Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . 1) Sheel Chand Goel on 13 December, 2011

                                       ­ 1 ­ 

   IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: 
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI­01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI

CC No.57/06                               RC  :      66(A)/03
                                         PS   :      CBI/ACB/ND

CBI  Vs. 1) SHEEL CHAND GOEL
             S/o. Late Shreeniwas Goel
              R/o. F­24/154, Sector­7 Rohini,
              New Delhi.
              (Then posted as Jr. Engineer, MCD)
         2)  SADHNA GOEL
              W/o. Sheel Chand Goel
              R/o. F­24/154, Sector­7 Rohini,
              New Delhi.

Date of Institution                        :  29.05.2006
Judgment Reserved                          :  28.11.2011
Judgment Delivered                         :  13.12.2011

                           J U D G M E N T   

1. The present charge sheet was filed by the CBI against accused Sheel Chand Goel and his wife Sadhna Goel. Sheel Chand Goel was Junior Engineer with MCD while his wife was a housewife. A search had been conducted at their CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 1 of 96 ­ 2 ­ residence after Sheel Chand Goel was arrested red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant. The search revealed that the two accused possessed assets to the tune of Rs.13,41,666/­ which was disproportionate to known sources of income between 24/01/1984 to 07/01/2003.

2. Accused Sheel Chand Goel was born on 03/07/58 and belonged to lower middle class family. His father was a daily wage earner and only earning member of his family. He had died in 1978. Accused Sheel Chand Goel has five brothers and one sister. Accused Sadhna Goel is an under graduate housewife. She also belonged to lower middle class family.

3. Accused joined as Junior Engineer in MCD and his financial status changed after he joined MCD. Sheel Chand Goel acquired properties in the name of his wife co­accused Sadhna. She had filed Wealth Tax and Income Tax Returns. They had three children. Prachi Goel was born on 29/09/1986, CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 2 of 96 ­ 3 ­ Shruti Goel was born on 17/10/1988 and they started filing Income Tax Returns soon after their birth. Accused Sadhna Goel also filed Income Tax Returns and during the period 1988 to 1995, her total income was Rs.1,17,370/­. However, she was a housewife and the return was filed only to legitimize ill­gotten assets of her husband Sheel Chand Goel.

4. During investigation, it was revealed that there was a rent agreement between accused Sadhna Goel and Rajesh Jain, according to which she had rented property for eleven months @ Rs.3,000/­ per month. During the course of search, gold ornaments and silver and other assets were revealed. Before joining MCD, Sheel Chand Goel was a student and did not have any source of income. His income during check period from 25/01/1984 to 07/01/2003 was Rs.11,74,186/­. His assets prior to check period were Rs.1,40,560/­. His assets during check period were Rs.22,56,718/­. His expenditure during check period was Rs.8,25,313/­, so his disproportionate assets CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 3 of 96 ­ 4 ­ were to the tune of Rs.19,07,845/­. It was prayed that accused persons be summoned and tried.

5. My Ld. Predecessor after hearing arguments framed following charges against the accused persons:

Accused Sadhna Goel "That you on 07/01/2003 your husband co­accused Sheel Chand Goel while posted as Junior Engineer (West), MCD, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and as such a public servant, during the period from 25­1­84 to 7­1­2003, had a total income of Rs. 11,74,186/­, from his all known sources of income while his expenditure during the above period was Rs.8,35,313/­ but he was found in possession of an assets to the tune of Rs. 22,56,718/­ on or around 7­1­2003 and he as such acquired and was in possession of assets amounting to Rs.19,07,845/­ on the close of the check period i.e. on 7­1­2003 in his own name or in the name of his family members including yourself CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 4 of 96 ­ 5 ­ which were disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for and you being his wife abetted the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Section 13(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by him by filing income and wealth tax returns in your name during the check period though you were not have any independent source of income and committed an offence punishable U/s. 109 IPC r/w section 13(2) read with Section 13(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court."

Accused Sheel Chand Goel "That you on 07/01/2003 while posted as Junior Engineer (West), MCD, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and as such a public servant, during the period from 25­1­84 to 7­1­2003, had a total income of Rs.11,74,186/­, from his all known sources of income while your expenditure during the above CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 5 of 96 ­ 6 ­ period was Rs.8,35,313/­ but you were found in possession of an assets to the tune of Rs.22,56,718/­ on or around 7­1­2003. You as such acquired and were in possession of assets amounting to Rs.19,07,845/­ on the close of the check period i.e. on 7­1­2003 in your own name or in the name of your family members which were disproportionate to your known sources of income for which you could not satisfactorily account for and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Section 13(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court."

6. After charges were framed accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined 17 witnesses, while accused examined 12 witnesses in their defence.

7. PW1 examined by the prosecution was Mr. Prashant Kumar Panda. He was a Sanctioning Authority who had CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 6 of 96 ­ 7 ­ granted sanction for prosecution of accused S.C. Goel. He deposed that he had perused copies of all the documents like FIR, Rukka, site plan, statement of witnesses etc. and then applied his mind and granted sanction for prosecution of S.C. Goel. He was competent to accord sanction and the sanction order was Ex. PW1/A. Upon being cross examined, he admitted that he had received a draft sanction letter from CBI, but claimed that he was under no compulsion to sign the draft sanction order after its receipt from CBI. He admitted that he did not consider income of accused Sadhna Goel nor income of their children while granting sanction.

8. The next witness to be examined was Mr. R.N. Bairuah. He deposed that on 07.01.03 he was posted as UDC in DDA. He went to office of CBI upon instruction of his officer. From there he alongwith CBI officers went to residence of the accused where accused Sadhna Goel was present. Search was conducted and search­cum­seizure list Ex. PW2/A was CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 7 of 96 ­ 8 ­ prepared which ran into 7 pages and was signed by him on all the pages. Observation memo also contained his signatures. The said memo was Ex. PW2/B and ran into 12 pages. It also contained signatures of co­accused Sadhna Goel.

9. Upon being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he claimed that at the time of search accused Sadhna Goel and a child were present inside the house. The CBI team had one lady officer also with it. He claimed that he had participated in one another search with CBI but denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness. Upon being further cross examined, he claimed that the valuation report which had been seized during search of premises also bore his signatures. A bunch of papers pertaining to Income Tax Returns in the name of baby Shruti Goel and baby Prachi Goel were also seized. They were also signed by him (PW2). The originals of the documents had been paginated from page no. 1 to page no. 17.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 8 of 96 ­ 9 ­

10. The third witness to be examined by the CBI was Mr. Ram Chander, Dy. Manager, Punjab National Bank. He deposed that on 08.01.03, he was posted as an officer in PNB branch at Section 7, Rohini. Locker no. 1596 was in the name of S.C. Goel and Sadhna Goel. The locker was opened in his presence and that of CBI officials. List was prepared of the articles found in the locker which was Ex. PW3/A. It was signed by him on all the three pages. It was also signed by accused Sadhna Goel. She also put her signatures in token of receiving of Ex.PW3/A. Upon being cross­examined he claimed that he had joined 3 or 4 CBI proceedings and signed Ex.PW3/A after going through its contents. He denied the suggestion that no such document had been prepared at the spot and he had signed the documents subsequently in the office of CBI. He also denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness.

11. PW4 was Mr. O.P. Malhotra. He deposed that he was a CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 9 of 96 ­ 10 ­ jeweler and government approved valuer for the last about 40 years. He further deposed that in 1994 gold biscuit of 10 tolas used to cost about Rs.60,000/­.

12. Mr. S.K. Srivastava was PW5. He deposed that in 2005 he was posted in income tax valuation cell. He claimed that valuation report regarding property No. F­24/154 Sec­7 Rohini contained his signatures at point A and the same was Ex.PW5/A. According to his valuation cost of land was Rs. 4,37,900/­, cost of construction on ground floor and first floor was Rs.4,42,100/­ and cost of construction of barsati floor was Rs.1,41,300/­. He denied the suggestion that his valuation was not fair or was not based on market realties. He also denied the suggestion that he had taken excess area while determining cost. He also admitted that he had not seen income tax returns of the accused persons for the assessment year 1992­93 and 1993­94.

13. Thereafter, Rishi Prakash Inspector House Tax entered CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 10 of 96 ­ 11 ­ the witness box. He deposed that during 2005 Mrs. Sangeeta Bansal was Joint Asseeoor and Collector Rohini Zone MCD. Letter Ex.PW6/A contained signatures of Mrs. Bansal. It was in respect of property tax of premises No. F­24/154, Sector­7, Rohini, New Delhi.

14. Thereafter Surender, S.K. Sharma, Anil Kumar Gupta, Madhu Gupta, Amar Singh Meena, Kanwar Bhan entered the witness box. They were all given up by Sh. V.K. Sharma, Sr. PP for CBI and thus were discharged unexamined.

15. Thereafter, Mr. Surender Kumar Arora deposed that he was working in Punjab National Bank, Shakur Basti Sainik Vihar. Ex.P7/11 contained signatures of Mrs. Sudesh Kapoor. Vide the said document statement of account No. SF­11453 was provided to Inspector Krishnan of CBI. (admitted documents)

16. The next witness to enter the witness box was Subash Chander Oberoi. He deposed that he and his wife Manhar CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 11 of 96 ­ 12 ­ Mohini Oberoi owned plot No. 154, Sector­7, Pocket­24, Rohini. The said property was sold to accused Sadhna Goel for Rs.1,80,000/­. The payments were made by bank drafts.

17. Mr. J.R. Singh was examined as PW15. According to his testimony, two NSCs Ex.P1 and Ex.P­2 had been purchased by accused S.C. Goel and KVPs Ex.P­50, P­51, P­52 & P­53 had been purchased in name of Sadhna Goel. Upon being cross­examined he claimed that he was not aware that Sadhna had purchased two KVPs of Rs.10,000 each in 1996. He claimed that he was not aware if Sadhna Goel had received maturity amount of two KVPs after maturity date. He also claimed to be not aware if Sadhna Goel had purchased the four KVPs from the maturity amount of earlier two KVPs.

18. Next witness who testified was Mr. M. John He deposed that he retired from Transport Department in the year 2008. Document Ex.P­69/5 was photocopy of RC of vehicle No. DL 5C 4451.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 12 of 96 ­ 13 ­

19. The last witness who entered the witness box was N.V.N. Krishnan. He claimed that in 2003 he was posted as Inspector in ACB. Case RC 66(A)/2003 was registered against S.C. Goel for possessing assets disproportionate to income. The FIR was Ex.PW17/A. During investigation he got immovable property of the accused valued through valuation department of income tax. Documents were also referred to expert for his opinion. It was revealed that accused was in possession of assets to tune of 162% which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. Sanction for prosecution was obtained from competent authority and charge sheet was filed in the court and the same was Ex.PW17/B. During investigation he collected various documents from various banks. He took on record search cum seizure list Ex.PW2/A which pertained to RC No. 1(A)/03 which was a trap case. During investigation lockers of the accused were operated. The witness was cross­examined at CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 13 of 96 ­ 14 ­ great length by learned counsel for the accused. Even after recording of statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and evidence of various defence witnesses, at request of learned counsel, witness N.V. N. Krishnan was recalled for further cross­ examination.

20. During cross­examination he admitted that few documents like chemical report, site plan, raid report were not sent to sanctioning authority because they were not relied upon. He denied the suggestion that incorrect and incomplete information had been provided to the sanctioning authority. During course of search wife and children of the accused S.C. Goel were present. Independent witnesses were also there but he did not remember their names. No independent valuer was taken to the house of the accused during search. He denied the suggestion that house hold articles were not correctly valued. Sum of Rs.3,10,000/­ was seized during locker operation while Rs.114000/­ was recovered from house of the accused as CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 14 of 96 ­ 15 ­ per search cum seizure memo. However, he did not remember either date of the locker operation nor name of the bank where the search was carried out. He denied the suggestion that locker inspection memo Ex.PW3/A was prepared in the CBI office. He admitted that as per charge sheet cost of the house had been shown as Rs.7,63,400/­ . He denied the suggestion that S.K. Srivastava was not competent to evaluate the house. He further denied the suggestion that he knew that S.K. Srivastava had prepared valuation report by flouting the prescribed procedure. He denied the suggestion that valuation report dt. 16.10.95 which had been seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A was correct which showed cost of construction as Rs.335000/­. He also denied suggestions that he had deliberately chosen to conceal correct figure of Rs.40,000/­ as income of S.C. Goel from LIC Policies.

21. Regarding Sadhna Goel he denied the suggestion that she had earned Rs.8,078/­ from Naser Chit Fund. He further CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 15 of 96 ­ 16 ­ denied the suggestion that he knew that Sadhna Goel was employed as receptionist with Ram Mohan Financial Services and had been paid Rs.3000/­ per month as salary during the period August 1995 to March 2001. He also denied the suggestion that he knew that Sadhna was engaged in garment business with help of her brother and had also received rental income of Rs.58,000/­ . He also claimed to have examined income tax officers who had informed him that they were not concerned about legality or illegality of the income,. He admitted that he had seized ITRs of Prachi Goel and Shruti Goel during course of investigation which reflected their income from assessment year 1988­89 to 1992­93. He further claimed that he was unable to recollect whether documents seized were actual ITRs or their photocopies. He denied the suggestion that valuation of house hold articles before the check period has been wrongly shown as Rs.10,000/­. He also denied the suggestion that ITRs of Prachi Goel and Shruti CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 16 of 96 ­ 17 ­ Goel were not relied upon and considered by him with an eye to deprive benefit of income earned by them during the check period to the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that Prachi Goel had received Rs.1,30,000/­ while Shurti received Rs.1,24,000/­ and Priyansh Goel had Rs.5,25,000/­ as gifts from friends and relatives. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not investigate the aspect of employment of Sadhna Goel with M/s.Ram Mohan Financial services with a view to deprive her benefit of income as salary. To the query that Sadhna Goel had received 50 Tolas of gold jewellery at the time of her marriage, the witness claimed that he could not comment about it. On the plea that Sadhna Goel had converted 20 Tolas of gold into 2 gold biscuits, he claimed that no such plea was taken during course of investigation by the accused. Similarly, he claimed the no plea was taken by the accused that she had received 3.5 kg of silver utensils and jewellery during her marriage.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 17 of 96 ­ 18 ­

22. He further claimed in his cross­examination that verification at the native village of Sadhna Goel was carried out which revealed that they were living just above poverty line. However, he could not provide any kind of detail about the native village of Sadhna Goel and admitted that he had not personally visited it.

23. The witness was again recalled for cross­examination after defence evidence wherein he claimed that the ITR documents of Prachi Goel and Shruti Goel returned to S.C. Goel were the same which had been seized but he could not remember if the originals had been seized or only copies had been seized.

24. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. both of them claimed to be innocent having been falsely implicated by the CBI. While S.C. Goel claimed that he and his wife had been falsely implicated. Had the investigator considered the material found by him, his innocence would have been proved. IO CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 18 of 96 ­ 19 ­ with malafide intentions had not examined those witnesses who would have disclosed the actual income earned by his family members. Accused Sadhna Goel also took up similar plea and claimed that IO had not considered the material which proved their innocence and had deliberately not examined witnesses who would have deposed about their earnings.

25. Accused examined 12 witnesses in their defence. DW1 was Mr. B.D. Dhamija. He was examined on 16.09.2011. He deposed that he was director of M/s. Ram Mohan Financial Services Ltd. and Ram Mohan Chits Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Ram Mohan Chits was under provisional liquidation since March 2001. He claimed that accused Sadhna Goel was employed in Rohini Branch in one of the two aforesaid companies but he was not sure exactly in which company she was employed. He further deposed that she had joined the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 19 of 96 ­ 20 ­ company in 1995 and continued till 2000 or 2001. She had to attend customers, calls, issue receipts and also attract business. The minimum salary paid to the employees was Rs.3000/­ and she used to be paid her salary. They also used to give increment of Rs.200/­ . The amount could even be Rs.500/­. Apart from it commission and bonus was also paid to the employees. Upon being cross­examined by learned PP he deposed that he had come to the court on 15.09.2011 but he could not recollect his other activities of 15.09.2011. He claimed that he did not remember what all he did on 16.09.2011 and 17.09.2011. He further admitted that he cannot tell the number of female employees working for him in 1995, their designation and duties. He further claimed that for the last ten years he had not seen Sadhna Goel. He also admitted that he had not seen any record before deposing about salary paid to Sadhna Goel rather he had not seen any record during the last 8 years pertaining to any staff. The CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 20 of 96 ­ 21 ­ witness was then re­examined by learned advocate for the accused wherein he claimed that without looking into his diary he will not be able to tell about his activities on the day prior to the day he deposed in the court.

26. In the charge sheet income and expenditures of the accused were shown. Prosecution did not add anything new during trial which was not there in the charge sheet. Accused had opportunity to explain the assets which prosecution had shown at the stage of charge. At the stage of charge, Ld. Counsel for the accused told the Court that accused had no objection to framing of charge. If accused Sadhna had claimed that she had no explanation to offer, it means that said explanation was not in existence. She could have easily claimed that she was gainfully employed for 5/6 years with Chit Fund Company and had also carried out business for 4 years after her marriage. Even at the stage of recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused could have CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 21 of 96 ­ 22 ­ said that assets were acquired through gifts or income of Sadhna, or that she was gainfully employed. They did not make any such claim at the time of recording of their statement. Moreover, testimony of B.D. Dhamija does not inspire confidence. He could not remember number of female employees with him, he could not remember his activities of past few days without seeing his diary, but he could clearly remember about Sadhna Goel who was allegedly employed with him years ago despite admitting that he had not seen any record of his business for the last more than eight years. I, therefore, find it unconvincing to accept version of the accused that Sadhna was gainfully employed with M/s R.M. Chits or with M/s. Ram Mohan Financial Services.

27. The next witness to be examined by the accused persons was Rakesh Gupta. He was brother in law of Sadhna Goel. He claimed that he married sister of Sadhna Goel in 1982 and Sadhna got married to accused S.C. Goel four years CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 22 of 96 ­ 23 ­ later on. He claimed that financial status of his in­laws was very sound. They were having garment business. Sadhna's marriage was celebrated very lavishly. She was gifted cash, gold and silver jewellery and silver utensils. He himself had given Rs.5000/­. He claimed that Sadhna was engaged in business of her father before marriage. She continued business after marriage. Her father used to provide her cloth which she used to sell. She did this business for about 4 years of her marriage. Her children also were in business of lending VCRs on hire. The VCR business continued for about 6 years. Sadhna also joined some service and remained employed for 5­6 years. He further claimed that he used to attend birthday party of children of accused and used to give cash gift of Rs. 1000­ 1500/­ Their other relatives also used to give cash gifts to the children of the accused. Upon being cross­examined by learned PP he claimed that he was having agencies of various products and was income tax payee. He was not aware if his CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 23 of 96 ­ 24 ­ in­laws used to file income tax and wealth tax returns. He claimed further that he had three sisters. All three of them have 2 children each and he used to give cash gift depending on funds available in the pocket. He admitted that he was unable to provide details of gifts given to Sadhna Goel by her parents. He did not remember when he had helped Sadhna Goel in the past. He further admitted that he was sympathetic towards Sadhna Goel as she was member of his family, though he denied that he was deposing because of said sympathy. He further admitted that he could not provide details of gold, silver jewellery which he gave in the marriage of Sadhna.

28. The third witness to be examined by the accused was S.K. Garg, a structure designer. He claimed that report Ex.DW3/A was prepared at instance of accused Sadhna Goel for assessing nature and cost of construction of the property. It was a double storey house. The cost of construction was valued by him at Rs.3,35,500/­ . Upon being cross­examined CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 24 of 96 ­ 25 ­ by learned PP, he claimed that covered area of the building was approx. 67%. He had not photographed the site. The front was open and unbuilt. He had prepared report on basis of CPWD rates of 1991­92. He further admitted that he had not mentioned details of the wood work. The entire flooring was of marble chips. The calculation was made by him on the basis of disclosure made by accused themselves. He also admitted that in Nabhi's guide cost of construction mentioned by him was for ordinary type of construction for cement flooring and cement plaster. It is not for mosaic flooring, superficial treatment, use of Kota stone marble, superior quality of sanitary fitting, electric installation, superior quality of wood, cost of boundary work, canopies, internal road, lifts etc. Additions had to be made separately regarding these items. He also admitted that the rates quoted by him in his report were for ordinary 'C' type of construction. He also admitted that he had not mentioned any cost of chips flooring CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 25 of 96 ­ 26 ­ while preparing his valuation report. The valuation had been done by him keeping in view requirement of the house tax. He made a categorical claim that there was no barsati floor above first floor at the time of his inspection. He also denied the suggestion that there is marble flooring and barsati floor in existence. He did not remember if there were wooden cupboard and Kota stones. He also admitted that he had not mentioned anything about black granite used in the premises.

29. Thereafter Jage Ram entered the witness box. He deposed that he was Managing Director of Nashier Chits Pvt. Ltd. People used to invest money and receive dividend from them. Accused Sadhna Goel had been issued a passbook containing details of investment made by her from May 1993 to June 1995. The said passbook was DW4/A. The investments made by Sadhna Goel had been returned to her with dividend when she closed the account in 1995. Upon being cross­examined he claimed that he used to file income CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 26 of 96 ­ 27 ­ tax returns but he could not provide the details as the job was done by chartered accountant. The dividend paid was reflected in column 'y' of DW4/A. He claimed that he could not produce any documents to show that he was Managing Director of Nashier Chits. This witness was also reexamined by learned counsel for the accused wherein he claimed that the payment received by cheque as reflected in DW4/A was reflected in bank account with SBI. Sadhna had been given Rs.47500/­ after deduction of 5% service charge, on 16.6.95.

30. The next witness was Ram Lal Balmiki Dy. Manager, SBI. He deposed that he was working as Dy. Manager, SBI, Kamla Nagar Branch since June 2008. He produced specimen signature card of the two accused dt. 08.09.95 and statement of account for the period 09.08.95 to 26.03.96. The certified copy of specimen signature card were Ex. DW5/A to DW5/B while certified copy of the bank statement was Ex. DW5/C. The account number was 15775. Upon being cross examied CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 27 of 96 ­ 28 ­ by Ld. PP, he stated that first applicant of the account was S.C. Goel, while second account holder was Sadhna Goel. Portion at point 'C' of Ex. DW5/B was usually filled by the applicant/customer. As per the signature card occupation of the first applicant S.C. Goel was service. He admitted further that account holder/applicant signs the specimen signature card after going through the information mentioned on the specimen signature card and account opening form. He further deposed that he had seen Ex. DW5/A. No occupation of accused Sadhna Goel was mentioned against her name. As per normal banking norms, if no specific occupation is mentioned against name of applicant, then that person is considered to be unemployed. Ld. Counsel for the accused then sought permission from the Court to re examine the witness and he was permitted to do so. He claimed that there was only single unit for 'occupation' column, wherein occupation of the first applicant/account holder is mentioned. There was no separate CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 28 of 96 ­ 29 ­ column for 'occupation' of second applicant/account holder. He claimed that he presumes Sadhna Goel to be housewife as nothing was mentioned regarding her occupation. Upon being cross examined by Ld. PP, he admitted that he presumed Sadhna Goel to be a housewife on basis of declaration made by the applicant on DW5/A at the time of opening of the account.

31. Accused then examined DW Rakesh Babu. He deposed that he was Sr. Assistant in State Bank of India, Partapur.. He was working in bank since March, 1990. Accused Sheel Chand Goel was his brother. They were six brothers and one sister. His father Sriniwas Goel was a broker dealing in Sugar, Shakkar and Gur. Their mother Shanti Devi died in May 2003. She used to stay with him (DW6 Rakesh Babu). His father left about 2 to 3 lacs for his mother in the year 1978.

32. Property no. 202, Krishan Puri, Meerut was owned by his father and upon his death, it devolved upon all the six CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 29 of 96 ­ 30 ­ brothers and their mother.

33. Property no. 131, Krishan Puri, Meerut was owned by Mr. Mool Chand Goel, elder brother of his father. Upon his death, it devolved upon his wife Narmada Devi. He had willed that after death of Narmada Devi, the property would devolve upon DW6 Rakesh Babu and his brothers. The said property was in occupation of four tenants. Narmada Devi had died in 1991. His (DW6 Rakesh Babu's) mother used to collect rent. Two tenants used to pay Rs. 700/­ per month while other two tenants used to pay Rs. 800/­ per month in the year 1981. The tenants used to increase rent by about Rs. 100/­ every year. Five brothers of Rakesh Babu used to give some money to their mother. Sheel Chand did not contribute as he was staying in Delhi and had to bear expenses of his medically unfit son. His mother helped accused Sadhna Goel with cash Rs. 5 lacs for treatment of mentally challenged son of Sadhna Goel. She gave this amount in five installments of Rs. 1 lac each. She CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 30 of 96 ­ 31 ­ also gave cash gift of Rs. 10,000/­ to the boy. In addition to it, his mother gave total cash gift of Rs. 1 lac to Sadhna Goel. In addition to it, during wedding of the accused, she gave Rs. 25,000/­ and Rs. 25,000/­ at the time of birth of elder daughter, Rs. `25,000/­ at the time of birth of younger daughter and Rs. 25,000/­ at the time of birth of the son. Upon being cross examined, witness claimed that at the time of death of his father, all the brothers were living together. After death of father, daily expenses were met out of earnings of Anand Prakash Goel and Subhash Chander Goel. Upon being further cross examined, he admitted that his mother Shanti Devi did have any independent income of her own. She was not assessed to income tax. She used to issue rent receipts to tenants and retain counterfoils. But the counterfoils could not be produced. Regarding Rs. 5 lacs gifted to Sadhna Goel, he claimed that this amount had been kept at home by his mother and it was not withdrawn from any bank. To the other siblings CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 31 of 96 ­ 32 ­ of the witness, she used to give small amounts. He also admitted the mother did not give Rs.10,000/­ to any child of brother of Rakesh Babu. Whatever she had given to the son of the accused was from the rental incomes received by her. Whenever his brothers needed money, she used to give Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000/­. Mother had her own monthly expenditure of Rs. 500/­ to Rs. 700/­.

34. He also admitted that there was no written agreements with the tenants at Krishan puri. His mother never maintained any diary or record, though she was able to read and write Hindi.

35. DW7 was Sunil Kumar Garg, brother of accused Sadhna Goel. He claimed that he had four sisters and no other brother. His grand father started cloth business in Khurja. Thereafter his father took over his business. His father died in 1990 and thereafter he (DW7) took over the business. His grandfather and father were rich and successful. Accused CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 32 of 96 ­ 33 ­ Sadhna Goel was engaged in business of his father. She used to operate from home and thus had independent income and savings. She got married in 1985 and his father gifted about Rs. 40,000/­ in cash, gold and silver jewellery to the accused. In addition, cash Rs. 20,000/­ was given to accused Sheel Chand. Sadhna continued to work and used to operate from Delhi. He used to provide her with cloth material. She worked till 1992­93. Thereafter she worked for 5/6 years as a receptionist. She was also running business of hire/renting of VCRs. He used to give cash gifts to children of Sadhna Goel. The amount used to be about 2500/­ to Rs. 3000 per year and after birth of son, he started giving Rs. 4000/­ to Rs. 5000/­ yearly to the children. Upon being cross examined by Ld. PP he claimed that his firm was not registered. He was not maintaining any account books of the shop. He was unable to tell the earning in the year 1990 when he took over the business. Then, he claimed that Sadhna used to sell cloths CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 33 of 96 ­ 34 ­ from her residence till 1999. He could not provide any details of her earnings or incomes, upon being probed by Ld. PP.

36. Thereafter accused examined Smt. Santosh, sister in law of Sheel Chand Goel (wife of brother of Sheel Chand). She claimed that she had given Rs. 20,000/­ to Sheel Chand around 1999­2000 for treatment of his son. The said amount was from her savings. Upon being cross examined by Ld.PP, she admitted that she had no income of her own. She had never asked her husband about his salary. Her husband never told her about LIC polices. She had bank account, but did not remember the account number. She used to keep all her savings at her house. She had given money to Sadhna Goel in presence of her husband. She never maintained any diary.

37. DW9 was Girish Kumar Aggarwal. He claimed that accused was Chacha of his wife Mamta. He and his wife used to visit the accused and attend birthday functions. They used CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 34 of 96 ­ 35 ­ to give cash gifts of Rs. 1200 to Rs. 1500/­ yearly. The amount was increased to Rs. 1700/­ to 1800/­ after birth of third child. Upon being cross examined, he claimed that he did not have any LIC policy or savings. He used to spend 30% to 40% on his household expenses, remaining used to remain with his wife. To children of his own real sister Radha, he used to give gift of Rs. 300/­ Rs. 400/­ or Rs. 500/­.

38. Next witness to be examined was Pramod Kumar. He testified that Sadhna Goel was daughter of his bua,. He had given Rs. 5100/­ cash at the time of her marriage. He used to give cash gift of Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000/­ every year to her children.

39. DW11 was Manoj Gupta. He claimed that accused Sheel Chand was his Chacha. He himself was an advocate, enrolled in the year 1995. He used to give cash gift of Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 to children of the accused in functions. Upon being cross examined, he claimed that he was practicing in CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 35 of 96 ­ 36 ­ Meerut and used to earn Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.30,000/­ per annum. He never filed any income tax return. He also attends birthdays children of his real sister Mamta at Meerut and used to contribute Rs.500/­ or Rs.1000/­ for the gift given by his mother or father to children of his sister Mamta. He claimed that he has four more Chachas in addition to the accused. He is having good relations with them. He attends their functions also, but his parents used to give gifts to children of other Chachas. Finally, he admitted that he does not have taxable income, so he does not file any income tax return.

40. The last witness to be examined was Mr. A. Padhmanabha Iyer, Branch Manager of State Bank of Travencore. He produced original specimen signature card, original account opening form and copy of Voter ID card of S.C. Goel. The certified copies were Ex. DW12/A, DW12/B and DW12/C. Original statement of account of account no. 109 in the name of S.C. Goel for the period 30.12.1989 to CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 36 of 96 ­ 37 ­ 25.01.1995 was also produced by him. Its certified copy was Ex. DW12/D. The witness also produced original inoperative accounts register. Sum of Rs. 13886.15p was transferred from account no. 109 to inoperative account. Certified copy of the account register was Ex. DW12/E. Certified copy of the account opening form was Ex. DW12/F.

41. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the accused Mr. Bhavook Chauhan and Ms. Rebecca John and Ld. PP Sh. Praneet Sharma at considerable length. I have also gone through the file and documents filed alongwith the charge sheet and detailed written submissions filed by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

42. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons Ms. Rebecca John, first of all assailed competence of the investigation officer Mr. Navneet Krishnan to have investigated the matter. She submitted that accused had been arrested in a trap case and observation memo in that case was dt. 07.01.03. Search memo CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 37 of 96 ­ 38 ­ of the said case was also dt. 07.01.03, while locker inspection memo was dt. 08.01.03. FIR of the present disproportionate assets case RC no. 66/03 was registered only on 26.12.03. Only in the FIR, Superintendent of Police authorized investigation of the case by Navneet Krishnan. So whatever was investigated by the IO before 26.12.03, was unauthorized and cannot be relied upon. According to section 17 of the P.C. Act, investigation in an offence u/s 13(1)(e) cannot be investigated without orders of an officer not below rank of Superintendent of Police. She also relied upon State, Inspector of Police, Vishakapatnam Vs. S.S. Karri : 2006 VII AD (SC) 1278. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that section 17 contains a non­obstante clause. The second proviso appended to section 17 provides that an offence U/s 13(1)(e) shall not be investigated without orders of police officers not below rank of Superintendent of Police.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 38 of 96 ­ 39 ­ Hon'ble court further noted that it was not disputed that investigation officer did not produce any record to show that he had been authorized to investigate.

43. On the other hand, Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP submitted that investigation had been carried out by Mr. Navneet Krishnan only after registration of RC and the authorization given by Superintendent of Police. He pointed out bunch of documents on the court record which according to him, would indicate that investigation was carried out only after receipt of authorization by the IO.

44. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not define 'investigation'. Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines "investigation" as:

"investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than Magistrate) who is authorised by a CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 39 of 96 ­ 40 ­ Magistrate in this behalf.

45. Coming back to the case in hand, accused had been apprehended in January 2003 and his locker was searched. TLO of that case was Mr. Rishi Prakash. The documents so collected were scrutinized and RC no. 66/03 was registered on 26.12.03. Complainant in this case was Mr. Rishi Prakash. Navneet Krishnan was part of the search team of the said earlier case. He was authorized to investigate the present case by the SP on 26.12.03. According to the definition of word "investigation", investigation includes collection of evidence by authorized Police Officer. It is no doubt true that trap was laid in January and accused was arrested and his premises and locker were searched, but the entire investigation of disproportionate assets case was carried out only after registration of RC no. 66/03 dt. 26.12.03. I would like to give specific instances in this matter.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 40 of 96 ­ 41 ­

i) Navneet Krishnan had written letters to DAV Public School and sought details of the payment made for children of the accused. The details were received vide letter dt. 20.01.2005.

ii) Navneet Krishnan had written to Step by Step Preparatory School and sought details of the fees paid for son of the accused and the details were received vide letter dt. 01.08.2005.

iii) Navneet Krishnan had collected sale certificate, insurance and other documents pertaining to car purchased by accused Sadhna Goel.

iv) Navneet Krishnan had collected details of the telephone bills paid by accused Sheel Chand Goel and the details were received by him vide letter dt. 28.07.05.

v) Navneet Krishnan had collected details of the property tax in respect of flat No. F­24/154, Sector­7, Rohini which belong to the accused and same was provided to him vide letter dt. 01.08.05 and he collected documents on 29.07.05.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 41 of 96 ­ 42 ­

vi) Navneet Krishnan wrote to State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch and collected photocopies of vouchers pertaining to accused persons. It was received by him on 23.12.05.

vii) Navneet Krishnan had collected attested copies of purchase applications of Kisan Vikas Patra and NSCs on 27.02.04.

viii) Navneet Krishnan had written to MCD employer of accused S.C. Goel to find out about GPF contribution made by the accused. The information was received by him on 21.07.05.

ix) Navneet Krishnan had collected salary details of accused S.C. Goel and the same were received by him vide letter dt. 12.09.05.

x) Navneet Krishnan had collected copies of bank accounts of children of the accused and accused Sadhna Goel from SBI, Saraswati Vihar.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 42 of 96 ­ 43 ­

xi) Navneet Krishnan had collected copies of bank accounts of the accused from State Bank of Travencore on 09.02.04.

xii) Navneet Krishnan had collected certificate from Punjab National Bank, Naharpur Branch along with statement of account. It was received by him on 01.03.04.

xiii) Navneet Krishnan had collected details of five LIC policies which were in name of the accused persons. They were received by him vide letter dt. 04.10.05.

46. These are only few instances which indicates the activities done by Navneet Krishnan after 26.12.03. Can it still be said that investigation done by Navneet Krishnan was unauthorized? I am afraid, the answer has to be in negative. The premises and locker were searched in January 2003, after arrest of the accused while accepting bribe. Trap laying officer of the said case made a complaint on basis of which RC 66/03 was registered on 26.12.03 and Navneet Krishnan CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 43 of 96 ­ 44 ­ was authorised to investigate. On basis of the said authorization, he proceeded further and collected evidence and finally filed charge sheet.

47. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with similar situation in case tiled as Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, Crl. Appeal No. 945 of 2003. My Lord Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and My Lord Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan held:

"The issue raised hereinabove are no more res integra. The matter of investigation by an officer not authorised by law has been considered by this Court time and again and it has consistently been held that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial and, CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 44 of 96 ­ 45 ­ therefore, where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. The defect or irregularity in investigation has no bearing on the competence of the Court or procedure relating to cognizance or trial".

48. Hence, it cannot be said that the investigation had been carried by an unauthorized person and there was violation of 2nd Proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act 1988.

49. The second limb of arguments of learned counsel for the accused was that IO had failed to consider ITRs and other income of accused Sadhna Goel and her children. She submitted that there was miscarriage of justice as the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 45 of 96 ­ 46 ­ investigation officer did not consider income tax returns of accused Sadhna Goel who was gainfully employed for some period and was also engaged in business activities. She further submitted that daughters of the accused were also gainfully engaged in the business of lending VCRs on hire. They were income tax assessees but IO did not take in consideration their income. She claimed that total ITRs of Sadhna Goel indicated income of Rs. 757593/­, ITRs of daughter Prachi Goel indicated income of Rs. 132771/­, ITRs of daughter Shruti Goel indicated income of Rs. 105317/­, totalling Rs. 995681/­.

50. She further submitted that after the marriage accused Sadhna Goel was engaged in business activities of selling clothes. In 1995 she started working with R.M. Chits. Her total salary income including bonus and increment was Rs. 272992/­. She worked till 2001.

51. In addition accused have been regularly receiving gifts CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 46 of 96 ­ 47 ­ from their relatives. She submitted that DW2 Rakesh Gupta had made total gift of Rs.27500/­. DW6 Rakesh Babu gave gifts of Rs.610000/­. DW7 Sunil Kumar Garg gave gift of Rs. 56500/­. DW9 Girish Kumar Aggawal gave gift of Rs.24300/­ and DW11 Manoj Kumar Gupta gave gift of Rs.18,000/­. Thus total amount of gifts Rs.736300/­ were received by the family of the accused. She argued that testimony of defence witnesses was consistent and they should be treated at par with PWs. She punched holes in the testimony of the IO who at places gave unconvincing answers as to he did not remember the person examined by him from R.M. Chits or that about the investigation carried out by him at the native place of accused Sadhna Goel about her back ground. She relied upon cases titled as DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran, Doodh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. : AIR 1981 SC 911, Krishnanand Vs. State of M.P. : AIR 1977 SC 796 and State of Andhra CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 47 of 96 ­ 48 ­ Pradesh Vs. J. Satyanarayana : JT 2000 (10) SC 430.

52. In Krishnanand's case Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that court has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. Suspicion can never take place of proof and one who alleges benami transactions has also to lead legal evidence to prove it. In Doodh Nath's case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. Quite often defence witnesses tell lies, but so do prosecution witnesses. In DSP Chennai's case K. Inbasagaran was an IAS officer who was prosecuted under P.C. Act. He was also convicted u/s. 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (e) of the Act. A raid by income tax authorities yielded huge amount of cash, gold and other documents pertaining to immovable properties etc. Accused claimed that the property recovered did not belong to him but were assets of his wife who was running companies. Learned trial judge found the accused CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 48 of 96 ­ 49 ­ guilty as he held that the properties recovered belonged to the accused. Wife of the accused had claimed that the entire amount was black money belonging to her business. Income tax department had assessed all the money in her hand and assessment order had been passed by the income tax officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that initial burden has to be discharged by the prosecution to establish that accused had acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereafter accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand. The wife of the accused had not been made an accused in the said case and she deposed that entire money belonged to her. It would be difficult to segregate how much wealth belonged to the husband and how much to the wife. In Satyanarayan's case, a case was registered against accused for in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Wife of the accused used to file income tax returns before the date of raid. Loans taken by the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 49 of 96 ­ 50 ­ wife from creditors was also reflected in the accounts of lenders. Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that income tax return filed on 02.01.86 could not be labeled as an after thought as it had been filed before registration of the case on 20.03.86.

53. Now coming back to the case in hand, we have to see whether the IO was right in ignoring income of Sadhna Goel and her children or not. Accused Sadhna Goel never entered the witness box. So we are left with testimony of the defence witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

54. DW1 B.D. Dhamija had deposed that accused Sadhna Goel was employed in his company from 1995 till about 2001. He further claimed that company used to pay minimum wages of Rs.3000/­ to the employees and they also used to give increment ranging from Rs.200/­ to Rs.500/­. He further claimed that records of his company were in custody of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in liquidation proceedings. He CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 50 of 96 ­ 51 ­ had made this deposition on 16.09.2011. Upon being cross­ examined by learned PP he claimed that he had attended the court on 15.09.2011. He could not recollect his other activities on 15.09.2011. He further claimed that he did not remember his activities done on 16.09.2011 and 17.09.2011. He could not tell how many lady workers were working for him and what were their designations and duties. He had also volunteered that he had not seen Sadhna Goel for the last ten years. He further admitted that he had not seen any record before deposing about salary of Sadhna Goel rather he had not seen any record for the last eight years. Upon being further re­examined by learned counsel for the accused he claimed that without looking into his diary he will not be able to tell about his activities on the day prior to his deposition in court. Rather he claimed that without checking his diary he cannot even give the date of his visit to the court. In his earlier cross­ examination he admitted that he had not seen any record for CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 51 of 96 ­ 52 ­ the last eight years. If this kind of memory is possessed by the witness that he could not recollect his activities done 15 days ago, it would be difficult to believe that he remembered about employment of Sadhna Goel, her salary, her increments after gap of eleven years. Not a single piece of paper was placed on record by him to show that she was ever in employment. I have already discussed this aspect earlier that testimony of B.D. Dhamija is not trustworthy. Accused Sadhna Goel never entered the witness box. She did not put forth a single slip of paper in support of her employment. There are bunch of documents on the Court record which indicate that Sadhna Goel was not employed anywhere nor she was engaged in any business activities, but was a simple housewife. If we take a look at the admission form of Shruti Goel which is Ex. P17/3, an admitted document, we find that there are separate columns for father's name, mother's name, father's occupation and mother's occupation. Accused Sadhna Goel has mentioned CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 52 of 96 ­ 53 ­ "home lady wife" in the column meant for mother's occupation. There are also columns for father's income and mother's income. Against father's income amount mentioned is Rs.2500/­ per month. Against mother's income column cross has been put. Similarly, in admission form for Prachi Goel which is admitted document Ex.P­18/2, there were separate columns. The occupation column of mother Sadhna Goel has been crossed out indicating that she was not engaged in any business or service. There are also columns for father's income and mother's income. Against father's income amount mentioned is Rs.2700/­ per month. Against mother's income column cross has been put. In State Bank of India, Saraswati Vihar where she had an account, her professions has been mentioned as "housewife". In the account opened by her daughter Prachi Goel, under her guardianship, her profession has been mentioned as "housewife". In the account opening form Ex. DW5/A and Ex. DW5/B against the name of S.C. CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 53 of 96 ­ 54 ­ Goel, his occupation has been mentioned as "service". Against name of Sadhna Goel, nothing has been mentioned as her occupation. If she was engaged in business activities or service as claimed by her witness DW1 in the year 1995, then this fact ought to have been mentioned against her name. Nothing was mentioned. In these circumstances, I find it difficult to believe that Sadhna Goel had been gainfully employed with DW1 B.D. Dhamija or was engaged in business activity.

55. Occasionally we come across news items regarding exceptionally gifted children. They are also labeled as wonder kids. According to testimony of defence witnesses, accused were proud parents of wonder kids. According to DW2 Rakesh Gupta who was husband of sister of accused Sadhna Goel his marriage was performed in 1982. Four years thereafter accused Sadhna Goel married accused S.C. Goel, that means accused got married in the year 1986. According to Mr. Rakesh Gupta children of accused were in business of CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 54 of 96 ­ 55 ­ lending of VCRs. Clients used to collect and return VCRs from their residence and Sadhna used to maintain their accounts. This business continued for six years.

56. According to school admission forms which are admitted documents, Prachi Goel was born on 20.09.1986 and Shruti Goel was born on 17.10.88. Immediately after their birth, the children engaged themselves in business activities and also started filing their income tax returns. Income tax returns for year ending on 31.3.1992 indicate that when Prachi would had been less than six years old, she earned hire charges by lending television amounting to Rs.15,420/­. For the year ending on 31.3.1990 she earned Rs.13,820/­ as hire charges. She would had been less than four years old at that time. For the year ending 31.3.1989 when she was less than three years old she earned Rs. 14850/­ by hiring out TV set. For the year ending 31.3.1988 when she was less than two years she earned Rs.15510/­ by hiring out TV set.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 55 of 96 ­ 56 ­

57. Shruti Goel was born on 17.10.88. She engaged herself in business activities of hiring VCRs immediately upon her birth. Income tax returns for the year ending 31.3.1989 when she was 4 ½ months old indicate that she was able to earn Rs.14670/­ by hiring out VCPs. For the year ending 31.3.90 she earned Rs.15720/­. As on 31.3.92 when she was less than four years old she had earned Rs.15580/­.

58. It indeed is amazing that children of the accused immediately upon their birth started doing business, probably by neglecting their schooling and other playful activities. They also started filing income tax returns and at times paid nominal tax. In case titled as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004) 1 SCC 691, My Lord Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat was dealing with the matter in which family of the accused had been filing income tax returns and they claimed that the property belonged to them and not to the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 56 of 96 ­ 57 ­ accused. My Lord held:

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. (Emphasis added)

59. So, it is duty of the accused not only to offer a reasonable and satisfactory explanation but the explanation should be capable of being accepted. In the present case months' old babies filed income tax returns and claimed that they are engaged in business activities. Not even a sheet of paper or account book was filed to show any entry of business of hiring TV and VCP by even their mother accused Sadhna Goel. The daughters who were allegedly engaged in business CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 57 of 96 ­ 58 ­ activities while they were still in their diapers have now grown up. Even they did not step into the witness box to depose that they were engaged in business of lending VCPs and TVs in their infancy. All this does not appeal. Court has no option but to discard the ITRs filed by children of the accused as they were just not capable of even taking care of themselves, what to talk about engaging themselves in any business activity at that tender age. The income tax return filed on behalf of children was just to legitimize the ill gotten wealth generated by S.C. Goel by and by.

60. Now, let us consider the income tax returns filed by accused Sadhna Goel. According to DW1 B.D. Dhamija she was employed in his firm from 1995 to 2000 or beginning of 2001. According to DW2 Rakesh Gupta, brother in law of Sadhna Gupta, marriage of accused was performed in 1986. For four years after marriage Sadhna engaged in cloth business and thereafter joined some service for 5­6 years.

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 58 of 96 ­ 59 ­ Sadhna had placed on record copies of income tax returns filed by her. In all she filed 5 copies of income tax returns. The first one was for assessment year 1988­89 wherein she declared her income as Rs.18440/­. For the year 1989­90 her income was Rs.18500/­, for 1990­91 Rs.18750/­, for 1992­93 Rs.29,680/­ and for 1994­95 it was Rs.32,000/­. Thus total income of Sadhna Goel as per copies of the income tax returns placed on record was Rs.1,17,370/­. In the earlier cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme it was held that where income tax returns have been filed and accepted by the tax officer, court should presume that the said income was of the family members of the accused who had filed returns. Accordingly, I hold that Sadhna had her own independent income of Rs.1,17,370/­, though court has its own doubts about her earnings at all. IO had already given credit of Rs. 33,000/­ in the charge sheet as income from house rent. Sadhna Goel in her income tax return for the year 1994­95 had CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 59 of 96 ­ 60 ­ claimed this income as income from house rent. So, Rs. 33,000/­ be deducted from figure of Rs.11,74,186/­ which is income during check period. We arrive at figure of Rs. 11,41,186/­. Now income of Sadhna Goel amounting to Rs. 1,17,370/­ be added to the income of the couple. After adding we arrive at figure of Rs.12,58,556/­ as income during check period.

61. Various witnesses examined by the accused deposed that they had been giving gifts to the accused persons from time to time. DW2 Rakesh Gupta husband of sister of Sadhna Goel had claimed that his in­laws had given gold cash and silver jewellery and silver utensils to the accused at the time of her marriage. He himself had given Rs.5000/­ to her. He also claimed that he used to attend birthday party of the children of the accused and used to give cash gift of Rs.1500/­ to Rs.2000 in a year. Upon being cross­examined her claimed that he had three sisters. Each one of them have two children each. He CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 60 of 96 ­ 61 ­ attends their birthdays also and give gifts according to his pocket. He further admitted that he would not be able to give details of the gifts given to Sadhna by her parents. He could not provide details of the gifts given by himself to Sadhna. If he did not remember about the gifts given by himself then what can be expected from him to remember the details of the gifts given by other to Sadhna Goel. He could remember gifts given by him to children of Sadhna Goel but could not provide details of gifts given to children of his real sisters. So, no reliance can be placed on his statement, more so when he admitted that he had sympathetic attitude for the accused.

62. DW6 Rakesh Babu was brother of accused Sheel Chand. He claimed that his father left around Rs. 2 Lacs to Rs. 3 Lacs for his mother upon his death. Property No. 202 Kishanpuri was owned by his father and upon his death it devolved upon all six brothers and their mother. Property No. 131 Kishanpuri was owned by Mool Chand Goel elder brother CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 61 of 96 ­ 62 ­ of their father. Upon death of Mool Chand property devolved upon his widow Narmada Devi. Narmada Devi died in 1981. His mother used to collect rent from 1981 to 2003. There were four tenants in the property. Two tenants used to pay Rs. 700/­ per month and two used to pay Rs.800/­ per month. They also used to enhance rent by Rs.100/­ every year. His mother used to help Sadhna for treatment of Priyansh son of Sadhna Goel. She used to give her Rs. 1 Lac every year from 1998 to 2002. His mother gave another Rs.10,000/­ to Priyansh during this period. In addition to it she gifted Rs. 1 Lakh to Sadhna Goel on four different occasions. Upon being cross­examined, he claimed that after death of his father their house expenses were met from the earnings of Anand Praksh Goel and Subhash Chand Goel. He and accused Sheel Chand were students at that time. He also admitted that their mother did not have any independent income. She was not assessed to income tax. She used to retain counterfoils of the rent receipt CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 62 of 96 ­ 63 ­ issued to the tenants. He also admitted that now they cannot produce those counterfoils. The sum of Rs.5 Lakhs given to the accused was kept at home by their mother. It was not withdrawn from any bank. Whatever she had given was from rental income she had received and retained. Whenever she had to give the money to other relatives, she used to take it from him (DW Rakesh Babu). Their mother never maintained any diary or record and there was no written agreements with the tenants.

63. What all this leads to? Mother did not have any independent income. She used to receive rent for which there was no written agreements with tenants. She used to issue rent receipts and retain counterfoils. The said counterfoils were never produced in the court to show that there were any tenants and they used to pay rent to her. Mother never kept money in bank. She used to keep lakhs of rupees at home. She never maintained any diary or record. She used to give CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 63 of 96 ­ 64 ­ gifts in lakhs to the accused and for giving to other she used to borrow from Rakesh Babu. The entire story does not generate even iota of confidence. It is cooked up just to give explanations to the assets found in the hands of accused persons.

64. DW7 examined was Sunil Kumar Garg, brother of Sadhna Goel. He claimed that his grand father was financially sound and successful businessman. His father owned a shop and two residential houses of which one was let out to tenants. Sadhna was engaged in business with their father. Their father had gifted Rs.40,000/­ cash, gold and silver jewellery, but he could not remember as to what jewellery was given to Sadhna. Sadhna continued to work till about 1992­93. Thereafter, she worked as receptionist in a private company. He used to give cash gifts to children of Sadhna of Rs.2500/­ to Rs.3000/­. The amount was increased to Rs.4000/­ to Rs.5000/­ after birth of Priyansh. Upon being cross­examined he claimed that CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 64 of 96 ­ 65 ­ his firm was not registered with Registrar of Firms. He does not maintain any account books in the shop. He could not tell as to what his earning used to be when he took over the business. Sadhna continued to sell cloth till 1999. He was unable to provide details of the sale made by Sadhna or her income from hiring VCRs or her salary. The gifts given to her were not reflected in any ITR. They were given from his father's savings. . The witness never maintained any books of accounts. He could not tell about his earnings but he remembered the amount of gifts given to accused persons. According to him Sadhna continued cloth business till 1999. It would be interesting to note that according to DW2 cloths were sold for about four years after her marriage i.e. till 1990. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused, on page no. 5, it was claimed that Sadhna Goel started business of hiring of VCRs in 1986 and continued it for 5 to 6 years. So the claims regarding cloth business are contradictory. He CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 65 of 96 ­ 66 ­ could not tell about the money spent on marriage of the accused though he was 21 years old at that time. What kind of businessman he is, who does not even keep any book of account and everything depends on his memory, but his memory fails him when asked for important details.

65. Accused thereafter had examined Smt. Santosh, sister­ in­law of accused Sheel Chand Goel. She claimed that she had given Rs.20,000/­ to Sheel Chand Goel around 1999­2000 for treatment of his son. The money so given was her own saving. Upon being cross examined, she admitted that she had no independent income of her own. She had never questioned her husband about his salary. He used to provide money for household expenses. She had bank account in Allahabad Bank, Meerut but used to keep savings at her house and not deposit in bank. She never maintained any diary of her expenses. Upon being further examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, she claimed that her statement was not influenced because of CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 66 of 96 ­ 67 ­ "Hamdardi". The witness did not produce any kind of document to indicate that she was in a position to gift Rs. 20,000/­ to the accused. She did not even produce her passbook to show that she had an account with a bank and it is bit surprising that despite having bank account in Allahabad Bank, Meerut where she resides, she keeps her savings at home. Her statement appears to be made just with an eye to help out the accused persons.

66. Thereafter Girish Kumar Aggarwal had entered the witness box. He deposed that accused Sheel Chand was Chacha of his wife. He and his wife used to visit Sheel Chand and give gifts to the children. The gifts used to vary from Rs. 1200/­ to Rs.1500/­ per annum which was enhanced to Rs. 1700/­ to Rs.1800/­. Upon being cross examined, he claimed that his salary in 1998 was Rs.9,000/­ to Rs.10,000/­ per month and then he corrected himself claiming that he could not tell. He did not have any LIC policy. He did not have any CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 67 of 96 ­ 68 ­ savings. His sister Radha had three children and sister Saroj had two children. He used to give gift of Rs. 300, Rs. 400 or Rs. 500/­ to her children. I find this fact bit strange. To children of his real sister, he gives only Rs. 300/­ to Rs. 500/­, whereas to children of his wife's chacha he gives Rs. 1700/­ to Rs. 1800/­.

67. Thereafter Mr. Pramod Kumar was examined as DW10. He claimed that Sadhna Goel was daughter of his bua. He gave cash gift of Rs. 5100/­ on her marriage and used to give Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 to her children on their birthdays. Upon being cross examined, he claimed that he did not reflect gift of Rs. 5100/­ to Sadhna in his ITR or balance sheet. He had one sister who got married in 1986 or 1987 and she had a son and a daughter. He was affectionate to Sadhna and could not see her in distress, though he denied that he was deposing just to help her out.

68. DW11 was Manoj Kumar Gupta, an advocate CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 68 of 96 ­ 69 ­ practicing at Meerut. He claimed that Sheel Chand was his chacha. He used to attend birthday functions of his children and used to give cash gift of Rs.2000/­ to Rs.3000/­. Upon being cross examined, he claimed that he used to earn Rs. 20,000/­ to Rs. 30,000/­ per year. He never filed any income tax return as he did not have taxable income. For gifts to children of his sister, he used to contribute Rs. 500/­ to Rs. 1000/­. He had good relations with all his chachas, but he never gave any gift to their children. This witness used to earn around Rs. 2000/­ per month and of it, he used to give gifts of Rs. 2000/­ to Rs. 3000/­ to children of the accused. This simply is not acceptable. More so, when despite having good relations with his other chachas, he never gave a rupee to their children.

69. So all this story of gifts being showered upon the accused by his relatives is nothing but an after thought. They qualify as concoction. They have been made just to help the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 69 of 96 ­ 70 ­ accused wriggle out of the mess they have got into. The claim made by the accused persons about receiving gifts on various occasions has to be discarded.

70. Ld. Counsel for the accused further assailed the calculations done by the IO and the valuation of various properties. She claimed that PW5 had prepared incorrect valuation report Ex. PW5/A wherein he had evaluated cost of land at Rs. 437900/­, cost of construction of ground floor and first floor as Rs. 442100/­ and cost of construction of barsati floor as Rs. 141300/­. Accused had examined DW3 S.K. Garg. He also had evaluated the property and had proved his report Ex. DW3/A. According to him, total value of the property no. F­24/154, Sector­7, Rohini, Delhi was Rs. 5,15,500/­. Rs. 3,35,500/­ was cost of construction and Rs. 1,80,000/­ was cost of the original property. According to S.K. Garg, it was a double storey house. According to the valuer of the prosecution (PW5 S.K. Srivastava), the value of the plot was CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 70 of 96 ­ 71 ­ Rs. 4,37,900/­, cost of construction of ground and first floor was Rs. 4,42,100/­ and cost of barsati floor was Rs. 1,41,300/­. According to Ld. Counsel there was no barsati floor in existence. PW2 Ram Narain Bairva in his cross examination had claimed that there was no construction over the first floor. In the charge sheet, IO himself claimed that value of the property was Rs. 763400/­. IO had accepted the cost of the land as Rs. 1,80,000/­ as claimed by the accused and rest of the amount was towards cost of construction as estimated by PW5 S.K. Srivastava. In other words, he partly accepted case of the accused regarding value of the plot. Ld. Counsel wanted court to believe that it was simple double storyed house having ground floor and first floor and nothing above it. There is a rent agreement D­24 which is Ex. P­59 on Court record. It is a document admitted by the accused. According to the said rent agreement, accused Sadhna Goel let out second floor of property no. 154, Pocket F­24, Sector­7 to Rajesh Jain CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 71 of 96 ­ 72 ­ at Rs. 3000/­ per month w.e.f. 01.04.01 for 11 months. Pray if there was no barsati floor above first floor, then what was let out to Rajesh Jain by Sadhna Goel. This document is admitted one and so we should not doubt its correctness. This clearly indicates that house was having ground floor, first floor and barsati floor and so the valuation given by PW5 S.K. Srivastava was correct. However, as per charge sheet, the valuation has been done at Rs. 763400/­. As admitted by DW3 S.K. Garg, he had not given details of woodwork, flooring of marble chips. He had also admitted that the cost of construction given by him was for ordinary type of construction comprising of cement flooring and cement plastering and does not include cost of mosaic flooring, superficial treatment, use of kota stone or marble, superior quality of sanitary fittings, electrical installations, superior quality of woodwork, cost of boundary walls, canapies, internal roads, lifts etc.. The report given by S.K. Garg is not CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 72 of 96 ­ 73 ­ in accordance with construction made at the site. Report given by PW5 S.K. Srivastava is more in tune with actual construction at the site. S.K. Garg had failed even to see barsati floor about which S.K. Srivastava had made a mention. We should therefore accept the report and cost of construction given by S.K. Srivastava for the ground floor, first floor as well as barsati floor. The barsati floor was very much in existence since the same had been let out to Rajesh Jain by accused Sadhna Goel before valuation being done by S.K. Srivastava.

71. Ld. Counsel for the accused further assailed valuation of the household articles, as per observation memo Ex. PW2/B. She claimed that articles had been grossly over valued. She further submitted that it was duty of the CBI to have brought in an expert who would have accurately assessed value of the household articles. In the written submissions on internal page no. 12, she gave list of assets which had been CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 73 of 96 ­ 74 ­ overvalued. According to her, over valuation was to the extent of Rs. 47,400/­. I find myself in agreement with the submissions made by Ld. Counsel on this score. Some independent valuer should have been roped in to assess value of the goods. The value assigned in Ex. PW2/B by the I.O. was according to his lookout and assessment which could be arbitrarily. So sum of Rs. 47400/­ be reduced from the figure of alleged disproportionate assets.

72. It was also claimed by Ld. Counsel that IO had wrongly calculated the income earned by accused S.C. Goel from LIC policies. He had calculated them as Rs. 4000/­ instead of Rs. 40,000/­. Upon perusal of documents D­9 to D­14, I find her contention partly correct. As per admitted document Ex. P4/1 (D­10), Rs. 5000/­ had been paid back to accused S.C. Goel. As per admitted document Ex. P6/1 (D­12), Rs. 25,000/­ had been paid back to accused S.C. Goel. In document Ex. P­55 (D­14) which is a letter written by LIC to CBI, I find that CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 74 of 96 ­ 75 ­ attempt was made to change the figure from Rs. 5000/­ to Rs. 15000/­. This fact came to light after the figure of Rs. 15,000/­ was tried to be matched with Ex. P4/1 which is D­10. So the net effect is S.C. Goel was paid Rs. 30,000/­ but credit was given only for Rs. 4000/­ by the I.O. Let Rs. 26,000/­ be added to the income of the accused during the check period.

73. Ld. Counsel also submitted that interest received from Nashier Chit Fund was ignored by the I.O. Accused had examined DW4 Jage Ram, Managing Director of the said chit fund. He had proved a passbook Ex. DW4/A. It was in the name of accused Sadhna Goel. She was subscriber for a chit valued at Rs. 50,000/­ over period of 25 months. In all, she had received Rs. 8069/­ as dividend. No credit was given by the IO, so let this amount also be added to the income of the accused persons during the check period.

74. Ld. Counsel further submitted orally as well as in the written submissions that incomplete statement of account of CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 75 of 96 ­ 76 ­ S.C. Goel and Sadhna Goel in SBI Kamla Nagar, PNB Naharpur and State Bank of Travencore were filed by the IO to deprive benefit of interest to the accused. It was claimed that total interest from SBI Kamla Nagar was Rs. 7,710/­, total interest from PNB Naharpur was Rs. 18,542/­ and total interest from State Bank of Travencore was Rs. 14,485/­. I have checked up the calculations. In the charge sheet, IO has mentioned that interest from account no. 1190 at SBI Kamla Nagar was Rs. 5860/­. In fact, it should be Rs. 6523.47p. So Rs. 663.47 should be added to the income of the accused during check period. In the charge sheet IO has mentioned interest from account no. 11453 PNB Naharpur at Rs. 6871/­. Infact it should be Rs. 12432/­. So sum of Rs. 5561/­ should be added to the income of the accused during check period. In the charge sheet IO has mentioned interest from account no. 109 State Bank of Travencore at Rs. 11234/­. Infact there should be addition of Rs. 3251/­ as mentioned in the written CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 76 of 96 ­ 77 ­ submissions. So sum of Rs. 3251/­ should be added to the income of the accused during check period.

75. Ld. Counsel also challenged the valuation given to Gold and Silver articles recovered from the accused. According to the charge sheet, gold biscuits were found in the locker at PNB, Rohini which was in the name of the accused persons. According to charge sheet, it was worth Rs. 1,20,000/­. Cash was also recovered from the locker amounting to Rs. 3,10,000/­ and during house search Rs. 1,14,000/­ was recovered. As per written submissions, locker inspection­cum­ seizure memo Ex. PW3/A was prepared without authorization. According to the memo 348 grams of gold and gold biscuits were recovered from the locker. IO had not given any reason as to why 216 grams of gold was considered as assets acquired before the check period and why two gold biscuits were considered as assets acquired during check period. Accused Sadhna Goel had been given gift of gold and silver jewellery CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 77 of 96 ­ 78 ­ at the time of her marriage and she had also declared gold jewellery of 500 grams in her Wealth Tax Returns. Sadhna Goel had got converted 20 tolas of jewellery into gold biscuits. In Jastinder Singh's case Hon'ble High Court had held that evidence led by the appellant to substantiate that jewellery of his wife was stridhan was more acceptable.

76. Accused had the privileged of challenging contents of the charge sheet at stage of charge. They did not do so. They could have easily mentioned that the gold recovered was part of stridhan. As I observed earlier, they had expressed their no objection to framing of charge. The second opportunity for them was at the stage of recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. IO N. V.N. Krishnan had testified as PW17. It was put to him that accused Sadhna Goel had got converted 20 Tolas of gold into 2 biscuits of 10 Tolas each. IO responded by saying that no such plea was taken by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that accused had got converted CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 78 of 96 ­ 79 ­ 20 Tolas of gold into 2 biscuits. No evidence of any kind was led by the accused in support of this contention. Moreover, an impression was tried to be created as if Sadhna Goel had got her gold jewellery melted in form of gold biscuits. If we take a look at Ex.PW3/A which is locker inspection memo, we find that one gold biscuit had stamp of Bank of Switzerland on it and the other gold biscuit had engraving 'PLI'. There was not even a whisper that the gold and silver recovered was part of stridhan and had been received as a gift or 20 tolas of gold jewellery was got converted into gold biscuits. Wealth Tax Return was filed for assessment year 1988­89 and then for 1989­90 by the accused. Alongwith wealth tax return of 1988­89, a statement was filed which indicated gold and silver jewellery. There was no mention anywhere of any kind of gold biscuits. Hence, gold biscuits had no concern with the jewellery otherwise owned by accused Sadhna Goel.

77. Learned counsel submitted that Ex. P­16 was details of CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 79 of 96 ­ 80 ­ telephone bill paid by the accused S.C. Goel from 01.01.1999 to 11.01.2003. Last payment of Rs. 2705/­ was made on 24.03.2003 i.e. beyond check period. So we must reduce this amount from the total expenditure incurred by the accused.

78. Lastly Ld. Counsel assailed the sanction order which had been passed to prosecute the accused S.C. Goel. She claimed that PW­1 who was sanctioning authority admitted in his cross examination that he did not consider income of wife and children of the accused while granting sanction. In the sanction order Ex. PW1/A, value of gold jewellery was mentioned as Rs. 2,09,100/­. During course of cross examination, it emerged that no document mentioning 410 grams of gold jewellery worth Rs. 2,09,100/­ was produced before him. Further PW­1 claimed that he had perused copies of FIR, rukka, raid report and other documents before according sanction. In FIR it was mentioned that cash recovered was Rs. 4,10,000/­. In the sanction order, cash was CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 80 of 96 ­ 81 ­ mentioned as Rs. 4,28,335/­. This would indicate non application of mind. I am afraid, it is not so. FIR does mention recovery of cash Rs. 4,10,000/­. It has emerged from the charge sheet that Rs. 1,14,000/­ were recovered from house of the accused, Rs. 4335/­ were recovered from personal search and Rs. 3,10,000/­ were recovered from the locker. It does total upto Rs. 4,28,335/­. The sanction order Ex. PW1/A mentions value of household articles as Rs. 2,60,500/­. In the charge sheet, value was mentioned as Rs. 2,50,500/­. While PW­1 had claimed that FIR, rukka and other documents were sent to him, IO claimed that no such document was sent. According to learned advocate for the accused, it again reflects non­application of mind. There was no consistency in prosecution's case. While FIR said one thing, charge sheet said another and sanction order gives third version.

79. Reliance was placed on case titled as "Tirath Prakash CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 81 of 96 ­ 82 ­ Vs. State: 2001 Crl.L. J. 4028". Hon'ble High Court had held that in the said case authority failed to apply its mind to ascertain the correct amount of illegal gratification to decide the question of sanction and such failure was not a mere error or irregularity, but was serious omission amounting to illegality effecting validity of the sanction order.

80. In the said case accused was working in Foreign Post Office. Complainant approached him for getting four packets released. Accused asked for Rs.250/­ which would include custom duty amounting to Rs.60/­ and the balance was towards illegal gratification. Later on the amount was scaled down to Rs.200/­. Complaint was lodged and accused was apprehended. The sanctioning authority appeared as PW9. He admitted in cross­examination that amount of illegal gratification was Rs.138/­ though it was mentioned as Rs.140/­ in the sanction order made by him. Hon'ble High Court held CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 82 of 96 ­ 83 ­ that sanction was granted mechanically without application of mind. It rendered the sanction void ab initio. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, I had already observed earlier that there are differences in the value of household articles. There is also difference in quantity and value of gold jewellery.

81. Ld. PP Sh. Praneet Sharma on the other hand submitted that merely variation in figures in the sanction order, charge sheet and in evidence will not matter at all. He submitted that the new Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 took care of such contingencies. He relied upon judgments titled as " State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy : (2004) 7 SCC 763, State of M.P. Vs. Bhooraji & Ors: (2001) 7 SCC 679 and Kuldeep Sharma Vs. State of H.P. : Crl. Appeal No. 1362 of 2003.

82. Case of Tirath Prakash Vs. State relied upon by Ld. CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 83 of 96 ­ 84 ­ Counsel for the accused was registered under old act of 1947. His Lordship had held therein that provisions of earlier act of 1947 would be applicable and not that of 1988 Act. In the new Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 19 (3) reads as under:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)­

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub­section(1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;

(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 84 of 96 ­ 85 ­ omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;

(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act or any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining sub­section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.

Explanation.­­­­For the purposes of this section,­­­

(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;

(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 85 of 96 ­ 86 ­ of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.

83. So according to Mr. Praneet Sharma, validity of sanction cannot be disputed in the case in hand.

84. In case titled as State Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy, charge sheet was filed against the accused u/s 7, 3(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. Sanction to prosecute had been granted by Superintending Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board. The special judge held that Superintending Engineer was not competent to accord sanction and accused was entitled to be discharged. The matter reached Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"A combined reading of sub­section (3) and (4) makes the position clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code no finding, sentence and order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 86 of 96 ­ 87 ­ appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub­ section (1), unless in the opinion of that court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby".

85. Further down in the judgment reference was made to earlier case titled as State of M.P. Vs. Bhoorji & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because there was any omission, error or irregularity in matter or according sanction, it would not effect validity of proceedings unless it lead to failure of justice.

86. In the said case of State of M.P. Vs. Bhoorji, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with "failure of justice". It quoted from its earlier decision as:

"What is meant by 'failure of justice' and quite often the submission in a criminal court is accentuated with the said expression. Perhaps it CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 87 of 96 ­ 88 ­ is too pliable or facile an expression which could be fitted in any situation of a case. The expression 'failure of justice' would appear, sometimes, as an etymological chameleon (the simile is borrowed from Lord Diplock in Town Investments Ltd. V. Deptt. Of the Environment). The criminal court, particularly the superior court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage."

87. Now coming back to the case in hand, it is true that the facts which have emerged indicate that sanction was granted by the competent authority on the basis of material produced before it. The figure in the said material slightly vary with the figures quoted in the charge sheet and ultimate evidence. Now should it be termed as non application of mind resulting in invalidation of sanction? The answer has been given in a very recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 88 of 96 ­ 89 ­ "Kuldeep Sharma Vs. State of H.P. : Crl. Appeal No. 1368 of 2003 dt. 4.4.2011". The the said case two engineers Kuldeep Sharma and Rajender Sharma employed in Health Department of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh were prosecuted. After preliminary investigation FIR No. 5/84 was lodged. Investigation had revealed that muster roll No. 146 for the period 1.7.84 to 31.7.84 was manipulated and forged and wages were paid to workers whose names were entered therein fraudulently. Investigation also revealed that muster roll No. 230 for the period 1.9.84 to 30.9.84 was also forged and fabricated. However, sanction for prosecution was granted in respect of muster roll No. 146. Both accused were prosecuted and convicted. It was pleaded by the accused in Hon'ble Supreme Court that sanction had been granted by the State Government regarding muster roll No. 146 but charge was framed in respect of muster roll No. 230 and so conviction was vitiated. Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 89 of 96 ­ 90 ­ this submission in the following words:

This submission need not detain us much. As stated earlier, the appellant has been convicted for his role in relation to muster roll No. 146 and 230. Admittedly, while sanctioning prosecution the role of the appellant in relation to muster roll No. 146 has been adverted to. Therefore, his conviction cannot be held to be illegal only for the reason that no reference was made to muster roll No. 230 in the sanction order.

88. In case titled as Jagdish Vs. State of Chattisgarh a bribe of Rs. 5 lacs was demanded of which Rs. 50,000/­ was to be paid as first installment. Accused was caught red handed while accepting Rs. 50,000/­. Sanction order revealed that it was granted without application of mind as figure of Rs. 50,000/­ was added mechanically. Hon'ble Chattisgarh High CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 90 of 96 ­ 91 ­ Court held whether error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction would result in failure of justice is a matter to be considered at conclusion of trial.

89. Coming back to the case in hand, the sanctioning authority had before it the material. It had applied its mind and had granted sanction. Though it was admitted by the sanctioning authority that draft sanction order had been sent to it, it would not matter as it has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Damodaran :

1993 Supp. (1) SCC 221 and Indu Bhushan Vs. State of West Bengal : AIR 1958 SC 148. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the draft sanction order had been prepared by the police authority, it will not matter. Therefore, I hold that sanction to prosecute accused S.C. Goel did not suffer from any infirmity and the same is valid.

90. To sum up, I hold that prosecution has been successful CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 91 of 96 ­ 92 ­ in making out its case against the two accused persons. Accused S.C. Goel who was employed as Engineer in MCD had total income of Rs.1174186/­ during check period according to the charge sheet. From the said figure we reduce Rs.33,000/­ as rental income as Sadhna Goel had claimed rental income of her own in her income tax return for the year 1994­95. So after deducting Rs.33,000/­, we arrive at figure of Rs.11,41,186/­. Accused Sadhna Goel had filed income tax returns claiming income of Rs.1,17,370/­ during the check period. So the combined income of accused couple was Rs. 12,58,556/­. Further we must add some incomes of the accused which were ignored by the IO. Accused was paid Rs. 30,000/­ by the LIC, but was given credit only for Rs. 4000/­. So we must add Rs. 26,000/­ to his income. Accused Sadhna Goel had received dividend of Rs. 8069/­ from Nachier Chit Fund, but no credit was given by the IO. We must add this amount to her income. Accused Sadhna Goel received interest CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 92 of 96 ­ 93 ­ from SBI, Kamla Nagar Rs. 6523.47p. The said interest was short by Rs.663.47p. in the charge sheet. She had received interest from PNB Naharpur Rs. 12432/­, but was given credit for Rs. 6871/­ in the charge sheet. So the said interest was short by Rs. 5561/­. Similarly she had received interest from State Bank of Travencore. Rs. 11234/­ was mentioned in the charge sheet which was short by Rs. 3251/­. All these short amounts be added to income of the accused. If we total them up, we find income of the accused couple during check period as Rs.13,02,100.47p

91. According to charge sheet accused had made payment to MTNL of Rs.20891/­ during check period. According to learned counsel sum of Rs.2705/­ had been paid after the check period. If we take a look at Ex.P­16, we find that IO had not taken in consideration the said sum of Rs.2705/­ while calculating the expenditure during check period. So, this amount is not to be reduced from the sum total expenditure CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 93 of 96 ­ 94 ­ incurred by the accused persons during check period.

92. According to the charge sheet total assets of the accused Rs.23,97,278/­. According to Ld. Counsel there was over valuation to the extent of Rs. 47,400/­. I had already dealt with her averment earlier. Let this figure be deducted from the figure of total assets. After deducting this figure, we are left with the figure of Rs. 23,49,878/­. From this we reduce the assets prior to the check period amounting to Rs.140560/­. So, net assets of the accused during check period were Rs. 2349878/­.

93. Thus, we see that accused couple had combined income of Rs.13,02,101/­ and actual expenditure during the check period of Rs.8,25,313/­. Their likely savings should have been Rs.4,76,787/­.

94. According to the investigation he was found in possession of assets worth Rs.23,97,278/­. Net assets after calculation for the check period are Rs.23,49,878/­ of which CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 94 of 96 ­ 95 ­ property worth Rs.18,73,091/­ was disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife, second accused Sadhna Goel was just a house wife not employed nor engaged in business activities. She aided and abetted her husband S.C. Goel in commission of offence of criminal misconduct. As per Sec. 107 of the IPC a person who engages with another person in any conspiracy to commit an offence is said to abet commission of the said offence. The same is punishable u/s. 109 of the IPC. Accused Sadhna Goel according to income tax returns filed by her had total income of Rs.1,17,370/­. Property No. 154, Sector­7, Pocket­24, Block­F, measuring 91.81 sq. meters at Rohini, was bought in her name by accused S.C. Goel though she did not herself have means to acquire the same. There is no harm in husband buying a property in his wife's name but he should have sufficient legitimate funds at his disposal. The combined income of the couple was Rs. 13,02,100.47p. After deducting household expenses CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 95 of 96 ­ 96 ­ amounting to Rs.8,25,313/­, the legitimate savings would have been Rs.4,76,787/­. The actual assets were much more than this figure. Accused Sadhna Goel thus clearly abetted the offence of criminal misconduct committed by her husband S.C. Goel and by permitting purchase of the said immovable property in her name. She therefore stands convicted u/s. 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act. Accused S.C. Goel stands convicted u/s. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the P.C Act for the offence criminal misconduct of being found in possession of property grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income.

    Announced in open Court 
    on December 13, 2011                     ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
                                               Special Judge:CBI­01
                                              Central District. Delhi




                               CBI Vs.  Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg  96  of 96  
                                       ­ 97 ­ 

   IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: 

SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI­01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI CC No.57/06 RC : 66(A)/03 PS : CBI/ACB/ND CBI Vs. 1) SHEEL CHAND GOEL S/o. Late Shreeniwas Goel R/o. F­24/154, Sector­7 Rohini, New Delhi.

(Then posted as Jr. Engineer, MCD)

2) SADHNA GOEL W/o. Sheel Chand Goel R/o. F­24/154, Sector­7 Rohini, New Delhi.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

1. This Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.11 found accused Sadhna Goel guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13 (1)(e) of the P.C. Act and accused S.C. Goel u/s. 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of the P.C Act

2. I have heard Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for CBI and Ms. Rebecca John Ld. Counsel for convicts at length. I have CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 97 of 96 ­ 98 ­ also gone through the file and bunch of documents on court record.

3. Ms. John prayed for taking of lenient view. She submitted that convict S.C. Goel was a sickly person and was undergoing treatment for various diseases. His son is mentally retarded and requires proper attention. She submitted that the minimum sentence prescribed by law may be imposed.

4. On the other hand Mr. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP requested the court to take stringent view in the matter. He submitted that corruption in the society has reached alarming levels. He requested the court to impose a severe sentence and also confiscate the property acquired by the accused persons through corrupt means and misconduct.

5. I have given my considered thoughts to the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 98 of 96 ­ 99 ­ submissions made. Convict S.C. Goel was an engineer with MCD. He had been caught red handed while accepting bribe and was also convicted. Investigation into his property revealed the he possessed assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife second convict Sadhna Goel was mere a house wife having negligible income but managed to acquire property No. F­24/154, Sector­7, Rohini worth Lacs of rupees.

6. My Lord Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer in Som Prakash Vs. State of Delhi : AIR 1974 SC 989 held:

"Bribes are paid not only to get unlawful things done but to get lawful things done promptly since time means money."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Lal Vs. State of Bombay :AIR 1960 SC 961 had held:

CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 99 of 96 ­ 100 ­ " For a public servant to be guilty of corruption is a very serious matter and the Courts would not look upon it with undue leniency."

8. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, this court has found the convict couple to be in possession of assets grossly disproportionate to their known sources of income. Rather the precise amount of assets disproportionate was Rs.18,73,091/­.

9. The menace of corruption indeed has touched all time high level. Convict S.C. Goel who was employed with Municipal Corporation of Delhi thoroughly misused his office and amassed wealth and committed criminal misconduct. Because of people like him the entire city has been defaced. Not a brick can be laid without active blessings of MCD CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 100 of 96 ­ 101 ­ engineers. Recently a building collapsed in Uttam Nagar, Delhi taking four persons untimely to their graves. The raising of that building and subsequent digging of the adjacent plot would not had been possible without connivance of concerned MCD engineers. Last year a building collapsed in East Delhi killing almost 100 people. If convict has mentally challenged son, then interest of society should also be kept in mind and not given a go bye. We must balance interest of the society viz a viz interest of child of the convict. How many structures would have received his blessings only convict can tell. Nobody would have given money to him without receiving official favours. On one occasion standing counsel for MCD himself made a submission in Hon'ble Delhi High Court that if MCD starts taking action against its corrupt officials, not a single person would be left to carry out day to day functions of MCD. I am, therefore, not inclined to take lenient view in the matter and let off the convict persons CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 101 of 96 ­ 102 ­ lightly.

10. Keeping in mind the value of the disproportionate assets which was much more than his income, I sentence convict S.C. Goel to undergo four years R.I. u/s. 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act. As per section 16 of the P.C Act Court must keep in mind value of the property which convict had obtained by committing offence of criminal misconduct. I further direct him to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lac. In event of failure to pay fine, he shall be undergoing further S.I. of six months.

11. Regarding convict Sadhna Goel, since she is a lady and has to take care of mentally challenged son, I take lenient view in the matter. She had aided and abetted her husband in the offence of criminal misconduct. I sentence her to undergo two years R.I. u/s.109 IPC r/w. 13(2) r/w.13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act. I further direct her to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lac. In event of CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 102 of 96 ­ 103 ­ failure to pay fine, she shall be undergoing further S.I. of six months.

12. Benefit u/s. 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convicts for the period spent in custody, if any.

13. Mr. Praneet Sharma has prayed to the court that the property acquired by ill­legitimate means by the convicts should be confiscated. As per section 452 of the Cr.P.C. at the time when any trial is concluded Court can make such orders, as it thinks fit, for confiscation or disposal of property regarding which any offence was committed. In case titled as Mirza Iqbal Hussain Vs. U.P. : AIR 1983 SC 60, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held:

"The Prevention of Corruption Act being totally silent on the question of confiscation, the provisions of the Cr. P.C. would apply in their full CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 103 of 96 ­ 104 ­ force, with the result that the Court trying an offence under P.C. Act would have the power to pass an order of confiscation by reason of the provisions contained in Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. The order of confiscation cannot, therefore, be held to be without jurisdiction".

14. Sometimes back Hon'ble Supreme Court had also dealt with similar plea in case titled as K. Ponnuswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2001 S.C. 2464. In the said case the appellant was an MLA and Dy. Speaker of Assembly. He was also Education Minister in State of Tamil Nadu. Case was registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act. Trial Court convicted him and his other relatives under section 109 IPC and also under Sec. 13(2) r/w. sec. 13(1) (e) of the P.C Act. Trial Court in addition directed confiscation of his property. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 104 of 96 ­ 105 ­ trial court against the appellant public servant.

15. In the case in hand convict S.C. Goel and his wife Sadhna Goel acquired assets from the income generated by acts of criminal misconduct by convict S.C. Goel. If it would be in fitness of things, the immovable property No. F­24/154, Sector­7, Rohini is confiscated and accused deprived of its ownership and usage. Otherwise, convict would be at liberty to enjoy fruits of his illegal activities after carrying out his sentence. I, therefore, order confiscation of property No. F­24/154, Sector­7, Rohini, to the State. CBI shall be taking steps to take over the said property.

Announced in open Court on December 14, 2011. ( PRADEEP CHADDAH ) Special Judge:CBI­01 Central District. Delhi CBI Vs. Sheel Chand Goel etc. pg 105 of 96