Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Brij Pal Singh Page No. 1 Of 73 on 19 March, 2018

     IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, SPECIAL
       JUDGE (P.C.ACT), CBI­08, CENTRAL DISTRICT
               TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


CC No.                   :    145/15 (New No. 532269/16)
RC No.                   :    9(A)/2005
PS                       :    CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s                      :    Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of 
                              Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

CNR No. ­ DLCTO1­000209­2007

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Versus

Brij Pal Singh 
S/o. Late Sh. Murari Lal 
R/o C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi


            Date of FIR                            :  01.02.2005
            Date of Institution                    :  03.04.2007
            Arguments concluded on                 :  17.03.2018
            Date of Judgment                       :  19.03.2018

J U D G M E N T


1.

Accused Brij Pal Singh has been charged and tried   U/s   13(2)   r/w   Section   13(1)(e)   of   the   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 1 of 73

Prosecution Case (emanating from the chargesheet)

2. FIR in this case was registered on 01.02.2005 on the basis of source information.   Accused was working as   an   Executive   Engineer,   Ward   No.   2   Yamuna   Vihar, MCD,   Shahdara   (North)   Zone,   New   Delhi   at   that   time. According   to   the   information   received   by   CBI,   accused joined MCD as Junior Engineer in 1979 and was promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer in 1989 on ad­hoc basis and   in   1989   on   regular   basis.     Accused   was   further promoted as Executive Engineer on 07.06.1999 on ad­hoc basis and was working as such since then and his basic pay   at   the   time   of   registration   of   FIR   was   Rs.   11,625/­. Accused   was  married  on  20.05.1978  to  Smt. Ishwar   Kali and has three sons namely Deepak Kumar, Sachin Kumar and Arpan Kumar.   Deepak Kumar has completed his B. Tech, while other two sons were continuing their studies at the time of filing of the chargesheet.  

Accused was found in possession of following assets in his own names or in the name of his family members IMMOVABLE ASSETS

(i) C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar - acquired in the name of wife of accused

(ii) C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar ­ acquired in the name of wife of accused.

(iii) C­498, Gokulpuri - acquired in the name of wife of accused CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 2 of 73

(iii) C­499, Yamuna Vihar - acquired in the name of accused himself

(iv) Property No. 155, Industrial Estate, Delhi - acquired in the name of two sons of accused namely Deepak Kumar and Sachin Kumar MOVABLE ASSETS

(a) One Maruti car bearing registration number DL­8CD­1931

(b) One Maruti car bearing registration number DL­2CK­0459

(c) One Maruti Zen car bearing registration number HRS­9900

3. In   addition,   it   was   revealed   that   accused   has paid   a   total   premium   of   Rs.   1,26,540/­   towards   his   LIC policies and also made investment in NSC/PPF/KVP in his own name and also in the names of his family members. Accused is also stated to have spent huge amount towards the education of his children.   Accused has earned a net income   of   Rs.   22,94,115/­   during   his   entire   service   and taking his expenditure, including unverifiable expenses, as 1/3   of   his   income,   he   was   found   to   be   in   possession   of assets   worth   Rs.   1,33,91,110/­   which   are   highly disproportionate to his known source of income.  During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that a health centre in the name of Power Station Gym was being run from the 1st  & 2nd  Floor premises of property No. C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar and a photo studio by the name of Krishna Studio was also being run from the aforesaid premises.  

4. Investigation revealed that accused purchased CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 3 of 73 property  No.   C­498, Gokulpuri, Delhi, a 25 sq. yard. plot under jhuggi jhopri scheme with a room constructed on it from Sh. Gulab Singh S/o Sh. Kishori Lal in the name of his wife Smt. Ishwar Kali for Rs. 5,000/­ vide agreement to sell and   GPA   dated   16.12.1980.     Money   receipt   of   the   said transaction stands registered on 19.12.1980 in the office of Sub­Registrar­IV,   Delhi.     Property   No.   C­499,   Gokulpuri, Delhi, a 25 sq. yard plot under jhuggi jhopri scheme with one room set,  was purchased from Sh. Daya Chand S/o Sh. Tara Chand in the name of accused for Rs. 10,000/­ through   agreement   to   sell   and   GPA   notorized   on 21.05.1990  in  the presence of witness Roshan Lal.   The cost   of   above   two   mentioned   properties   stood   at   Rs. 15,000/­.     At   the   time   of   search,   it   was   found   to   be  two storey   structure   and   hence   got   evaluated   by   a   valuation officer of Income Tax Department.  The cost of construction of properties No. C­498 and C­499 was assessed out as Rs. 47,000/­ and thus the total cost of the construction of these properties comes out to Rs. 62,000/­.

5. Property No. C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi was purchased for Rs.1,00,000/­ on 22.07.1986 in the name of Smt. Ishwar Kali from Sh. Kesho Ram S/o Sh. Samman Lal vide   registered   documents.     On   this   plot,   a   three­storey house was constructed where the accused resides with his CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 4 of 73 family.   The   plot   was   converted   into   a   free­hold   property vide conveyance deed dated 20.05.1993 against payment of   Rs.   26,599/­   to   DDA.   This   property   was   also   got evaluated by the Income Tax Department and the cost of construction was valued as Rs.11,67,700/­.  Thus, the cost of   construction   of   this   property   comes   to   Rs.12,67,700/­ including   Rs.   26,599/­   which   was   paid   to   DDA   for conversion of the property.

6. Property no. C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi was purchased   in   1990   for   Rs.   80,000/­   in   the   name   of   Smt. Ishwar Kali from Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma and his wife Smt. Krishna   Devi   Sharma   vide   agreement   to   sell,   GPA,   SPA and money receipt executed on 30.04.1990.  This is a three storey property and the cost of construction as evaluated by the   Income   Tax  Department is  Rs.3,44,700/­. Hence, the total cost of this property worked out to Rs. 4,24,700/­.

7. Investigation further revealed that property no. 155,   Functional   Industrial   Estate,   Patparganj,   Delhi   was purchased   in   the   name   of   Deepak   Kumar   and   Sachin Kumar, two sons of accused Brij Pal Singh on 07.05.2003 from Smt. Rekha Singhal and Sh. Gourav Aggarwal against payment   of   Rs.   13,96,000/­   vide   agreement   to   sell   and purchase   executed   in   the   O/o   Sub­Registrar­VIII,   District CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 5 of 73 East, LM­I, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The buyers have paid Rs. 1,00,520/­ as stamp duty for purchase of the said property. Thus,   the   total   cost   of   the   property   comes   to Rs.14,96,520/­.

8. At   the   conclusion   of   investigation,   CBI concluded that the accused and his family members had a total   income   of   Rs.   28,68,108.60,   expenditure   of   Rs. 23,62,758.53 and likely savings of Rs. 5,05,350.07 only and against   the   said   likely   savings   of   Rs.   5,05,350.07,   the assets, both movable and immovable, acquired during the check   period   in   the   name   of   the   accused,   his   wife   Smt. Ishwar Kali and his two sons Sh. Deepak and Sh. Sachin stood at Rs. 42,92,590.13, which were disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 37,87,240.06 which the accused could not satisfactorily account for.  It is pertinent to mention here that chech  period   in  this case was the entire service span of accused   starting   from   the   year   1979   till   the   date   of registration of this case as there were allegations that the accused   joined   MCD   in   the   year   1979   and   he   started amassing assets since the very beginning of his service.  

9. Accused alongwith his family used to live at his ancestral   house   in   his   Village/Post,   Tikri,   District   Meerut before joining MCD.  As accused was the only child of his CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 6 of 73 parents,   he   was   heir   to   the   said   property.     Accused disposed of his ancestral house in 1983 for Rs. 50,000/­ to Sh. Mange Ram, who was his neighbor.

10. Before   joining   MCD,   accused   worked   for   M/s. Jain Associates, Delhi from May 1978 to January 1979 at a monthly salary of Rs.1500/­ per month. This company was engaged in survey work. The total income of the accused for the said period comes to Rs. 12,000/­.   Accused also worked   as   JE   in   Post   and   Telegraph,   Mumbai   from February 1979 to June 1979 on the basic pay of Rs. 425/­ and his gross emoluments during the period was Rs. 760/­ per month.   Accused was also in service of P & T over 4 months and thus, his total salary for the said period was Rs. 3,040/­.     Accused  paid  Rs.100/­   per   month   towards  food and   lodging   during   his   stay   at   Mumbai.   He   would   have spent at the same rate during the period of his service in Delhi.   His   total   earnings   from   his   service   in   Delhi   and Mumbai   amounts   to   Rs.15,040/­   and   after   deducting   his expenditure of Rs. 1200/­ for 12 months at the rate of Rs. 100/­ per month, his likely savings would be Rs.13,840. The inventory   prepared   at   the   time   of   search   has   been scrutinized   and   the   items   acquired   before   check   period have been noted as assets before the check period.  Thus, both movable and immovable assets of the accused at the CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 7 of 73 beginning of check period are as follows:

Assets at the beginning of check period

(i) Ancestral house at Village Tikri, Meerut

(ii) Savings of Rs. 13,840/­

(iii) House­hold articles a. Sofa set and centre table - 1978, Marriage Gift.

b. One Gold mangalsutra - 15 gms, 1978, Marriage Gift. c. One Gold Ring - 2 gms, 1978, Marriage Gift. d. Two paid of Silver Pajeb and Tagdi - 350 gms, Marriage Gift.

e. Wife's Jewelry given by her parents and his parents.

Assets at the close of the check period

11. Accused Brij Pal Singh and his family members were found to be in possession of the following immovable and   movable   properties   on   the   day   of   search   on 02.02.2005.

Immovable Properties

(a) C­3/58­A, Yamuna Vihar (Plot) purchased on 22.07.1986 in the name Rs. 1,00,000.00 of Mrs. Ishwar Kali W/o Sh.Brij Pal Singh Payment to DDA for conveyance deed dated 20.05.1993 Rs. 26,599.00 Cost   of   construction   as   was   worked   out   by   the   Income   Tax Rs.11,67,000.00 Department

(b) C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar in the name of Mrs. Ishwar Kali purchased on Rs. 80,000.00 30.04.1990 Cost of construction as worked out by the Income Tax Department Rs. 3,44,700.00

(c) C­498,   Gokulpuri   in   the   name   of   Mrs.   Ishwar   Kali   purchased   on Rs. 5,000.00 16.12.1980 (25 Sq.Yards) with one room

(d) C­499,   Gokulpuri   in  the  name  of  Sh.  Brij  Pal   Singh  purchased  on Rs. 10,000.00 21.05.1990 (25 Sq.Yards) with one room and kitchen.

             Cost of Construction on C­498 and C­499                                             Rs. 47,000.00
   (e)       Property no. 155, Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi                              Rs. 13,96,000.00
             Stamp Duty                                                                          Rs. 1,00,520.00



            Movable Properties
    (f)      Maruti   Car   No.   DL­2CK­0459   in   the   name   of   Sh.Brij   Pal   Singh     Rs. 2,10,000.00

purchased second hand on 22.02.2001 from Sh.Roshan Lal CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 8 of 73

(g) Motor Cycle No. DL­5S­S390 (Bajaj Pulsar) in the name of Sachin Rs. 55,000.00 Kumar purchased with finance of Rs.20,000/­ and paying Rs.35,000/­ from A/c in PNB, Yamuna Vihar in 2003

(h) Maruti   Car   No.   DL­3CP­2744   in   the   name   of   Deepak   Kumar Rs. 1,00,000.00 purchased from Sh. R.S.Arora in 2001

(i) Balance in SB­46051 in the name of Sachin Kumar, PNB, Yamuna Rs. 14,696.50 Vihar

(j) Balance in SB­39833 in the name of Deepak Kumar, PNB, Yamuna Rs. 3,433.13 Vihar

(k) Balance   in   CD­3522   in   the   name   of   Power   Station   Gym   PNB, Rs. 62,340.00 Yamuna Vihar

(l) Balance in PPF A/c No. 10009512 in the name of Sh. Brij Pal Singh, Rs. 84,595.00 Post Office, Krishna Nagar

(m) Balance in SB­10086515788 in the name of Sh.Brij Pal Singh in SBI, Rs. 28,631.00 Gokulpuri, Delhi.

(n) Balance   in   CD­2593   in   the   name   of   Sonu   Embroidery   in   SBI, Rs. 13,387.50 Gokulpuri, Delhi with Prop. Smt. Ishwar Kali

(o) Balance in CA­1048 in the name of Krishna Studio in SBI Gokulpuri, Rs. 2,968.00 Delhi with Prop. Smt. Ishwar Kali

(p) ICICI Bonds (2003) Rs. 30,000.00

(q) Household effects  (considering the value of  revolver  as Rs.8,991/­ Rs. 2,73,056.00 and not Rs. 30,000/­ as mentioned in the inventory

(r) Value of inventory at Krishna Studio Rs. 24,364.00

(s) Value of inventory at Power Station Gym Rs. 1,26,440.00 (The Cost of Health Machine is taken as Rs.76,440/­ as per the bill. The same is shown as Rs.1,25,000/­ in the inventory) TOTAL Rs. 43,06,430.13 Income and other receipts during the check period

12. Accused Brij Pal Singh and his family members had the following income during the check period.

1. Salary Income for the period 12.06.1979 to 02.02.2005 (Salary for Rs. 19,14,502.60 May   1995   to   May   1996   has   been  calculated  on   Average   basis amounting   to   Rs.60,061.00   as   the   same   is   awaited   from   the Department

2. LIC Benefits Rs. 73,772.00

3. Income by sale of Jewelry of Mrs. Ishwar Kali to Laxmi Jewellers , Rs. 1,59,524.00 22, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi during 1987­88

4. Interest income from FDs, SB Account etc.:­ a Interest income from SB­46051 Rs. 4923.00 b Interest income from SB­39833 Rs. 3972.00 c Interest income from PPF A/c No. 10009512 Rs. 19,595.00 d Interest income from 2 ICICI bonds held on 2000­2003 Rs. 3645.00 e Interest income from 6 ICICI bonds purchased in 2003 Rs. 2180.00

5. Income from Power Station Gym as per IT Return:

(a) 2003­2004 and 2004­2005 AY Rs. 2,05,995.00

6. Survival   Benefits   under   policy   no.   251005084,   252339664   and Rs. 1,10,000.00 47842322

7. Sale of ancestral house Rs. 50,000.00 CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 9 of 73

8. Total loan given by Sh. Roshan Lal to his daughter Smt. Ishwar Kali Rs. 2,20,000.00 W/o Sh.Brij Pal Singh

9. Gift given by Sh. Roshan Lal to his daughter Smt. Ishwar Kali W/o Rs. 1,00,.000.00 Sh.Brij Pal Singh TOTAL Rs. 28,68,108.60 Expenditure during the check period

13. Accused Brij Pal Singh and his family members incurred the following expenditure during the check period:­

1. Household expenditure (1/3 of gross income ­ income tax i.e, Rs.

25,08,896.31 - Rs.1,56,042.70) Rs. 7,84,284.53

2. Educational Expenditure

(a) B.Tech 1st Year 2004­2005 Sachin Kumar Rs. 58,500.00

(b) B.Tech Academic Year 1999­03 of Deepak Kumar at DCE Rs. 32,270.00

(c) School fees for three sons Rs. 97,040.00

3. LIC Premium paid:

(a) Policy no. 047842322 in the name of Sh.Brij Pal Singh Rs. 1,28,700.00

(b) Policy no. 252339664 in the name of Sh.Brij Pal Singh Rs. 61,700.00

(c) Policy no. 253079478 in the name of Sh.Brij Pal Singh Rs. 27,906.00

(d) Policy no. 251701772 in the name of Sh.Brij Pal Singh Rs. 55,674

(e) Policy   no.   111801192   in   the   name   of   Sh.Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 79,080.00 27.02.1993 @ Rs.6590 yearly

(f) Policy no. 121111300 in the name of Smt. Ishwar Kali Rs. 23,212.00

(g) Policy   no.   330336146   in   the   name   of   Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 41,972.00 05.11.1998 @ Rs.5996/­ yearly

(h) Policy   No.   111486716   in   the   name   of   Sh.   Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 67,262.00 28.11.1992 @ Rs.5174/­ yearly

(i) Policy   No.   251005084   in   the   name   of   Sh.   Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 1,22,340.00 28.04.1993 @ Rs.10,195/­ yearly

(j) Policy   No.   110428327   in   the   name   of   Sh.   Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 24,320.00 28.06.1986 @ Rs.1280/­ yearly

(k) Policy   No.   111268090   in   the   name   of   Sh.   Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 84630.00 28.10.1991 @ Rs.6045/­ yearly

(l) Policy   No.   110102446   in   the   name   of   Smt.   Ishwar   Kali   dated Rs. 1,15,830.00 28.02.1987 @ Rs.3217.50/­ Half Yearly

(m) Policy   No.   110106064   in   the   name   of   Sh.   Brij   Pal   Singh   dated Rs. 18,428.00 28.08.1988 @ Rs.1084/­ yearly

4. Medical Insurance Premium Rs. 6523.00

5. Municipal Taxes

(a) Property No. C­3/58A Yamuna Vihar Rs. 2,19,018.00

(b) Property No. C­4/157 Yamuna Vihar Rs. 25,500.00

6. Repayment of Educational Loan A/c No. 225/2003 by Mrs. Ishwar Rs. 1,37,700.00 Kali from CA­2593, PNB, Yamuna Vihar (The loan of Rs.5.00 lacs was   taken   by   Sh.   Deepak   Kumar   in   2003   after   doing   B­Tech   for higher studies in USA)

7. Expenditure on mobile no. 20037370 in the name of  Brij Pal Singh Rs. 9337.00

8. Payment of margin money towards purchase of Maruti Car from M/s. Rs. 60,000.00 T.R.Sawhney Motors

9. Telephone bills including registration amount. Rs. 76,532.00                                                                                           TOTAL Rs. 23,62,758.53 "

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 10 of 73

14. Thus,   the   assets   acquired   during   the   check period amounted to  Rs. 43,064,430.13 minus Rs.13,840/­ (savings at the start of check period), i.e. Rs. 42,92,590.13. Hence,   the   accused   was   charged   U/s   13(2)   r/w   Section 13(1)(e)   of   the   Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 as he was found to be having a total income of Rs. 28,68,108.60, expenditure of Rs. 23,62,758.53 and likely savings of Rs. 5,05,350.07 only, the total assets of Rs. 42,92,590.13 of the accused   and   his   family   members   were   found   to   be disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 37,87,240.06 from the known sources of income of the accused.

15. Accused   pleaded   not   guilty   and   claimed   trial. Accused   admitted   following   documents   U/s   294   Cr.P.C. vide his statement recorded on 17.08.2010 and 03.12.2013.

1. Ex.   P1   (D9)   ­   Letter   dated   07.04.2005   of   Sh.   Vijay   Singh Manager, Yamuna Vihar Delhi. 

2. Ex. P2 (D10) ­ Statement of loan account No. 225/2003 in the name of Deepak Kumar.

3. Ex. P3 (D11) - Statement of SB account No. 46051 of Sh. Sachin Kumar for the period 25.01.2003 to 02.02.2005.

4. Ex.  P4 (D12)  - Statement of  account No. CD 3522 in the name of M/s Power Station Gym for the period 06.01.2003 to 28.01.2005.

5. Ex. P5 (D13) - Statement of SB account No. 398333 in the name of Sh. Deepak Kumar for the period 04.07.2001 to 02.02.2005.

6. Ex. P6 (D14) - Certified copy of property documents from pages 1 to 26 in the name of Smt. Ishwar Kali bearing property No. C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 11 of 73

7. Ex.  P7 (D15)  - Letter No.  LIC/25H/INV.  Dated 11.04.2005 from   Sr.   Branch   Manager,   LIC   Branch   Office   No.   2,   Lohiya   Nagar, Ghaziabad alongwith premium history in respect of policy No. 047842322, 252339664, 253079478, 251701772.

8. Ex.   P8   (D21)   -   Letter   dated   09.04.2005   of   Sh.   Rakesh Bhardwaj, Sr. GM, TR Sawhney Motors, East Gokulpuri, Wazirabad, Delhi alongwith certified copy of cash receipt No. 2335 dated 27.01.2005 for Rs. 49,000/­ and cash receipt No. 2243 dated 17.01.2005 for Rs. 11,000/­.

9. Ex. P9 (D23) - Statement of account CD No. 2593 of Sonu Embroidery for the period 01.09.1999 to 28.02.2005.

10.  Ex. P10 (D24) - Certified copy of A/c opening form of SB­ 46051 of Sh. Sachin Kumar.

11. Ex.   P11   (D28)   -   Letter   dated   10.06.2005   from   Branch Manager, LIC Branch Unit No. 11F, NDSE Part­II, New Delhi in respect of policy   No.   111801192   and   111486716   alongwith   policy   and   premium details.

12. Ex.   P12   (D29)   -   Letter   dated   11.06.2005   from   Sh.   M.   L. Khunger,  Branch  Manager,   LIC  Branch   Unit   No.  311,  Rajender   Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi in respect of policy No. 110428327 alongwith policy and premium details.

13. Ex.   P13   (D34)   -   Letter   dated   14.06.2005   from   Branch Manager,   LIC   Branch   Unit   No.   11T,   Community   Centre,   Naryana   Vihar, New Delhi in respect of policy No. 330336146 alongwith premium details.

14. Ex.   P14   (page   10   of   D38)   -   Letter   dated   09.11.2005   of Infotech Ltd, Navi Mumbai alongwith information about ICICI bonds held by Sh. Brij Pal Singh.

15. Ex. P16 (D52) - Letter dated 24.02.2006 of MLO, IP Estate, New Delhi alongwith the certified copies of registration files in respect of vehicle Maruti Zen No. DL 2CK 0459.

16. Ex. P15 (D41) - Letter dated 16.11.2005 of Sh. S. K. Khari, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Nave Shahdara, Delhi regarding the premium paid towards the insurance of vehicle No. DL 2CK CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 12 of 73 0459.

17. Ex.   P17   (D60)   -   Letter   dated   09.10.2006   from   LIC   Laxmi Nagar, Delhi regarding survival benefits in respect of policy No. 251005084.

18. Ex.   P18   (D61)   -  Letter   dated  19.10.2006   from   Sr.   Branch Manager,   LIC   Janpath,   alongwith   status   report   and   premium   details   of policy No. 74860874 favouring Sh. Brij Pal Singh.

19. Ex.   P19   (D63)   -   Letter   dated   13.02.2006   from   LIC,   Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad in respect of policy No. 47842322 and 252339664.

20. Ex. P20 (D72) - Certified copy of account opening form and statement of account of SB No. 10086515788 in the name of Brij Pal Singh maintained at SBI, Gokulpuri.

21. Ex. P21 (D78) - File containing GPA, Agrement to Sell and Receipt dated 15.12.1980 regarding sale of property No. C­498, Gokulpuri to Smt. Ishwar Kali and GPA, Deed of Agreement and money receipt dated 21.05.1990 regarding sale of property No. C­499, Gokulpuri to Sh. Brij Pal Singh.

22. Ex.   P23   (D79)   -   File   containing   conveyance   deed   dated 20.05.1993   and   GPA,   Money   receipt,   affidavit,   deed   of   will   and   deed   of agreement to sell dated 22.07.1986 pertaining to plot No. C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.

23. Ex. P22 (D80) - Bills of Laxmi Jewellers, 22 Central Market, Lajpat Nagar for the period 1986 to 1988.

24. Ex.   P24   (D86)   -   Premium   receipt   No.   59597   dated 29.12.2004 in respect of policy No. 111486716 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

25. Ex.   P25   (D87)   ­   Premium   receipt   No.   50630   dated 25.11.2004 in respect of policy No. 330336146 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

26. Ex.   P26   (D88)   ­   Premium   receipt   No.   44848   dated 20.09.2004 in respect of policy No. 47842322 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

27. Ex. P27 (D91) ­   Premium   receipt   No.   43792   dated 21.10.2004 in respect of policy No. 111268090 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

28. Ex. P28 (D92) ­   Premium   receipt   No.   42816­01   dated 14.10.2004 in respect of policy No. 110106064 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 13 of 73

29. Ex. P29 (D93) ­   Premium   receipt   No.   39252   dated 31.08.2004 in respect of policy No. 252339664 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

30. Ex. P30 (D94) ­   Premium   receipt   No.   39254   dated 31.08.2004 in respect of policy No. 25307948 favouring Brij Pal Singh.

31. Ex.   P31   (D105)   -   LIC   Policy   receipt   dated   11.02.2003 relating to policy No. 111801192 in the name of Brij Pal Singh.

32. Ex.   P32   (D109)   -   ICICI   Bond   certificate  No.   61662   in   the name of Brij Pal Singh.

33. Ex. P33 (D37) - Certified copy of account opening form and statement of account in respect of account No. CA2593 in the name of M/s Sonu Embroidery maintained in PNB, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.

34. Ex. P34 (D118) - Certified copy of statement of account No. CD2593 in the name of M/s Sonu Embroidery.

35. Ex. P35 (D119) - Certified copy of statement of account No. SB­ 46051 in the name of Sachin Kumar.

16. Thereafter,   trial   commenced   and   prosecution examined as many as 38 witnesses.   After completion of prosecution   evidence,   statement   of   accused   U/s   313 Cr.P.C.   was   recorded,   wherein   accused   denied   all   the incriminating   evidence   and   circumstances   against   him. Accused chose to lead defence evidence and examined as many as 32 witnesses including DW26 Sachin Kumar, son of   the   accused   and   DW31   Sriniwas,   brother­in­law   of accused.  During defence evidence, accused made effort to bring   Income   Tax   Return   of   M/s   Sonu   Embroidery. However,   complete   Income   Tax   Return   of   M/s   Sonu Embroidery could not be brought on record.  The deposition CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 14 of 73 of relevant defence witnesses will be considered in the later part of the judgment, wherever necessary. 

17. I have heard Sh. Mohd Muqeem Ld Sr. PP for CBI and Sh. Harsh K. Sharma, Ld counsel for the accused at   length   and   carefully   considered   the   rival   submissions. The   written   submissions   filed   by   Ld   PP   as   well   as   Ld counsel for the accused have been meticulously perused. At the outset, brief narration of the facts/documents proved by the prosecution witnesses are necessary as follows:

18. CW1 Sh. Rajnath Bhatt, Manager (Admn.), LIC, Dilshad   Garden   brought   the   original   ledger   sheets pertaining   to   policies   No.   111268090   and   110106064 issued in the name of accused containing the details of the dates   of   premium   paid   by   the   policy   holder   since   the inception till the computerization of records.  Copies of the policies   were   taken   on   record   as   Ex.   CW1/B   and   Ex.

CW1/C   after   seeing   the   original.     CW1   also   brought   the computerized   record   pertaining   to   both   the   above   said policies No. 111268090 and 110106064 and also for policy No.   110102446   issued   in   the   name   of   Smt.   Ishwar   Kali. CW1   also   produced the  certificate  U/s  65B   of the  Indian Evidence Act Ex. CW1/G in respect of the record/printout produced by him in the court.  According to CW1, the total CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 15 of 73 amount   paid   by   the   accused   in   respect   of   policy   No. 111268090 till February 2005 was Rs. 95,401.50 while the total   amount   paid   by   the   accused   towards   policy   No. 110106064   till   February   2005   was   Rs.   22,958/­.     CW1 further   deposed   that   the   total   amount   paid   in   respect   of policy No. 110102446 Ex. CW1/F from 1997 till 02.02.2005 was Rs. 43,344.30.  In cross examination, CW1 was shown a letter Mark CW1/1 given by the then Sr. Branch Manager of LIC to Inspector S. Q. Ali whereupon CW1 admitted that as per  this letter, three installments of money back were paid to Smt. Ishwar Kali and these installments were due on 28.02.1992, 28.02.1997 and 28.02.2002.  However, the amount stated to have been received by Smt. Ishwar Kali on   account   of   installments   of   money   back   could   not   be proved in accordance with law as the concerned Sr. Branch Manager,   the   author   of   the   letter   Mark   CW1/1,   was   not examined.

19. PW1 Sh. D. S. Yadav, who was posted as Chief Vigilance Officer, Northern Railway, HQs, Vigilance Branch, New   Delhi   in   the  year   2005,  accompanied  the  CBI  team during the searches that were conducted at premises No. C­4/157,   Yamuna   Vihar,   New   Delhi   on   02.02.2005   and 04.02.2005.  PW1 proved the search list Ex. PW1/A which was prepared at the time of search of aforesaid premises CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 16 of 73 on   02.02.2005.   PW1   also   deposed   about   various documents which were seized during the said search.  PW1 further deposed that one observation memo Ex. PW1/L was also   prepared   at   the   time   of   search   of   the   aforesaid premises.  Similarly, PW1 deposed about the search list Ex. PW1/M   and   observation   memo   Ex.   PW1/O,   which   were prepared at the time of search at ground floor premises No. C­1/157 on 04.02.2005.

20. PW2   Sh.   Roop   Chand,   who   was   posted   as Deputy   Post   Master   at   Krishna   Nagar   Head   Post   Office, Delhi in the year 2005, was shown and identified the letter dated   11.04.2005  Ex.  PW2/A  written by  the  witness  vide which   he   had   furnished   the   information   regarding   PPF account   of   the   accused   and   had   forwarded   the   certified copy of PPF ledger dated 06.10.1990 to 04.02.2005 to the CBI.   A copy of the ledger was exhibited as Ex. PW2/B. According   to   PW2,   copy   of   the   ledger   Ex.   PW2/B   was certified  by the then Assistant Post Master (Counter) Sh. Kanhaiya Lal  and the witness identified the signatures of Sh. Kanhaiya Lal on the said copy.   In cross examination, PW2   deposed   that   as   per   the   above   PPF   ledger,   total subscription  amount deposited in the above account was Rs.   65,000/­   and   total   interest   accrued   thereon   was   Rs. 19,595/­.  

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 17 of 73

21. PW3   Sh.   S.   K.   Ahuja   who   was   posted   as Branch Manager in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd in the year   2005   forwarded   the   certified   copies   of   two   medical claim policies in the name of Smt. Ishwar Kali bearing No. 521   of   2003   and   569   of   2005   to   the   CBI   vide   letter   Ex. PW3/A.   PW3 further identified the certified copies of the medical claim policies attached to the letter Ex. PW3/A and they were proved as Ex. PW3/B­colly.   This witness was not cross examined by the accused.

22. PW4 Sh. T. Nagesh, who was posted as LDC in the building department of MCD, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the year 2006, prepared the salary details of accused from June 2000 to April 2002 and provided the same to the CBI vide letter dated 12.12.2006.   The salary details alongwith the   letter   were   proved   as   Ex.   PW4/A­colly.     As   per   the depositions   of   PW4,   the   total   gross   salary   paid   to   the accused from June 2000 to April 2002 comes out to Rs. 4,74,772/­, the income tax deducted from the salary during the   aforesaid   period   comes   out   to   Rs.   38,780/­   and   net salary   paid   to   the   accused   during   the   said   period   is   Rs. 3,54,917/­.  In cross­examination, PW4 could not confirm if the original pay bill registers were mandatorily required for preparing  the  above said salary details.   PW4 voluntarily deposed that he prepared the above salary details on the CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 18 of 73 basis of Establishment Check Register (ECR).

23. PW5 Sh. Sameer Sahni deposed that he is one of   the   Directors   of   M/s   JDS   Apparels   Pvt.   Ltd   and   a showroom of M/s JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd at Central Market, Lajpat   Nagar   was   operated   by   M/s   Ritu   Wears.     PW5 further deposed that in the year 2005, the CBI officials had visited the aforesaid showroom of the company and on their asking, PW5 handed over to them copy of one invoice after getting the same copied from the original and duly attested it after comparing the same with the original by putting his signatures thereon.  PW5 further submitted that he handed over   the   invoices   to   the   CBI   vide   covering   letter   dated 12.04.2005   and   this   letter   alongwith   the   invoices   were exhibited   as   Ex.   PW5/A.     PW5   deposed   that   as   per   the invoice Ex. PW5/A, customer had purchased two shirts and a tie for a total price of Rs. 2,185/­, discount of Rs. 219/­ was given and an amount of Rs. 1,966/­ was charged and received from the customer in cash.  PW5 further deposed that the company retains the original invoices for a period of five   years   only   whereafter   the   same   are   destroyed.     In cross­examination, PW5 deposed that from the Ex. PW5/A­ colly, it cannot be ascertained as to who made the payment against the articles purchased vide this invoice.  The copy of the invoice Ex. PW5/A has been carefully perused.  The CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 19 of 73 same   does  not   mention the name  of  the  accused  or  the person   by   whom   payment   against   the   articles  purchased was made.  Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,966/­ cannot be added in the expenditure of the accused.  

24. PW6  Sh. H. P. S. Saran, who was posted as Director,   Vigilance   in   MCD,   Delhi   in   December,   2005, forwarded   salary   statement   of   accused   for   the   period 12.06.1979   to   15.04.1986,   01.06.1996   to   07.06.1999, 01.06.1999   to   30.05.2000,   01.05.2002   to   08.05.2003, 09.05.2003 to 28.02.2004 vide letter Ex. PW6/A.  PW6 has clarified that the salary details D45 covers the entire period from 01.06.1999 to 30.05.2000 and salary detail D44 also covers the overlapping period of 7 days from 01.06.1999 to 07.06.1999.   The salary statements were exhibited as Ex. PW6/B­colly.     PW6   further   depose   that   the   said   salary statements were received from the concerned offices in the official   course   of   business  and  forwarded  as  such  to  the CBI.     In   cross   examination,  PW6  depose   that   he   cannot identify the signatures/initials of any person available on the salary  details   Ex.  PW6/B.   Therefore, the admissibility of the   salary   details   Ex.   PW6/B   becomes   doubtful.     PW6 further deposed in cross examination that different amounts /perks   reimbursed   to   the   accused   on   different   accounts were   not   included   in   the   above   statements   as CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 20 of 73 reimbursement   is   not   considered   as   part   of   emoluments. He also clarified in the cross examination that statement of salary   and   emoluments   of   the   accused   for   the   period 16.04.1986   to   30.05.1986   were   not   available   to   the vigilance branch. 

25. PW7   Sh. A. K. Verma was posted as Deputy Registrar (Academic­1) in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in November 2005.  PW7 was shown letter dated 10.11.2005 (D39), whereupon PW7 deposed that it is the same   letter   vide   which   he   had   intimated   to  CBI   that   Rs. 20,000/­   were   received   vide   receipt   No.   3/1569   on 17.07.2004 by GGS Indraprastha University, Rs. 35,000/­ were   received   vide   receipt   No.   6141   on   02.08.2004   by Amity School of Engineering & Technology and Rs. 3,500/­ were   received   vide   receipt  No.  3/2950   on  19.08.2004   by GGS   Indraprastha   University   from   Sachin   Kumar. According to PW7, in this regard a total sum of Rs. 58,500/­ was received from Sachin Kumar and he was admitted to Bharti Vidyapeeth College of Engineering, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.   Therefore, this amount is to be added in the expenditure of accused.   

26. PW8 Sh. Rajendra Kumar, who was posted as officer in Punjab National Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch in CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 21 of 73 the   month   of   June   2004,   deposed   about   the   documents furnished   by   him   to   the   CBI.     Most   of   those   documents were admitted by the accused.   PW8 further deposed that he has handed over to the CBI attested copies of account opening form for account No. 39833 in the name of Deepak Kumar   Ex.   PW8/B­colly   bearing   signatures   of   Sh.   Vijay Singh   on   an   attestation at point A  and signatures of Sh. Prem Prakash Malhotra at point B.  PW8 nowhere deposed that he can identify nor has he explained as to how he can identify the signatures and handwriting of Sh. Vijay Singh and Sh. Prem Prakash Malhotra.  Hence, the document Ex. PW8/B­colly is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon.   Similarly, the document Ex. PW8/C which is an attested copy of account opening form for account No. 3522   in   the   name of 'The Power  Station Gym'  proprietor Sachin   Kumar,   Form   60   and   copy   of   the   ration   card,   all bearing signatures of Sh. Vijay Singh for attestation is not admissible   in   evidence.     In   cross­examination,   PW8 deposed   that   he   cannot   ascertain   from   statement   of account   of   CD   No.   2593   Ex.   P9   as   to   since   when   the current account of M/s Sonu Embroidery bearing No. 2593 was operational or when it was first opened in the bank. PW8   further   deposed   in   cross­examination   that   conjoint reading of entries of Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 dated 17.09.2004 reflects that from account No. 46051, a sum of Rs. 3.40 lac CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 22 of 73 had been paid qua term loan No. 225/03 after receipt of foreign exchange worth Rs. 3,43,275/­.

27. PW9   Sh.   Rajneesh   Parashar,   Assistant Divisional   Manager,   LIC   of   India   had   forwarded   policy papers pertaining to insurance policy taken by accused Brij Pal Singh and his wife Smt. Ishwar Kali and handed over the same to CBI vide letter Ex. PW9/A.   On being shown document Ex. CW1/B and Ex. CW1/D pertaining to policy No.   111268090,   PW9   deposed   that   as   per   these documents, accused B. P. Singh has paid a total sum of Rs. 95,401.10 qua this policy till 02.02.2005.   PW9 further deposed   that   the   said   policy   had   matured   and   maturity amount of Rs. 2,10,600/­ has been paid to policy holder B. P. Singh on 28.10.2008 by way of cheque as mentioned in Ex.   CW1/B.     PW9   was   also   shown   the   document   Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/E pertaining to policy No. 110106064, whereupon PW9 deposed that as per these documents, B. P. Singh has paid a total sum of Rs. 22,958/­ qua this policy till 02.02.2005.  PW9 was also shown document Ex. CW1/F pertaining   to   policy   No.   110102446   whereupon   PW9 deposed   that   as   per   these   documents,   the   policy   holder Smt. Ishwar Kali has paid a total sum of Rs. 43,344.30 qua this policy till 02.02.2005.   PW9 in cross­examination was shown   the   letter   Mark   CW1/1   (D62)   written   by   senior CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 23 of 73 Branch Manager Sh. Kewal Chandra to Inspector S. Q. Ali of CBI, PW9 identified the signatures of Sh. Kewal Chandra on the said letter deposing that he has worked with him for about 2­3 years and has seen him writing and signing in the course of official duties.   The said letter was exhibited as Ex. PW9/D1.  As per this letter, three installments of money back were paid to Smt. Ishwar Kali, the policy holder and these   installments   were   due   on   28.02.1992,   28.02.1997 and 28.02.2002.   Therefore, the amount received by Smt. Ishwar Kali as part of money back policy are to be added to the income of accused as mentioned in Ex. PW9/D1.  

28. PW10  Sh.   Deen   Dayal   turned   hostile   and  did not support the case of prosecution.

29. PW11 Sh. Vikas Jha, Assistant Legal Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd. brought the hirer summary and account statement of Sachin Kumar who had taken a loan/finance of Rs. 20,000/­ from Bajaj Finance Ltd for the purchase of one motorcycle   make   Bajaj   Pulsar.     PW11   proved   the   hirer summary as Ex. PW11/A, account statement Ex. PW11/B, certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW11/C and authority letter in his favour as Ex. PW11/D.  According to PW11, one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 5SS 3950 was purchased by Sachin Kumar from the amount of CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 24 of 73 above   loan   and   the   said   loan   was   repaid   in   8   equated monthly installments of Rs. 2,500/­ each by cheque as per details mentioned in hirer summary of page 2 thereof.

30. PW12 Sh. Preet Mohan Malhotra was working with M/s Puran Sons Zariwala at 36­E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi in the year 2002 and was looking after sales, accounts and other   miscellaneous   work   and   activities   of   the   concern. PW12 has worked in the said firm for about 25­26 years. PW12 was shown D81 which is a bill on a letterhead dated 27.11.2002 and after seeing the same, PW12 deposed that the   said   bill   was   issued   by   Sh.   Rajan   Jain   against   cash payment of Rs. 7,500/­ in lieu of sale of one saree of Rani colour having border embroidery.  The bill was exhibited as Ex. PW12/A.  PW12 further clarified that although the word 'Estimate' is mentioned on the upper left at point B of Ex. PW12/A, but the same is bill against cash payment and not an   estimate.     PW12   in   cross­examination   admitted   that name   of   the   purchaser   is   not   mentioned   on   the   bill   Ex. PW12/A.     However,   on   being   asked   by   the   court   as   to whether he can identify the person who had purchased the article   vide   bill   Ex.   PW12/A,   PW12   while   pointing   out towards the accused Brij Pal Singh, he can recollect that he and his wife has purchased the above saree.   PW12 also identified the handwriting and signatures of Mr. Rajan Jain CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 25 of 73 at point A on the bill Ex. PW12/A.   Therefore, the sum of Rs. 7,500/­ is liable to added to the expenditure of accused.

31. PW13 Sh. Arvind Kumar Manchanda, who was working as Sr. Account Officer in MTNL, Yamuna Vihar in 2005, was shown letter available at page 1551 of D49 and after seeing the same, PW13 deposed that this letter was written by him to Mr. S. Q. Ali, Inspector of CBI vide which he had intimated that the name and address of subscriber of   phone   No.   22913589   was   Brij   Pal   Singh,   the   said telephone   was   installed   on   18.05.1992   and   registration amount   was   Rs.   8,000/­,   which   was   deposited   by   the subscriber   with   MTNL   on   25.03.1992.     PW13   further deposed that the said letter was alongwith its annexure was exhibited as Ex. PW13/A­colly.  PW13 further deposed that vide   aforesaid   letter,   he   had   also   intimated   that   the   said connection   was   activated   on   18.05.1992   and   it   was installed at the premises of Brij Pal Singh, i.e. H. No. C­ 3/58A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.  PW13 also deposed that vide letter   Ex.   PW13/A,   he   had   also   forwarded   the   payment details and as per the payment details, Brij Pal Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 68,532/­ from 10.10.1998 till 20.12.2004. According to PW13, the details of the payment for the said connection   was   available   from   16.10.1998   to   09.11.2005 only,   which   he   had   forwarded   to   Mr.   S.   Q.   Ali.     PW13 CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 26 of 73 further   deposed   that   he   had   also   forwarded   some   more payment details qua the connection of Brij Pal Singh from 09.04.2001 till 09.12.2005 which period was also reflected in payment details on page 1551 of Ex. PW13/A.  PW13 in cross­examination   deposed   that   he   is   not   aware   if   the above telephone bills in the name of Brij Pal Singh were subsequently got reimbursed by him from his office.  

32. PW14   Sh.   Bhoop   Singh,   who   was   posted   as Branch Manager Incharge in LIC in June 2005, was shown letter dated 10.06.2005 and identified his signatures on the said   letter   and   the   letter   was   proved   as   Ex.   PW14/A. According  to  PW14, as per  letter  Ex. PW14/A policy No. 251005084 in the name of Brij Pal Singh commenced on 28.04.1993 with an early premium of Rs. 10,195/­ and in total   13   installments   of   premium   were   paid   by   the subscriber   Brij   Pal   Singh.     The   total   sum   thus   paid   as premium   by   the   subscriber   from   the   commencement   till 18.05.2005   was  Rs. 1,22,340.    Thus,  a  total  sum   of  Rs. 1,22,340/­,   i.e.   total   premium   paid   by   accused   Brij   Pal Singh   in   respect   of   policy   No.   251005084   during   check period,   i.e.   June   1979   to   February   2005,   is   liable   to   be added   to   the   expenditure   of   accused.     PW14   further deposed   that   the  above policy was a money back policy and the benefit of money back/survival benefit was given on CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 27 of 73 two   occasion   vide   cheque   of   Rs.   30,000/­   each   dated 28.01.1998 and 05.04.2003 to the policy holder.  Thus, the sum of Rs. 60,000/­ is liable to be added to the income of accused.

33. Relevant portion of the testimony of PW15 Sh. Deepak   Gupta   will   be   discussed   in   the   later   part   of   the judgment.  

34. PW16 Sh. A. R. Rehman, who was working as Deputy Assessor & Collector, Shahdara, North Zone, Delhi in July 2005, came in the witness box and proved his letter dated 11.07.2005 Ex. PW16/A vide which he had forwarded the certified copies of the documents pertaining to property No. C3/58A and C­4/157 to CBI.  The original assessment file of these properties were produced by Sh. Kirpal Singh, Zonal   Inspector  Zonal   Inspector   (House   Tax),   Shahdara, North Zone during the examination of PW16.  Pages 1349 to   1455   available   in   D36   were   also   shown   to   PW16, whereupon   PW16   deposed   that   they   were   forwarded   by him to CBI and bear the signatures of Sh. Rambir Singh, the then Assistant Assessor & Collector, Shahdara, North Zone and the documents were exhibited as Ex. PW16/B­ colly.     However,   PW16   is   not   the   author   of   these documents   and   therefore,   the   documents   which   were CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 28 of 73 exhibited   as   Ex.   PW16/B­colly   are   not   admissible   in evidence.  

35. In   cross­examination,   PW16   deposed   that   the cost  of   construction of the property bearing No. C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi is Rs. 2,32,200/­ as on 31.03.1994. PW16   was   shown   the   document   D103,   whereupon   he deposed that it is the receipt of the property tax in respect of property No. C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.   The total property tax for the period 2004­05 as per PW16 was Rs. 7,019/­ and was paid by the assessee. 

36. PW17   Sh.   Udai   Singh,   who   was   posted   as Valuation Officer in Income Tax Department, conducted the valuation of property No. C­58A, Yamuna Vihar and gave his  valuation report Ex. PW17/A.   PW17 further deposed that as per his valuation, the estimated cost of construction of   property   No.   C­58A,   Yamuna   Vihar   for   construction period   16.04.1987   to   30.06.1989   was  worked   out   as   Rs. 11,67,700/­.   PW17 was cross examined at length by Ld defence   counsel   particularly   regarding   the   methodology adopted by him in conducting the valuation of the property. In cross­examination, PW17 deposed that since separate plinth area rates were prescribed for basement, the plinth area   rates   for   basement   were   required   to   be   calculated CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 29 of 73 separately.

37. PW18   Ms.   Krishna   Kumar   Amma,   who   was working   as   Headmistress   in   Little   Flower   Public   School, Vijay Park in December 2005, provided information to the CBI   regarding   the   fees   paid   by   Deepak   Kumar,   Sachin Kumar   and   Arpan,   all   sons   of   accused,   vide   letter   Ex. PW18/A.  PW18 deposed that as per the letter Ex. PW18/A, a   total   sum   of   Rs.  13,620/­   was   paid   as   fee   for   Deepak Kumar   for   class   1   to   VII   who   joined   the   school   on 04.04.1987   and   left   on   31.03.1994,   a   total   sum   of   Rs. 22,000/­ was paid as fee for Sachin Kumar for class 1 to VIII   who   joined   the   school   on   20.04.1990   and   left   on 31.03.1998 and a total sum of Rs. 21,300/­ was paid as fee for   Arpan   for   class   1   to   VIII   who   joined   the   school   on 03.04.1992 and left on 04.05.1999.   In cross­examination, PW18   deposed   that   the   school   used   to   keep   the counterfoils of the fee receipt of the students, but the same were not provided to the CBI as the CBI did not ask for the same.  

38. PW19   Sh.   Surinder   Singh   who   was   then working as Sr. Vigilance Inspector in Northern Railways at Baroda House accompanied the CBI team which conducted search at the residential premises of the accused.   PW19 CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 30 of 73 identified his signatures on the search list and observation memo   which   was   proved   as   Ex.   PW19/A   (D2)   and   Ex. PW19/B (D3).  PW19 was shown a cloth parcel which was bearing   four   seals   of   CBI   ACB   ND   2002,   whereupon   he deposed that the cloth parcel contained the video cassette of   videography   done   on   02.02.2005   at   the   residential premises of the accused.   The cloth parcel containing the video cassette was exhibited as Ex. PW19/D.  

39. PW20   Sh.   Arunanshu   Mallick   was   posted   as Assistant   Valuation   Officer   in   Income   Tax   Department during   April   2006.   He   was   directed   by   his   superior Valuation   Officer   to   evaluate   the   cost   of   construction   of property   no.   C­498   &   C­499,   Gokul   Puri   and   C­4/157 Yamuna   Vihar,   New   Delhi.   These   properties   were examined   by   PW20   who   gave   his   valuation   report Ex.PW20/B & Ex.PW20/C and sent the same to Shri N.M. Singh SP/CBI vide letter dated 21.04.2006 Ex.PW20/A. As per the valuation report (Ex. PW20/B & Ex. PW20/C), cost of construction of first floor of property no. C­498 & C­499, Gokul   Puri   during   the   period   1990­91   was   evaluated   at Rs.47,000/­ and construction existing in property no. 4/157 Yamuna   Vihar   except   ground   floor   (which   was   already existed)   during   the   period   1990­91   was   evaluated   at Rs.3,44,700/­. In cross examination PW20 was questioned CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 31 of 73 regarding the plinth area rate applicable to building in Delhi. PW20 could not confirm as to whether there is one plinth area rate applicable to all the buildings in Delhi or there are more than one. PW20 further deposed in cross examination that plinth area rate gives rough idea of probable cost of construction of any building. PW20 admitted that plinth area rate   as   per   CPWD   specifications   for   residential   buildings are of six categories i.e. category I to VI. The emphasis laid by   learned   counsel   for   accused   on   the   concept   of   plinth area rate in cross examination of PW20 will not help the accused   much   as   PW20   deposed   that   plinth   area   gives rough idea of probable cost of construction of any building. After   going   through   reports   Ex.PW20/B   and   Ex.PW20/C, one   does   not   find   any   reason   or   ground   to   doubt   or disagree with the correctness of these reports.

40. PW21 Sh. Bansi Dhar accompanied CBI team which   conducted   search   at   the   residential   house   of accused.   PW21   identified   his   signature   on   search   cum seizure   memo  Ex.PW21/A. An attempt was made by the prosecution to prove the documents viz.  Provisional  cover note   of   Rs.   3089,   policy   schedule   of   Oriental   Insurance Company for the insurance of Smt. Ishwar Kali and Brij Pal Singh showing premium paid as Rs.3088/­ and receipt of oriental insurance company showing receipt of premium of CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 32 of 73 Rs.   3089/­   which   were   exhibited   as   Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D   and   Ex.PW21/E.   Learned   defence   counsel objected to putting exhibit marks on these documents on the   ground   of   mode   of   prove   and   that   same   are   hit   by Section   65­B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act.   I   have   seen Ex.PW21/C,   Ex.PW21/D   and   Ex.PW21/E   which   are documents   from   Life   Insurance   Corporation   of   India. Obviously, PW21 is neither the author of those documents nor   he   was   competent   to   prove   those   documents. Accordingly, it is held that documents which were exhibited as   Ex.PW21/C,   Ex.PW21/D   and   Ex.PW21/E   are   not admissible in evidence.

41. PW22   Ms.   Chander   Mohini   Patel   who   was working as Manager in Little Flowers Public Sr. Secondary School,   Shivaji   Park,   Shahdara,   Delhi,   in   the   year   2005 provided the information relating to fee paid in respect of two students i.e. Deepak and Sachin to the CBI vide letter Ex.PW22/A. PW22 deposed that as per letter Ex.PW22/A, a sum of Rs.25,860/­ was paid as fee in respect of Deepak son of Brij Pal Singh who had studied from 04.04.1987 to 02.06.1999 and a sum of Rs. 14,260/­ was paid as fee in respect  of  Sachin son of Brij Pal Singh who had studied from 22.04.1990 to 03.06.2000.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 33 of 73

42. PW23 Sh. Ashwani Kumar, who was a partner in the firm R. K. Mahavar & Sons in the year 2004­05, was shown   cash   memo   bearing   No.   5397   for   a   sum   of   Rs. 8800/­   and   deposed   that   same   pertains   to   sale   of   two sarees.     The   bill   was   exhibited   as   Ex.   PW23/A.     PW23 further  deposed   that he had forwarded a copy of the bill dated 27.10.2004 to Inspector S. Q. Ali of CBI vide letter Ex. PW23/B.   However, the name of the person to whom the two sarees were sold is not mentioned in the bill Ex. PW23/A.     Therefore,   the   sum   of   Rs.   8800/­   cannot   be included in the expenditure of accused.

43. PW24   Sh.   Prem   Nath,   DSP,   CBI   conducted videography at the premises of accused at C­3/58A and C­ 4/157.  PW24 deposed that videography was done by using a camcorder of Sony make and the recordings were saved in two small video cassettes separately for each premises. PW24   identified   his   signatures   and   signatures   of   other witnesses   on   the   videography   memo   Ex.   PW19/C   in respect   of   videography   done   at   premises   No.   C­58/A, Yamuna   Vihar,   Delhi.     PW24   also   identified   the   video cassette which was used for videography at premises No. C­3/58A which was already Ex. PW19/B and identified his signatures and signatures of other witnesses on the cloth parcel  which  was containing video cassette.   PW24 then CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 34 of 73 identified   his   signatures   as   well   as   signatures   of   other witnesses on the videography memo dated 02.02.2005 in respect of done at premises No. C­4/157.  The videography memo was exhibited as Ex. PW24/A.  PW24 also identified his signatures as well as signatures of other witnesses on the parcel containing video cassette Ex. PW19/D in respect of   videography   done   at   premises   No.   C­3/58A,   Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi.   Both the cassettes were played in the court   during   examination   of   PW24   Sh.   Prem   Nath,   who deposed   that   the   contents   of   the   video   cassettes   were same which were videographed by him.  

44. PW25 Sh. Raj Kumar, who was posed as Motor Vehicle   Inspector   in   the   office   of   Transport   Department, Zonal   Office   Sheikh   Sarai,   New   Delhi,   deposed   that   he handed   over   the  copies of certain documents to the CBI vide   production   cum   receipt   memo   Ex.   PW25/A.     PW25 further   deposed   that   the   documents   comprised   in   Ex. PW25/A   are   the   certified   copies   of   documents   from registration   file   of   vehicle   No.   DL   3CP   2744.     PW25 identified   his   signatures   on   all   these   documents.     PW25 further   deposed   that   he   has   brought   the   original   file pertaining to vehicle No. DL 3CP 2744 and after comparing the   certified   copies   of   the   documents   with   the   original documents   pointed   out   that   certified   copies   of   the CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 35 of 73 documents   are   correct   copies   of   the   original   documents brought by him.   The certified copies of all the documents from pages 2261 to 2286 is Ex. PW25/B­colly.  As per the documents Ex. PW25/B, the vehicle in question was Maruti car   sold   by   Competent   Automobiles   Co.   Ltd   to   Mohd. Saman Qureshi and was a registration No. DL 3CP 2744, Mohd. Saman Quresh sold it so Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg who further sold it to Sh. Radhey Shyam Arora and Radhey Shyam   Arora   sold   it   to   Deepak   Kumar.     PW25   further deposed that Deepak Kumar further sold the vehicle to Sh. Kuldeep   Singh   on   31.08.2006.     In   cross­examination, PW25   admitted  that there is no mention of consideration amount paid by subsequent buyer of the said car.

45. PW26   Sh.   Ashok   Kumar   Gupta,   who   was posted   as   Executive   Engineer­XI,   MCD,   Geeta   Colony, New Delhi in December 2006, furnished the salary details of   accused   Brij   Pal   Singh   for   the   period   01.06.1996   to 30.06.1996 vide letter Ex. PW26/A.  PW26 deposed that as per the salary details, accused Brij Pal Singh was paid net amount   of   Rs.   5,023/­,   as   salary   for   the   period   from 01.06.1996 to 30.06.1996 after deduction of GPF.  

46. PW27 Sh. Virender Singh accompanied the CBI team which conducted search at the premises No. C­498, CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 36 of 73 499, Gokul Puri, New Delhi.  PW27 was shown the search list, search memo as well as rough site plan and proved the same   as   Ex.   PW27/B.    PW27  further  deposed  that  work order and visiting card of Ishwar Singh Bagri were seized during   search   proceedings   conducted   in   his   presence. PW27 also deposed that Sachin Kumar, son of accused, had come in the afternoon 12:50 PM with the key of one room of Sriniwas and the ground floor of the premises No. C­498 and 499 was opened and search was conducted.  

47. PW28   Dr.   Kameshwar   Singh,   who   retired   as Joint Registrar from Technological University, identified his signatures on letter Ex. PW28/A and deposed that it is the same letter vide which he had intimated the semester and exam fee details alongwith the hotel and mess charges for Deepak Kumar.  PW28 further deposed that a total sum of Rs.   32,435/­   was   paid   as   semester   and   exam   fee   for Deepak Kumar for the period from 1999 to 2003 and further a sum of Rs. 4,385/­ was paid towards his room rent, mess, water and electricity charges and outstanding dues for the period 06.09.2000 to 21.03.2001.

48. PW29   Sh.   Ajay   Kumar   Verma   forwarded   the salary   details   of   accused   for   the   period   16.04.1986   to 30.04.1995 vide his letter dated 09.11.2006.  PW29 proved CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 37 of 73 the said letter alongwith the salary details as Ex. PW29/A­ colly.     PW29   further   deposed   that   as   per   these   salary details, accused was paid an amount of Rs. 3,13,139.48 as net salary for the above said period and was also paid total DA arrear of Rs. 14,804/­.

49. PW30   Sh.   Suhas   Vinayak   Bendre,   who   was working   as   Assistant   Vice   President   (Operation),   North India   in   Hong   Kong   Shanghai   Banking   Corporation forwarded the documents relating to account holder namely Sh.   Deepak   Kumar   to   the   IO.     PW30   proved   his   letter alongwith   copies   of   4   cheques   as   Ex.   PW30/A.     PW30 further   proved   his   letter   dated   01.12.2006   vide   which   he had forwarded the attested copies of account opening form and  statement  of  account pertaining to account No.  052­ 079449­006   in   the   name   of   Deepak   Kumar.     However, statement   of   account   which   are   part   of   Ex.   PW30/B   are neither verified under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act nor supported by any certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act. Hence, they are not admissible in evidence. 

50. PW31 Sh. Raj Kumar deposed that he is in the business of embroidery work on job basis on the ground floor of his residence for around 25­30 years in the name and style of M/s Maya Golden.  PW31 further deposed that CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 38 of 73 his customers are mainly exporters who give garments to him for embroidery and he returns the same after getting the job done from the sub contractors hired by him.  PW31 categorically deposed that he had business with M/s Sonu Embroidery for around 7­8 years and he used to give the business of about 3­5 lacs per year to Sonu Embroidery. PW31   also   deposed   that   his   firm   is   having   a   current account   in   Union   Bank   of   India,   Raj   Block,   Naveen Shahdara,   Delhi   and   he   used   to   make   payment   to   sub contractors   including   M/s   Sonu   Embroidery   by   cheque. PW31   also   identified   his   signatures   on   the   letter   Ex. PW31/A   written   to   Inspector   S.   Q.   Ali   of   CBI   (IO   of   the case).  On being cross examined, PW31 deposed that bank statement of his firm was neither sought by Inspector S. Q. Ali nor he produced the same.  

51. PW32 Sh. Madan Lal was also in the business of embroidery from 1985­86 till 2012 and was running a firm in the name and style of M/s Bharat Embroidery and M/s Shalu Crafts at C­391, Gokul Puri, Delhi.   PW32 deposed that his firm used to do the job work of embroidery on the exporters garments by charging them job work on the basis of per piece of garment.  PW32 deposed that some of the work was got done from sub contractors and one of such contractor   was   M/s   Sonu   Embroidery,   which   was   in   the CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 39 of 73 name   of   Ms.   Ishwar   Kali   and   she   used   to   come   for collecting payment etc.   PW32 also deposed that he used to   give   work   of   about   3   lac   to   3.5   lac   to   M/s   Sonu Embroidery   per   year.     M/s   Sonu   Embroidery,   as   per   the deposition   of   PW32,   worked   for   him   for   10­12   years   till 2006.     PW32   identified   his   signatures   on   the   letter   Ex. PW32/A written by him to Inspector S. Q. Ali.

52. PW33 Sh. Ajay Rawal, who was posted as Sub Registrar­VIII,   Geeta   Colony,   East   District   LM­I,   Shastri Nagar, Delhi, handed over to CBI and identified in the court attested copy of one agreement to sell and purchase of one industrial plot No. 155, Block No. 2 measuring 450 sq yards situated at Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi. During   cross­examination   of   PW33,   one   Ram   Tirath, Record   Keeper,   office   of   Sub   Registrar,   Shastri   Nagar, Delhi   produced   the   record   and   after   going   through   the record,   PW33   pointed   out   the   original   counterpart   of   the document registered, i.e. agreement to sell and purchase. After   perusing   the   agreement   to   sell   and   purchase,   the document was exhibited as Ex. PW33/A.   This agreement was executed on 07.05.2003 between Smt. Rekha Singhal and Gaurav Aggarwal on one side and Sh. Deepak Kumar and   Sh.   Sachin   Kumar   (both   sons   of   accused   Brij   Pal Singh) on other side in respect of property, i.e. plot No. 155, CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 40 of 73 Block No. 2 measuring 450 sq yards situated at Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi.  The sale consideration mentioned in this agreement is Rs. 13,96,000/­, which has been   paid   by   the   second   party,   i.e.   Deepak   Kumar   and Sachin Kumar. 

53. Testimony   of   PW34   Sh.   Ashoo   Goel   is   not relevant and is accordingly not being discussed.  

54. PW35 Sh. Vijay Mohan Gupta, who was posted as   Chief   Manager  in  SBI,  Gokulpuri,  New  Delhi  in  2006, forwarded the attested copies of account opening form and computerized   statement   of   accounts   pertaining   to   three accounts   to   the   CBI   vide   letter   Ex.   PW35/A.     The documents furnished by PW35 include the account opening form cum signature card and statement of account of Sh. Roshan   Lal   Ex.   PW35/B­colly,   copy   of   account   opening form   and   statement   of   account   pertaining   to   the   current account of  M/s  Krishna Studio Ex. PW35/C, copy of one statement   of   account   of   accused   Brij   Pal   Singh   Ex. PW35/D.

55. PW36   Sh.   R.   K.   Peshin,   who   was   posted   as Assistant General Manager in SBI, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi   in   October   2006,   had   forwarded   certified   copy   of CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 41 of 73 account opening form and statement of account of Gaurav Aggarwal   and   Rekha   Singhal   to   the   CBI   vide   letter   Ex. PW36/A.     It   is   pertinent   to   mention   here   that   Gaurav Aggarwal   and   Rekha   Singhal   are   the   sellers   of   the properties   bearing   Plot   No.   155,   Block   No.   2   situated   at Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi, which was purchased by Deepak Kumar and Sachin Kumar (both sons of accused).   PW36 proved the copy of account opening form   and   statement   of   account   No.   1091   of   Gaurav Aggarwal  as   Ex.   PW36/B1   and  Ex.   PW36/B2.     Similarly, PW36 proved the account opening form and statement of account  pertaining to saving bank account No. 6/1242 in the name of Mrs. Rekha Singhal as Ex. PW36/C1 and Ex. PW36/C2.  

56. PW37   Sh.   Sunil   Kumar   Sharma,   Deputy Manager   cum   System   Manager,   State   Bank   of   India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi brought the certificates Ex. PW37/C and Ex. PW37/D U/s 65B of Indian Evidence act in respect of account statement Ex. PW36/B2 and account statement Ex. PW36/C2.

57. PW38 Sh. S. Q. Ali (retired Addl. SP/CBI) is the IO of this case, who proved various documents including the   FIR   Ex.   PW38/A.    PW38,  inter­alia,  deposed  that  he CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 42 of 73 conducted   searches   in   the   present   case,   recorded statements of some persons as witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and collected various documents either by seizing the same or   through   written   communication/handed   over   by concerned   persons/officials.     It   is   observed   that   certain documents which were exhibited through the testimony of PW38 were not proved in accordance with law and hence, cannot be read in evidence, the reason being that PW38 is neither the author nor the witness of those documents.  The documents which were exhibited by PW38 and which are inadmissible in evidence are enumerated as under:

a. D­18 letter dated 12.04.2005 written by Account Officer TR (CDMA), MTNL, Bhikaji Cama Place informing payment   of   Rs.   9337/­   by   the   accused   Brij   Pal   Singh pertaining to telephone No. 20037370.

b. D­32 which is a letter dated 30.06.2005 written by Branch Manager, LIC, Vikas Marg whereby the Branch Manager informed about the policy No. 121111300 in the name of Smt. Ishwar Kali and total payment of Rs. 9948/­ as premium.

c. D­38   which   is   a   letter   dated   09.11.2005   vide which   Sr.   Branch   Manager,  3i   Infotech,   Vashi,   Navi Mumbai,   had   forwarded   the   true   copies   of   documents relating to details of holdings of bonds in the name of Brij CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 43 of 73 Pal Singh.

d. D­95   which   is   an   acknowledgement slip/demand   notice   from   MTNL   issued   in   the   name   of accused of Rs. 390/­ in cash for the purpose of obtaining telephone   connection   by   the   accused   at   his   residential address, i.e. C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.

e. D­96   which   is   a   cover   note   dated   16.09.2004 issued by Oriental Insurance Company in the name of Smt. Ishwar Kali relating to mediclaim policy for payment of Rs. 3435.

f. D­97 which is receipt dated 21.09.2004 issued by Oriental Insurance Company in the name of Smt. Ishwar kali relating to mediclaim policy on payment of premium of Rs. 3435.

g. D­99   and   D­100   which   are   receipt   of   Reebok India Company, Kamla Nagar, Delhi dated 19.12.2004 for the   purchase   of   articles   of   Rs.   799/­   and   Rs.   890 respectively.

h. D­101 which is a cash memo dated 21.12.2004 issued by M/s Woodland, Lajpat Nagar for purchase of an article for Rs. 3,295/­ paid in cash.

58. During   examination   of   PW38,   Ct.   Niranjan Singh   from   CBI   malkhana   produced   one   original   letter forwarded   by   MCD,   Vigilance   Department   dated CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 44 of 73 28.11.2006   alongwith   the   copy   of   office   order   dated 07.04.2006.     These   documents   were   put   to   PW38   who deposed that vide aforesaid letter, the office order relating to dismissal of the accused Brij Pal Singh from service was conveyed to CBI.  The original letter alongwith the copy of dismissal   order   attached   thereto   was   exhibited   as   Ex. PW38/Q.

59. The first contention of the accused before the court is that he has furnished his property details as well as the   property   details   of   his   family   members   by   way   of statement I to VI to the IO which were not considered by the   IO.     It   was   stressed   by   Sh.   Harsh   K.   Sharma,   Ld counsel   for   the   accused   that   accused   had   furnished statement   I   to   VI   and   has   satisfactorily   explained   his pecuniary   resources   and   property   and   hence,   cannot   be held liable U/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.  Ld counsel   for   the   accused   in   this   regard   has   relied   upon State, Inspector of Police, Vishakhapattanam Vs. Surya Sankaran Karri 2006 VII AD (SC) 278 wherein it was held as under:

"It is now well settled that when a document being in possession of a public functionary, who is under a statutory obligation   to   produce   the   same   before   the   court   of   law,   fails and/or neglects to produce the same, an adverse inference may CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 45 of 73 be   drawn   against   him.     The   learned   Special   Judge   in   the aforementioned situation was enjoined with a duty to draw an adverse inference.   He did not consider the question from the point   of   view   of   statutory   requirements,   but   took   into consideration factors, which were not germane."

60. IO (PW38) has indirectly admitted that he has received   the   statement I to VI furnished by the accused. The   uncertainty   was   cleared   by   DW32   Ct.   Vimal   Kumar, CBI   who   brought   the   letter   dated   02.02.2007   written   by Assistant Law Officer, Vigilance MCD to the IO.  The letter is   accompanied   by   another   letter   dated   25.12.2006 addressed to IO S. Q. Ali furnishing statement I to VI.  The letter   dated   02.02.2006   and   its   annexures   including   the statement I to VI furnished by the accused were exhibited as Ex. DW32/A.  It is therefore obvious that explanation of the   accused   regarding   his   movable   and   immovable properties and those of his family members in the form of statement I to VI were available to the IO.  The IO has not made   those   statements   as   part   of   the   chargesheet. However,   this   omission   on   the   part   of   the   IO   cannot   be termed   as   suppression   of   material   facts   from   the   court which might have caused serious prejudice to the accused. The   IO   has   explained   during   cross­examination   that   the documents attached with the letter dated 27.12.2006 have already   been   called   from   the   department,   which   were CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 46 of 73 considered   more   dependable   than   the   information submitted   by   the   accused.     This   assertion   of   the   IO   is strengthened by the fact that various figures given by the accused   regarding   his   properties   and   properties   of   his family  members  have been accepted in the chargesheet. Infact IO was  specifically asked during cross­examination as to why he has not taken into consideration the details of the   properties   and   expenditure   furnished   by   the   accused vide   statement   I   to   VI.     IO   deposed   that   wherever explanation was found plausible, due benefit was given to the   accused   after   verification.     The   court   finds   nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the IO in dealing with statement I to VI furnished by the accused.  

61. The   second   contention  of   the   accused   is   that properties/assets and expenditure of his wife Smt. Ishwar Kali and his sons Deepak Kumar and Sachin Kumar have been wrongly attributed to the accused.   In this regard, it was submitted that no evidence was brought on record to prove   or   suggest   that   any   property   except   C­499, Gokulpuri,  Delhi has been acquired by the accused or is being held by its registered owner as benami property for the accused.  It was further submitted that no evidence has been adduced to prove that accused contributed anything for acquisition of these properties.   It was also submitted CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 47 of 73 that title holders of these properties, i.e. Smt. Ishwar Kali (wife of accused), Sachin Kumar and Deepak Kumar (sons of   accused)   are   neither   the   accused   nor   the   prosecution witnesses.     Reliance   in   this   regard   is   placed   on   in Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 wherein   it   was   held   that   burden   of   showing   that   the particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be   so   and   this   burden   has   to   be   strictly   discharged   by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either   directly   prove   the   fact   of   benami   or   establish circumstances   unerringly   and   reasonably   raising   an inference of that fact.

62. The   court  agrees   with   the   submissions   of   the accused that properties held and expenditure incurred by Smt. Ishwar Kali, wife of the accused, cannot be attributed to   the   accused,   but   for   different   reasons.     It   is   proved through the account opening form of M/s Sonu Embroidery Ex. P33 as well as through the deposition of DW26 Sachin Kumar,   DW31   Sriniwas   and   PW32   Sh.   Madan   Pal   that business of M/s Sonu Embroidery was being run by Smt. Ishwar Kali, wife of accused.   As discussed above, PW31 Sh. Raj Kumar has deposed that he had business with M/s Sonu Embroidery for around 7­8 years and he used to give CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 48 of 73 them   business   of   about   3.5   lacs   per   year.     Thus,   PW31 gave approximately business to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs to M/s Sonu Embroidery over a period of 8 years.   Similarly, PW32 Sh. Madan Lal deposed that he used to give work of about 3 lacs to 3.5 lacs to M/s Sonu Embroidery per year and M/s Sonu Embroidery worked for PW32 for around 10­ 12 years.   Thus, the approximate value of business given by   PW32   to   M/s   Sonu   Embroidery   comes   out   to   Rs.   40 lacs.   The statement of account of M/s Sonu Embroidery Ex. P33 shows debit and credit transaction of around Rs. 68   lacs   spreading   over   the   period   from   15.09.1999   to 17.02.2005.     A   perusal   of   statement   of   account   Ex.   P33 would show that there are various credit entries running into thousands and lacs of rupees.  PW31 has deposed that his business concern was having a current account in Union Bank of India, Raj Block, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.   It has also come in evidence that Income Tax Return was being filed on behalf of M/s Sonu Embroidery and infact Income Tax Return for some of the years came on record during defence   evidence.     It   has   transpired   during   defence evidence   that   Income   Tax   Returns   filed   by   M/s   Sonu Embroidery   for   remaining   period   are   not   traceable.     IO made   no   effort   to   collect   the   complete   ITR   of   M/s   Sonu Embroidery so as to arrive at a correct conclusion as regard the   income   generated   through   M/s   Sonu   Embroidery.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 49 of 73

Similarly,   no   effort   was   made   by   the   IO   to   compare   the bank   statements   of   PW31   and   PW32   with   the   bank statement of M/s Sonu Embroidery Ex. P33.  It would have given a fair idea about the income of wife of accused from M/s   Sonu   Embroidery.     The   failure   of   the   IO   to   conduct investigation on these aspects has caused prejudice to the accused   as   the   income   of   Smt.   Ishwar   Kali,   wife   of accused,   from   M/s   Sonu   Embroidery   has   not   come   on record.   As a result, the asset/expenditure and income, if any, of Smt. Ishwar Kali cannot be attributed to the accused and are liable to be excluded from the asset, expenditure and   income   of   the   accused.     Sh.   Harsh   K.   Sharma,   Ld counsel   for   the   accused   has   rightly   relied   upon  Vincent George Vs. CBI decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.12.2014.

63. However,   so   far   as   the   sons   of   the   accused namely Deepak Kumar and Sachin Kumar are concerned, they were students and were not having any independent source of income till registration of the present case.  DW26 Sachin Kumar in response to a specific court question has deposed that his date of birth 26.09.1983.   Therefore, he was   hardly   17   years   when   he   is   alleged   to   have   setup Power Station Gym.  The other son of the accused namely Deepak Kumar was a student of 4 th year of B. Tech, Delhi CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 50 of 73 College   of   Engineering   when   he   alongwith   his   brother Sachin   Kumar   is   stated   to   have   purchased   property   No. 155,   Industrial   Estate,   Patparganj.     The   manipulation   in arranging   the   funds   for   purchase   of   property   No.   155, Industrial Estate will be discussed at an appropriate stage of   the   judgment.     Therefore,   accused   cannot   distance himself from the assets, expenditure and income of his two sons   namely   Deepak   Kumar   and   Sachin   Kumar   as   the accused   has   not   been   able   to   suggest   or   indicate   any source of any independent income for his two sons.  

Property No. 155, Patparganj, Industrial Estate New Delhi

64. As   per   the   documents   viz   agreement   to   sell dated   07.05.2003   proved   during   the   deposition   of   PW33 Sh.   Ajay   Rawal,   property   bearing   No.   155,   Patparganj, Industrial   Estate,   New   Delhi   was   purchased   by   Sachin Kumar and Deepak Kumar (sons of accused) from Gaurav Aggarwal   and   Rekha   Singhal   for   a   consideration   of   Rs. 13,96,000/­.  Stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 1,00,520/­ was also paid for purchase of this property.   PW36 Sh. R. K. Peshin brought and proved the bank statements of Gaurav Aggarwal   and   Rekha   Singhal   showing   the   deposit   of amount   paid   by   Sachin   Kumar   and   Deepak   Kumar.     A perusal of the statement of account of Gaurav and Rekha CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 51 of 73 Singhal shows that the same were proved as Ex. PW36/B2 and Ex. PW36/C2 respectively.  As per these statement of accounts,   a   sum   of   Rs.   6,50,000/­   each   was   transferred from the account of Sachin and Deepak Kumar.   It is the contention   of   accused   that   a   sum   of   Rs.   5,00,000/­   was arranged   by   Sachin   through   a   loan   taken   from   Satya Prakash   Sharma.     There  is  no  explanation in  the  written submissions as to how a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/­ transferred from the account of Deepak was arranged.  Sachin Kumar who was examined as DW26 deposed that both he and his brother had taken loan for purchase of property No. 155, Industrial   Estate,   New   Delhi.     However,   DW26   has   not explained the source of loan taken by Deepak Kumar.

65. PW15 Sh. Deepak Gupta proved various bank statements   which   he   handed   over   to   the   CBI   regarding aforesaid loan transactions.  Document D­130 are copies of account   payee   cheques/pay  orders of PNB, Anand  Vihar and which was proved as Ex. PW15/J.  Out of these, one is for amount of Rs. 7,00,840/­ issued by the proprietor of one firm   named   M/s   Devanshu   Fashions   in   favour   of   Smt. Ishwar Kali for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­ and in favour of Deepak   Kumar   for   an   amount   of   Rs.   5,00,000/­   and   the other   is   an   account   payee   cheque/pay   order   for   Rs. 5,00,600/­ issued by the proprietor of the firm named M/s CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 52 of 73 Star   Transport   Services   in   favour   of   Sachin   Kumar.     A careful perusal of the deposition of PW15 and documents proved   by   him   shows   that   it   is   only   after   various manipulation by way of transfer and cash deposit with the above   pay   orders   of   Rs.   7,00,840/­   favouring   Deepak Kumar,   Sachin   Kumar   and   Smt.   Ishwar   Kali   and   Rs. 5,00,600/­ in favour of Sachin Kumar were issued from the account of both these firms called M/s Devanshu Fashions and   M/s   Star   Transport   Services   respectively.     The documents proved through the depositions of PW15 reflect that   consideration   amount   provided   for   purchase   of property No. 155, Industrial Estate, New Delhi in the name of above two sons of the accused was arranged only by manipulation   of   various   entries   and   documents.     It   is, therefore, concluded that the consideration in the purchase of   property   No.   155,   Industrial   Estate,   New   Delhi   was arranged   by   accused   himself   through   his   unaccounted earnings.   Accordingly, the sale consideration of property No. 155, Industrial Estate and the stamp duty paid thereon will be added in the asset of the accused.  

Property No. C­499, Gokulpuri, Delhi

66. Accused   admits   that   property   No.   C­499, Gokulpuri is his asset purchased vide GPA, agreement to CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 53 of 73 sell and receipt.  However, he has disputed the assessment of cost of construction on the said property given by PW20 Arunanshu   Mallick.     Property   No.   C­499,   Gokulpuri   was purchased in the name of accused on 21.05.1990 with one room and kitchen for Rs. 10,000/­.   PW20 has given the combined cost of construction of properties No. C­498 and C­499, Gokulpuri as Rs. 47,000/­.  Dividing the total cost of construction equally for aforesaid both the properties, the cost   of   construction   of   property   bearing   No.   C­499   will worked   out   to  be Rs. 23,500/­.   Ld defence counsel has disputed   the   valuation   report   prepared   by   PW20   on   the premise that the said witness does not know whether there is one plinth area applicable to all the buildings in Delhi.  It was further  submitted that plinth area rates give a rough idea   of   probable   cost   of   construction   and   tenders   for construction of government building are not floated or given on the basis of plinth area rates.   It is not in dispute that when accused purchased this property, there was only one room   and   kitchen   in   the   said   property   and   accused   has raised  construction thereon subsequently.   Therefore, the cost   of   construction   in   the   property   evaluated   at   Rs. 23,500/­ is fair assessment and same will be added to the asset of the accused.

Vehicle No. DL­2CK­0459 Maruti Car  CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 54 of 73

67. This car is stated to have been purchased by the accused from Roshan Lal.  The relevant document filed on record is copy of form 16 bearing the stamp of Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  The cost of vehicle in this   document   is   mentioned   as   Rs.   2,10,000/­.     The accused objected to the admissibility of this document on the ground that Motor Licensing Officer who was competent to prove this document was not examined.   The accused thus   contended   that   this   form   No.   16   is   admissible   in evidence.

68. The document form No. 16 bears  the stamp of Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  Therefore, it is   a   public   document   as   provided   U/s   74   of   the   Indian Evidence  Act  is admissible in evidence.   Accused in this regard   has   relied   upon   the   deposition   of   DW31   Sriniwas who stated that the car No. DL  2CK­0459 was purchased by his father and he gave the same to the accused without payment   of   any   money.     It   is   hard   to   believe   that   one person   will   give   his   car   to   any   person   without   any consideration.     Hence,   the   cost   of   car   for   Rs.   2,10,000/­ mentioned in Form No. 16 is liable to be added to the asset of the accused.  

Motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 5SS 3950 CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 55 of 73

69. This motorcycle as per the deposition of PW11 was purchased by Sachin Kumar after availing loan/finance of Rs. 20,000/­ from M/s Bajaj Finance Limited.  PW11 has also deposed that the said loan was repaid in 8 equated monthly installments of Rs. 2,500/­ by cheques.   It is the contention of accused that this motorcycle was purchased with the finance of Rs. 20,000/­ by paying Rs. 20,000/­ in his account of PNB, Yamuna Vihar.  Sachin Kumar, son of the  accused,  was not having any independent income at that   time.     Even   his   alleged   income   from   Power   Station Gym cannot be termed as his income as he was not having resources   to   setup   the   gym.     Hence,   accused   cannot contended that Rs. 55,000/­ which is the cost of motorcycle cannot be attributed to the expenditure of accused.   This expenditure   is   liable   to   be   added   to   the   expenditure   of accused.  

Maruti car No. DL - 3CP 2744

70. PW25   Sh.   Raj   Kumar,   who   was   posted   as Motor   Vehicle   Inspector   in   the   office   of   Transport Department, Zonal Office, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in the year   2006,   came   in   the   witness   box   and   identified   his signatures   on   D­114   which   comprised   of   one   production cum receipt memo dated.  The said production cum receipt CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 56 of 73 memo was exhibited as Ex. PW25/A.   PW25 after seeing the other document comprised in D­114 deposed that these are the same copies of documents from registration file of vehicle No. DL 3CP 2744 which were handed over by him to the CBI vide memo Ex. PW25/A.  PW25 also brought the original file pertaining to vehicle No. DL 3CP 2744 and after comparing  the  copies of the document in D­114 with the original   documents   pointed   out   that   certified   copies annexed   with   D­114   are   the   correct   copies   of   original documents and certified copies of these documents were exhibited   as  Ex.   PW25/B.     As   per   these   documents,   the aforesaid   car   was   sold   by   the   dealer   to   Mohd   Saman Qureshi for a sum of Rs. 2,81,461/­.  As per the documents, the   vehicle   was   further   sold   by   Mohd   Saman  Qureshi  to Praveen Kumar Garg, who further sold it to Radhey Shyam Arora and Radhey Shyam Arora sold it to Deepak Kumar (son   of   accused)   and   Deepak   Kumar   sold   it   to   Kuldeep Singh on 31.08.2006.   It is the contention of accused that there is no document reflecting or mentioning the amount paid by successive buyers or amount paid to Mohd Saman Qureshi by Praveen Kumar Garg.  No doubt, the amount is not mentioned in any document except document available at page No. 2265 of Ex. PW25/B.  However, it is noted that the   vehicle   was   purchased   by   Mohd   Saman   Qureshi   on 14.06.1999 for a sum of Rs. 2,81,461/­.   The vehicle was CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 57 of 73 purchased by Deepak Kumar from Radhey Shyam Arora on 29.06.2001 as per document available at page 2281 of Ex. PW25/B.  Therefore, if a depreciation of 50% is given over a period of 2 years, the probable amount paid by Deepak Kumar   to   Radhey   Shyam   Arora   would   come   out   to   Rs. 140,000/­ approximately.   It is also noted that the vehicle was subsequently sold by Deepak Kumar to Kuldeep Singh on   31.08.2006.     In  other   words,  the  vehicle  was  sold by Deepak Kumar after the check period and hence, the sale of   the   vehicle   by   Deepak   Kumar   cannot   be   taken   into consideration.     Accordingly,  a   sum  of   Rs.  1,40,000/­,   i.e. probable value of the vehicle purchased by Deepak Kumar is liable to be added in the asset of the accused.  

Movable property (household effects)

71. A search was conducted in the property bearing No. C­3/58A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi by the officials of CBI including the IO S. Q. Ali and independent witness namely PW19   Sh.   Surender   Singh.     The   search   list   cum observation memos were proved as Ex. PW19/A (D2) and Ex.   PW19/B   (D3)   during   the   testimony   of   PW19   Sh. Surender   Singh.     As   per   the   observation   memo   Ex. PW19/B, articles worth Rs. 2,73,056.00 were found in the house of accused.  The observation memo Ex. PW19/B is CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 58 of 73 signed   by   Smt.   Ishwar   Kali,   wife   of   accused   and   other independent witnesses.  

72. Accused   disputes   the   calculation   of   the household  articles contending that none of the witnesses has   explained   as   to   how   the   valuation   of   movable/ immovable   property   was   done.     Accused   also   faults   the valuation of the articles mentioned in Ex. PW19/B on the strength   of   circular   of   CBI   which   contains   that   if   a hypothetical   calculation   of   non   verifiable   expenditure   had been taken @ 33% of the net salary, than the household articles   could   not   be   separately   calculated.     A   legal objection is also taken by the accused to the effect that the document,   i.e.   observation   memo   Ex.   PW19/B   contained signatures   of   each   of   the   participating   witnesses   and hence, is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.

73. So far as valuation of the articles mentioned in observation memo Ex. PW19/B is concerned, the wife of accused   Smt.   Ishwar   Kali,   while   putting   her   signatures thereon did not raise any objection or protest as regards the valuation.  The observation memo Ex. PW19/B is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. as it is not a statement in writing, but is only   a   document,   i.e.   observation   memo   Ex.   PW19/B. Accused himself in the written submissions states that the CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 59 of 73 guidelines contained in the circular of the CBI, Ex. DW3/A has   no   value   in   the   eyes   of   law.     Accordingly,   it   is concluded  that  movable assets worth Rs. 2,73,056.00 as mentioned in the observation memo Ex. PW19/B are liable to be added to the assets of the accused.

Value of inventory prepared (search at Power Station Gym being run from C­4/157, Yamuna Vihar

74. PW1   Sh.   D.   S.   Yadav   and   other   witness accompanied   the   CBI   team   which   conducted   search   at premises   No.   C­157,   Yamuna   Vihar   including   Power Station Gym.   After the search, the observation memo Ex. PW1/L   was   prepared   which   bears   the   signatures   of Sriniwas  amongst  other  witnesses.    Sriniwas who signed the observation memo is brother­in­law of accused.  It has also been signed by one person namely Kishan, who is the gym attendant.  The accused relied upon the bill proved by DW8 Sh. Deepak Raj Sachdeva showing the sale of gym equipments in the name of Power Station Gym for a sum of Rs.   76,440/­.     It   is   to   be   mentioned   here   that   in   the chargesheet,   the   value   of   the   inventory   prepared   after search in the Power Station Gym has been taken as Rs. 1,26,440/­ which includes the cost of gym equipments as Rs.   76,440/­.     The   accused   has   disputed   the   valuation CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 60 of 73 mention   in   observation   memo   Ex.   PW1/L   on   the   ground that none of the witnesses who have signed the same has explained   as   to   how   the   valuation   of   the   movable/ immovable property was done.   As discussed above, the said   seizure   memo   is   signed   by   independent   witness namely Sriniwas and Kishan.  None of the witnesses have raised   any   objection   to   the   valuation   while   signing   the observation   memo   Ex.   PW1/L.     The   accused   is   relying upon the bill brought by DW8 Sh. Deepak Raj Sachdeva according to which the value of gym equipment in the name of   Power   Station   Gym   has   been   taken   as   Rs.   76,440/­. Accused   has   further   contended   that   the   IO   has   not explained   as   to   how   the   value   of   inventory   and   Power Station   Gym   can   be   attributed   to   the   accused.     It   has already   been   discussed   and   concluded   that   the   accused cannot distance himself from the asset/expenditure of his sons as they were not having any independent source of income.     Accordingly,   a   sum   Rs.   1,26,440/­   as   value   of articles   mentioned   in   inventory   prepared   after   search   at Power   Station   Gym   is   liable   to   be   added   to   the   asset/ expenditure of the accused.  

House­hold expenditure (1/3 calculated at the rate of 1/3 to the total salary

75. Accused   relied   upon   notification/letter   dated CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 61 of 73 27.11.2001   which   provides   that   unverifiable   expenditure such as on kitchen household, clothing etc should be taken as 1/3 of gross salary as a last resort after attempting to quantify the expenses broadly under each of these heads by verification.  Accused laid much stress on the words "as last resort in the said notification".   However, the position was clarified by the IO PW38 S. Q. Ali who deposed that as the exercise is very exhaustive, kitchen expenses besides electricity   and   water   charges   is   taken   as   1/3   and investigation is conducted with respect to other expenses. What IO conveyed was that unverifiable expenditure such as on kitchen household, clothing etc was taken up as 1/3 of the gross salary as last resort.  

76. Another  submission  of   the   accused   is   that   as per the chargesheet, his salary income is Rs. 19,14,502.60 and   1/3   for   it   comes   out   to   Rs.   6,38,167.53   and   IO   has wrongly   calculated   1/3   as   Rs.   7,84,384.53.     A   careful perusal   of   the   chargesheet   would   show   that   IO   has calculated   the   gross   salary   of   the   accused   as   Rs. 25,08,896.31 and has deducted the tax liability therefrom and   thereafter   has   calculated   the   expenditures   as   1/3 (gross   salary   -   income   tax).     Even   the   aforesaid notification/letter   dated   27.11.2001   relied   upon   by   the accused   states   that   unverifiable   expenditure   such   as CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 62 of 73 kitchen   etc   should   be   taken   as   1/3   of   the   gross   salary. Therefore,   the   IO   has   rightly   taken   up   1/3   household articles   of   the   accused   as   Rs.   7,84,284.53.     Another contention of the accused was that as per the guidelines bearing   No.   21/40/99­PD(PT)   dated   28.11.2001,   if unverifiable   expenses   had   been   taken   @   33%   of   gross salary, then kitchen expenses/household expenses/clothing including   items   of   personal   wear   etc   should   not   be calculated separately.  The IO/PW38 S. Q. Ali clarified the position   while   deposing   that   guidelines   for   taking   the expenditure   as   1/3   of   the   gross   salary   includes   kitchen expenses and electricity/water charges and do not include expenditure   for   acquisition   of   items   such   as   shoes   and clothings.  

77. As   regards   the   expenses   incurred   by   the accused on the education of his three sons, the accused raised twofold contentions, first that the counterfoil of fee receipt has not been brought on record and there exists an apparent contradiction between the content of Ex. PW18/A and content of Ex. PW22/A which cannot be reconciled.  So far   as  Deepak's   fee   is  concerned,  same  is  taken  as   Rs. 25,860/­   in   Ex.   PW22/A,   which   does   not   appear   to   be contradictory   to   the   content   of   Ex.   PW18/A.     No   doubt, there   is   some   contradiction   as   regard   Sachin's   fee   is CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 63 of 73 concerned.     Accordingly,   the   fee   of   Sachin   on   the   lower side will be taken, which is Rs. 14,260/­ from 22.04.1990 to 03.06.2000 as the benefit of any contradiction must go to the   accused.     Accordingly,   the   education   expenditure   as per document Ex. PW22/A (D50) and Ex. PW18/A (D51) will be taken as under:­

1. Arpan's fee from 03.04.1992 to 04.05.1999 - 

Rs. 21,300/­.

2. Deepak's fee from 04.04.1987 to 02.06.1999 - 

Rs. 25,860/­.

3. Sachin's fee from 22.04.1990 to 03.06.2000 - 

Rs. 14,260/­.

78. Sh. Sachin Kumar, son of the accused, booked a car with T. R. Sawhney Motors Pvt Ltd and paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/­ as margin money.   The relevant document in this   regard   is   D21   written   by   Sh.   Rakesh   Bhardwaj,   Sr. General   Manager   to   the   IO,   which   was   admitted   by   the accused.  As per this document, Rs. 60,000/­ was paid by way   of   two   cash   receipts   one   dated   27.01.2005   for   Rs. 49,000/­ and second dated 17.01.2005 for Rs. 11,000/­.  It is further mentioned in this letter that margin money of Rs. 60,000/­   was   refunded   to   the   customer   vide   cheque   No. 898410   for   Rs.   60,000/­.     Accused   examined   DW5   Sh.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 64 of 73

Rakesh Aggarwal, President, T. R. Sawhney Motors who deposed that as per company record, the margin money of Rs. 60,000/­ was refunded to the customer by cheque No. 898410 for Rs. 60,000/­.  Sh. Harsh K. Sharma, Ld defence counsel  submitted that a sum of Rs. 60,000/­  which was refunded to the accused must be added in the income of the accused.  

79. As mentioned above, the dates of payment of margin   money   are   given   in   the   letter   as   27.01.2005   and 17.01.2005.     Thus,   the   payment   of   margin   money   was made during the check period.  However, it is mentioned in the letter D21 that car was financed in the name of ICICI Bank Ltd and payment was received on 10.02.2005, but on the   request   of   customer,   the   loan   was   cancelled   and returned   to   ICICI   Bank   Ltd   and   margin   money   of   Rs. 60,000/­   was   refunded   to   the   customer.     It   is   therefore obvious   that   margin   money   was   refunded   only   after 10.02.2005,   i.e.   after   the   check   period.     Hence,   the refunded margin money which was refunded to the accused cannot be added to the income of the accused.  

80. As regard the telephone bills, PW13 Sh. Arvind Kumar   Manchanda,   who   was   working   as   Sr.   Accounts Officer in MTNL, Yamuna Vihar, came in the witness box CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 65 of 73 and deposed that telephone No. 22913589 was subscribed in the name of accused and was installed on 25.03.1992. According   to   PW13,   registration   amount   was   Rs.   8,000/­ which   was   deposited   by   the   subscriber   with   MTNL   on 25.03.1992.    PW13 further deposed that as per payment details mentioned in the letter Ex. PW13/A­colly, accused Brij   Pal   Singh   had   paid   a   sum   of   Rs.   68,532/­   from 10.10.1998 till 20.12.2004.  Therefore, the total expenditure of the accused on account of installation of telephone and payment of telephone bill comes out to Rs. 76,532/­.   The accused in defence evidence examined DW1 Sh. Yogender Mohan,   DW17   Sh.   Manoj   Kumar,   DW19   Ms.   Geeta Aggarwal   and   DW28   Sh.   Vinod   Kumar   and   according   to their   deposition,   a   total   sum   of   Rs.   32,995/­   has   been reimbursed   to   the   accused   out   of   total   telephone   bill expenditure.     Therefore,   this   amount   of   Rs.   32,995/­   is liable to be added in the income of the accused.

Repayment of education loan of Deepak Kumar (son of the accused)

81. Account   No.   225/2003   is   the   loan   account   of Deepak Kumar.   As per statement of account Ex. P2, an amount   of   Rs.   3,40,000/­   has   been   deposited   from   the account No. 46051, which is the account of Sachin Kumar. There exists a credit entry on 18.07.2004 with respect to a CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 66 of 73 sum of foreign remittance amount to Rs. 3,43,275/­ as per statement of account Ex. P3 of Sachin Kumar.   Since the amount which was credited in the account of Sachin Kumar by   way  of   foreign  remittance  was  transferred  to  the  loan account   of   Deepak   Kumar,   same   cannot   be   treated   as asset of the accused.  

82. After   analyzing   and   considering   the   entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution as well as the accused and having considered the written submissions and   contentions   of   both   the   parties,   the   following figures/table emerges as regard the total income, asset and expenditure of the accused:

  PW         EXHIBIT        D­      COTENTS OF                       AMOUNT
  NO.        NO.            NO       DOCUMENT             INCOME    ASSETS  EXPENDITURE
             1/L                  Observation                       126440
                                  Memo              dt.
                                  2.2.2005   of   the
                                  residence   at   C­
                                  4/157,   Yamuna
                                  Vihar
             2/B            17    Copy   of   Ledger       19595               65000
                                  (PPF) with respect
                                  to   account   no.
                                  40009512   in   the
                                  name of accused
  4          4/A            113   Salary   Details   of   354917
                                  accused   w.e.f.
                                  June 2000 to April
                                  2002.
             6/B                  Salary of accused       250365
                                  w.e.f.   31.3.04   to
                                  2.2.05
                                  Salary of accused       205673
                                  w.e.f. May 2002 to
                                  May 2003
                                  Salary of accused        60061
                                  w.e.f. May 1995 to
                                  May1996
                                  Tentative   as
                                  details   have   not
                                  been received.


CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh                                                         Page No. 67 of 73
                               Salary of accused         134919
                              w.e.f.   June   1996
                              to March 98
                              Salary of accused         166580
                              w.e.f. April 1998 to
                              June 1999
                              Salary of accused         146321
                              w.e.f. July 1999 to
                              May 2000
                              Salary of accused        15151.60
                              w.e.f.   12.06.79   to
                              Dec. 1980
                              Salary of accused        23567.95
                              w.e.f. Jan.1981 to
                              Dec.1982
                              Salary of accused        30651.48
                              w.e.f. Jan.1983 to
                              Dec.1984
                              Salary of accused        25295.09
                              w.e.f. Jan.1985 to
                              April 1986
                              Salary of accused        327943.48
                              w.e.f.   16.04.86   to
                              30.4.1995
                              Salary of accused         173057
                              w.e.f.   09.05.2003
                              to Feb.2004
                              Salary of accused         354917
                              w.e.f.   June   2000
                              to April 2002
  7          7/A         39   Letter   dated                                 58500
                              10.11.2005   of
                              Sh.A.K.Verm,
                              Dy.Registrar,
                              GGSIU,
                              Kashmere   Gate
                              regarding   fee
                              details   of   Sachin
                              Kumar   S/o   Brijpal
                              Singh
             9/C              Policy/Premium                       210600   113536.40
             &                details   of   Policy
             CW­1/B           no. 111268090 dt.
                              28.10.1991   in   the
                              name   of   Brijpal
                              Singh   @   6045/­
                              yearly.
             9/D              Policy/Premium                                 27294
             &                details   of   Policy
             CW­1/C           no. 110106064 dt.
             and              28.08.1988   in   the
             CW­1/E           name   of   Brijpal
                              Singh   @   1084/­
                              yearly.
  11         11/A to     33   Hirer   summary   of                 55000
             11/C             Bajaj            Auto
                              Finance   Ltd   in
                              respect   of   Bajaj
                              Pulsar   pertaining
                              to   Sachin   Kumar
                              DL5S­S390
  12         12/A        81   Receipt            dt.                          7500
                              27.11.2002of
                              Puran            Sons
                              Zariwala


CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh                                                       Page No. 68 of 73
   13         13/A        49   Letter                      32995                 8000+68532
                              dt.17.12.2005   of                                  =76532
                              Sh.Arvind   Kumar
                              Manchanda,   AO,
                              MTNL,   Yamuna
                              Vihar   alongwith
                              subscriber   details
                              and   payment
                              details   in   respect
                              of   telephone   no.
                              22913589   in   the
                              name   of   Brijpal
                              Singh
  14         14/A        31   Policy   /   Premium        60000                   122340
             &                details   of   policy
             P­17             no.251005084   in
                              the   name   of
                              Brijpal   Singh   @
                              10,195/­ yearly.
  18         18/A        51   Letter                                              21300
                              dt.23.12.2005   of
                              Head   Mistress,
                              Little   Flower
                              Public   School
                              written   to   IO,   CBI
                              forwarding   fee
                              details   of   three
                              children              of
                              Accused.
             20/B             Valuation   Report                    23500
                              of Property No. C­
                              499, Gokulpuri.
  22         22/A        50   Letter   written   by                               40120
                              Manager,   Little
                              Flower   School   to
                              IO, CBI forwarding
                              fee   details   of
                              Deepak   Kumar
                              and Sachin Kumar
             25/B             Certified   copy   of                140000
                              Registration   File                   (50%
                              of Vehicle No. DL­                  Depreciatio
                              3CP­2744,   Maruti                      n)
                              Carin the name of
                              Deepak   Kumar
                              purchased   from
                              R.S.Arora
  28         28/A        65   Letter   written   by                               37270
                              this witness to SP,
                              CBI                   dt.
                              20.11.2006
                              forwarding the fee
                              details   of   Deepak
                              Kumar . 
  33         33/A        76   Letter   written   by                   Cost :
                              this witness to SP,                  1396000
                              CBI   in   repsect                  Stamp Duty
                              forwarding   details                  :100520
                              of   property   no.                    Total :
                              155,   Industrial                    1496520
                              Area, Patparganj 
                              Letter   written   by       2180      30000
                              K.P.Menon   to   IO,
                              CBI   in   respect   of
                              Interest   Income


CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh                                                           Page No. 69 of 73
                               from   six   Bonds
                              bearing   Warrant
                              No.   118342   of
                              Infotech   Limited,
                              Mumbai.

                                    ADMITTED DOCUMENTS

             P­3         11   Statement   of   A/c      4923    14696.50
                              No.46051   in   the
                              name   of   Sachin
                              Kumar   with   PNB,
                              Yamuna Vihar
             P­4         12   Statement   of   CD                62340
                              A/c.   No.3522   in
                              the   name   of
                              Power   Station
                              Gym.
             P­5         13   Statement   of   A/c.     3972    3433.13
                              No.39833   in   the
                              name   of   Deepak
                              Kumar
             P­7         15   Letter             no.    30000                128700
                              LIC/25H/Inv.   Dt.
                              11.4.2005   from
                              LIC, Ghaziabad in
                              respect   of   Policy
                              no.   047842322   in
                              the   Brijpal   Singh
                              @ 6435/­
             P­7              Letter             no.                          61700
                              LIC/25H/Inv.   Dt.
                              11.4.2005   from
                              LIC, Ghaziabad in
                              respect   of   Policy
                              no.   252339664   in
                              the   Brijpal   Singh
                              @ 12340/­
             P­7              Letter             no.                          27906
                              LIC/25H/Inv.   Dt.
                              11.4.2005   from
                              LIC, Ghaziabad in
                              respect   of   Policy
                              no.   253079478   in
                              the   Brijpal   Singh
                              @ 13953/­
             P­7              Letter             no.                          55674
                              LIC/25H/Inv.   Dt.
                              11.4.2005   from
                              LIC, Ghaziabad in
                              respect   of   Policy
                              no.   251701772   in
                              the   Brijpal   Singh
                              @ 6186/­
             P­8         21   Letter   of   Rakesh                         49000+11000
                              Bhardwaj            of                       Total = 60000
                              T.R.Sawhney
             P­11        28   Letter              dt.                         79080
                              10.06.2005   from
                              Br.   Manager,   LIC
                              forwarding   details
                              in   respect   of
                              Policy
                              No.111801192   dt.
                              27.2.93   in   the


CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh                                                       Page No. 70 of 73
                               name   of   Brijpal
                              Singh   @   Rs.
                              6590/­ yearly.
             P­11        28   Letter                dt.              67262
                              10.06.2005   from
                              Br.   Manager,   LIC
                              forwarding   details
                              in   respect   of
                              Policy
                              No.111486716   dt.
                              in   the   name   of
                              Brijpal   Singh   @
                              Rs. 5174/­ yearly.
             P­12        29   Letter                dt.              24320
                              11.06.2005   from
                              Br.   Manager,   LIC
                              forwarding   details
                              in   respect   of
                              Policy
                              No.110428327   dt.
                              28.6.1986     in   the
                              name   of   Brijpal
                              Singh   @   Rs.
                              1280/­ yearly.
             P­13        34   Letter                dt.              41972
                              14.6.2005   of   Br.
                              Manager,   LIC,
                              Naraina
                              forwarding
                              premium details of
                              Policy              No.
                              330336146   dt.
                              5.11.1998   @
                              Rs.5996/­   yearly
                              in   the   name   of
                              Brijpal Singh
             P­15        41   Letter                dt.              12600
                              16.11.2005   of   Br.
                              Manager,   Oriental
                              Insurance   Co.,
                              Shahdara
                              regarding   the
                              premium   paid
                              towards              the
                              insurance   of
                              vehicle no. DL­2C­
                              K­0459
             P­16        52   Letter                dt.    210000
                              24.2.2006 of MLO,
                              IP                Estate
                              alongwith   certified
                              copies                 of
                              Registration File in
                              respect of Vehicle
             P­20        72   Certified   copy   of        28631
                              A/c Opening Form
                              and   Statement   of
                              A/c                 No.
                              10086515788   in
                              the   Brijpal   Singh
                              in SBI Gokulpuri
             P­21        78   File   containing            Cost of
                              GPA,   Agreement            Purchase
                              to   Sell   and              C­499 :
                              Receipt               dt.    10000


CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh                                               Page No. 71 of 73
                                   15.12.1980   &
                                  21.05.1990
                                  regarding   sale   of
                                  Property   no.   C­
                                  499, Gokulpuri
             P­22           80    Bills   of   Luxmi        159524
                                  Jewellers   for   the
                                  period   1986   to
                                  1988   for   sale   of
                                  jewellery
             P­27           91    Premium   Receipt                                  84630
                                  no.   43792   dt.
                                  21.10.04            in
                                  respect   of   Policy
                                  no.   111268090   in
                                  favour   of   Brijpal
                                  Singh              @
                                  Rs.5174/­ yearly.
             P­28           92    Premium   Receipt                                  18428
                                  no.   42186­01   dt.
                                  14.10.04            in
                                  respect   of   Policy
                                  no.   110106064   in
                                  favour   of   Brijpal
                                  Singh              @
                                  Rs.1084/­ yearly.
                                         TOTAL             2601208.6   2411160.63   1231664.4

83. Thus,   the   final   figures   of   the   total   income, expenditure, likely savings and total assets of the accused are as follows:

1. Total income Rs.  26,01,208.6

2. Total expenditure Rs.  12,31,664.4

3. Likely saving (total income Rs.  13,69,544.20 (­) total expenditure)

4. Total assets Rs.  24,11,160.63

5. Extent of disproportion Rs.  10,41,616.43 (total assets (­) likely savings)

84. It has thus been conclusively proved on record that accused was found in possession of assets worth Rs. 24,11,160.63,   which  are   disproportionate   to  the  extent   of Rs.10,41,616.43 (approximately 40%) of his total income.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 72 of 73

In other words, the prosecution has successfully proved the charge   against   the   accused   under   Section  13(1)(e)   r/w Section   13(2)   of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988 beyond all shades of doubt.  Accordingly, accused Brij Pal Singh is held guilty and is convicted Under Section 13(1)(e) r/w   Section   13(2)   of   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.  

85. Accused furnished his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/­ with one surety of the like amount before conclusion of trial in compliance with Section 437­A Cr.P.C.

Copy   of   this   judgment   be   furnished   to   the accused immediately. Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP YADAV YADAV Announced in open Court Date: 2018.03.21 15:23:22 +0530 on 19.03.2018        (Sandeep Yadav) Special Judge (PC Act), CBI­08 Central District, THC, Delhi.

CBI Vs. Brij Pal Singh Page No. 73 of 73