelming documentary evidence on record to show that Mst. Jameela Khatoon was in possession of 1400 sq. yards of land. A1 stated that he is victim of litigation between interested witnesses particularly PW8 Abdul Manan, PW14 Abdia Begum and PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob on one side and Mst. Jameela Khatoon who was sued through A2. Accused stated that he and his wife has been implicated in false case and motivated complaints to blackmail them. A1 stated that the CBI case is primarily based on Batla House property. He submitted that infact it is culmination of dispute between Mst. Jameela Khatoon on one side and Abida Begum and her cousin Yaqoob on another side. It was stated that infact Mst. Jameela Khatoon had purchased one bigha of share from Charna on 23/2/85 and Abida Begum and Yaqoob fabricated some documents on 8/3/85 showing purchase from Charna of 350 yards and 150 yards (total 500 yards), from same Charna out of his share. He stated CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 73 of 7 that infact Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon had taken possession of this 1000 yards and Abida Begum and Yaqoob only inorder to grab 500 sq yards of land, started making false complaint against them. The civil suit filed by these persons against Mst. Jameela Khatoon was dismissed and the case filed against A2 was also dismissed. He stated that Abida Begum caused 145 proceedings which went in favour of Mst. Jameela Khatoon. Similarly, Sh. Abdul Manan had tried to encroach upon the property of Mst. Jameela Khatoon and when A2 tried to stop him, false complaints were made against them. Accused stated that the properties of his wife A2 whether earned by her or inherited by her are as per law belongs to her entirely. He further stated that as per conduct rules of service, he is accountable for maintaining records only of his properties and assets. Accused stated that CBI has wrongly included his wife's properties in his properties and assets only to make a case of disproportionate assets.

4.1 A2 Razia Sultana in her statement u/S 313 Cr.PC also challenged the genuineness and authenticity of search cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. In respect to the payment made to Pioneer Hobby Center, A2 stated that these payments were made by her. A2 also stated that she used the credit card of A1 quite often. In regard to Batla House, A2 stated that this belonged to her mother Mst.Jameela Khatoon and her maternal uncle Sh. SM Omar used to look after all her affairs. A1 had nothing to do with this CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 74 of 7 property. A2 stated that A1 is basically a writer and he used to spent most of his time in writing novels and rather she used to manage the affairs of A1. A2 stated that Master Shariq Imam was son of sister of her mother studying in Delhi and had taken shelter in her house. A2 stated that her properties had falsely been added in the property of A1 just to falsely implicate him. A2 also denied that the documents Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C were executed by her. She stated that these are forged and fabricated documents only to counter the documents of Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon. A2 also stated that these documents were never recovered from her house. A2 further stated that all the documents in her name are forged and fabricated documents. A2 stated that she became owner of the Batla House Property only after death of her mother. A2 also denied any contribution of her in the construction of the building. A2 stated that her father was son of a business man and joined government service in postal department and her other looked after family properties. A2 stated that after death of her father, she was sent by her mother to Aligarh Muslim University for post graduation in MA where she lived in hostel. A2 stated that her mother inherited the properties from her father (A2's father) as well as from her own father (Jameela Khatoon's father). Being lonely Mst. Jameela Khatoon decided to shift to Delhi and her elder brother SM Omar remained her patron and looked after her ever since she became widowed. A2 stated that her mother Mst. Jameela Khatoon was financially well off and independent. She was a religious person and went for CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 75 of 7 Haj in the year 1988. Mst. Jameela Khatoon had a dream to construct a building for girls as she had seen A2 facing difficulties during her student life. She came to Delhi in 1985 and purchased land in Batla House. A2 stated that Mst. Jameela Khatoon died in December 2003 and after her death the property devolved on her. A2 further stated that she is MA in History from AMU, MA in Urdu from Jamia Millia, Delhi. She is a Sahitya Academy and National Book Trust Translator and have translated novels and shortstory books assigned by them. A2 stated that she used to do translation for some other publishers also and participated in All India Radio programs and later did garments retail business in domestic markets and earned. A2 also entered into business of export of garments but could not get success there. She stated that records relating to her retail business were lost during CBI search though some scattered papers are still available. A2 stated that she had some similar other minor income. She used to spend her income on herself as well as her children's education and hobby etc.. She also purchased car and some properties. A2 also stated that she used to pay the income tax. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.0 The accused persons have examined 10 witnesses in their defence.

5.1 DW1 Sh. Jyotish Topno proved the record pertaining to suit CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 76 of 7 No. CS53/14 titled as Abdul Rehan & Anr. Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. as Ex. DW1/A (colly). In the cross examination, the witness stated that the said suit was filed on 12/2/2014 and was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 21/5/2014 on the basis of statement of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. 5.2 DW2 Sh. Sanjay Kaul, Programme Executive, All India Radio stated that contract sheets were issued by All India Radio, Port Blair, issued by Family Welfare Section to A1 or A2 between the period 1982 to 1986, with reference to the work contract in respect of their broadcast talks on the given subject / short stories. DW2 also stated that some contract sheets were issued by All India Radio, National Channel, New Delhi also. The contract sheets contained the broadcast fee paid and the title in respect of which the services were availed by AIR. He proved the contract sheets as Ex.DW2/A (Colly). In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the aforesaid contract sheets were neither prepared in his presence nor he had any knowledge about the author of the same. However, the witness voluntarily stated that the sheets pertained to his department.

5.3 DW3 Sh. RK Verma, Office Supdt. Sahitya Academy, Ministry of Culture proved the records pertaining to his department as Ex.DW3/A (Colly) on comparing the office copies brought by him. DW3 stated that these documents pertained to an assignment given to A2 for translation of CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 77 of 7 English title "That Long Silence" into Urdu title "Voh Taveer Khamoshi". In the cross examination, DW3 stated that A2 was paid an amount of Rs. 6,500/ towards the remuneration for translation.

5.4 DW4 Sh. Ghazanfar Ali who was working as a Principal in Urdu Teaching and Research Center at Lucknow during the year 2005 was to conduct an official programme at Delhi relating to Urdu teaching for Urdu teachers of Delhi. DW4 deposed that he had to go to Baroda and was to come back to Delhi for conducting the programme. Since he was carrying official cash pertaining to Urdu Teaching and Research Centre, which forms a part of Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India., for conducting the programme, he kept the sum of Rs. 45,000/ with Mr. AA Faroquee for the purpose of safety so that he could take back the amount from him after coming to Delhi. DW4 further stated that when he reached back to Delhi, he received a phone call from some CBI official enquiring about the delivery of cash of Rs.45,000/ to Mr. AA Farooquee. DW4 informed the CBI officials that it was an official cash and had delivered the same to Sh. Farooquee for safe keeping while he was traveling to Baroda. DW4 further deposed that he gave the CBI officials all the necessary details including the name of the Bank from which the cash had been withdrawn. DW4 further stated that he received back the cash from Mr. Farooquee subsequently. In the cross examination, DW4 admitted that he knew A1 very well. He voluntarily stated that A1 is a writer and he also is CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 78 of 7 from the literature field and a writer. DW4 stated that though he did not bring any document to show that he came to Delhi for conducting Urdu programme, however, he voluntarily stated that the said documents are available in the office. DW4 stated that since he had been transferred from the said department, therefore, could not bring any document in support of his statement that the cash belonged to the govt. exchequer withdrawn by him.

5.5 DW5 Ashwini Kumar, Asstt. in National Book Trust, India proved the photocopies of the letters issued by National Book Trust, India, between the period 1995 and 1998 to A2 Mrs. Razia Sultana relating to Urdu Translation Work done by her for the Trust of the book "ASHAPURNA DEVI'S SHORT STORIES" as Ex.DW5/A (colly). DW5 stated that as per MoU dated 04.04.1996, A2 Ms. Razia Sultana was agreed to be paid Rs. 5,858/ as one time payment for the translation work assigned to her. Further, as per the letter dated 07.07.98 the said amount of Rs.5,858/ was paid to her by the National Book Trust, India.

5.6 DW6 Sh. Vishal Singh, Jr. Judicial Asstt., Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts had brought the Goshwara register of Civil Lines, relating to record of case No.638/89 titled as Abida Begum Vs. Razia Sultana decided by Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, the then Ld. Civil Judge vide order CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 79 of 7 dated 07.03.2000. DW6 stated that the said official file was destroyed vide serial No.1236 as shown on dated 17.06.2008.

5.7 DW7 Sh. Onkar Dutt, Patwari, SDM Office, Defence Colony brought the photocopy of order dated 18.01.2001, Mark DW7/A passed by the then SDM, Defence Colony, Distt. South, New Delhi in case No. 18/SDM(DC)/99 titled State Vs. Mrs. Jamila Khatoon and Mrs. Abida Begum u/S.145 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the said file was sent to CBI vide letter dated 24.03.2006.

5.8 DW8 Sh. Izhar Alam is a witness pertaining to the purchase of land by Mst. Jamila Khatoon in village Joga Bai. DW8 deposed that Mst. Jamila Khatoon purchased the land from two persons one of whom was residing in Sarai Julena and another was residing in Taimoor Nagar. The witness identified his signatures at point A on agreement Ex.PW67/H1 to 26 (colly). The witness stated that he appended his signatures as a witness in the aforesaid documents. He also identified the signatures of Charna, Jamila Khatoon, Abdul Mannan, Mussadi on the same. DW8 deposed that PW8 Abdul Mannan was present at the time of execution of these documents and Mr. Charna, Mussadi and Jamila Khatoon signed the respective documents in his presence. DW8 further stated that the payment of the said transaction was made after about 10 days of the agreement by Mst. Jamila Khatoon to the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 80 of 7 seller after getting confirmed and satisfying herself with regard to the possession of the lands purchased from both the sellers. He stated that the receipts were executed in respect of both the transactions at the time of payment made after taking possession and getting satisfied in this regard. DW8 further deposed that the payment to Mr. Mussadi was made by Mst. Jamila Khatoon in two installments. In the cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that he cannot say that the payment was made by Jamila Khatoon. However, he voluntarily stated that the payment was made by Mst. Jamila Khatoon.

5.9 DW9 Sh. PK Rai, registered valuer with Siwan Municipal Corporation for valuation of immovable properties deposed that he had conducted the valuation of immovable property i.e. residential property at Village Champ, belonging to A1 AA Farooquee. He stated that he prepared the valuation report dated 07.10.2006, Mark DW9/A and as per the valuation report the value of the said property was Rs.1,98,000/. The built up area of the property was 490 sq. ft. and the construction was about 30 years old. DW9 further deposed that the material used in the construction of the property was old. The building was built with mud and mortar brick work. The outer was finished with cement and sand mix. DW9 deposed that he had issued the valuation certificate after personal visit to the site and as per the professional norms. He deposed that the said building consisted of one bed CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 81 of 7 room, one kitchen and one toilet on the ground floor. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that he had charged his fees for preparation of this valuation report. However, he denied the suggestion that he had prepared a false report at the instance of accused. 5.10 DW10 Mirza Farhan Beg deposed on oath that he is residing in flat No.C5S, Delhi Police Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi since 1997 and the said flat is in the name of A1 AA Farooquee. However, he stated that he is residing in this house on account of personal relation and have never paid any rent to A1. The entire maintenance charges, water and electricity bills are being paid by him since 1997 as he is residing in this flat.

ARGUMENTS 6.0 Prosecution in support of its case submitted written submissions. In the written submissions it was submitted that the plot measuring 1355 sq. yds. at Khasra No.166, village Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla is in the possession of A2 Razia Sultana and there is construction in about 250 sq. yds. of land upon which a hostel namely Saltanat has been built and remaining portion of the plot is vacant. The remaining portion of the plot is vacant which is in possession of A2 Razia Sultana and further on about 120 sq. yds. there is a house as well as Computer Institute of PW8 Abdul Mannan. It has been submitted that A1 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 82 of 7 AA Farooquee was requested to provide the original documents in respect of the property 518A, Nafees Road, Batla House, New Delhi. However, A1 AA Farooquee did not produce the documents and took a plea that same was found missing after the search conducted by the CBI team at his residence and thus, no document showing the ownership of late Mst. Jamila Khatoon has been produced. It was further submitted that during search, original documents regarding agreement to sell and GPA in respect of plot measuring 500 sq. yds. in Khasra No.166, Joga Bai Extn. Jamia Nagar, Okhla were found and as per these documents, plot measuring 500 sq. yds. was sold on 08.03.1985 by Sh. Charan Singh @ Charna to A2 Razia Sultana for a consideration of Rs.20,000/. This document had the signature of Sh. Charan Singh, A2 Razia Sultana and even witnessed by PW3 Gopal Singh, Mohd. Yaqoob and Abdul Mannan. PW8 has deposed that property was sold to A2. Similarly, PW14 also stated that the documents were signed in her presence. It has further been submitted that A1 AA Farooquee is also in possession of 400 sq. yds. of land which is adjacent to the plot measuring 1 bigha and as per A1 this plot was purchased by his motherinlaw Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon from Mussadi but no document has been produced by A1.

Another set of agreement dated 23.02.85 between A2 Razia Sultana and Sh. Charan Singh regarding the sale of complete one bigha of land at Khasra No.166, Village Joga Bai Extn. Delhi at a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ alongwith photocopy of receipt dated 02.03.85 of Rs.20,000/ CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 83 of 7 issued by Charna in favour of A2 Razia Sultana for sale of plot measuring 1000 sq. yds. and affidavit dated 08.03.85 issued by Charna to Razia Sultana were also found which were typed and had the signatures of A2 Razia Sultana and Charna. The agreement was duly notarized. It is pertinent to mention here that there is alteration in the measurement of plot by over typing it.

It was further submitted that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon produced copy of agreement dated 23.02.85 between Charna and herself and copy of affidavit dated 02.03.85 and receipt of Rs.20,000/ regarding the purchase of 1000 sq. yds. of land before the MCD for substitution of her name in place of A2 Razia Sultana in the MCD record. Mst. Jamila Khatoon also got the property mutated in her name wrongly. The case of the prosecution is that another agreement dated 22.04.85 between Musaddi and A2 Razia Sultana as attorney of Mst. Jamila Khatoon for purchase of 400 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.166, Village Joga Bai, Okhla was produced by Mst. Jamila Khatoon and these documents were also false. It was also submitted that PW24 Sh. Beer Singh, the dealing clerk has deposed that he did not verify the documents produced by Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The prosecution has relied upon the CFSL report dated 27.02.2007 wherein it was confirmed that signatures of Sh. Charna on the original agreement dated 08.03.85 did not tally with the signatures of Sh. Charna with the signatures of Charna available on photocopies produced by Mst. Jamila Khatoon to CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 84 of 7 MCD for mutation purpose.

The prosecution stated that in respect of property at Khasra No. 166, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi there are following three sets of documents :

1. Original documents regarding the sale of 500 sq. yds. of land including agreement to sell dated 08.03.85 between Charna and A2 Razia Sultana witnessed by Gopal Singh and Mohd. Yaqoob, General Power of Attorney dated 08.03.85 in respect of this deal witnessed by Gopal Singh, Mohd. Yaqoob and Abdul Mannan found during the house search of the accused ;

2. Documents (photocopies) produced by Mst. Jamila Khatoon at house tax department for mutation including agreement dated 23.02.85 between Jamila Khatoon and Charna regarding the sale of 1 bigha of land witnessed by Abdul Mannan, Izhar Alam, affidavit of Charna in favour of Jamila Khatoon and receipt dated 02.03.85 issued by Charna in favour of Jamila Khatoon witnessed by Izar Alam and Abdul Mannan ;

3. Documents (photocopies) regarding the sale of 1 bigha of land including agreement dated 23.02.85 between A2 Razia Sultana and Charna witnessed by Gopal Singh and Mohd. Yaqoob, receipt dated 02.03.85 of Rs.20,000/ issued by Charna in favour of A2 Razia Sultana in which measurement of the land has been over typed with CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 85 of 7 1000 sq. yds. and affidavit of Charna in favour of A2 Razia Sultana in which measurement of the land has been over typed with 1000 sq. yds.

The prosecution has relied upon testimony of PW8 Abdul Mannan that there was deal of 1 bigha of land by Charna in the name of Razia Sultana for which only the agreement was prepared. However, A1 AA Farooquee could not arrange the consideration amount of Rs.40,000/ and subsequently the deal was executed only for the land of 500 sq. yds. in the name of A2 Razia Sultana whereas, the adjacent plots were purchased by Mohd. Yaqoob and Farooq. In respect of this deal, the agreement, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit and Receipts were executed. However, subsequently, A1 AA Farooquee got the entry made in the Girdhawari register for the purchase of 1 bigha of land by Mst. Farooquee on the basis of the agreement dated 23.02.85 for the sale of 1 bigha of land which was not executed and after making the alteration in the receipt and affidavit prepared for the sale of 500 sq. yds. of land. Similarly, the prosecution has stated that forgery was done in the agreement dated 22.04.85 for purchase of 400 sq. yds. of land by Mst. Jamila Khatoon from Musadi. It has been stated that on the first page of agreement the word "attorney" has been prefixed before the name of A2 Razia Sultana in ink. Similarly, on the second page of the agreement the words "attorney on behalf of Mrs. Jamila Khatoon, 242 Bellilious Raod, Howrah" have been typed after the signatures of Mst. Razia CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 86 of 7 Sultana. CFSL in its report dated 27.09.2007 has confirmed this interpolation. During the house search of accused, photocopy of agreement dated 22.04.85 between Musadi and Razia Sultana and General Power of Attorney between Musadi and Razia Sultana pertaining to the 400 sq. yds. of land were seized and in these documents, the word "attorney" has been added at the first page and words "attorney on behalf of Mrs. Jamila Khatoon, 242 Bellilious Raod, Howrah" have been added on second page below the signatures of A2 Razia Sultana. It has further been submitted that in the revenue record initially 1400 sq. yds. of land was entered in the name of A2 in the year 1985 and 1986 to 90 and thereafter, this 1400 sq. yds. of land was transferred from A2 Razia Sultana to Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The plea of the prosecution is that actually the land at Khasra No.166 was purchased by A2. However, in view of the complaint made by PW14 Abida Beguam in the end of year 1989 it got transferred in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon. The case of the prosecution is that these entries of the Girdhawari register also corroborates the statement of Abdul Mannan that initially Farooquee was to purchase the entire one bigha of land from Charna for which papers were prepared but this deal could not be executed as Farooquee could not arrange the consideration amount of Rs.40,000/ and as such he settled only for 500 sq. yds. of land at a consideration of Rs.20,000/ and the remaining 500 sq. yds. of land was purchased by Mohd. Yaqoob (350 sq. yds.) and Farooq (150 sq. yds.) on the insistence of Farooquee. However, CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 87 of 7 Farooquee on the basis of the earlier prepared documents (unexecuted which he did not return to Charna) regarding the sale of one bigha of land got the entry made in girdhawari register.

Regarding the construction of building Saltanat on the aforesaid plot, the plea of the prosecution is that the construction started in May 2003 and the main structure was completed within a span of 810 months whereas, the finishing work was still under progress. The drawings of the building Saltanat was prepared by PW25 Mohd. Yamin on the directions of A1 AA Farooquee and A2 Razia Sultana. A notebook in the handwriting of A2 Razia Sultana containing the various details of finishing work of the building Saltanat w.e.f. 04.08.04 to 06.01.05 was recovered and as per the expert opinion, the notebook was written in the handwriting of A2 Razia Sultana. PW65 Sh. SM Javed Hassan proved that he had attended the inauguration ceremony of computer institute of Abdul Mannan on 28.04.2002 and this ceremony was held on the same plot where building Sultanat was build and therefore, at the time of function there was no building and the plot was vacant. PW13 Iqbal Ahmed also confirmed that the construction of the building started in May 2003 and it took about 6 to 7 months for major constructions. It has further been submitted that the will dated 04.10.90 written in Urdu reaffirmed that the properties were purchased by A2 Razia Sultana and then the same were transferred in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon to coverup the various allegations of Abida Begum. Reliance was CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 88 of 7 also placed upon testimony of PW24 Sh. Beer Singh who stated that in July 1999 he went to the said property for survey and found that it was still having one room as mentioned int he original notice issued in the year 1985.

The prosecution has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW48 Man Singh to prove that A1 AA Farooquee had got the property constructed. Reliance was also placed upon the testimony of PW6 Abdul Rehan and PW13 Iqbal Ahmed to prove that the construction was carried out after April 2002. In regard to the ownership of the property, reliance has been placed upon the testimony of PW3 Gopal Singh, PW8 Abdul Mannan and PW14 Abida Begum. In regard to the construction expenses, reliance has also been placed upon testimony of PW25 Mohd. Yameen. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar and PW65 Sh. SM Javed Hassan to show that the construction took place after 2003. 6.1 Sh. Hari assisted by Sh. Vishnu Shama, Ld. counsels for A1 presented detailed oral arguments and also filed written submissions. In support of the case of the defence, it was submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any case against the accused persons as is reflected from the evidence on record adduced during the course of trial. Ld. counsels submitted that A1 has already suffered the trial for a long period of more than 09 years and he has suffered only on account of false complaint and biased investigation. The accused is a man of literature and has always lived CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 89 of 7 a simple life. Ld. counsel raised huge question mark over the searches conducted at the various places on 06/04/2005 by CBI. It has been submitted that though the searches were conducted at 06 places but search and seizure memo were prepared only in respect of raids conducted at official residence of A1 and at Batla House. The manner and the procedure adopted by the search team was illegal. It has further been alleged that the alleged document relating to the sale agreement of land by one Charna and Mussadi and A2, claimed to have been seized during the search operation do not find any mention in the search/seizure memo. There has been cutting / interpolation in the recordings of the search cum seizure memo. The cuttings / interpolations having been made at a later stage, is also reflected from the statement of Mr. Rohit Kumar PW5, who denied the knowledge of such cuttings / additions/ interpolations. There is a contradiction in the testimony of PW5 (member of the search team, PW67 (IO) and PW71 another member of the raiding team.

Ld. counsel for A1 has assailed the sanction order dtd. 18/7/08 Ex.PW72/A and submitted that the sanction order suffers from non application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority did not even consider that CBI did not enquire / investigate the alleged sellers i.e. Mussadi and Charna whereas they were available for investigation at the relevant time. The sanction was granted under the influence of CBI. There was no credible evidence on record to connect the accused with Batla house CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 90 of 7 property and therefore, the sanction suffers from non application of mind.

Ld. counsel submitted that the amount shown under various heads of assets, income and expenditure are gross misrepresentations made by the prosecution. In respect of the assets held before the check period, Ld. counsel submitted that the same has been substantially under valued. It was submitted that assets of the accused at the beginning of the check period has only been shown as Rs. 11,500/ whereas A1 had joined DANIPS in May 1978 and earned a salary income of Rs. 52,000/ till the beginning of the check period. A2 was also an educated lady and was also having professional income. A1 came from a respectable and financially well settled family in Bihar. The family had its income from agriculture and further all brothers were financially well settled. Not only the accused had no financial responsibility, he had been getting support from the family. Ld. counsel also assailed the method of calculating the unverifiable kitchen expenses i.e. 1/3rd of the gross income of the accused. It was submitted that in view of this peculiar circumstance, only 1/5th could have been taken as unverifiable expense. Ld. counsel submitted that A1 was married in the year 1979. However, they had first child in the year 1992. Therefore, till 1985, the accused persons had no substantial expense and therefore, after deducting 1/5th of Rs. 52,000/, there was a net saving of Rs. 30,100/ before the check period.

In respect of movable assets of the accused, Ld. counsel has CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 91 of 7 only challenged item No. 3 i.e. KVP in the name of Master Shariq Iman and item No. 8 i.e., household articles observed during house search at PS Rajouri Garden in the sum of Rs. 3,00,525/. It has been submitted that in respect of assets in the sum of Rs. 8,000/ on account of KVP in the name of Master Shariq Iman, it has wrongly been added as Mr. Shariq Iman is not the member of the family of accused persons and need to be deducted. In respect of item No. 8, household articles, Ld. counsel submitted that out of cash recovered in the sum of Rs. 54,590/, an amount of Rs. 45,000/ belonged to Sh. Ghazanfar Ali who has been examined as DW4 by the defence. Sh. Ghazanfar Ali has made a categorical statement on oath that he had handed over this Rs. 45,000/ to A1 for the purpose of safe keeping for a short interval. It has been submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve DW4. Perusal of the household articles would indicate that items shown at S. No. 18, 22, 27, 31, 35, 36, 41, 42, 50, 134, 135, 138 and 192 were duplicate articles and these articles belonged to Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon. A2 came into the possession of these articles after the death of Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon. It was submitted that there was no reason to purchase 02 sets of such articles for the household and therefore, the articles inherited as above and included in the assets of accused family amounting to Rs. 52,700/ need to be deducted. Ld. counsel submitted that thus, the movable assets are required to be scaled down to Rs. 5,68,646/ from Rs. 6,76,746/.

In respect of the immovable assets of A1, Ld. counsel did not CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 92 of 7 dispute the items listed at S No. 15 and 16 i.e. Flat No. C5/S, Mayur Vihar, Delhi Police Housing Society and cost of plot measuring 250sq. yards at Delhi Police Officer's Society at Noida. However, the defence has challenged the inclusion of Rs. 9,17,000/ on account of cost of construction in respect of built up property at Vill. Champ, Siwan. However, A1 has admitted an addition of Rs. 10,000/ as cost of land. Ld. counsel submitted that A1 had admittedly purchased this piece of land but it still remains unbuilt and vacant. Further, the accused stated that the alleged constructed building was neither built either by the accused or his brothers or his family during the check period and the said old construction made from mud and old bricks and wooden material is about 30 years old. The defence submitted that it was an ancestral property, which was merely divided amongst the brothers and therefore, cannot be taken as an asset at any time against any consideration. It was further submitted that PW66 Sh. KC Dhiman has not been able to prove the valuation report. This witness had no knowledge about the method of valuation or the method of valuation of the property in question. It was further pointed out that the registered valuer's report submitted by A1 was intentionally taken out of the record and was not filed by the CBI before the Court. This report was proved by the defence through DW9 Sh. PK Rai. As per the valuation conducted by PW9 Sh. PK Rai, BE (Civil), the total cost of construction was Rs. 1,98,000/. In the said report it was specifically stated that the construction was about 30 years old.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 93 of 7

In respect of movable assets of A2, defence has not disputed item No. 18, 19, 20, 21 and has admitted that A2 had acquired movable assets in the sum of Rs. 3,88,624/ during the check period. Coming to the immovable assets of A2 from item No. 22 to 26, the defence has not disputed item No. 22, 23 and 25. The dispute has been raised in respect of item No. 24 and 26. In respect of item No. 24 i.e. land measuring 30 Katha Khata No. 590/1, Village Kilokari, Tehsil Mehrauli. It has been submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to produce any record in this regard and this property does not belong to A2. In respect of item No. 26 i.e. property No. 518A, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi , which is the basis of the entire case of the prosecution the defence has raised a serious dispute. It has been submitted that prosecution has wrongly added a sum of Rs. 26,000/ as cost of land and Rs. 64,77,800/ as cost of construction. Ld. counsel submitted that PW69 Inspt. NK Jain has not conducted the investigation fairly. He was admittedly in touch with PW14 Abida Begum and PW8 Abdul Manan who had an enmity with A1. It was pointed out that Inspt. NK Jain had never recorded statement of these witnesses. Inspt. NK Jain did not examine Charna or Mussadi and conducted unfair, biased and partial investigation. Ld. Counsel pointed out the statement of PW67 Inspt. Sanjay Dhall who in the cross examination conducted on 27/11/2013 admitted that Charna was examined by Inspt NK Jain. However, he admitted that there was no statement of Charna on record. The case of the defence is that this property CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 94 of 7 belonged to Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon and A2 came to own and possess subsequently on account of inheritance being the sole legal heir. Mst. Jameela Khatoon expired in December 2003. Reliance was also placed on Will dtd. 4/10/90 Ex.PW69/C. The income and other receipts during the check period of A1 from item No. 1 to 31 has not been disputed by the defence. In respect of income of A2 as shown in the list from S. No. 32 to 40, the defence has taken a plea that the income shown is under valued. The prosecution has ignored the income of A2 duly shown in the ITRs since 199697 without any valid reason. It has been submitted that in the search conducted, 48 packed bedsheets and 96 pillow covers (S. No. 44 and 45) Ex.PW5/B makes it clear that A2 was running a business of boutique. Even the prosecution witnesses PW50 Nanak Chand and PW10 Sanjeev Nanda, Chartered Accountant who had been filing the ITRs of A2 made a statement to this effect. An amount of Rs. 4,51,923/ has wrongly not been taken in the income of A2. Further, an amount of Rs. 13,578/ is liable to be added to the income of A2 as proved through DW2 Sanjay Kaul, DW3 RK Verma and DW5 Sh. Ashwini Kumar. Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has wrongly declared A2 as a housewife whereas A2 is Postgraduate from Aligarh Muslim University with literary interest. A2 also ran a STD booth and income from STD booth in the sum of Rs. 1,50,785/ has duly been taken into account by the prosecution. The defence submitted that the income of A2 from the business duly CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 95 of 7 declared in the ITRs in the previous years could be excluded. The defence submitted that PW50 Sh. Nank Chandhas proved the ITRs for the assessment years 199697 to 200203 and 200405. Thus, taking into account this amount of Rs. 4,38,165/ the income and other receipts of A2 during the check period be raised to Rs. 11,48,829/.

The defence has raised serious doubts about the expenditure incurred by A1 during the check period. As per Table D, A1 has incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 23,39,881/. the defence has disputed the item No. 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 19. A1 has disputed the inclusion of the above said items on the ground that these have either been included wrongly on the expenditure side or the expenses have been shown on the higher side without any valid reason.

In respect of item No. 1, the defence has taken a plea that prosecution has adopted a wrong method of taking 1/3rd of gross income minus income tax paid. It has been submitted that the prosecution has not disclosed any reason / ground of adopting this formula. It has further been submitted that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, accused person's unverifiable expenditure cannot be taken out more than 1/5th of gross total income minus income tax.

In respect of item No. 5, 15 and 17, it has been submitted that total a sum of Rs. 3,56,934/ has been added in the expenditure, out of which the defence has disputed a sum of Rs. 3,18,257/. The defence has submitted CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 96 of 7 that the above amounts have been included in the expenditure on the assumption that they represent the payments to the concerned banks against utilization of credit. The defence has pleaded that in this case substantial payments have been made to the bank on account of cash withdrawals coming in the hands of the accused and therefore, instead of these being shown as an expenditure, should have been shown as an income. It was submitted that this amount was spent to meet the family expenditure, kitchen expenditure, purchase of household articles and other valuable items. It was further submitted that in the case of Citibank, the cash utilization are more than the expenditure. Therefore, it has been submitted that Rs. 3,18,257/ need to be deducted from the table of expenditure of accused.

In respect of item No. 8, it has been submitted that these payments were made by A2 and therefore, instead of this having been shown in the expenditure of A1, should have been shown in the expenditure of A2. In respect of item No. 9, i.e., expenditure towards filling up of earth in plot No. 518A, Batla House, Ld. counsel has submitted that A1 had nothing to do with the Batla House property, therefore, it cannot be added in the expenditure of A1.

In respect of item No. 10 i.e. expenses of salary of Sh. Mohan Singh, w.ef. 2003 to 05.04.05, it has been submitted that the prosecution has not led any evidence in this regard and therefore, this expenditure is liable to be stuck off.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 97 of 7

In respect of item No. 12 i.e service charges in respect of Mayur Vihar, Flat, Ld. defence counsel submitted that A1 had never stayed in this flat and DW10 deposed on oath that he had made the payment to the society towards maintenance expenses as well as paid the water and electricity charges for the consumption made by him. The defence submitted that this amount of Rs. 23,340/ also need to be deducted.

In respect of item No. 18, Ld. defence counsel submitted that these shares were in the joint name of A1 and his father and therefore, only 50% of it i.e., 18,500/ can be taken as expenditure towards purchase of shares.

In respect of item No. 19, i.e., expenses towards payment of Mehar to A2, Ld. counsel submitted that CBI has fallen into error of law and fact. It has been submitted that in the Islamic law, it is an amount /valuable security to the bride at the time of marriage to provide her financial security by the husband / his family in married life. In practice, the amount is fixed between the two families, depending upon the financial status of the groom's family. The groom is naturally not in a position to pay the amount, therefore, the Mehar comes from the family gifts of the groom side, which could be cash, jewellery, any valuable item etc that comes into the hands of the bride and becomes her income. Whereas, the income of the wife is not the expenditure of the husband. Ld. counsel has submitted that A1 joined the services in the year 1978. A1 and A2 were married in the year 1979. It has CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 98 of 7 been submitted that there cannot be any logic that this amount was paid by A1 to A2. It has been submitted that therefore, this needs to be deducted from the expenditure and in totality an amount of Rs. 10,72,905/ is required to be deducted out of Rs. 23,39,881/ and thus, the expenditure incurred by A1 during the check period comes down to Rs. 12,66,976/.

In respect of expenditure incurred by A2 from item No. 20 to 29, the defence has only disputed item No. 22 i.e. expenditure towards preparation of map in respect of F13, Batla House. It has been submitted that A2 had nothing to do with the property and this expenditure was made by her mother Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon. However, it has been submitted that expenditure on account of Hobby classes in the sum of Rs. 16,800/ may be added in the expenditure of A2, therefore, expenditure of A2 may effectively be raised to Rs. 4,18,090/ in place of Rs. 4,06,200/. Ld. counsel submitted that if taken into account, income, expenditure and assets as stated above, there is no case of disproportionate assets against the accused persons. The accused persons had excess of income over expenditure in the sum of Rs. 9.02.492/.

In respect of Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon, Ld. defence counsel submitted that Mst. Jameela Khatoon migrated to delhi and stayed in Batla House all along till her death in December, 2003 separately and independently. Mst. Jameela Khatoon purchased this Batla Hosue property in the year 1985 with intention to settle down in Delhi. A2 was the sole legal CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 99 of 7 heir of Mst. Jameela Khatoon. Mst. Jameela Khatoon was a pensioner and had her own income and she also received the terminal benefits and other assets left by her husband who was an Officer with the Postal Department in Kolkata. The defence has submitted that A2 came to own and possess to be the sole legal heir only after the death of Mst. Jameela Khatoon in December 2003. There is not even an iota of evidence to indicate that A1 or A2 had any transaction relating to construction of building. The defence has placed reliance testimony of PW36 Sh. Khursheed Ahmed who has deposed that he had constructed the building on the instruction of Mst. Jameela Khatoon and he had been receiving payments from Mst. Jameela Khatoon and her brother Sh. Mohd. Umar. In respect of the ownership documents, Ld. counsel submitted that the relevant witnesses PW3 Sh. Gopal Singh, PW8 Abdul Manan and PW14 Abida Begum have made contradictory statements. Ld. defence counsel submitted that the truthful possession of Mst. Jameela Khatoon is also proved by the documents Ex.PW69/DA (Colly) which proved that all the government bills relating to payment of water bills, electricity bills, telephone bills, house tax etc. pertaining to the Batla House property. The defence has also relied upon that Mst.Jameela Khatoon had sold a plot of land in the year 1996 for a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/ before the construction of Sultanant building. It was submitted that Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon had executed the Will Ex.PW69/C in the year 1990 bequeathing her entire property in favour of A2.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 100 of 7

In respect of the expenditure made on construction, Ld. counsel submitted that there is not even a single cash or bank account transaction which could even remotely suggest any link between the properties of the accused persons. In regard to the purchase of land, Ld. defence counsel has summarized the case in following six points:

1. The property is admittedly built on a piece of plot of about 350sq. Yds., out of the total plot area of 2 plots, measuring 1400 sq.yds.

2. Of the balance plot area of 1050 sq yds., a portion of plot measuring about 120 sq yds. was sold by the owner Mst. Jamila Khatoon on 26/5/92 to Mst. Anjum Ara, wife of Sh. Abdul Manan (PW8) leaving the open area of about 930 sq. yds., which area is an open plot ever after.

3. The total purchase price for the two plots was Rs. 26,000/. A plot of 1000 sq. yds. was purchased for Rs. 20,000/ by Mst. Jamila Khatoon from one Mr. Charan Singh or Charna.

4. Another adjoining plot of 400 sq. yds. was sold by one Mr. Mussadi to Mst. Jamila Khatoon, at a cost of Rs. 6,000/.

5. According to the prosecution, Charna had not sold his plot of land to Mst. Jamila Khatoon but to Mst. Razia Sultana. Similarly, the prosecution contended that Mussadi had not sold his plot of land to Mst. Jamila Khatoon but to Mst. Razia Sultana.

6. The best evidence on the point had to come from none other than the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 101 of 7 seller of the plots of land, Charna and Mussadi, which evidence, as admitted above, has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.

The conduct of PW14 and PW8 was also highlighted. These witnesses even after the completion of their testimony have been making regular rounds to the court room for no purpose and even made false allegations to seek cancellation of bail of A1. It was pointed out that both these witnesses were in litigation with A2 relating to plot of land inherited and now owned by A2. In regard to the construction of land, it has been submitted that A1 has no connection with the construction. The valuation report proved by PW8 suffers from misrepresentation and based on incorrect facts. It has been submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that the building was construction by A1 in the name of A2 between the period May 2003 to December 2003 is bald, vexatious and frivolous . 6.2 Sh. Athar Alam, Ld. counsel for A2 adopted the submissions made on behalf of A1 and further reemphasized that the allegations and the charge against accused persons are absolutely false, baseless and untruthful. 6.3 In rebuttal to the written submissions of the prosecution, the defence has filed detailed written submissions and submitted that the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 102 of 7 written synopsis have been filed only regarding Batla House property and has not touched other aspects of the case. The defence has reiterated and reaffirmed the submissions made by them. The defence stated that the prosecution case clearly hinges on the presumptions and assumptions and is not borne from the record. In regard to the construction of Batla house property, the defence stated that they have nothing to do with this construction. In regard to the certain entries relating finishing work of the building between 04.08.2004 to 06.01.2004, it has been submitted that these expenses were made after death of Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon and were not more than Rs.80,000/. The defence stated that the valuation assessed by PW68 MC Garg is as on October 2006 and therefore, it is much beyond the check period. It has also been pointed out that as per the case of the prosecution, the period of construction of building was till December 2004. The defence submitted that PW64 Insp. AV Bhardwaj stated that the entire search proceedings were videographed but no such videography was produced in the court.

CONCLUSION 7.0 A1 AA Farooquee has been tried for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of the POC Act, 1988. A2 Razia Sultanan his wife has been tried for the offence of abetment and aiding A1 in acquisition of disproportionate assets.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 103 of 7

Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads thus :

"A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

(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." In VK Puri Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(6) SCC 91, the conditions essential to bring a case u/S 13(1)(e) of the PC Act were laid down as under:

a) The accused is a public servant;

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

c) His known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution.

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

e) After the aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.

Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct u/S.13(1)(e) is complete, except if the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 104 of 7 only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.

The offence of disproportionate assets defined in Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is committed when a public servant possesses pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. In C.S.D Swami Vs. State, AIR 1960 SC 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that the expression "known sources of income" must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. It was not, and it could not be, contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. It is pertinent to mention here that the explanation to Sec. 13 (1)(e) was added only in the year 1988 which reads as under:

"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."

Thus, it is seen that, now for a source of income to qualify as a known sources of income for the purposes of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is essential that it should satisfy the following two conditions, namely:

1. it should be a lawful source of income, and

2. the receipt of income from such a source should have been intimated CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 105 of 7 in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the concerned public servant. As a natural corollary, it immediately follows that:

(a) any income received from a source which is not lawful cannot be considered for inclusion in the expression known sources of income for the purposes of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the said Act, even if such an income was actually received by the concerned public servant;

(b) any income, even though received from a lawful source, cannot likewise be considered for inclusion in the expression known sources of income for the aforesaid purposes, if the receipt of such income has not been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the concerned public servant.

In N. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. State of AP, 2009 CriLJ 1767, it was inter alia held as under:

"Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of Subsection (1) of the Section is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his known source of income. Clause (e) of Subsection (1), of Section 5 of the Old Act was in similar lines. But there have been drastic amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful sources, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 106 of 7

The expression "known source of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act').

The emphasis of the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)

(e) (old Section 5(1)(e)) is clearly 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 classic 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 being 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" in receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt for the "known source of income" of a public servant.

The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance."

7.1 The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily", and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 107 of 7 offer a plausible explanation as how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. Reference can be made to CSD Swami Vs. State, AIR 1960 SC 7.

In CSD Swami's case (supra), the Apex Court inter alia held that Sec. 5(3) of the PC Act, 1947 (corresponding to Sec. 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988) is a complete departure as compared to the criminal jurisprudence. It lays down the rule of evidence, enabling the Court to raise a presumption of guilt. However, still the burden is on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged. In State of MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 691, it was inter alia held that after the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence charged, the accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. It was held as under:

"The expression 'known sources of income' in S. 13 has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the accused, within the meaning of S. 106. The phrase 'known sources of income' in S. 13(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word 'income.' It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wise the import and connotation of the term 'income,' it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 108 of 7 having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income.' Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' of a public servant. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'satisfactorily account.' The emphasis must be on the word 'satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance."

7.2 If we analyze section 13 (1) (e), it would be clear that the gist of the offence is not possession of the assets merely nor even the sheer excess of assets and other income, the gist of the offence is that inability of the public servant in not being able to satisfactory account for the excess. The burden of establishing unsatisfactory is squarely on the prosecution. The ingredients of Section 13 of PC Act, 1988 corresponding to Section 5 (i)(e) (old Act) came up for discussion in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar 1981(3) SCR 675), In this case it was inter alia held as under : "The terms and expressions appearing in S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act are the same as those used in the old Section 5 (3). Although the two provisions operate in two different fields, the meaning to be assigned to them must be the same. The expression "known sources of incomes"

means "sources known, to the prosecution." So also, the same meaning must be given to the words, "for which the public servant is CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 109 of 7 unable to satisfactorily account" occurring in S. 5 (1) (e). The provision contained in S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act is a selfcontained provision. The first part of the Section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused. When S. 5 (1) (e) uses the words "for which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account" it is implied that the burden is on such public servant to account for the sources for the acquisition of disproportionate assets. High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that a public servant charged for having disproportionate assets in his possession for which he cannot satisfactorily account, cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, unless the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income."

" The expression "burden of proof" has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden, i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by Law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities.""

7.3 In respect of abetment, it has been defined u/S.107 IPC, which reads as under :

"107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing,who First. Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 110 of 7 voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."

The ingredients of S.107 IPC are as under :

(a) instigation to commit an offence;

(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit an offence; and ,

(c) aiding commission of offence.

Abetment thus necessarily means some active instigation or aid to the commission of the offence.

7.4 A4 Razia Sultana has been charged for the abetment of the offence. Abetment as defined u/S 107 IPC comprises :

(1) Instigation to do that thing which is an offence;

(2) Engaging in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, and;

(3) intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission by doing of that thing.

In common parlance, to abet is to countenance, assist; to give aid. It includes knowledge for wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, counsel and encouragement of Crime. It is a settled proposition that a person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thin, or engages with or more other persons for the doing of a thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 111 of 7

The word "instigate" in the literally sense means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite etc. It also necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the offence. It is not necessary that instigation should be only in words and may not be by conduct. It is a settled proposition that direct evidence of any instigation or aiding is not necessary. As in the case of conspiracy, normally such abetment or instigation is hatched in secrecy and executed in dark, therefore, these have to be inferred from the circumstances. In the present case, if the facts are seen since inception, A2 had been playing an active role in acquisition of property and ultimately the Batla House property came to be owned and possessed by A2 on account of will executed by Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon i.e., mother of A2. The construction could be raised and ill gotten money could be applied on this construction only because A2 made available such property for the purpose of construction. Therefore, it is a clear case where A2 has stimulated or instigated A1 to raise constructions on the same. In the case of DA, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove that construction was raised on the Batla House Property after 200203 and A2 or Mst. Jameela Khatoon had no resources / sources of income then in such circumstances, the burden shifts to A1 and it was for A1 to prove that the construction was raised by A2 or Late Mst. Jameela Khatoon out of their income or resources. It is also pertinent to mention here that explanation offered by the accused CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 112 of 7 has also to be satisfactory.

7.5 The defence has also assailed the case of the prosecution on the point of sanction. Ld. defence counsel has submitted that sanctioning authority has not applied its mind. The sanction has been granted mechanically under the influence of CBI and therefore, the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected.

Sec. 19 of the POC Act, 1988 provides that previous sanction is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable u/S 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. The object underlining Sec. 19 is to ensure that no frivolous and false prosecution is framed against the public servant. It is a settled proposition that grant of sanction is not an idle formality. It is a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions.

Recently, the question of sanction came up before the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119 in which it was inter alia held that adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be examined by the Court. The court should not adopt hypertechnical approach to determine the validity of sanction order. When sanction order indicates application of mind by authority, Court should not interfere with it on hypertechnical ground. It was further held that Court should keep in mind rampant corruption in the society and act CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 113 of 7 with magnitude. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and after consideration of the circumstances has granted sanction for prosecution. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that will not vitiate the order of sanction. It was further held that adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanctioning order. The order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner with a hypertechnical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The whimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused. I consider that in view of the clear law laid down in Mahesh G. Jain's case (supra), there is no further need to dwell on this issue. The prosecution has successfully proved the sanction granted against A1 AA Farooquee.

8.0 A1 AA Farooquee has been charged and tried for having been CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 114 of 7 found in possession of assets in the sum of Rs.94,96,770/ in his name and in the name of his wife A2 Razia Sultana. During the check period, the accused persons had total income in the sum of Rs.40,28,405/ and they had incurred an expenditure of Rs.27,46,081/. Therefore, the accused persons had likely saving [income - expenditure] in the sum of Rs.12,83,324/. CBI alleged that accused persons had disproportionate assets in the sum of Rs.82,13,446/ and to the extent of 203.88%.

A1 AA Farooquee has been charged and tried for the substantive offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988. A2 Razia Sultana, wife of A1 has been charged having abetted A1 for acquiring property /resources in her name out of his unexplained income and thus, charged for the offence u/S.109 IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988.

The prosecution as discussed above, examined 72 witnesses. In the statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence and submitted that they have been implicated falsely and CBI has wrongly relied upon the testimonies of the interested witnesses i.e., PW3 Gopal Singh, PW6 Abdul Rehan, PW8 Sheikh Abdul Mannan, PW14 Mst. Abida Begum and PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob. All these witnesses were interested witnesses. They were having litigations with the accused persons. The defence has also examined 10 witnesses in order to substantiate their case. The marathon arguments were advanced from the side of prosecution and defence. Both the parties have also filed written submissions. At the outset, I CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 115 of 7 must appreciate the efforts put in by Sh. Hari, Ld. Counsel for A1 who has put his arguments very sincerely and fairly. He put forth the case of the defence emphatically to demonstrate that accused persons have been implicated falsely and prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons.

8.1 The main plank of the case of the prosecution in the present case is the property No.F13 (Khasra No.166), Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia/Jakir Nagar, New Delhi (referred to as "Batla house property"). It is reflected from the fact that out of the disproportionate assets in the sum of Rs.82,13,446/, the addition on account of Batla house property is to the extent of Rs.64,77,800/ and therefore, around 80% of the disproportionate assets is attributed to Batla house property only. Therefore, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate if the issue regarding Batla house property is examined and adjudicated.

The prosecution has added a sum of Rs.64,77,800/ towards the Batla house property and has mainly relied upon the report Ex.PW56/A in this regard. Perusal of this report would indicate that the total valuation has been assessed at Rs.64,77,800/. It has also been mentioned in the said report that the cost of land is not included in the said valuation. The chargesheet would also indicate that the cost of land has been shown separately in the chargesheet in the sum of Rs.26,000/.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 116 of 7 8.1.1 In regard to the Batla house property there are two components which needs to be evaluated. Firstly, the cost of land and secondly, cost of construction. In regard to the ownership of Batla house property, the prosecution has examined several witnesses i.e. PW3 Sh. Gopal Singh, PW6 Abdul Rehan, PW8 Sheikh Abdul Mannan, PW14 Mst. Abida Begum and PW35 Mohd. Yaqoob. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution in regard to this land of around 1400 sq. yds. in Batla house is that, this property was purchased by A2 Razia Sultana i.e. wife of A1 AA Farooquee from Mussadi and Sh. Charan Singh @ Charna. The documents were also duly executed in favour of A2 Razia Sultana but thereafter, in 1989 when Mst. Abida Begum made certain complaints and initiated some litigation, A1 and A2 forged certain documents and got the property mutated in the name of Mst. Jamila Khatoon. Mst. Jamila Khatoon is mother of A2 Razia Sultana and motherinlaw of A1 AA Farooquee. It is pertinent to mention here that Mst. Jamila Khatoon expired in December 2003 leaving behind A2 as her sole legal heir. The case of the defence is that actually this property was purchased exclusively by Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon out of her own funds and she continued to be the exclusive owner in possession of this land till her death and accused persons have nothing to do with this. Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon executed a will, by virtue of which, the entire property including Batla house property was bequeathed to A2 Razia Sultana. The check period CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 117 of 7 in this case was fixed from January 1985 to April 2005. Thus, as on April 2005, or during the check period, A2 Razia Sultana had become the owner in possession of the land in question. Therefore, the entire evidence regarding the ownership of Batla house property has lost its relevance. Furthermore, this court has not conducted the trial on the issue of ownership of the Batla house property. The prosecution and defence have alleged forgery of documents concerning this property, but my Ld. Predecessor has rightly not framed any charge of forgery against the accused persons. The order on charge has also not been challenged by any of the party and has thus attained finality. Even during the trial at no stage, no submission was made for modification or alteration of charge. It is a matter of record that there has been several rounds of litigation with accused persons on one hand and other persons including some of the prosecution witnesses on the other hand, over the ownership of the land. This court while trying the case of disproportionate assets against the accused persons will not allow itself to be misdirected and enter into the issue of deciding the ownership of the land in question. Even otherwise, if S.13(1)(e) of POC Act, 1988 is examined, its focus is on the possession of the accused persons or of any other person on behalf of the accused person and the accused not being able to satisfactorily account for such property, resulting into disproportionate assets. Therefore, this court cannot decide the ownership of the land in question and particularly, in view of the case that after the death of Mst. Jamila Khatoon CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 118 of 7 admittedly, A2 Razia Sultana has become the owner in possession of the land in question. Furthermore, as per chargesheet only Rs.26,000/ have been added as cost of land of the land in question. Even if the cost of land i.e., Rs. 26,000/ is not taken into account for computing the disproportionate assets, the defence is liable to explain that how and in what manner the construction on this land came up and who spent this money for raising the construction. It is an admitted case that after December 2003, A2 became owner in possession of Batla House property. The defence has not been able to prove that construction was carried out or completed by Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. It is not the case of defence that the construction was carried out after the check period. It is a matter of fact that construction is existing on the said land. Therefore, it is within the special knowledge of A1 and A2 that who had incurred the expenditure for raising construction. The onus was on the accused persons to render satisfactory explanation. However, I consider that the defence has miserably failed to discharge this onus. 8.1.2 The prosecution has filed detailed valuation report Ex.PW56/A which has duly been proved by PW68 Sh. MC Gupta. Sh. MC Gupta was holding a diploma in Civil Engineering and had joined CPWD in the year 1967 as Jr. Engineer. At the relevant period, Sh. MC Gupta was posted in Income Tax department as valuation officer. Thus, the witness had sufficiently long experience. In his report, Ex.PW56/A (D35/1 to 14) Sh. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 119 of 7 MC Gupta has specifically mentioned that the plan was drawn by M/s. Yasra Hometech on 24.04.2003 for hostel building at Batla house. In the said report, Sh. MC Gupta in para 5.3 submitted that it was a hostel / rooms, booth etc. and there was construction of 272.84 sq. mtrs. And 78.85 sq. mtrs. on ground floor and there was construction of 284 sq. mtrs. on first floor. It was mentioned that other floors were not complete and building was under

construction. The building was found to be concrete structure with RCC room building and brick holes. The report also indicates that full ground and first floor is being used as hostel and front rooms were given on rent. The method adopted for valuation was plinth area rate and GST Index method on actual cost based on DSR 2002 with cost Index. The report would further indicate that the subject property was a hostel building for working women and first portion was used as staff room besides booth and rooms given on rent.

In para 7.3 again, it was reiterated that the cost of land is not included in the valuation. The ground and first floor was found in full use as hostel and second and third floors were under construction and top floor had mumty only. The valuation was done taking into account the construction period from May 2003 to December 2004. The building was inspected on 31.10.2006 in the presence of A1 and Insp. AK Jain and the measurement taken were acknowledged by both of them. In Annexure A to the report, the entire details of the measurement and valuation have been given running into CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 120 of 7 around 6 to 7 pages.

8.1.3 The case of the defence is that, the construction on this property was being carried out by Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon since long in installments and therefore, the valuation report is not correct. However, if we peruse the cross examination of PW68 Sh. MC Gupta merely a suggestion was given that the method adopted by him was not proper in view of the condition of building and the type of construction and further that the valuation report submitted by him did not represent the true and correct valuation of the property. Both the suggestions were denied by the witness. Besides this, there was no effective cross examination challenging the method adopted by the expert for arriving at the cost of construction. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defence has also not examined any valuer or submitted any valuation report for this property as they had done in regard to the property in Siwan, Bihar.

In respect to the fact that the construction is being carried out earlier, the defence has not been able to substantiate this submission whereas, the prosecution examined several witnesses to prove that the construction was carried out later. In this regard, the testimony of PW13 Iqbal Ahmed can be seen wherein he had stated that the building was not in existence in 1998 to 2002. Though, the witnesses stated that he did not know when it was constructed. Similarly, PW25 Mohd. Yamin stated that he had CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 121 of 7 prepared the drawing of a building in Batla house belonging to A2 and handed over this drawing, Ex.PW25/B (D76) dated 24.04.2003 at the request of A2 Razia Sultana who wanted to construct a hostel. This drawing was seized by the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A. The drawing dated 24.04.2003 which has duly been signed by PW25 Mohd. Yamin would also indicate that the building was constructed after April 2002. Similarly, PW6 Abdul Rehan also deposed on oath that on 28.04.2002 a function was organized on this plot by his brother Sheikh Abdul Mannan (PW8) for inauguration of computer centre by the name of Texas Computer Center. He further stated that earlier it was a vacant plot and construction work of this plot started in May 2003 and continued for about 7 to 8 months. PW8 Sheikh Abdul Mannan also deposed in his testimony that A1 started raising construction on the said plot in May 2003 and it was completed in January 2004. It is also pertinent to mention here that it also came in the testimony of PW8 that at the inauguration function of his computer institute which was held on 28.04.2002 a videography was done in which the said plot was seen as vacant. The CD Ex.PW8/G was duly played in the court. The proceedings recorded as on 29.10.2010 would indicate that video CD showed that a tent was fixed in front of the house of the PW8 (as pointed out by the witness) and the space in front of the house of PW8 till the main gate is an open space. It has also come in the testimony of PW14 Mst. Abida Begum that the building was constructed on the said piece of land in the year 2003. PW24 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 122 of 7 Sh. Bir Singh also deposed on oath that at the time of execution of mutation in favour of Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon in July 1999 he had visited the said property for survey and found no change in the status of the property after March 1985 and it was still having one room as mentioned in the original notice issued in the year 1985. Therefore, the testimony of these witnesses which could not be shaken by the defence in the cross examination, would only indicate that the construction was carried out after 2002 or 2003. It is an admitted case of the defence that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon died in December 2003 and before that she had been living with accused persons only. It is also pertinent to mention here that it also came in the testimony of PW24 that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon was having a ration card Ex.PW24/DA at the address of accused persons only. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the defence has not proved anything on the record, which would even suggest that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon had sufficient income / resources to carry out this construction. The documents on the record would reveal that A1, A2 and Mst. Jamila Khatoon were residing together and the evidence as discussed above makes it crystal clear that the construction on this property was carried out sometime after 200203. It is also an admitted case that after the death of Mst. Jamila Khatoon which took place in later part of 2003, A2 Razia Sultana became the owner in possession of this property. It is not a small construction of single room or two rooms. It is a huge construction on a plot of around 300 sq. yds. and expenditure involving in such construction CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 123 of 7 is also huge. The construction on such plot could not come in air. We all know that the construction expenses even in the year 2003 were considerable. A1 and A2 were in possession of this property alongwith Mst. Jamila Khatoon. Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon had no independent income or sufficient resources. The defence has also not been able to led any evidence which could even suggest that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon was in position to bear the expenses of raising construction on this property. The defence has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW36 Sh. Khursheed Ahmed who has stated that most of the times, payments were made to him either by Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon or her bother Umer. The court while appreciating the evidence has to take into account the practicalities of the life. A1 and A2 were residing together with Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. There is no evidence to show that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon had any independent source of income or sufficient resources to bear the expenses of this construction, of for that matter Mr. Umar had sufficient resources to bear the expenses. Therefore, even if the payments were made by Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon it would not take away the liability of A1 of explaining the independent source of income of Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. Whosoever is the owner of the property but A1 and A2 who were and are in possession of this property are bound to explain "satisfactorily" the construction expenses incurred on the said property. A2 Razia Sultana had also not sufficient income to bear the expenses of construction even if the income as claimed by the defence is CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 124 of 7 added. The prosecution has discharged its onus by examining PW68 Sh. MC Gupta and by proving the report Ex.PW56/A. There is no reason to disbelieve this report and testimony of PW68 as there is no reason for PW68 to have made a false report. In the cross examination also there was nothing which could shaken the cogent and credible testimony of this witness. The report is a detailed one and cannot be rejected merely on the basis of certain suggestions being put by the defence. It is a settled proposition that mere suggestions without any substantive evidence have no evidentiary value. Therefore, the cost of construction as stated by the prosecution in the chargesheet in the sum of Rs.66,74,800/ has to be taken into account for computing the disproportionate assets for the accused persons. 9.0 Proceeding further, the defence has disputed only certain items in the income, expenditure and assets as alleged by the prosecution in the chargesheet. Therefore, the items which have not been disputed are not being discussed herein for the sake of brevity. The prosecution has sated that accused persons had assets in the sum of Rs.3,68,691/ before the check period. The defence has disputed it and has submitted that the assets at the beginning of the check has been under valued by the prosecution. It has been submitted that A1 joined as ACP in May 1978 and earned a salary income of Rs.52,000/ before the check period. A2 was also an educated lady. The plea of the defence is that the method of deducting 1/3rd on account of CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 125 of 7 unverifiable kitchen expenses is not correct in the present case. A1 and A2 did not have any issue and therefore, their expenditure could have been maximum 1/5th of the total income and particularly in view of the fact that A1 AA Farooquee had support from his family. Thus, it has been submitted that out of of Rs.52,000/ received on account of salary, there was saving of around Rs.30,100/. However, the defence has not led any evidence in this regard and thus, on the basis of mere bald suggestion, the arguments of the defence cannot be accepted. Therefore, the assets at the beginning of the check period as suggested by the prosecution in the sum of Rs.3,68,391/ is taken as such.

9.1 In regard to the assets of the accused and his family during the check period, the defence has disputed Item No.3 and 8. In regard to the Item No.3, the defence has stated that KVP in the name of Master Shariq Imam in the sum of Rs.8,000/ cannot be taken as Master Shariq Imam was not member of the family. Similarly, in respect of Item No.8 i.e. Household articles observed during the house search, it has been submitted that cash in the sum of Rs.45,000/ recovered from the house cannot be added as defence has duly examined DW4 Ghazanfar Ali who has stated that this cash belonged to him. Similarly, it has been submitted that in the list there are several items which are duplicate. It has been submitted that since late Mst. Jamila Khatoon was also residing with them, therefore, these items which are CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 126 of 7 duplicate were actually belonging to Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon. It has been submitted that value of these articles are Rs.52,700/. The defence has submitted that therefore, Rs.1,05,700/ is required to be deducted from the assets of the accused persons during the check period and thus, instead of assets in the sum of Rs.6,76,746/ an assets in the sum of Rs.5,71,046/ is required to be taken into account. I consider that in view of the specific testimony of DW4 Sh. Ghazanfar Ali amount of Rs.45,000/ is required to be deducted outrightly. Similarly, the submissions of defence in respect of Item No.3 i.e. KVP in the sum of Rs.8,000/ in the name of himself and Item No.8 i.e., household articles in the sum of Rs.52,700/, seems to be credible and therefore, this amount is required to be deducted from the assets.

In the written submissions filed by the defence, such items which are appearing double in number have duly been given and this detail sufficiently shows that there is a possibility that these items belonged to Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon as she was residing alongwith the accused persons before her death.

9.2 In respect of immovable assets of A1 AA Farooquee the defence has only challenged Item No.11 i.e, cost of construction in respect of built up property at Village Champ. The defence in all fairness has not disputed the addition of Rs.10,000/ as cost of land but has disputed the cost of construction in the sum of Rs.9,17,000/. I consider that this plea of the CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 127 of 7 defence is also entitled to be accepted. The prosecution examined PW66 in order to prove the report. PW66 admitted in his cross examination that he had no personal knowledge about the valuation or method of valuation of the property in question. Per contra, the defence examined DW9 Sh.PK Rai registered valuer with Siwan Municipal Corporation. He deposed on oath and proved the valuation report Mark DW9/A. The witness deposed on oath that as per valuation report the value of the said property is Rs.1,98,000/. He also deposed that built up area of the property is 490 sq.ft. and the construction was about 30 years old. The prosecution was not able to shatter this witness. I consider that in view of the specific statement of DW9 only a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/ instead of Rs.9,17,000/ is required to be added on account of cost of construction in the assets of A1 AA Farooquee. 9.3 The defence has not disputed the movable assets of A2 Razia Sultana in the sum of Rs.3,88,624/. In regard to the immovable assets the defence has only disputed Item No.24 i.e. land measuring 1 bigh at Khasra No.590/1 Vill. Kilokari, Tehsil Mehrauli and Item No.26 i.e., property at 518A, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. I consider that as far as Item No.24 is concerned, the prosecution has not led any evidence. The documents of this property were recovered during the house search. However, the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the ownership of this property. Therefore, the amount of Rs.45,000/ is required to be CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 128 of 7 deducted from the assets. In regard to Item No.26 i.e. Batla house property, a detailed discussion has already made. As discussed above, the cost of land in the sum of Rs.26,000/ may not be considered for the purpose of disproportionate assets. However, in view of the cogent and creditworthy evidence of the prosecution, cost of construction in the sum of Rs. 64,77,800/ is required to be taken into account.

10.0 In regard to the Income and other receipts of A1 AA Farooquee, the defence has not disputed the income and other receipts of A1 during the check period as shown in Table B in the sum of Rs.33,31,499/. However, in respect of Income and other receipts of A2 Razia Sultana , the defence has submitted that a sum of Rs.4,51,923/ is required to be added in the income of A2 Razia Sultana. The plea of the defence is that the income of A2 Razia Sultana has been grossly under stated. The prosecution has malafidely ignored the income of A2 as shown in her ITR's, which have duly been seized by the prosecution. The defence has also relied upon that during the house search CBI recovered new and packed 48 bedsheets and 96 pillow covers which makes an obvious reference that A2 Razia Sultana was running some business. The defence has also relied upon the testimony of PW50 and PW10 who had proved the filing of ITRs of A2 Razia Sultana. The defence has also submitted that in view of the testimony of DW2, DW3 and DW5, a sum of Rs.13,758/ is also entitled to be added to the income of A2 Razia CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 129 of 7 Sultana. I consider that since ITR's have duly been filed by A2 and the same had also been taken on record by the IO, there is no reason to reject this income of A2. The ITRs have duly been proved by PW50 and PW10. Thus, the income in the sum of Rs.4,51,923 as detailed by the defence in their written submissions is entitled to be added in the income of A2 Razia Sultana. Similarly, the income proved by defence witnesses is also required to be taken into account and therefore, income of A2 has to be taken as Rs. 11,48,829/.

11.0 Now coming to the expenditure incurred during the check period of A1 AA Farooquee. The defence has raised a dispute regarding Item No.1, 5, , 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 18. The defence has also disputed Item No. 19 i.e. expenses towards payment of Mehar Rashi to Razia Sultana.

The plea of the defence is that these amounts have wrongly been added in the expenses of the accused persons and the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence to substantiate these expenses. The prosecution has relied upon guess work which cannot be accepted as evidence. It has been submitted that a sum of Rs.10,72,905/ is required to be deducted.

11.1 In regard to the unverifiable kitchen expenses, the plea of the defence is that the method adopted by the prosecution i.e., deducting 1/3rd of CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 130 of 7 the gross income on account of unverifiable expenses is erroneous. It has been submitted that first child to the accused persons was born in 1992 and till that time, the accused persons were living alone and in view of the support from the family and simple living style the expenses was at very lesser scale. The plea of the defence is that the prosecution has not explained any ground on the basis of which unverifiable kitchen expenses has been taken as 1/3rd of the gross income. The plea of the defence is that in peculiar facts and circumstances 1/5th of the gross income be taken as unverifiable expenses. The defence in support of his contention highlighted the life style of accused persons. It has been submitted that accused persons were leading simple life style. It is correct that the prosecution has not explained any specific reasons for deducting the 1/3rd of gross income on account of unverifiable expenses but at the same time, the defence has also not given any specific reason that why 1/5th be deducted as unverifiable expenses.

In Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 464, wherein while dealing the case of disproportionate assets, the Apex Court inter alia held that the total receipts by the appellant from his known sources of income appears to be about Rs. 1,03,000/. If nothing out of this had to be spent for maintaining himself and his family during all these years from 1922 to 1952 there might have been ground for saying that the assets in the appellant's possession, through himself or through his son (Rs. 1,20,000/) were not disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Apex Court CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 131 of 7 inter alia held that one cannot however live on nothing; and however frugally the appellant may have lived, it appears to us clear that at least Rs. 100/ per month must have been his average expenses throughout these yearstaking the years of high prices and low prices together. These expenses therefore cut a big slice of over Rs. 36,000/ from what he received. Therefore, the Apex Court broadly took 1/3rd of the total income as the expenditure during the check period. I consider the the Apex court had adopted this method after due consideration and in absence of any substantive material on the record, there is no reason for this court to deviate from this method propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The CBI has consistently been taken this method of deducting 1/3rd on account of unverifiable expenses. The defence has not shown any substantive ground which could persuade this court to deviate from this settled method and therefore, I consider that expenditure in the sum of Rs.9,33,614/ on account of unverifiable kitchen expenditure has rightly been taken by the prosecution.

11.2 In respect of expenditure shown at Item No.5, 15 and 17, the defence has disputed the expenditure in the sum of Rs.3,18,257/ on the ground that payment in the present case have been made to the banks on account of cash withdrawals coming in the hands of the accused. These cash withdrawals were utilized to meet the family expenditure including towards the kitchen expenses, purchase of household articles or other valuable items. CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 132 of 7 The plea of the defence is that such cash withdrawals / cash receipts of Rs. 3,18,257/ is required to be deducted from the expenditure and rather be added in the income of the accused. I consider that in absence of any specific evidence on record, this plea of the defence cannot be accepted. The accused persons in their statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. took a plea that these cards were also used by the relatives and therefore, the expenditure made on account of payment of their bills, same cannot be added in the expenditure of accused persons. I consider that accused persons were making contradictory pleas which makes them unreliable. The defence has not led any specific proof that the cash withdrawals were made to meet out the kitchen expenses. The prosecution has duly examined PW40 Sh. Ashok Kumar Hira who has specifically deposed on oath that A1 had saving bank account and this account was attached to his credit card. The statement of account was duly proved and the witness made a specific statement that A1 AA Farooquee had made a total expenditure of Rs.1,46,584.30ps from the period 08.04.85 to 03.12.2001 and the bank had charged a interest of Rs.16,800/ on different dates on account of temporary overdraft due to insufficient balance in the bank. The accused has not cross examined this witness and therefore, the testimony of this witness remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Similalry, in order to prove the expenditure at Item No.15 the prosecution has examined PW15 Ms. Nidhi Dass, who proved the statement of account of credit card in the name of A1 AA Farooquee as Ex.PW15/B1 to B48. The witness also CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 133 of 7 proved the document Ex.PW15/A reflecting the payments due or payment made against three credit cards. In the cross examination, there is nothing to substitute the pleas taken by the accused persons during the course of arguments.

11.3 In order to prove the expenditure shown at Item No.17, the prosecution has examined PW11 Sh. Vaibhav Joshi who proved the documents Ex.PW11/A1 to A17. He specifically stated that total amount paid by A1 was Rs.75,500/. In the cross examination this witness admitted that the cash withdrawls in the sum of Rs.28,500/ was made by the accused during this period. He also admitted that this amounts to borrowing from the bank. On the basis of this evidence, it cannot be accepted that this cash withdrawls have to be added in the income of the accused and therefore, the expenditure shown at Item No.5, 15 and 17 is required to be taken as shown by the prosecution in the chargesheet.

11.4 In respect of Item No.8, the defence has only taken a plea that this expenditure be added to A2 in place of A1. I consider that since ultimately it would not make any difference as A1 and A2 are being tried jointly, and therefore, it would ultimately be added in the expenditure of both the accused persons.

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 134 of 7 11.5 In respect of Item No.9, the case of the defence is that this amount would not be added in the expenditure of A1 AA Farooquee as he had nothing to do with it. However, the prosecution has examined PW48 Sh. Man Singh who had made a statement on oath that he was hired by A1 AA Farooquee for the job of earth filling. PW48 deposed on oath that though A1 had agreed to pay Rs.80,000 - 85,000/ but he paid only Rs.20,000/ and refused to pay the remaining amount. In the cross examination, this witness had admitted that he had no document or evidence to show that he was paid Rs.20,000/ by A1. It has to be understood that in such kind of job hardly, any document / record is maintained. PW48 has come in the witness box and deposed on oath that he was hired by A1 and paid only Rs.20,000/ and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of A1. 11.6 In regard to Item No.10 i.e. Expenses on the salary of servant Mohan Singh w.e.f 2003 to 05.04.05, the prosecution has not led any evidence and therefore, this expenditure is liable to be rejected. 11.7 In respect of Item No.12 i.e, service charges paid in respect of flat No. C5/S, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi, the prosecution has examined PW23 Sh. BS Tyagi, who has merely proved that the payment of Rs.23,340/ was made on account of service charges. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. The plea of the defence is that CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 135 of 7 accused has never resided in this property. In the cross examination the witness admitted that the service charges can be deposited by any person. The defence has also examined DW10 Sh. Mirza Farhan Beig who has specifically deposed on oath that the entire maintenance charges and water charges were made by him since 1997. Therefore, in view of the testimony of DW10 the plea of the defence is entitled to be accepted and this amount is required to be rejected.

11.8 In respect to Item No.18, the prosecution has not led any specific evidence on the record to show that this expenses were made by A1 AA Farooquee. The plea of A1 is that this was a joint investiment made by him alongwith his father. Since, the prosecution has not led any specific evidence, therefore, this is also required to be accepted. 11.9 In respect of Item No.19 i.e. expenses towards the payment made towards the Mehar Rashi by A1 to A2, the defence has raised a serious objection to this. It has been submitted that the prosecution has not understood the fundamental of Mehar. It has been submitted that in Islamic law mehar is an amount/valuable security to the bride at the time of marriage to provide her financial security by the husband/his family in married life. The plea of the defence is that this amount is fixed between two families, depending upon the financial status of the groom's family and the Mehar CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 136 of 7 comes from the family gifts of the groom side, which could be cash, jewellery, any valuable item etc. that comes to the hands of the bride, becomes her income. The defence has stated that it cannot be added in the expenditure of A1. It has further been submitted that A1 joined the service in 1978 and therefore, in 1979 when he was married, there is no question of paying this amount by A1. It is also to be noted that the prosecution has not led any specific evidence in this regard and therefore, in absence of any specific evidence, this is also required to accepted. Hence, a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/ is required to be deducted from the expenditure. 11.10 In respect of expenditure of A2 Razia Sultana the defence has only raised a dispute as to Item No.22 i.e. expenditure towards the preparation of map in respect of Batla house property. However, in respect of this, the prosecution has specifically examined PW25 Mohd. Yamin who has stated that he had prepared a plan at the instructions of A2 Razia Sultana and has charged Rs.5,000/ from her. Thus, in view of the specific statement of PW25, this amount is required to be added in the expenditure of A2 Razia Sultana.

12.0 Thus, the conclusion of total income, total assets and total expenditure of A1 and A2 for the purpose of calculating disproportionate assets, can be summed up as under :

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 137 of 7

Since the income of A1 AA Farooquee has not been disputed the same is taken as it is i.e, Rs.33,31,499/.


Income of A2

 Sl. No.                                 Particulars                                     Amount 
           Interest earned in RD A/c No.241574 in r/o Farida Jalal with                      5,922.00
    32     post office, Ramesh Nagar w.e.f. 06.01.1998 to 12.03.2003.
           Interest in FD A/c No.416287 in r/o Razia Sultana with post                        5,585.00
    33     office, Ramesh Nagar w.e.f 16.01.2002 to 17.01.2005. 
           Interest in SB A/c No.20658 in the name of Smt. Razia Sultana                      3,795.00
    34     with SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 01.10.1994 to 05.04.2005
           Interest in SB A/c No.20659 in the name of Smt. Razia Sultana                      2,794.00

and Sh. AA Farooquee with SBI, Rajouri Garden w.e.f. 35 22.04.1989 to 05.04.2005 Interest in SB A/c No.21728 in the name of Smt. Jamila 2,025.00 Khatoon and Smt. Razia Sultana with SBI, Rajouri Garden 36 w.e.f. 30.04.1996 to 05.04.2005.

Car Loan availed for purchasing the WagonR car No.DL 9CE 2,50,000.00 6095 from ICICI Bank on 13.12.2002 in the name of Smt. Razia 37 Sultana 38 Income from the disposal of plot of Solan. 16,000.00 39 Income from Mehar 2,60,000.00 40 Income from STD Booth. 1,50,785.00 41 Income from business (as per ITRs)* 4,38,165 42 Income from professional work (DW3)* 6,500.00 43 Income from professional work (DW5)* 5,858.00 44 Income from professional work (DW2)* 1,400.00 TOTAL 11,48,829.00 (*Items have been added in the income as claimed by the defence) Thus, the total income of A1 and A2 comes to Rs.44,80,328/ (Rs.33,31,499 + Rs.11,48,829).

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 138 of 7

Total movable and immovable assets of A1 and A2 are as follows :

Movable Assets of A1 Sl. No. Details of the Property Amount 1 Last balance in FD A/c No.417499 in Post Office Ramesh 16,000.00 Nagar in r/o Baby Sana opened on 16.08.2003 2 KVP in the name of Master Imkan Ali purchased on 14.09.99 8,000.00 3 KVP in the name of Master Shariq Iman purchased on NIL 14.09.99* 4 Last balance in SB A/c No.20657 in the name of Sh. AA 1,043.00 Farooquee with SBI, Rajouri Garden 5 Last balance in SB A/c No.25534, SBI, Rajouri Garden in the 2,105.00 name of Imkan and Razia Farooquee 6 Balance in SBI SB A/c No.50617 in the name of Baby Sana, 5,277.00 Rajouri Garden 7 Balance in Bombay Mercantile Bank, Daryaganj, in SB A/c 693.00 No.51064 in the name of Sh. Farooquee 8 Household article observed during house search at PS Rajouri 2,02,825.00 Garden purchased during check period including Cash of Rs. 54,590/ (Rs.45,000 + Rs.52,700 = Rs.97,700 deducted)* 9 Maruti 800 Car No.DAJ 2310 purchased on 28.11.88 83,840.00 10 Actual Cost of TC (22,350/) Fridge (30,800/), Washing 99,540.00 Machine (19,400/) and AC (26,990) 11 Actual cost of Rifle purchased by Sh. Farooquee on 24.08.93 22,727.00 12 Balance in SB A/c No.107 at Siwan Shetriya Bank, Siwan 1,176.00 13 Actual cost of the computer purchased by Sh. Farooquee after 1,05,000.00 availing the computer loan as intimated to his deptt. 14 STDR in the name of Imkan Ali under Guardianship of AA 22,820.00 Farooquee and Razia Sultana with SBI Rajouri Garden TOTAL 5,71,046.00 (*Income of Master Shariq Iman has been taken as NIL. Further, amount of Rs.45,000/ and Rs.52,700 have been deducted as per evidence of DW4 and duplicacy of household articles) Immovable Assets of A1 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 15 Flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar, Delhi Police Housing Society 1,90,710.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 139 of 7 16 Cost of Plot measuring 250 Sq. Mtrs. Acquired in Delhi Police 6,29,890.00 Officer's Society at Noida 17 Cost of construction in respect of built up property of AA 1,98,000.00 Farooquee at Village champ, Siwan + cost of land 10,000.00 Total 10,28,600.00 The defence has not disputed movable assets belonging to A2 Razia Sultana. Hence, the same is taken as it is i.e., Rs.3,88,624/, Immovable Assets of A2 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 22 Agricultural land measuring 6 Katha, 15 Dhur located at Village 47,500.00 JasoliPakoli, Post Vara, PS Pachrukhi, Distt. Siwan, Bihar acquired through Sale Deed/Bainama Khatmi by Mst. Razia Sultana from Mst. Wajifoonisha mother of accused on 28.05.2003. 23 Agricultural land measuring 6 Katha, 15 Dhur located at Village 47,500.00 JasoliPakoli, Post Vara, PS Pachrukhi, Distt. Siwan, Bihar acquired through Sale Deed/Bainama Khatmi by Mst. Razia Sultana from Mst. Wajifoonisha mother of accused on 28.05.2003. 24 Land measuring 1 Bigha Khasra No.590/1 Village Kilokari Tehsil NIL* Mehrauli on 26.05.1986 (Original papers found during house search) 25 Land measuring 30 Katha Khata No.157, Khasra No.2572 in 40,000.00 Village - Champ Distt. Siwan, Bihar on 01.09.1992 (Original papers found during house search) 26 Construction cost of Property No.518A, Batla House Jamia Nagar, 64,77,800.00 New Delhi (excluding cost of land)* TOTAL 66,12,800.00 (*an amount of Rs.45,000/ has been deducted since not being proved by the prosecution and an amount of Rs.26,000/ has been taken away as cost of land) Thus, the total movable and immovable assets of A1 and A2 comes to Rs.86,01,070/ (5,71,046+10,28,600+3,88,624+66,12,800).

CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 140 of 7

13.0 The total expenditure of A1 and A2, in view of the above discussion are as under :

 Sl. No.                                 Particulars                                      Amount 
    1    Unverifiable   kitchen   expenditure   i.e.   1/3   (Gross   income   Rs.         9,33,614.00

30,25,671/ minus Income tax paid Rs.1,67,192/ divided by 3 = Rs. 9,33,614/ 2 Expenditure towards schooling of Master Imkan in DPS, RK 55,575.00 Puram w.e.f. 199697 to 19992000 3 Expenditure towards schooling of Master Imkan in DPS, RK 86,575.00 Puram w.e.f. 199900 to 20032004.

4 Education expenses of Imkan and Baby Sana in Sanskriti School 1,77,608.00 till 05.04.2005.

5 Expenses towards Indian Bank card including interest of in r/o of 163,384.00 card No.5420343009445904 and 5420343021042408 in the name of Sh. AA Farooquee w.e.f. 08.04.1995 to 06.09.1998 and 04.12.1988 to 03.12.2001 respectively 6 Expenses towards repayment of loan to HDFC, New Delhi w.e.f. 15,895.00 2001 to 05.04.2005.

7 Expenses towards premium of policy No.110393575 in the name of 2,67,226.00 Sh. Farooquee including late fees w.e.f. Oct. 1988 till 05.04.2005. 8 Expenses towards Hobby classes of children w.e.f. April 2003 to 16,890.00 05.04.2005.

9 Expenses towards filling up of earth in Plot No.518A, Batla House, 20,000.00 New Delhi in 1990 10 Expenses on the salary of servant Mohan Singh w.e.f. 2003 to NIL* 05.04.05 11 Payment towards policy No.29791922 in 1985 275.00 12 Service charges paid in r/o flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar w.e.f. Jan. NIL* 1990 to December 2004.

13 Ground rent paid in r/o flat No.C5/S, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. 2,223.00 14 Expenses towards premium of policy No.112950631 in the name of 31,426.00 Sh. Farooquee including late fees w.e.f. 28.3.2001 till 05.04.2005. 15 Expenses towards Credit Card No.4129037100039460, 118,050.00 4541982320020818 and 4541982326015788 in the name of Sh. Farooquee since inception till 05.04.2005.

16 Expenses towards Credit Card No.5177194066145001 in the name 1,300.00 of Sh. Farooquee since the inception of card till 05.04.2005. 17 Expenses towards Citi Bank Credit Card No.456822930149 in the 75,500.00 CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 141 of 7 name of Sh. Farooquee since the inception of card till 05.04.2005. 18 Expenses towards the purchase of shares of consolidated fibers 18,500.00* and chemicals Ltd. Herdillia Polymers Ltd. and Herdillia Unimers Ltd. found during the house search of the accused (Total shares 3700 @ Rs.10 each) 19 Expenses towards payment of Mehar Rashi to Razia Sultana NIL* TOTAL 19,84,041.00 (*amounts have been modified as per defence evidence and submissions of accused) Since the defence has not disputed the expenditure of A2 Razia Sultana, the same is taken as reflected in the chargesheet i.e, Rs.4,06,200/.

Hence, the total expenditure of A1 and A2 comes to Rs.23,90,241/ (Rs. 19,84,041 + Rs.4,06,200).

14.0 In view of the discussions made herein above, the computation of disproportionate assets is as under :

    Sl. No.                            Particulars                                Amount
         A      Assets before the check period                                     3,68,691.00
         B      Assets at the end of check period                                 86,01,070.00
         C      Assets acquired during the check period (BA)                     82,32,379.00
         D      Expenditure during the check period                               23,90,241.00
         E      Total assets & expenditure during the check period             1,06,22,620.00
                (C+D)
         F      Income during the check period                                   44,80,328.00
         G      Disproportionate Assets = (F - D) - C                             61,42,292.00
                % of DA (G/F * 100)                                                   137.09%

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, A1 who was a public servant during the check period was found in possession of assets CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr. CC No. 08/12 Page 142 of 7 which were disproportionate to his known source of income. A1 has also failed to account for such disproportionate assets. The defence has miserably failed to prove that Late Mst. Jamila Khatoon or A2 Razia Sultana had sufficient resources to raise construction over the Batla house property. The prosecution has discharged its onus by proving beyond reasonable doubt that A1 has been found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The factum of expenditure over construction of Batla house property was a matter "specially within the knowledge" of A1 and A2 and therefore, it was for them to prove the same to the satisfaction of the court. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 Razia Sultana who is wife of A1 has conspired with A1 and aided and abetted him in amassing the assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

14.1 In view of the above findings, A1 AA Farooquee is convicted for the offence u/S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988. Further, A2 Razia Sultana is also convicted for the offence u/S.109 IPC r/w S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988.

Announced in the open court                               (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)  
today on 20.12.2014                                  Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI - 01 
                                                         Saket Courts : New Delhi.    



CBI Vs. AA Farooquee & Anr.                    CC No. 08/12                     Page 143 of 7

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . 1. Akhtar Ali Farooquee on 23 December, 2014