Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . (1) Ms. Olga Kozireva (A1) on 3 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT ): CBI01: CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CC No.: 14/2011
CNR No.: DLCT010000162016
Registration No.: 532206/2016
CBI Vs. (1) Ms. Olga Kozireva (A1)
W/o Mr. Andrei
(Nationality Uzbekistan)
R/o H. No. 63, Qrt No. 8, Chilenjar 19,
Tashkaut, Uzbekistan.
Also at: Sameer Guest House, Ballimaran,
Delhi110006
Also at: Hotel Yes Please, 3088,
Sangat Rasan, Paharganj, New Delhi
(Proclaimed Offender)
(2) Ms. Nazira Ibragimova (A2)
(Nationality Uzbekistan)
R/o Hotel Yes Please, 3088,
Sangat Rasan, Paharganj,
New Delhi
(Proclaimed Offender)
(3) Mr. Mamoor Khan (A3)
S/o Hazi Ali Khan
(Nationality Afghanistan)
R/o Ningrahar, Pashoor Market,
H. No. 31 Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
(Proclaimed Offender)
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 1 of 135
(4) Mr. Abdul Qahar (A4)
S/o Aji Gul Mohammad
(Nationality Afghanistan)
R/o Khairkhana, Saramyana, Block No. 2,
1st Floor, H. No. 10, Kabul City,
Afghanistan.
Also at: Sahara Lodge, 2370, Ballimaran,
Delhi - 110006
(Proclaimed Offender)
(5) V. K. Singh Kushwaha (A5)
R/o Late Shri Bisambar Singh
(Nationality Indian)
R/o DII/1, Sahajahan Road,
New Delhi.
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(6) Mr. H. R. Bhima Shankar (A6)
S/o Sh. Ramo Prabhu
(Nationality Indian)
R/o AII/A, MIG Flats, Mayapuri,
New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(7) Mr. Rajiv Gupta (A7)
S/o Sh. N. R. Gupta
(Nationality Indian)
R/o G21, Saket, New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(8) Mr. Virender Kumar (A8)
S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
(Nationality Indian)
R/o H No. 323, Sector21A, Faridabad,
Haryana
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 2 of 135
(9) Mr. Upendra Gupta (A9)
S/o Sh. Satish Cahnder
(Nationality Indian)
R/o CRD 2/7, Pandara Park, New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(10) Mr. Sudhir Sharma (A10)
S/o Late Bhagwan Das Sharma
R/o 113, SFS Flats, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(11) Mr. Yashvir Singh (A11)
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o D103, Vikaspuri, New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(12) Mr. V. K. Bhardwaj (A12)
S/o Sh. J. R. Bhardwaj
R/o 495, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(13) Mr. Ajay Yadav (A13)
S/o Late Sh. Chattar Singh Yadav
R/o 125, Housing Board Company,
Jharsa Road, Gurgoan, Haryana
(Acquitted)
(14) Mr. D. S. Nandal (A14)
S/o Sh. Fate Singh
R/o Flat No. 15, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 593,
Yasodhan Building, J. J. Road,
Mumbai.
(Acquitted)
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 3 of 135
(15) Mr. Anil Madan (A15)
S/o Sh. M. L. Madan
R/o 56, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(16) Mr. R. N. Zutshi (A16)
S/o Sh. A. N. Zutshi
R/o 111, Acharyapuri, Gurgaon,
Haryana
(Acquitted)
(17) Mr. S. D. Rajpal (A17)
S/o Sh. B. R. Rajpal
R/o F11/67, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(18) Mr. T. R. K Reddy (A18)
S/o Sh. T. V. Reddy
R/o D1/104, Janakpuri,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(19) Mr. V. K. Khurana (A19)
S/o Sh. Hargovind Rai
R/o EA106, Maya Enclave,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(20) Mr. Yashpal (A20)
S/o Sh. Thakur Das
R/o 442, 1st Floor, Bhai Pramanand
Colony, New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 4 of 135
(21) Mr. R. K. Srivastava (A21)
S/o Sh. S.C. Srivastava
R/o Block No. 10, H. No. 16,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(22) Mr. Pradeep Rana (A22)
S/o Sh. B. S. Rana
R/o 17E, 804, Mhada, Powai,
Mumbai72
(Acquitted)
(23) Mr. Neeraj Kumar (A23)
S/o Sh. Hardhyan Singh
R/o B6, IAI Colony, Nangal Village,
New Delhi
(Proceedings Stayed)
(24) Mr. Kanwal Suman (A24)
S/o Sh. H. C. Suman
R/o H. No. 35, SectorV, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(25) Mr. Praveen Teotia (A25)
S/o Sh. Devender Singh Teotia
R/o A53B, PhaseII, Ashok Vihar,
New Delhi
(Proceeding Stayed)
(26) Mr. J. A. Khan (A26)
S/o W. A. Khan
R/o 63, South Avenue, New Delhi
(Acquitted)
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 5 of 135
(27) Mr. V. S. Teotia (A27)
S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh Teotia
R/o Vill. Bhoop Nagar, Post Baral,
District Bulandshah U. P.
(Proceeding Stayed)
(28) Mr. Vinod Kumar Kain (A28)
S/o Sh. Tek Singh
R/o B1/1825, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(29) Mr. R. K. Dakolia (A29)
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o P30/2, Sriniwaspuri, Extn..
New Delhi
(Prosecution Withdrawn)
(30) Mr. A. K. Varshney (A30)
S/o Late Shri P. S. Gupta
R/o C12, Evreshing J. P. Road,
Andheri, Mumbai
(Acquitted)
(31) Mr. S. A. Lamba (A31)
S/o Late Shri Allan Lamb
R/o 17 C/203, Customs Quarters,
Mahada Complex, Powai, Mumbai
(Acquitted)
RC No.: 5(E)/ 2001
Police Station: CBI/EOUVII/ New Delhi
Under Sections: 120B IPC read with 420 & 467 IPC
read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 6 of 135
Date of Institution: 27.02.2006
Judgment Reserved on: 28.07.2017
Judgment Delivered on: 03.08.2017
JUDGMENT:
(1) The accused persons i.e. Ms. Olga Kozireva (Accused No.1); Ms, Nazira Ibragimova (Accused No.2); Mamoor Khan (Accused No.3); Abdul Qahar (Accused No.4); V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5); H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6); Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7); Virender Kumar (Accused No.8); Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9); Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10); Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11); V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutsi (Accused No.16); S.D. Rajpal (Accused No.17); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Neeraj Kumar (Accused No.23); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); Praveen Teotia (Accused No.25); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); V.S. Teotia (Accused No.27); Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No.28); R.K. Dakolia (Accused No.29); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) were sent up to face trial for the offences under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 420, 467 Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for causing pecuniary loss to Government of India to the tune of Rs.1,01,17,966/ and corresponding undue pecuniary gain to themselves.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 7 of 135 Brief Facts/ Case of the prosecution:
(2) The FIR of the present case was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 16.02.2001 by Director General (Vigilance), Custom & Central Excise, New Delhi wherein it was alleged that one Uzbek National Ms. Olga Kozireva was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 28.08.2000 with 27 bags of Chinese Silk having a market value of Rs.1.56 Crores. She was arrested and the goods were seized from her possession. The Ld. Sessions Judge while granting bail to her, observed that there appeared to be a vicious link between the customs officials posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi and the passengers and the matter be referred to the CBI. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 13.02.2001 also agreed to a CBI probe after which the matter was referred to CBI by the Customs Department. It was alleged in the complaint that primafacie a nexus existed between Olga Kozireva, Nazira Ibragimova both Uzbek Nationals and two Afghan nationals namely Mamoor Khan and Del Agha & 48 custom officers posted in the preventive and baggage sections of the IGI Airport, New Delhi for bringing into India huge quantities of Chinese Silk and getting the goods cleared on payment of less custom duty or no duty at all resulting in wrongful loss of revenue to the Government of India. It was also alleged that two Uzbekistan National Ladies had visited India 68 times from October 1999 to 28.08.2000 and the custom officers had blatantly misused their official position in allowing the baggage brought by these Uzbek ladies to be adjudicated for less weight or allowing them to walk through the green channel without payment of duty or reduced duty. Further, fake adjudications were also done by some of the customs CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 8 of 135 officials on some dates indicating the arrival of these two ladies with their baggages when they actually did not arrive at the IGI Airport, New Delhi. (3) During investigations it was revealed that Uzbekistan National Ms. Olga Kozireva and Ms. Nazira Ibraimova were the regular visitors to India from the year 1997 and the object of their visits to India was to smuggle Chinese Silk bought from Uzbekistan and Kirgistan to India through the IGI Airport, New Delhi without payment of any custom duty/ by payment of reduced duty and sell the same in the Delhi markets for a profit. In this conspiracy of smuggling of Chinese Silk both these accused lady passengers were assisted by two Afghan Nationals who were residing in India by name of Mamoor Khan (A3) and Del Agha (Approver) who had excellent contacts with the Customs Officers posted in the IGI Airport during the said period and they bribed the customs officials to smuggle out the Chinese Silk. The accused Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova got the baggages cleared for payment of an alleged gratification of US Dollars 400 per small "Bora" (bag) of 70 to 80 kg and US Dollars 700 to 800 per big "Bora" of weight to the custom officials. It has been alleged that the starting point of conspiracy was when Afghan National Mamoor Khan (A3) came into contact with one social worker in Old Delhi by name of Ms. Mehrunissa who in turn approached a custom officer Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Inspector to get the baggage cleared without payment of customs duty. Later on, Mamoor Khan (A3) and Del Agha, (approver) developed relationship with several customs officers i.e. Sh.
Sudhir Sharma the then Supdt. (ACS) (A10); Sh. R.N. Zutshi, then ACO, (A16); Sh. V.K. Khurana then ACO, (A19) and T.R.K. Reddy (A18) who used to be in contact with Ms. Olga Kozireva at the time of her CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 9 of 135 arrival at IGI Airport. It has also been alleged that for clearing the baggages, the accused Mamoor Khan used to pay to the accused customs officials Sudhir Sharma, R.N. Zutshi, V. K. Khurana and T.R.K. Reddy amounts ranging from USD 400 for a small baggage to USD 800 for a big baggage containing Chinese Silk which was taken out by the accused Mamoor Khan with the help of his servant Walliullah to the Sameer Guest House in Ballimaran, Delhi where he used to reside and sell the said Chinese Silk with the help of his servant. This modus operandi continued till July 2000 and the accused Mamoor Khan left India around July 2000 after which Del Agha (approver) another Afghan National and resident of India, took over the control of smuggling of Chinese Silk by Olga Kozireva.
(4) It is further alleged that there existed a criminal conspiracy between the customs officers posted in the baggage and preventive sections of the IGI Airport and Uzbek nationals i.e. Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova and the Afghan accused Mamoor Khan and Del Agha who were instrumental in clearing the baggages of the lady passengers out of the airport and selling them in the market for a huge profit. It is also alleged that the accused custom officer used to charge Rs.12,000/ for small bag weighing 50 to 60 kgs and Rs.24,000/ for a big bag weighing 120 to 130 kg in consideration as bribe money for less adjudication and smuggling out of the goods from airport. The money collected in this manner was then divided between them in the ratio of 60:40 which was shared by the DC (Preventive), Superintendent (Preventive), the protocol officers on duty, DC (Baggage), Superintendent (Baggage) and the Air Custom Officers posted in the airport during the relevant time. During CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 10 of 135 investigations it was revealed that there were 18 instances of smuggling of Textiles i.e. Chinese Silk by the accused lady passenger Olga and Nazira between October 1999 to August 2000 which caused pecuniary losses as Customs Duty to the Government Exchequer, details of which are as under:
1. On 27.02.2000, when Virender Kumar (A8), Deputy Commissioner (Baggage) was on duty, the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived with a manifest weight of 1530 Kg (25958.6 meters) of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 800 meters of Chinese Silk was assessed for duty vide the adjudication order no. 17730 by the said DC which was put up to him by the baggage officer accused V.K. Khurana (A19) and Superintendent Baggage Ajay Yadav (A13). The baggages brought in by the accused corresponded to 26958.6 meters of Chinese Silk, so she was able to smuggle out 26159 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.17,78,785/ without any adjudication/ duty which amounted to Rs.18,88,616/ and it was revealed that on the said date the Air Customs Officer T.R.K. Reddy (A18) was in touch with the accused Mamoor Khan. Further, the accused Praveen Teotia (A25), V.S. Teotia (A27) and J.A. Khan (A26), who were the ACO (Preventive) had failed to prevent the said smuggling.
2. On 17.04.2000 when Upender Gupta (A9) Deputy Commissioner was on duty, the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived with a manifest weight of 135 kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 250 meters of Chinese Silk was assessed CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 11 of 135 for duty vide adjudication order by the said Deputy Commissioner. It was further revealed that the baggage brought in by Olga corresponded to 2378.7 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out 2129 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.1,44,752/ without any adjudication/duty which amounted to Rs.88,588/.
3. On 23.04.2000 also when Upender Gupta (A9) Deputy Commissioner was on duty, accused Olga Kozireva had arrived with a manifest weight of 197 kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 425 meters of Chinese Silk was assessed for duty vide adjudication order no. 20311 by the said Deputy Commissioner. It was further revealed that the baggage brought in by Olga corresponded to 3471.14 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out 3046 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.2,07,138/ without any adjudication/ duty which amounted to Rs.1,26,768/. The said Adjudication Order was put up before the Deputy Commissioner Upender Gupta by Superintendent (Baggage) Yashvir Singh (A11) who was on duty for passing the same.
4. On 23.04.2000, when Upender Gupta, (A9) Deputy Commissioner was on duty, accused Nazira Ibragimova had arrived with a manifest weight of 163 kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 400 meters of Chinese Silk was assessed for duty vide adjudication order no.20313 by the said Deputy Commissioner. It was further revealed that the baggage brought in by Nazira corresponded to 2872.06 meters of Chinese Silk CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 12 of 135 and she was able to smuggle out 2472 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.1,68,100/ without any adjudication/ duty which amounted to Rs.1,02,877/. Further, the said Adjudication Order was put up before the deputy Commissioner Upender Gupta by Superintendent (Baggage) Yashvir Singh (A11) who was on duty for passing the same and the accused JA Khan (A
26) who was ACO preventive, had failed to prevent the smuggling.
5. On 08.05.2000, when V.K. Singh Khushwaha (A5) Additional Commissioner was on duty, the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived with a manifest weight of 520 kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 3100 meters of Chinese Silk was assessed for duty vide adjudication order no.14234 by the said Additional Commissioner. It was further revealed that the baggage brought in by Olga corresponded to 9162 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out 6062 meters of Chinese Silk without any adjudication/ duty amounted to Rs.2,52,293/. The said adjudication order was put up by Baggage Officer, Pradeep Rana (A22) to the Additional Commissioner.
6. On 22.05.2000, both Olga and Nazira were passengers on flight number K2545 and H.R. Bhima Shankar (A6) was the deputy Commissioner (Baggage) on duty. Adjudication Orders No. 14241 and 14243 were passed by the DC (Baggage) and they were assessed for 3200 mts of textiles whereas they had imported 21,496.4 mts of Chinese Silk weighing around 1220 CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 13 of 135 kgs. It has been alleged that around 18296 mts of textiles worth Rs.12,44,155/ was left unassessed leading to a duty evasion of Rs.7,61,4230/ by the two accused passenger and ACO T.R.K. Reddy (A18) and Neeraj Kumar (A23) were in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga and Nazira.
7. On 12.06.2000 the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived when Virender Kumar (A8) was the deputy Commissioner (Baggage) was on duty and had passed the Adjudication Order No. 20327 and she was assessed for 4400 mts of textiles whereas she had brought 35240 mts of Chinese Silk weighing around 2000 kgs. As per the allegations, around 30840 mts of textiles worth Rs.20,97,120/ was left unassessed leading to a duty evasion of Rs.12,83,437/ by the accused. The said Adjudication Order was put up by R.K. Dacoliya, ACO (A29) who was on duty and Yashvir Singh Superintendent (A11) before the Deputy Commissioner Virender Kumar for adjudication for a lesser quantity and the accused VS Teotia (A27), ACO was in touch with the accused Mamoor Khan (A
3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga Kozireva.
8. On 01.07.2000, when Sudhir Sharma Superintendent (A10) was on duty, the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 590 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 2,176 mts of Chinese Silk was assessed for duty vide adjudication order no.17116 which was put by Sudhir Sharma Baggage Superintendent. It has been alleged that this adjudication order CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 14 of 135 was approved/ passed by Sanjay Saran, Deputy Commissioner and the baggage brought in by the accused Olga Kozireva corresponded to 10395.8 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out 820 meters of Chinese Silk without any adjudication/ duty amounted to Rs.3,42,075/. Further, the Air Customs Officer Neeraj Kumar (A23) was in touch with the accused Mamoor Khan to smuggle goods brought by Olga.
9. On 04.07.2000, when Deputy Commissioner Baggage, Virender Kumar (A8) was on duty, accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 820 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but no Chinese Silk was assessed for duty and the passenger was allowed to walk through Green Channel without payment of any duty. Further, as per the allegations the baggage brought in by Olga corresponds to 14448 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out the entire Chinese Silk worth Rs.9,82,491/ without any adjudication/ duty amounted to Rs.6,01,285/. The Air Customs Officer Yashpal (A20) was in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga and Sh. AK Varshney (A30) who was the ACO Preventive on duty on that particular date, failed to prevent the smuggling.
10. On 10.07.2000, when Deputy Commissioner Baggage, Virender Kumar (A8) was on duty accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 1220 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but no Chinese Silk was assessed for duty and the passenger was allowed to walk through Green Channel without CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 15 of 135 payment of any duty. It is also alleged that the baggage brought in by Olga corresponded to 21496.4 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out the entire Chinese Silk worth Rs.14,61,755/ without any adjudication/ duty amounted to Rs.8,94,594/. The Air Customs Officer Vinod Kumar Kain (A28) was on duty at the gate and he deliberately did not prevent the passenger from walking out with the goods that were dutiable and thereby facilitated the smuggling of Chinese Silk to take place. Further, the Air Custom Officers R.N. Zuthsi (A16) and Yashpal (A20), were in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga.
11. On 17.07.2000, when Additional Commissioner V.K. Singh Khushwaha (A5) was on duty, the accused Nazira Ibragimova had arrived having a manifest of 2364 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but only 9000 meters of Chinese Silk was assessed for duty. As per the allegations the baggage brought in by Olga corresponded to 41653.68 meters of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out 32654 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.22,20,450/ without any adjudication/ duty amounted to Rs.13,58,919/. The Air Customs Officer T.R.K. Reddy (A
18) was in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle the goods brought by accused Olga Kozireva.
12. On 31.07.2000, when Deputy Commissioner Baggage H.R. Bhima Shankar (A6) was on duty, the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 1620 Kg of baggage i.e. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 16 of 135 Chinese Silk. Further, as per the allegations an Adjudication Order no. 21581 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Baggage), Bhima Shankar (A6) in which the passenger was assessed for only 2350 mts of Chinese Silk and she was able to smuggle out 26194 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.10,90,106/ without any adjudication/ duty. Further, the Air Customs Officer T.R.K. Reddy (A18) was in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga Kozireva.
13. On 01.08.2000, when Deputy Commissioner Baggage, H.R. Bhima Shankar (A6) was on duty, the accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 370 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk and an Adjudication Order no. 21727 was passed by Deputy Commissioner (Baggage), Bhima Shankar (A6) in which the passenger was assessed for only 1100 mts of Chinese Silk and she had brought in 6519.4 mts of Chinese Silk. As per the allegations, she was able to smuggle out the remaining 5419 meters of Chinese Silk without payment of custom duty amounting to Rs.2,25,534/. This adjudication order was put up by Baggage Officer V.K. Khurana to Deputy Commissioner Bhima Shankar (A6) and the Air Customs Officer R.N. Zuthsi was in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga.
14. On 01.08.2000, when Deputy Commissioner Baggage H.R. Bhima Shankar (A6) was on duty, the accused Nazira Ibragimova had arrived having a manifest of 320 Kg of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 17 of 135 baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but no adjudication took place and the passenger was allowed to walk through the green channel.
Further, as per the allegations, the Chinese Silk brought in by the accused Nazira Ibragimova was 5638.4 mts worth Rs.3,83,411/ and to the tune of Rs.2,34,648/ and accused R.N. Zuthsi was in touch with the accused Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle the goods brought by Olga Kozireva.
15. On 04.08.2000 when Deputy Commissioner Baggage, H.R. Bhima Shankar (A6) was on duty, accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 280 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but no adjudication took place and the passenger was allowed to walk through the green channel. As per the allegations, the Chinese Silk brought in by her was 4933 mts worth Rs.3,35,485/ without any adjudication/ duty and she was able to evade the payment of the customs duty worth Rs.2,05,317/. Further, the Air Customs Officer S.D. Rajpal (A17) was in touch with the accused Afghan Mamoor Khan (A3) to smuggle goods brought by Olga.
16. On 04.08.2000 when Deputy Commissioner (Baggage) H.R. Bhima Shankar (A6) was on duty, the accused Nazira Ibragimova had arrived having a manifest weight of 378 kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk and she was adjudicated vide Adjudication Order No. 21730 for 620 meters of Chinese Silk whereas she had brought 6660 Chinese Silk and therefore she had evaded custom duty worth Rs.2,51,376/. It has been alleged that Sh. V.K. Khurana (A19) Baggage officer had put CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 18 of 135 up the Adjudication Order to the Deputy Commissioner Bhima Shankar. Further, the Air Customs officer S.D. Rajpal (A17) was in touch with the accused Mamoor Khan over the mobile phone for the clearance of smuggled Chinese Silk from the airport thereby facilitating the smuggling.
17. On 12.08.2000 when Deputy Commissioner (Baggage) Rajiv Gupta (A7) was on duty, accused Olga Kozireva had arrived having a manifest of 1400 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk but the Adjudication Order no. 18407 was only for 2000 meters of Chinese Silk. It has been alleged that the accused Olga Kozireva was not adjudicated for 22668 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.15,41,424/ and could evade customs duty worth Rs.9,43,351/ which was a loss to the Government in terms of revenue. Further, Sh. Pradeep Rana, Baggage officer (A22) had processed the said Adjudication Order and the same was put up by Superintendent (Baggage) V.K. Bhardwaj (A12) before the Deputy Commissioner, Rajeev Gupta (A7) by showing only a lesser adjudication of the goods brought.
18. On 18.08.2000, when Deputy Commissioner (Baggage) Rajiv Gupta (A7) was on duty, the accused Nazira Ibragimova had arrived having a manifest of 500 Kg of baggage i.e. Chinese Silk and the passenger was adjudicated vide adjudication order no.21752 for 2400 meters of Chinese Silk whereas she had bought in 8810 meters of Chinese Silk and hence she was not adjudicated for 6410 meters of Chinese Silk worth Rs.4,35,880/ and could evade customs duty worth Rs.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 19 of 135 2,66,759/ which was a loss to the Govt. in terms of Revenue. The Air Customs Officer R.K. Shrivastava (A21) had initiated the said Adjudication Order which was put up by the Superintendent (Baggage) V.K. Bhardwaj (A12) before the Deputy Commissioner Rajeev Gupta (A7) by showing a lesser adjudication of the goods brought.
(5) Apart from the above instances, investigations revealed that both the accused Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova had been adjudicated on 31.10.1999, 14.08.2000 and 21.08.2000 when it has been revealed that they had never come to India on those dates by the following Deputy Commissioner of Baggage who were on duty on the said dates:
1. Additional Commissioner VK. Singh Khushwaha (A5) allowed clearance of Chinese Silk worth Rs.3,37,500/ on 31.10.1999 and passed a false/ fabricated Adjudication Order No. 13348 in the name of Accused Olga Kozireva when she had not arrived on that particular date.
2. On 04.12.1999, Deputy Commissioner of Baggage, Upender Gupta (A9) passed three fake adjudication orders no. 13356 in the name of Olga Kozireva and adjudication orders no. 13357 and no. 13352 both in the name of Nazira, vide which the passengers were assessed for 830 mts of Chinese Silk value at Rs.49,800/.
3. On 14.08.2000, the Deputy Commissioner of Baggage, Rajiv Gupta (A7) passed two fake adjudications orders i.e. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 20 of 135 Adjudication Order no. 18413 in the name of Olga Kozireva and Adjudication Order no. 18414 in the name of Nazia Ibragimova, vide which the passengers were assessed for 1000 mts of Chinese Silk value at Rs.45,000/ each.
4. On 21.08.2000, the Superintendent (Baggage) Anil Madan (A
15) and Baggage Officer Kanwal Suman (A24) processed two fake adjudication orders no. 20165 in the name of Olga and Adjudication Order no. 20356 in the name of Nazira Ibragimova, vide which adjudication orders, the passengers were assessed for 800 and 700 mts of Chinese Silk value at Rs.40,000/ and Rs.35,000/ respectively.
(6) Further, as per the allegations in the charge sheet that there was a group of officers posted in the Airport during the period of conspiracy who had an active participation in deciding the share of the bribe money amongst the officers who had caused loss to the Government in terms of adjudication and by facilitating the smuggling to take place in the instances described above for clearing the smuggled baggages obtained from Olga Kozireva (A1), Nazira Ibragimova (A2), Mamoor Khan (A3), Del Agha. The accused Sudhir Sharma Superintendent; Ajay Yadav Superintendent; DS Nandal Superintendent; Anil Madan Superintendent; RN Zuthsi ACO; TRK Reddy ACO; VK Khurana ACO; Pradeep Rana ACO; Praveen Teotia ACO; JA Khan ACO; VS Teotia ACO; Vinod Kumar Kain ACO; RK Dacoliaya ACO; AK Varshney ACO are the officers who had played an important role in smuggling of textiles apart from interacting with the lady passengers and accused Afghans on a CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 21 of 135 regular basis over the mobile phones to facilitating the smuggling of textiles. It has also been alleged in the charge sheet that Sh. V.K. Singh Khushwaha (A21), Addl. Commissioner during the period of conspiracy had issued two backdated circulars which were based on the letters dated 24.05.2000 and 16.06.2000 received from the Embassy of India in Tashkent. However, with a malafide intention to cover up his own role in the conspiracy of facilitating the smuggling activities of the Uzbek Nationals, he did not act upon the circulars in time but kept the same pending with him and after the arrest of the accused Olga Kozireva on 28.08.2000, he issued alert notices in November 2000 and showed it to have been issued on 09.08.2000 and 21.08.2000 and also tried to prevent the arrest of Olga Kozireva on 28.08.2000 when she was intercepted at the IGI Airport while carrying 81160 yards valuing Rs.1.56 Crores of Chinese Silk by letting her out with an adjudication order only. (7) As per the allegations, the above mentioned custom officers had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Olga Kozireva (A1), Nazira Ibragimova (A2), Mamoor Khan (A3), Del Agha (approver) and Abdul Qahar (A4), the object of which was to cause undue pecuniary gain to themselves and corresponding undue pecuniary loss to Government of India by facilitating smuggling of Chinese Silk out of the IGI Airport which were grossly under valued for less duty/no duty at all, thereby causing a loss of revenue to the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,01,17,966/ and also for a pecuniary consideration for themselves by misusing their official position as public servants. (8) However, the allegations against Sh. Rajesh Tomar Superintendent, Vinod Kumar, ACO and Ravinder Swaroop, the then CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 22 of 135 Deputy Commissioner (Preventive) could not be established as they were not found to be involved in the conspiracy of Smuggling of Chinese Silk from the airport. Sh. Ravinder Swaroop, the then Dy. Commissioner (Preventive) was instrumental in getting the accused Olga Kozireva arrested on 28.08.2000 with smuggled Chinese Silk worth Rs. 1.56 Crores.
(9) Further, the sanction for prosecution against the accused officers i.e. Accused no.5 to Accused No. 31 have been accorded by the competent authorities. However, the sanction for prosecution against then Dy. Commissioner's Sanjay Sharan, Vivek Ranjan, D.K. Soni and Deepak Garg; the then Superintendents P. S. Meena, R.K. Tyagi, Anil Swamy, H.P. Singh and Air Custom Officers Subhash Trishal, Mahavir, Dal Singh, Sheopat Singh, Kanwar Lal, KC Nautiyal, CDA Nair and Ashok Ranwan were declined by the competent authority and hence, their names are mentioned in column no. 2 of the charge sheet. Also, the accused persons namely V.K. Verma, and Satish Bansal, Superintendent are not sent up for trial having expired.
(10) Accused Mamoor Khan and Nazira Ibragimova have left India and Look Out Notices have been opened in their names and Red Corner Notice has been issued against the accused Mamoor Khan to trace his whereabouts, whereas Del Agha has been granted pardon. Also, the role of Abdul Qahar an associate of Mamoor Khan had surfaced during investigation in the transportation and disposal of the smuggled goods brought by the accused lady passengers Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova in the market for a profit.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 23 of 135 CHARGES:
(11) After filing of the charge sheet, summons were issued to the various accused persons. The record reveals that initially the accused no.1 Olga Kozireva and accused no.4 Abdul Qahar had been granted bail and were appearing before the Court but later on they stopped appearing.
Further, in so far as the accused no.2 Nazira Ibragimova and accused no.3 Mamoor Khan are concerned, they were not traceable. Therefore, vide order dated 13.11.2007 the accused no.1 Olga Kozireva, accused no.2 Nazira Ibragimova, accused no.3 Mamoor Khan and accused no. 4 Abdul Qahar were declared Proclaimed Offenders. (12) Order on charge was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 22.07.2011 pursuant to which charges under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were settled against the accused no.5 to 31. Further, separate charges under Section 420, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (a) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were settled against the accused no. 5 to 15, 19 to 22, 24, 29 and 31 whereas separate charges under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (a) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were settled against the accused no. 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(13) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 24 of 135 proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Witnesses:
Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No. Prosecution Witnesses:
1. PW1 Sh. Ajay Dhiman Official Witness - the then Traffic Supervisor at IGI Airport
2. PW2 Sh. Mahesh Gupta Public witness - Businessman
3. PW3 Sh. Jagdish Kumar Official Witness - the then Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport
4. PW4 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Public witness - Businessman
5. PW5 Sh. S.C. Dahuja Official Witness - the then Inspector at IGI Airport
6. PW6 Sh. Sunil Puri Public Witness - Known to accused Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova
7. PW7 Abdul Qaiyaum Public Witness - Manager of Sameer Guest House
8. PW8 Sh. Shiv Shankar Official Witness - the then Baggage officer at IGI Airport
9. PW9 Sh. R.S. Meena Official Witness - the then Superintendent (Baggage Section) at IGI Airport
10. PW10 Sh. D.P. Sharma Official Witness - the then Superintendent (Baggage) at IGI Airport
11. PW11 Sh. Mahesh Official Witness - the then Assistant Manager in Chander the State Bank of India at IGI Airport
12. PW12 Sh. Bisan Chand Official Witness - the then Inspector Customs at IGI Airport
13. PW13 Sh. Madan Lal Official Witness - the then Air Cusom Officer at IGI Airport
14. PW14 Sh. Nathu Lal Public Witness - Manager of hotel 'Yes Please'
15. PW15 Sh. Mahender Public Witness - Businessman Kumar Jain
16. PW16 Sh. Ravinder Official Witness - the then Clearing Officer Kumar (Immigration) at IGI Airport
17. PW17 Walliullah Public Witness - employee of Mamoor Khan
18. PW18 Smt. Mehru Nisha Public Witness - Known to the accused Mamoor Khan CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 25 of 135 Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No.
19. PW19 Sh. V.K. Gupta Official Witness - the then Under Secretary and Incahrge of CustomVI Section
20. PW20 Sh. R.M. Khullar Official Witness - Assistant Manager of State Bank of India, IGI Airport
21. PW21 Sh. K.V.V.G. Official Witness - Joint Commissioner (Customs) Diwakar
22. PW22 Sh. Ashutosh Official Witness - Assistant Central Intelligence Kumar Officer at IGI Airport
23. PW23 Sh. A.K. Mishra Official Witness Assistant Central Intelligence Officer at IGI Airport
24. PW24 Sh. Ashok Kumar Official Witness - Immigration Officer at IGI Airport
25. PW25 Sh. Hemchand Official Witness - Assistant Central Intelligence Officer at IGI Airport
26. PW26 Sh. Arunendra Official Witness - Sub Inspector in FRRO at IGI Singh Airport
27. PW27 Ms. Poonam Puri Official Witness - Inspector at IGI Airport
28. PW28 Sh. Nitish Kumar Public Witness - Businessman Kedia
29. PW29 Sh. Pradeep Official Witness - Personal Assistant to Addl.
Kumar Yadav Commissioner Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha
30. PW30 Sh. Prasanna Official Witness - the then Additional Kumar Dash Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai
31. PW31 Sh. H.K. Sharma Official Witness - Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau
32. PW32 SI Harish Kumar Official Witness - ACIOII at IGI Airport
33. PW33 Zamir Ahmed Official Witness - Superintendent, Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi
34. PW34 Dr. Gautam Ray Official Witness - Commissioner of Customs (Administration) at Kolkata
35. PW35 Dr. Nirmal Kumr Official Witness - Under Secretary, Central Board Soren of Excise and Customs
36. PW36 Captain Sanjay Official Witness - Joint Commissioner (Personnel Gehlot & Vigilance), Mumbai Customs
37. PW37 Sh. P.K. Bhardwaj Official Witness - FRRO, New Delhi CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 26 of 135 Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No.
38. PW38 Sh. N. Sasidharan Official Witness - Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
39. PW39 Sh. Sanjib Babu Official Witness - Clearing officer at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
40. PW40 Sh. Santosh Official Witness - Intelligence Officer, DRI, Delhi Kumar Srivastava Zonal Unit
41. PW41 Sh. S.K.S. Official Witness - Commissioner, Central Excise, Somvanshi New Delhi
42. PW42 Sh. Rajiv Talwar Official Witness - Deputy Director (Intelligence), Delhi Zonal Unit of DRI
43. PW43 Sh. Suresh Official Witness - Additional Commissioner Kishnani (P&V), Central Excise, Delhi
44. PW44 Sh. Sanjiv Official Witness - Deputy Commissioner at IGI Srivastava Airport.
45. PW45 Mohd. Lukman Public Witness - Waiter in Sahara Lodge
46. PW46 Sh. Praveen Gulia Official Witness - Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport
47. PW47 Sh. Pradeep Singh Public Witness - Businessman known to the Dhamija accused Mamoor Khan
48. PW48 Sh. Purushottam Public Witness - Businessman known to the Lal Tandon accused Mamoor Khan
49. PW49 Sh. Navyug Taneja Official Witness - Air Custom officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport
50. PW50 Sh. Neeraj Babu Official Witness - Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport
51. PW51 Sh. Rakesh Gupta Official Witness - Air Custom officer at Preventive Wing, IGI Airport
52. PW52 Sh. Gopal Public Witness - Businessman known to accused Dokania Mamoor Khan
53. PW53 Sh. Surender Shah Official Witness - Superintendent (Protocol) at IGI Airport
54. PW54 Sh. Ravinder Official Witness - Deputy Commissioner of Saroop Customs (Preventive) at IGI Airport
55. PW55 Sh. Kamal Bajaj Official Witness - Custom Officer at IGI Airport
56. PW56 Sh. Naushad Official Witness - Preventive Officer in Assanar COFEPOSA Unit at IGI Airport CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 27 of 135 Sr. PW Name of witnesses Details of the witnesses No. No.
57. PW57 Sh. Arvind Official Witness - Cargo Officer in Kyrgyzstan Prabhakar Airlines
58. PW58 Sh. Arun Kumar Public Witness - Businessman Dokania
59. PW59 Sh. Satinder Bist Official Witness - Inspector in EOUVII, CBI
60. PW60 Sh. U.K. Mishra Official Witness - Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI
61. PW61 Sh. R.L. Yadav Official Witness - Inspector in EOUVII (SIU9)
62. PW62 Ms. Seema Maini Official Witness - the then Ld. MM
63. PW63 Sh. Rajender Official Witness - Assistant manager, State Bank of Prasad Kamal India, IGI Airport, Delhi
64. PW64 Sh. R.K. Sharma Official Witness - Assistant in Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs 7 Central Excise, New Delhi.
65. PW65 Sh. Rajesh Chahal Official Witness - Inspector in SIUIX, New Delhi
66. PW66 Sh. S. Official Witness - Inspector in SIUIX, New Delhi Balasubramony - Investigating officer of the present case Defence Witnesses:
Nil: The accused Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10); Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); S.D. Rajpal (Accused No. 17); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No. 28); Raj Kumar Dacolia (Accused No. 29); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) have not examined any witness in their defence.
List of Documents:
Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
1. Ex.PW3/A Statement of Jagdish Kumar Jagdish Kumar (PW3)
2. Ex.PW4/A 11 Latter dated 26.04.2001 Rajesh Kumar (PW4)
3. Ex.PW4/B 11 Computer generated bill Rajesh Kumar (PW4) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 28 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
4. Ex.PW4/C 11 Computer generated bill Rajesh Kumar (PW4)
5. Ex.PW5/A 38 Spot Adjudication Order no. S. C. Dahuja 20311 dated 23.04.2000 (PW5)
6. Ex.PW5/B Statement of S.C. Dahuja S. C. Dahuja (PW5)
7. Ex.PW7/A 20 Seizure memo of Hotel Abdul Qaiyaum Register regarding record of (PW7) the Guest
8. Ex.PW7/B 21 Hotel register regarding Abdul Qaiyaum record of foreigners (PW7)
9. Ex.PW7/C 21 Entry dated 04.4.99 relating Abdul Qaiyaum to stay of Mamoor Khan (PW7)
10. Ex.PW7/D 21 Entry dated 19.06.99 page Abdul Qaiyaum no. 7 relating to stay of (PW7) Mamoor Khan
11. Ex.PW7/E 21 Entry at page no. 9 relating to Abdul Qaiyaum stay of Mamoor Khan (PW7)
12. Ex.PW7/F 21 Entry on page no. 28 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum No. 330 relating to stay of (PW7) Mamoor Khan
13. Ex.PW7/G 21 Entry on page no. 43 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum No. 28 relating to stay of (PW7) Mamoor Khan
14. Ex.PW7/H 21 Entry on page no. 6 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum No. 71 relating to entry of (PW7) Abdul Qahar
15. Ex.PW7/I 21 Entry on page no.9 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum no. 9 relating to entry of (PW7) Abdul Qahar
16. Ex.PW7/J 21 Entry on page no. 13 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum no.155 relating to entry of (PW7) Kozireva Olga
17. Ex.PW7/K 21 Entry on page no. 15 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum no. 180 entry of Kozireva (PW7) Olga CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 29 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
18. Ex.PW7/L 21 Entry on page no. 18 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum No. 218 relating to entry of (PW7) Kozireva Olga
19. Ex.PW7/M 21 Entry on page no. 20 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum No. 241 relating to entry of (PW7) Kozireva Olga
20. Ex.PW7N 21 Entry on page no.21 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum No. 255 relating to entry of (PW7) Kozireva Olga
21. Ex.PW7/O 21 Entry on page no. 23 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum no. 276 entry of Kozireva (PW7) Olga
22. Ex.PW7/P 21 Entry on page no. 27 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum no. 321 entry of Kozireva (PW7) Olga
23. Ex.PW7/Q 21 Entry on page no. 37 at serial Abdul Qaiyaum no. 21 entry of Kozireva Olga (PW7)
24. Mark PW 7/1 109 Statement of Abdul Qaiyaum Abdul Qaiyaum (PW7)
25. EXPW8/A 44 Carbon copy of adjudication Shiv Shankar Singh order (PW8)
26. Ex.PW9/A 43 Spot adjudication order S. R.S. Meena (PW9) No. 14232
27. Ex.PW9/B 43 AO No. 14234 in favour of R.S. Meena (PW9) Olga Kozireva
28. Ex.PW10/A 40 Spot adjudication order No. D.P. Sharma 20154 dated 31.07.2000 (PW10)
29. Ex.PW11/A 158 Custom collection Book dated Mahesh Chander 21.08.2000 from Olga (PW11) Kozireva
30. Ex.PW11/B 158 Custom collection Book dated Mahesh Chander 21.08.2000 (PW11)
31. Ex.PW12/A 43 Adjudication order No.14243 Bishan Chand (PW12)
32. Ex.PW14/A 22 Seizure memo of hotel Nathu Lal (PW14) register
33. Ex.PW14/B 22 Hotel register Yes Please Nathu Lal (PW14) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 30 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
34. Ex.PW14/C 22 Entry at serial no. 79 on page Nathu Lal (PW14) no.44 regarding Olga Kozireva
35. Ex.PW14/D 22 Entry on page no.105 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 1360 in the name of Ibragimova Nazira and Kozireva Olga
36. Ex.PW14/E 22 Entry on page no. 128 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 1652 & 1653
37. Ex.PW14/F 22 Entry on page no, 136 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 1754 in the name of Kozireva Olga
38. Ex.PW14/G 22 Entry on page no. 142 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial No. 135&1836
39. Ex.PW14/H 22 Entry on page no. 147 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 1899 in the name of Kozireva Olga
40. Ex.PW14/J 22 Entry on page no. 150 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 199 in the name of Ibragimova Nazira
41. Ex.PW14/K 22 Entry on page no.152 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 162 and 163 in the name of Kozireva Olga
42. Ex.PW14/L 22 Entry on page no. 155 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 2006 and 207 in the name of Kozireva olga and Ibragimova nazira
43. Ex.PW14/M 22 Entry on page no. 160 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 2067 and 2068 dated 02.08.2000 in the name of Kozireva olga and Ibragimova Nazira
44. Ex.PW14/N 22 Entry on page no 162 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial no. 2091 and 2092 dated 04.08.2000 CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 31 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
45. Ex.PW14/O 22 Entry on page no. 166 at Nathu Lal (PW14) serial No. 2147 dated 12.08.2000 in the name of Kozireva Olga and Ibragimova Nazira
46. Ex.PW15/1 Statement under Section 161 Mahender Kumar CrPC of Mahender Kr. Jain (PW15)
47. Ex.PW17/D1 Copy of Voter Card Walliullah (PW17)
48. Ex.PW19/A 136 Letter dated 01.11.2001 V.K. Gupta (PW19)
49. Ex.PW19/B 136 Deptt. circular No. 29/2000 V.K. Gupta (PW19) dated 1.04.2000
50. Ex.PW19/C 136 Letter Dated 06.05.96 to V.K. Gupta (PW19) Chief Commissioner Mumbai of Custom regarding im0port goods in commercial quantities in Baggage
51. Ex.PW19/D 136 Deptt. circular No. 64/96 V.K. Gupta (PW19) CUS.VI
52. Ex.PW20/A 140 Seizure memo of cash receipt R.M. Khllar (PW20)
53. Ex.PW20/X1 140 Receipt of cash memo R.M. Khllar to PW20/X3 (PW20)
54. Ex.PW20/B 141 Seizure memo of Duplicated R.M. Khllar copies of Bills (PW20)
55. Ex.PW20/X4 141 Duplicated copies of Cash R.M. Khllar to X9 receipts (PW20)
56. Ex.PW21/A 181 Sanction Order K.V.V.G. Diwakar (PW21)
57. Ex.PW22/PX Statement of Sh. Ashutosh Ashutosh Kumar Kumar (PW22)
58. Ex.PW23/A 122 Passport of Olga Kozireva A.K. Mishra (PW23)
59. Ex.PW27/A 122 Arrest memo of Olga Poonam Puri Kozireva (PW27)
60. Ex.PW27/B 122 Notice u/s 102 of Customs Act Poonam Puri (PW27) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 32 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
61. Ex.PW27/C 122 Detention slip Poonam Puri (PW27)
62. Ex.PW27/DX Statement of Smt. Poonam Poonam Puri Puri (PW27)
63. Ex.PW27/DY Statement of Smt. Poonam Poonam Puri Puri (PW27)
64. Ex.PW29/A 29 Circular dated 09/21.08.2000 Paredeep Kumar regarding the thorough Yadav (PW29) checking of CIS national particularly Uzbek national at IGI Airport
65. Ex.PW30/A 1 Photocopy of interim report Prasana Kumar dated 22.12.2000 (PW30)
66. Ex.PW30/B 1 Report dated 31.01.2001 Prasana Kumar running into 17 pages (PW30)
67. Ex.PW31/A 32 Letter dated 26.04.2001 H.K. Sharma regarding arrival/ departure (PW31) detail of Olga Kozireva, Nazira Ibragimova, Mamoor Khan and Del Agha
68. Ex.PW31/B 32 Computer generated details of H.K. Sharma departure/arrival (PW31)
69. Ex.PW33/A 137 Seizure memo cum inspection Zamir Ahmed memo dated 13.12.2001 (PW33)
70. Ex.PW33/A 37 Receipt memo dated Zamir Ahmed 16.04.2001 (PW33)
71. Ex.PW33/B 137 Computer generated Zamir Ahmed document (PW33)
72. Ex.PW33/C1 137 Application for leave from Zamir Ahmed 27.1.2000 for one week of (PW33) V.K. Kushwaha
73. Ex.PW33/C2 137 Application for leaved dated Zamir Ahmed 27.1.2000 (PW33)
74. Ex.PW33/C3 137 Application for leaved dated Zamir Ahmed 30.11.2000 of C.S. Prasad (PW33)
75. Ex.PW33/C4 137 Alert dated 19.06.2000 Zamir Ahmed (PW33) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 33 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
76. Ex.PW33/C5 137 Note dated 30.11.2000 Zamir Ahmed (PW33)
77. Ex.PW33/D 138 Seizure memo/ Inspection of Zamir Ahmed CPU (PW33)
78. Ex.PW33/E 52 Panchnama dated 2.12.2000 Zamir Ahmed (PW33)
79. Ex.PW33/F 52 Receipt memo dated Zamir Ahmed 22.12.2000 (PW33)
80. Ex.PW33/G 37 Receipt memo dated Zamir Ahmed 16.04.2001 (PW33)
81. Ex.PW33/H 28 Receipt memo dated NIL Zamir Ahmed (PW33)
82. Ex.PW34/A 180 Sanction order dated Dr. Gautam Ray 25.10.2005 (PW34)
83. Ex.PW35/A 34 Letter bearing No. F.No. Nirmal Kumar 394/71/97CUS (AS) Govt of (PW35) India M/O Finance dated 31.05.2001
84. Ex.PW36/A 184 Sanction Order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.01.2006 running into two (PW36) pages granting sanction of Yashpal
85. Ex.PW36/B 185 Sanction Order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.01.2006 running into two (PW36) pages granting sanction for prosecution of Pardeep Rana
86. Ex.PW36/C 186 Sanction Order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.01.2006 running into two (PW36) pages granting sanction for prosecution of Neeraj Kumar
87. Ex.PW36/D 187 Sanction order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.01.206 for granting (PW36) sanction for prosecution of Praveen Teotia
88. Ex.PW36/E 188 Sanction order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.01.2006 for granting (PW36) sanction for prosecution of A.K. Varshney CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 34 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
89. Ex.PW36/F 189 Sanction order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.01.206 granting sanction (PW36) for prosecution of S.A.Lamb
90. Ex.PW36/G 190 Sanction order dated Sanjay Gahlot 13.1.2006 granting sanction (PW36) of prosecution of V.S.Teotia
91. Ex.PW36/DX Add. Office order no. Sanjay Gahlot Docu. 94/TECH/2000 (PW36)
92. Ex.PW36/DX1 Add. Office order no. Sanjay Gahlot Docu. 94/TECH/2000 (PW36)
93. Ex.PW37/A 66 Letter dated 12.04.201 P.K. Bhardwaj regarding details of arrival (PW37) /departure of four foreigners for the period from 1997 to 11.04.2001
94. Ex.PW37/B 66 Computer generated details of P.K. Bhardwaj arrival / departure of for (PW37) foreigners from Central foreigners Bureau running into 35 pages
95. Ex.PW38/A 182 Sanction order dated N. Sasidharan 13.01.2006 running into two (PW38) pages granting sanction for prosecution of Yashvir Singh
96. Ex.PW38/B 183 Sanction order 13.01.2006 N. Sasidharan granting sanction for (PW38) prosecution of D.S. Nandal
97. Ex.PW39/A 122 Departure stamp W17 in red Sanjib Basu dated 17.07.2000 (PW39)
98. Ex.PW40/A 35 Seizure memo dated Santosh Kumar 25.09.2001 (PW40)
99. Ex.PW41/A 169 Sanction order for S.K. Somvanshi prosecution of Sudhir Sharma (PW41)
100. Ex.PW41/B 170 Sanction order for S.K. Somvanshi prosecution of V.K. Bhardwaj (PW41)
101. Ex.PW41/C 171 Sanction order for S.K. Somvanshi prosecution of Anil Madan (PW41) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 35 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
102. Ex.PW41/D 172 Sanction order for S.K. Somvanshi prosecution of R.K. (PW41) Srivastava
103. Ex.PW42/A 105 Statement of Rajiv Talwar Rajiv Talwar (PW42)
104. Ex.PW42/B 14 Forwarding letter dated Rajiv Talwar 20.08.2001 (PW42)
105. Ex.PW43/A 173 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of R.N. Zutshi (PW43)
106. Ex.PW43/b 174 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of S.D. Rajpal (PW43)
107. Ex.PW43/C 175 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of Kanwal Suman (PW43)
108. Ex.PW43/D 176 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of R.K. Dakolia (PW43)
109. Ex.PW43/E 177 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of V.K. Khurana (PW43)
110. Ex.PW43/F 178 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of J.A. Khan (PW43)
111. Ex.PW43/G 179 Sanction order for Suresh Kishanani prosecution of Vinod Kumar (PW43) Kain
112. Ex.PW47/A - Photocopy of Statement under Pardeep Singh Section 108 of custom Act Dhamija (PW47) 1962 on 03.01.2001
113. Ex.PW47/PX Statement of Sh. Pradeep Pardeep Singh Singh Dhamija Dhamija (PW47)
114. Ex.PW48/A 102 Summon under Section 108 of Pursushottam Lal Customs Act 1962 dated Tandon (48) 30.12.2000
115. Ex.PW48/B 102 Statement u/s 108 of Custom Pursushottam Lal Act of Pursushottam lal in Tandon (48) four pages
116. Ex.PW48/C 102 Photocopy of documents for Pursushottam Lal identified the impression of Tandon (48) his signatures CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 36 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
117. Ex.PW49/A 122 Statement of Olga Kozireva Navyug Taneja recorded under Section 108 of (PW49) Custom Act
118. Ex.PW49/B 122 Statement of Vinod Kumar Navyug Taneja under Section 108 custom Act (PW49)
119. Ex.PW49/C 122 Statement under Section 108 Navyug Taneja of Custom Act of Mirza Farid (PW49) Beg
120. Ex.PW49/D 122 Statement of Kachkyn Navyug Taneja Oeganbaeo (PW49)
121. Ex.PW49/E 122 Panchnama Dated Navyug Taneja 28.08.2000 (PW49)
122. Ex.PW49/F 122 Panchnama dated 17.02.2001 Navyug Taneja (PW49)
123. Ex.PW50/A 38 Carbon copy of spot Neeraj Babu adjudication order (PW50)
124. Ex.PW50/B 49 Entry regarding aforesaid AO Neeraj Babu No. 20344 (PW50)
125. Ex.PW50/C 93 Adjudication order Neeraj Babu (PW50)
126. Ex.PW51/A 35 Noting dated 28.08.2000 Rakesh Gupta (PW51)
127. Ex.PW51/B 35 Noting dated 30.08.2000 Rakesh Gupta (PW51)
128. Ex.PW51/C 35 Noting dated 01.09.2000 Rakesh Gupta (PW51)
129. Ex.PW51/D 35 Noting dated 04.09.2000 Rakesh Gupta (PW51)
130. Ex.PW51/E 149 Statement under Section 164 Rakesh Gupta CrPC (PW51)
131. Ex.PW52/A 94 Statement of Gopal Dokania Gopal Dokania under Section 108 of Custom (PW52) Act
132. Ex.PW52/PX Statement of Sh. Gopal Gopal Dokania Prasad Dokania (PW52) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 37 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
133. Ex.PW54/A 35 Noting dated 28.08.2000 at Ravinder Saroop page 3 (PW54)
134. Ex.PW54/B 35 Noting dated 28.08.2000 at Ravinder Saroop page 6 (PW54)
135. Ex.PW54/C 14 Letter dated 13.09.2001 Ravinder Saroop (PW54)
136. Ex.PW54/D 148 Statement under Section 164 Ravinder Saroop CrPC (PW54)
137. Ex.PW54/E 148 Statement under Section 164 Ravinder Saroop CrPC (PW54)
138. Ex.PW54/F 148 Statement under Section 164 Ravinder Saroop CrPC (PW54)
139. Ex.PW55/A 152 Notice to Show cause under Kamal Bajaj Section 124 (PW55)
140. Ex.PW55/PX Statement of Sh. Kamal Bajaj Kamal Bajaj (PW55)
141. Ex.PW56/A 124 Photocopy of statement Naushad Assanar (PW56)
142. Ex.PW56/PX Statement of Sh. Assanar Naushad Assanar Naushad (PW56)
143. Ex.PW56/B 124 Photocopy of photograph at Naushad Assanar page no,3 (PW56)
144. Ex.PW56/C 124 Photocopy of statement dated Naushad Assanar 2122000 (PW56)
145. Ex.PW57/A 163 Computer generated Arvind Prabhakar passenger manifest and cargo (PW57) manifest running into 145 pages for the period w.e.f 02.01.2000 to 26.12.2000
146. Ex.PW58/A 93 Photocopy of statement dated Arun Kumar 05.01.2001 Dokania (PW58)
147. Ex.PW59/A 143 Seizure memo dated Satinder Bist 28.05.2002 (PW59)
148. Ex.PW59/B 153 Receipt memo dated Satinder Bist 07.06.2002 (PW59) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 38 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
149. Ex.PW60/A 120 Seizure memo dated U.K. Mishra 24.04.2001 (PW60)
150. Ex.PW60/B 16 Document dated 12.04.2001 U.K. Mishra (PW60)
151. Ex.PW62/A 145 Order dated 1.07.2001 Ms. Seema Maini (PW62)
152. Ex.PW62/B 145 Statement under Section 164 Ms. Seema Maini CrPC of accused Del Aga (PW62)
153. Ex.PW62/C 145 Application for obtaining Ms. Seema Maini copy of statement under (PW62) Section 164 CrPC
154. Ex.PW63/PX1 159 Challan receipt bearing No. Rajender Prasad 32735 (PW63)
155. Ex.PW63/PX2 159 Challan receipt bearing No. Rajender Prasad 32736 (PW63)
156. Ex.PW63/PX3 157 Challan receipt bearing Rajender Prasad No.29976 (PW63)
157. Ex.PW63/PX4 160 Challan receipt bearing No. Rajender Prasad 104283 (PW63)
158. Ex.PW63/PX5 158 Challan receipt bearing no. Rajender Prasad 32393 (PW63)
159. Ex.PW66/A 2 FIR S. Balasubramony (PW66)
160. Ex.PW66/B 1 Complaint S. Balasubramony (PW66)
161. Ex.PW66/C 3 Letter dated 03.04.2001 for S. Balasubramony handling over all the (PW66) document pertaining to accused Olga Kozireva
162. Ex.PW66/D 5 Letter dated 09.04.2001 for S. Balasubramony providing the immigration (PW66) record of accused Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova Del Agha, Mamoor Khan CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 39 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
163. Ex.PW66/E 6 Letter dated 20.04.2001 to S. Balasubramony Addl. Director General (PW66) Vigilance for custom warehouse Register for the period from 1997 to 2000 alongwith the copies of detainment receipts in the name of Olga, Nazira, Mamoor Khan and Del Agha
164. Ex.PW66/F 7 Letter dated nil to Country S. Balasubramony Manager Pakistan (PW66) International Airlines for information regarding manifests of period 1997 to 2000
165. Ex.PW66/G 8 Letter to Station manager S. Balasubramony Uzbekistan Airways New (PW66) Delhi for the flight manifests for the period 1997 to 20000
166. Ex.PW66/H 9 Letter to Station manger S. Balasubramony Kyrgyzstan airlines for flight (PW66) manifests of airlines for the period 1997 to 2000
167. Ex.PW66/I 12 Letter dated 22.05.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
168. Ex.PW66/J 13 Letter dated 09.08.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
169. Ex.PW66/K 15 Letter dated 30.03.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
170. Ex.PW66/L 23 Seizure memo of hotel S. Balasubramony register (PW66)
171. Ex.PW66/M 24 Hotel register S. Balasubramony (PW66)
172. Ex.PW66/N 26 Seizure memo dated S. Balasubramony 02.05.2001 (PW66)
173. Ex.PW66/O 27 Seizure memo dated S. Balasubramony 02.05.2001 (PW66) CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 40 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
174. Ex.PW66/P 33 Letter dated 20.10.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
175. Ex.PW66/Q 36 Seizure Memo dated S. Balasubramony 10.05.2001 (PW66)
176. Ex.PW66/Q1 36 Register of Sarah lodge S. Balasubramony Ballimaran Delhi 110006 (PW66)
177. Ex.PW66/R 67 Seizure Memo dated S. Balasubramony 05.04.2001 (PW66)
178. Ex.PW66/T 142 Seizure Memo dated S. Balasubramony 16.05.2002 (PW66)
179. Ex.PW66/V 144 Seizure Memo dated S. Balasubramony 12.04.2002 (PW66)
180. Ex.PW66/V 145 Statement under Section 164 S. Balasubramony Cr. P.C. (PW66)
181. Ex.PW66/V1 147 Statement under Section 164 S. Balasubramony Cr. P.C. (PW66)
182. Ex.PW66/V2 150 Statement under Section 164 S. Balasubramony Cr. P.C. (PW66)
183. Ex.PW66/V3 150 Statement under Section 164 S. Balasubramony Cr. P.C. (PW66)
184. Ex.PW66/W 161 Letter dated 09.07.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
185. Ex.PW66/W1 161 Letter dated 09.07.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
186. Ex.PW66/X 162 Letter dated 23.04.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66)
187. Ex.PW66/X1 162 Details of Arrival and S. Balasubramony Departure of Olga koziveva (PW66) for the year 1997
188. Ex.PW66/DX1 Add. Statement of A.K. Varshany S. Balasubramony Docu. (PW66)
189. Ex.PW66/DX2 Add. Application for permission for S. Balasubramony Docu. withdrawal of complaint (PW66) Accused No. 1319,21,22, 23, 24,25,28,29,30,31,32,33 and 34 CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 41 of 135 Sr. Exhibit D. No. Detail of the document Proved by No. Documents
190. Ex.PW66/Y 163 Letter dated 26.04.2001 S. Balasubramony (PW66) EVIDENCE:
(14) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Sixty Six Witnesses as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
1 Sh. Ajay Dhiman PW1 Ajay Dhiman was working with Kyrgyzstan Airlines as
(PW1) - Official Traffic Supervisor and has deposed on the following aspects:
Witness from 1. That as Traffic Supervisor, his duty was to check the Kyrgyzstan baggage of passenger, to issue boarding card, Airlines baggage tag etc. on departure and to look after the passengers who were coming to India and to take care of their baggage etc.
2. That he knew one Olga Koziereva (PO) who was a regular traveller on their flights from Kirgistan Bishkek to Delhi.
3. That she (Olga Koziereva) used to travel with big size bags weighing around 80 to 100 Kg each and in the year 1999 prior to Diwali, he noticed that she had come with 45 such bags weighing approximately 80100 Kg on which they stopped her to check whether she had paid for excess baggage or not.
4. That his senior then wrote to Head Office at Kyrgyzstan regarding transportation of heavy baggages without excess baggage tickets.
5. That he also knew Mamoor Khan (PO) who had come to him after they had detained Olga.
6. That he (Mamoor Khan) requested them not to detain Olga as it lead to delay in baggage clearing and finally agreed to pay Rs.500/ per bag to them.
7. That Mamoor Khan used to come to receive Olga on her arrivals.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 42 of 135
8. That he know that Olga was detained by custom officer in the year 2000 or 2001.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court.
2 Sh. Mahesh PW2 Mahesh Gupta is a Businessman who has deposed on
Gupta (PW2) - the following aspects:
Public Witness 1. That he is doing business of fabrics in Chandni Chowk at 5646/8, Haji Ali Market, Nai Sadak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
2. That they are four partners in the business namely Suresh Gupta, Sachin Gupta, Mrs. Sushila Devi Gupta and he himself.
3. That they purchase material from Surat and sell it in Delhi.
4. That he knew Mamoor Khan who used to visit his shop and used to purchase synthetic fabrics from his shop.
5. That he does not exactly recollect, but he had been visiting their shop from about 199596 till about 200001.
6. That at times, Mamoor Khan used to come alone and at times, he was accompanied by some other person.
7. That they used to issue bills in respect of the fabrics sold to Mamoor Khan.
8. That he never purchased goods from Mamoor Khan.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court.
3 Sh. Jagdish PW3 Jagdish Kumar was posted as Air Customs Officer at
Kumar (PW3) - the relevant point of time and has deposed on the following
Public Witness aspects:
1. That he met the accused Mehrunisha at IGI Airport from 24.12.1997 to 28.12.1997.
2. That she was accompanied by one lady Olga.
3. That he had spoken to accused Mehrunisha about Haj Committee on which she told him that she was a member and she asked him if he could help her in CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 43 of 135 clearing of goods.
4. That he told her that they do not impose duty on Hajis and then she asked him further that if goods are confiscated, then could he be of any help.
5. That upon this, he told her he would not be able to help her.
6. That on her request he gave her lift in his car till Mahipalpur and thereafter till Turkman Gate.
7. That in the car, Mehrunisha was accompanied by another lady namely Olga.
8. That they parked the car at office of Haj Committee at Turkman Gate and from there she took them to a guest house.
9. That he was not again requested for any help.
10. That she never told him the modus operandi of getting goods cleared.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore the witness was cross examined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
11. That his statement was recorded by the CBI which statement is Ex.PW3/A but he has not made the statement at portion A to A, portion E to E, portion F to F, portion G to G, and portion L to L. Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 4 Sh. Rajesh PW4 Rajesh Kumar is a businessman who deals in sarees Kumar (PW4) - and has deposed on the following aspects: Public Witness 1. That he is in business of sarees, dress material and suits which are procured from Surat.
2. That in the year around 2000, Mamoor Khan (PO) had come to their shop to purchase dress material on which they sold the material to him and he made payment in cash.
3. That he would have come around twothree times to them.
4. That vide letter Ex.PW4/A he had handed over two bills to the CBI which bills are Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 44 of 135
5. That Mamoor Khan had left his mobile number with him and requested him to ring him up upon arrival of new dress material stock.
Here, I may note that though the witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, but the said crossexamination are only relevant to the accused who are Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the public servants.
5 Sh. S.C. Dahuja PW5 S.C. Dahuja was the Inspector at IGI Airport who has (PW5) - Police deposed on the following aspects: Witness 1. That he was posted as Inspector at Indira Gandhi connected with International Airport from May 1998 to July 2000 investigations and was working under Dy. Commissioner of individual shifts.
2. That he knew Deputy Commissioner Sh. Upendra Gupta, Sh. Virender Kumar, Sh. Nishit Goel, Smt. Butalia, Sh. Manmohan Singh and Sh. Vivek Ranjan.
3. That Sh. Kushwaha (Accused No.5 - Prosecution Withdrawn) whose initial he does not recollect, was Additional Commissioner at IGI Airport.
4. That Adjudication Order is normally prepared for every passenger and when a passenger reports for his/ her baggage on red channel counter so he makes a declaration of his baggage before Superintendent or ACS.
5. That if it is a bonafide baggage i.e. articles of personal use gifts and souvenirs within allowance upto Rs.12,000/, then the duty was charged for the value of goods above the said limit of Rs.12,000/ and baggage receipt was issued for depositing the duty in the bank for release of his bag.
6. That when the passengers produce the bank receipt as a token of having deposited the duty, he was allowed to go with his baggage from the counter.
7. That with regard to Adjudication Order, their exim policy do not permit baggage in commercial quantity and hence when a passenger brings some commercial baggage, then under those circumstances adjudication proceedings are followed.
8. That goods are opened and examined at the counter by Inspector and ACS which list is also got signed by the passenger in token of having acceptance.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 45 of 135
9. That the Spot Adjudication Order No. 20311 in the name of Kozireva Olga dated 23.04.2000 was prepared by him which is Ex.PW5/A (D38).
10. That the value of the goods has been shown as Rs.29,750/ and the passenger was imposed redemption fine of Rs.7,500/ for release of goods and Rs.1,500/ for personal penalty after which it was sent to Upendra Gupta Dy. Commissioner through the Superintendent whose name is not mentioned.
11. That he cannot tell as to who had prepared the AO No. 20313 (D38), AO No. 13352 (D39) and AO No. 13357 (D39).
This witness is hostile qua the accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11). Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI wherein he has deposed as under:
12. That he had given his statement to CBI officer which is Ex.PW5/B.
13. That he had prepared the AO No. 20311 dated 23.04.2000 and forwarded it to Upendra Gupta but he had not stated that it was through superintendent Yashvir Singh.
14. That he had stated to the investigating officer that he had identified AO No. 13352 dated 04.12.99 passed by DC Upender Gupta in the name of passenger Nazira for 830 mtrs. of textile valued at Rs.49,800/.
15. That he had stated to the investigating officer that he had identified AO No. 13357 dated 04.12.99 passed by DC Upender Gupta in the name of the passenger Nazira for 830 mtrs. of textile valued at Rs.49,800/.
The witness has been duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants but nothing relevant has come out of the same.
6. Sh. Sunil Puri PW6 Sunil Puri is a public witness who has deposed on the (PW6) following aspects:
1. That he had visited Tashkand in October 1998 as a tourist where he met Ms. Nazira, her husband Tahir and her brother whose name he does not recollect over there.
2. That few people tried to rob him and they came to his rescue.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 46 of 135
3. That he gave his visiting card to Nazira and she came to India in OctoberNovember 1998 and he became friendly with her.
4. That she was working for one Mamoor Khan as a carrier for bringing clothes and textiles and she used to stay in Hotel "Yes Please" at Paharganj.
5. That he was summoned to CBI office where he identified Olga and Nazira was not there.
6. That he also arranged air tickets for Olga and Nazira from impact Travels opposite Palika Bazar and he used to get commission from the tickets.
7. That Olga and Nazira had mobile phones but he does not recollect their numbers.
8. That his telephone number is 9811177711 and he is still maintaining this number.
9. That Nazira told him that there were many ladies working for Mamoor Khan as carriers and she used to get Rs.7,000/ per trip.
10. That Nazira came to his shop on 29.08.2000 but he is not sure about the date.
11. That she was crying and asked him to help them out and asked him to take her to Patiala House Court as Olga had been arrested.
12. That at Patiala House Courts Olga came and was accompanied by a Custom Officer lady whose name plate read 'Puri'.
13. That the custom officer handed over a bag to Nazira which contains some few rupees, a mobile phone Nokia 5110 without SIM card and one diary.
14. That after few days he took Nazira to Tihar Jail as she wanted to meet Olga.
15. That after 23 days Nazira left the India and once thereafter she came back and met him to congratulate him on his marriage.
16. That his statement was recorded by custom officers photocopy of the which is Mark PW6/1.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 7 Sh. Abdul PW7 Abdul Qaiyaum is the Manager of Sameer Guest Qaiyaum (PW7) House who has deposed on the following aspects:
- Public Witness CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 47 of 135
1. That he is working with Sameer Guest House since 1985 which is owned Shamima Khatun.
2. That vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/A, he had handed over hotel register to CBI which register is maintained in normal course of business for all customers.
3. That the said register is Ex.PW7/B which is to keep record of foreigners and for Indians there is separate register.
4. That the entry dated 04.04.1999 on page no.1 Ex.PW7/C relating to stay of Mammor Khan is in his handwriting according to which Mammor Khan left the hotel on 09.04.1999.
5. That on page no.7 at serial No. 82 there is an entry of Mamoor Khan in his handwriting which is Ex.PW7/D according to which Mamoor Khan came to hotel on 19.06.1999 and left on 22.07.1999.
6. That on page no.9 at serial no. 101, there is an entry of Mamoor Khan which is Ex.PW7/E in the handwriting of Lalit Batra, another Manager and according to this entry, Mamoor Khan came to hotel on 22.07.1999 and left on 15.01.2000.
7. That on page no. 28 at serial No. 330, there is an entry of Mamoor Khan in his handwriting which is Ex.PW7/F according to which, Mamoor Khan came to hotel on 22.01.2000 and left on 13.07.2000.
8. That on page no. 43 at serial no. 28, there is an entry of Mamoor Khan in his handwriting Ex.PW7/G according to which the entry, Mamoor Khan came to hotel on 13.07.2000 and left on 21.07.2000.
9. That on page no.6 at serial no. 71, there is an entry of Abdul Qahar, which is Ex.PW7/H in the handwriting of Lalit Batra according to which, Abdul Qahar came to hotel on 12.06.1999 and left on 21.07.999.
10. That on page no. 13 at serial No. 155, there is an entry in the name of Kozireva Olga which is Ex.PW7/J in his handwriting according to which Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 27.08.1999 and left on date which is not mentioned.
11. That on page no. 15 at serial no. 180, there is an entry of Kozireva Olga in his handwriting which is Ex.PW7/K according to which, Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 04.10.1999 and left on 06.10.1999 and CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 48 of 135 she was accompanied by Khidoyalova Shakhista.
12. That on page no. 18 at serial No. 218, there is an entry in the name of Kozireva Olga in his handwriting which is Ex.PW7/L according to which Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 25.10.1999 and left on 27.10.1999.
13. That on page no. 20 at serial no. 241, there is an entry in the name of Kozireva Olga which is Ex.PW7/M which is in the handwriting of Zafar, another Manager and according to the same, Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 08.11.1999 and left on 10.11.99.
14. That on page no. 21 at serial no. 255, there is an entry in the name of Kozireva Olga in his handwriting which is Ex.PW7/N according to which Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 14.11.1999 and left on 15.11.1999.
15. That on page no. 23 at serial no. 276, there is an entry of Kozireva Olga in the handwriting of another Manager Zafar, which is Ex.PW7/O according to which Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 30.11.1999 and left on 02.12.1999.
16. That on page no. 27 at serial No. 321, there is an entry in the name of Kozireva Olga in his handwriting which is Ex.PW7/P according to which Kozireva Olga came to hotel on 16.01.2000 and left on 20.01.2000.
17. That Olga used to bring the clothes in the hotel and Mamoor Khan and Abdul Qahar had also used to bring clothes in the hotel from abroad.
18. That his statement was recorded by Custom Officers photocopy of which is Mark 7/1.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 8 Sh. Shiv Shankar PW8 Shiv Shankar Singh was the Baggage Officer at IGI Singh (PW8) - Airport, who has deposed on the following aspects:
Official Witness 1. That in the year 19992000, he was posted at Indira connected with Gandhi Airport as Baggage Officer for six months formal and Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5 -
investigations Prosecution Withdrawn) was the incharge,
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 49 of 135
qua Olga Additional Commissioner.
Kozireva 2. That the Adjudication Order no. 21581 dated (Proclaimed 31.07.2000 in the name of Olga Kozireva, had been Offender) prepared by him (witness) signed by Sh. Bhima Shankar, carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW8/A (D
44).
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 9 Sh. R.S. Meena PW9 R.S. Meena was the Superintendent in the Baggage (PW9) - Official Section of IGI Airport who has deposed on the following Witness from aspects:
Customs 1. That he was posted in the baggage section as Superintendent at IGI Airport during the period 19982000.
2. That Sh. Vivek Ranjan was the Dy. Commissioner at the relevant time and Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha was the Addl. Commissioner during the said time.
3. That the Spot Adjudication Order No.14232 had been prepared by Sh. Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22) and the same had been passed by Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5 - Prosecution Withdrawn) because the dutiable luggage was beyond Rs.50,000/, which Adjudication Order is Ex.PW9/A.
4. That the enclosed AO no. 14232 is part of Ex.PW9/A and the separate sheet is MarkX
5. That the AO No. 14234 which has been prepared in favour of Olga Kozireva is Ex.PW9/B bearing the signatures of Sh. Pradeep Rana at point A, which AO was for more than Rs. 50,000/.
6. That spot adjudication No. 14234 has been assessed for 2100 Mtrs. and the spot adjudication no. 14232 has been assessed for 1000 mtrs.
This witness was relevant qua the accused Olga Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and public servants V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5 - Prosecution Withdrawn) and Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22) and has formally proved the Adjudication Order No. 14232. He has been crossexamined on this aspect at length by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 50 of 135 10 Sh. D.P. Sharma PW10 Sh. D.P. Sharma is the Superintendent (Baggage) at (PW10) - Official IGI Airport, who has deposed on the following aspects: Witness from 1. That he was posted at Indira Gandhi International Customs Airport from July 1999 to November 2000, as Superintendent (Baggage).
2. That the spot Adjudication Order No. 20154 dated 31.07.2000 was passed by Sh. Bhima Shakar (Accused No.6 - Prosecution Withdrawn) which is Ex.PW10/A (D40).
3. That the Adjudication Order no. 21581 dated 31.07.2000 which is Ex.PW8/A was supervised and examined by him.
4. That the total examination on 31.07.2000 was of 2350 mtrs. which includes the examination as done in Ex.PW8/A.
5. That he has personally not examined Ex.PW10/A which is adjudication order No. 20154.
This witness has formally proved the Adjudication Order No. 21581 and has been crossexamined on this aspect at length by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
11 Sh. Mahesh PW11 Mahesh Chander (PW11) was the Assistant Manager Chander (PW11) in the State Bank of India, IGI Airport Branch who has
- Official Witness deposed on the following aspects: from State Bank 1. That he was posted as Asstt. Manager in State Bank of India of India, IGI Airport branch from 1997 to 2001.
2. That the custom collection book dated 21.08.2000 from Olga Kozireva is Ex.PW11/A (D158) vide which the duty was collected by him.
3. That the half portion of the document was filled by the custom officer and half was filled up by the bank officer.
4. That the custom collection book dated 21.08.2000 from Nazira is Ex.PW11/B vide which the duty was collected by him.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 51 of 135 12 Sh. Bisan Chand PW12 Sh. Bishan Chand was the Inspector Custom who has (PW12) - Official deposed on the following aspects:
Witness from 1. That in the year 19992000, he was posted at IGI State Bank of Airport as Inspector Custom and during that time Sh. India H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6 Prosecution Withdrawn) and Sh. Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10) were posted at the airport as Dy. Commissioners along with the others.
2. That the Adjudication Order No. 14243 was prepared by him in the name of passenger Nazira who arrived by K2 flight which is Ex.PW12/A and he had assessed 1200 meters @ Rs.40/ per meter, which adjudication order was passed by Sh. Bhimashakar.
This witness was relevant qua the accused Olga Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and public servants H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6) and Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10) whose prosecution has been withdrawn. He has formally proved the Adjudication Order No. 14243 and been crossexamined on this aspect at length by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
13 Sh. Madan Lal Madan Lal (PW13) was the Air Custom Officer at IGI (PW13) - Official Airport who has deposed on the following aspects: Witness from 1. That in the year 19992000, he was posted at IGI Customs Airport as ACO (Air Custom Officer) and generally remained posted with Bhima Shankar (Accused no.6
- Prosecution Withdrawn) and Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7 - Prosecution Withdrawn) during the relevant period.
2. That the Adjudication Order No. 14241 Mark X1, Adjudication Order No. 21727 Mark X2, Adjudication Order No. 21730 Mark X3 and the Adjudication Order No. 21752 Mark X4 are not in his handwriting nor do they bear his signatures.
This witness was relevant qua the accused Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6) and Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7) whose prosecution has already been withdrawn. He has turned hostile and has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial. 14 Sh. Nathu Lal PW14 Nathu Lal was the Manager of hotel "Yes Please"
(PW14) - Public who has deposed on the following aspects: Witness CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 52 of 135
1. That in the year 2001, he was working in hotel 'Yes Please' Pahar Ganj New Delhi as a Manager and Sh.
Vinod Kumar Baweja was the owner of the hotel.
2. That CBI had called him in office and after checking the records, he handed over the document (D22) to DSP, CBI in CBI office vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A and the hotel register is Ex.PW14/B.
3. That at serial no. 579 on page no. 44, there is an entry regarding Olga Kozireva in the handwriting of Shiv Pratap which entry is Ex.PW14/C.
4. That entry on page no. 105 at serial no. 1360 & 1361 is in his handwriting in the name of Ibragimova Nazira and Kozireva Olga which is Ex.PW14/D.
5. That entry on page no. 128 at serial no. 1652 & 1653 is in his handwriting in the name of Kozireva Olga and Ibragimova Nazira, which are Ex.PW14/E.
6. That entry on page no. 136 at serial no. 1754 in the name of Kozireva Olga is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW14/F.
7. That entry on page no. 142 at serial No. 1835 & 1836 in the name of Ibragimova Nazira and Kozireva Olga are in the handwriting of Sh. Shiv Pratap and the same is Ex.PW14/G.
8. That entry on page no. 147 at serial no. 1899 in the name of Kozireva Olga is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW14/H.
9. That entry on page no. 150 at serial no. 1939 in the name of Ibragimova Nazira is in the handwriting of Shiv Pratap and the same is Ex.PW14/J.
10. That entry on page no. 152 at serial No. 1962 & 1963 in the name of Kozireva Olga is in the handwriting of Shiv Pratap and the same is Ex.PW14/K.
11. That on page no. 155 at serial No. 2006 & 2007 in the name of Kozireva Olga and Ibragimova Nazira is in the handwriting of Shiv Pratap and the same is Ex.PW14/L.
12. That entry on page no. 160 at serial no. 2067 & 2068 dated 02.08.2000 in the name of Kozireva Olga and Ibragimova Nazira are in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW14/M.
13. That entry on page no. 162 at serial No. 2091 & 2092 dated 04.08.2000 in the name of Kozireva Olga and Ibragimova Nazira are in his handwriting and CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 53 of 135 the same is Ex.PW14/N.
14. That entry on page no. 166 at serial No. 2146 & 2147 dated 12.08.2000 in the name of Kozireva Olga and Ibragimova Nazira are in the handwriting of Shiv Pratap and the same is Ex.PW14/O.
15. That he used to mention the arrival and departure in the register as mentioned above and both these ladies namely Olga Kozireva and Ibragimova Nazira were frequent visitors in their hotel.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the accused olga Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court.
15 Sh. Mahender PW15 Mahender Kumar Jain is the Businessman who has Kumar Jain deposed on the following aspects: (PW15) - Public 1. That in the year 2001, he was dealing in clothes in Witness Chandni Chowk and was dealing with Bhagalpuri Handloom fabrics.
2. That he has not met any Mamoor Khan during the course of his business nor he is known about Olga Kozireva prior to the present case.
This witness was relevant qua the accused Olga Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender). He has turned hostile and has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
16 Sh. Ravinder PW16 Ravinder Kumar was the Clearing Officer Kumar (PW16) - (Immigration) at IGI Airport who has deposed on the Official Witness following aspects: from Customs 1. That in the year 19992000, he was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport as Clearing Officer (Immigration).
2. That he has been shown file D35 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi which is Mark X and page no. 62 to 74 are the photocopies of the passport of Olga Kozireva.
3. That on page no. 63, he identified signatures of Sh. Kamal Sharma, Sub Inspector at point A and the photocopy of passport is Mark Y. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 54 of 135 Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court.
17 Sh. Walliullah PW17 Walliullah is a public witness who has deposed on the (PW17) - Public following aspects: Witness 1. That he came to Delhi in the year 1993 in search of a job and stayed alongwith his brother.
2. That he was employed in Sarah Lodge at Ballimaran through him, where he worked till 1999.
3. That thereafter he worked in Delux hotel at Delhi behind Jama Masjid, through Razi Ahmed who was his brother.
4. That thereafter one person of his village Mohd. Naim told him to work as cook with one Mamoor Khan who was staying in Sameer Guest House.
5. That he met Mamoor Khan and he kept him as his cook and used to pay him Rs.1,200/.
6. That Mamoor Khan took him to Airport 2/3 times and he had shown him one tempo wala's office and he used to bring tempo to Airport as they kept those vehicles in parking.
7. That the loaders used to bring packed material with sack and bags.
8. That they were loaded in Tata 407 (small Vehicle) and he used to bring those material to Ajmere Gate and there it was unloaded with the help of rickshaw pullers and the labourers of Tara 407.
9. That Mamoor Khan used to have telephone talks outside the airport from his mobile phone and he could gather the names of Khurana, Zutsy, Tiwari, Arora, other names he does not recollect.
10. That he used to say "Maal Aa Raha Hai, Khyal rakhiye" after which the goods used to be brought to the parking by loaders.
11. That the goods used to be brought to Ajmeri Gate and from there, they were loaded to the rickshaw and taken to the hotel.
12. That Russian ladies namely Olga, Gulia, Shakros used to bring clothes to the hotels.
13. That Shakrus used to share room with Mamoor Khan in the hotel.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 55 of 135
14. That the Mamoor Khan used to ring up shopkeepers namely Bunty, Khem Singh, Jasbir Singh and other whose names he does not recollect.
15. That the shopkeepers used to come to the hotel and thereafter, they used to deliver the goods at their shops alongwith Shamshad.
16. That after they used to make delivery, Mamoor Khan used to visit the shopkeepers in the evening and collect payment.
17. That at times, Mamoor khan used to call him to some shop at the time of collection of payment.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 18 Smt. Mehru PW18 Smt. Mehru Nisha is a public witness who has Nisha (PW18) - deposed on the following aspects: Public Witness 1. That she is residing on the address S14, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate, Delhi since 1994 and used to help old ladies who are going for Haj.
2. That about 12 years ago, a Muslim lady had come to her residence and wanted to know the address of a person whose telephone number she was keeping, on which she ascertained the aforesaid number, that number was of Sameer Guest House.
3. That she took that lady to Sameer Guest House at Ballimaran.
4. That the said lady handed over threads and took suits in lieu of threads from Mammor Khan.
5. That after 45 months, Mamoor Khan met her alongwith that lady outside Haz Committee office.
6. That Mamoor Khan told her that Olga's luggage had been confiscated by the custom office and can she help her.
7. That she ascertained from the custom officers whether the goods can be released and she was told that it cannot be released.
8. That when she came out of the airport, one custom officer namely Jagdish met her and told that he know her and asked her to give the forms of Haz etc., since he belonged to Mewat area.
9. That Mamoor Khan had not given her the telephone number.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 56 of 135
10. That he might have talked among themselves regarding the luggage of Olga which was confiscated by custom office.
Though this witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused who are public servants, yet I may observe that the witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 19 Sh. V.K. Gupta PW19 V.K. Gupta was the Under Secretary INSITU who (PW19) - Official has deposed on the following aspects:
Witness from 1. That in November 2001, he was posted as Under Customs Secretary INSITU as Incharge of CustomVI section of CBE&C.
2. That vide letter dated 01.11.2011 Ex.PW1/A (D136) addressed to Sundari Nanda, Superintendent of Police, CBI he had forwarded three annexures to the said letters which were certified by him on the basis of records in that section, which annexures are Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW19/C and Ex.PW19/D. This witness is a formal witness who had forwarded certain information to the CBI. He has been crossexamined on this aspect by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
20 Sh. R.M. Khullar PW20 R. M. Khullar was posted as Assistant Manager at (PW20) - Official State Bank of India, Extension Counter at International witness from CBI Airport and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in 2001, he was posted at State Bank of India, Extension Counter at International Airport and the main office was at Parliament Street.
2. That vide seizure memo dated 02.04.2000 Ex.PW20/A (D140) he had handed over three cash receipts i.e. two receipts dated 14.08.2000 bearing nos. 34611 & 34612 of Hotel Imperial and one receipt dated 21.08.2000 bearing no. 31395 of Hotel Mahalaxmi to the CBI which receipts are mark PW20/X1 to X3.
3. That vide seizure memo dated 14.05.2000 Ex.PW20/B (D141) he had handed over cash receipts i.e. receipt dated 04.10.2000 of Hotel 'yes Please' and receipts dated 10.06.2000, 27.07.2000, 31.07.2000, 8.5.2000 and 17.06.2000 of Hotel Sainath to the CBI which receipts are mark PW20/X CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 57 of 135 4 to X9 and the receipt bearing No. 28558 dated 31.07.2000 which is Ex.PW20/C. He was an official witness relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
21 Sh. K.V.V.G. PW21 Sh. K.V.V.G. Diwakar was the Joint Commissioner Diwakar (PW21) Customs and has proved having accorded the sanction order against T.R.K. Reddy, the then Air Custom Officer, which sanction order is Ex.PW21/A. 22 Sh. Ashutosh PW22 Sh. Ashuthosh Kumar was the Assistant Central Kumar (PW22) - Intelligence Officer at IGI Airport. He has not supported the Official Witness case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. He has denied having made any statement to the CBI vide Ex.PW22/PX.
He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial 23 Sh. A.K. Mishra PW23 A.K. Mishra was the Assistant Central Intelligence (PW23) - Official Officer at IGI Airport and has proved the departure stamp witness W14 dated 05.07.2000 at page no. 9 (Point X) in the passport of Olga Kozireva bearing No. CA 1492876 which passport is Ex.PW23/A. He was an official witness relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
24 Sh. Ashok Kumar PW24 Sh. Ashok Kumar was the Immigration officer at IGI (PW24) - Official Airport and has proved the departure stamp W4 dated witness 14.08.2000 at page no. 11 (Point X) in the passport of Olga Kozireva which passport is Ex.PW23/A. He was an official witness relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
25 Sh. Hemchand PW25 Sh. Hemchand was the Assistant Central Intelligence (PW25) - Official OfficerII at IGI Airport, Delhi and has proved the departure witness stamp W8 dated 12.08.2000 at page no. 10 (Point X) in the passport of Olga Kozireva which passport is Ex.PW23/A. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 58 of 135 He was an official witness relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
26 Sh. Arunendra PW26 Sh. Arunendra Singh was the Sub Inspector in FRRO Singh (PW26) - at IGI Airport, Delhi and has proved the departure stamp E Official witness 2 dated 15.08.2000 at page no. 6 (Point X) in the passport of Olga Kozireva which passport is Ex.PW23/A. He was an official witness relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
27 Mrs. Poonam PW27 Mrs. Poonam Puri was the Inspector posted at IGI Puri (PW27) - Airport and has deposed on the following aspects: Official witness 1. That in the month of August, 2000, she was posted at IGI Airport, terminalII, Preventive Section, as Inspector in Bshift Preventive.
2. That on 28.08.2000, she was called by Sh. Satish Bansal, Superintendent in his cabin at approximately before noon and directed her to conduct the personal search of Olga Kozireva who was intercepted with 27 bundles of Chinese Silk.
3. That she served a notice under Section 102 of the Custom Act and since the said lady (Olga Kozireva) was not conversant with the English language therefore, an interpretor was also called.
4. That thereafter one independent lady officer was called from the Immigration office, namely Ms. Hema and in her presence, she conducted the personal search of Ms. Olga Kozireva and no objectionable goods were recovered in her personal search.
5. That at about 1.00 AM in the midnight, she received the file containing the various documents and the orders of Additional Commissioner, regarding the arrest of Olga Kozireva in the present case.
6. That she had arrested the said lady namely Olga Kozireva at about 1.30 AM in the night, vide arrest memo Ex.PW27/A, notice under Section 102 of the Custom Act which is Ex.PW27/B and a detention receipt was prepared which is Ex.PW27/C. He was an official witness relevant qua the accused Ola Kozireva (Proclaimed Offender) and not qua the accused CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 59 of 135 who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
28 Sh. Nitish Kumar PW28 Nitish Kumar Kedia is a Businessman who has Kedia (PW28) - deposed on the following aspects: Public Witness 1. That in the year 2000, he was doing the business of ladies suit in the name of M/s. Durga Creations at Shop No. 5499, Katra Moti, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
2. That he knew Mamoor Khan, who used to come to his shop and usually purchased 10 to 15 ladies suits.
3. That on some occasions, Mamoor Khan had told him that he was having Chinese Silk fabrics with him but he (witness) refused for purchase of Chinese silk fabrics, as he was not dealing with the said fabrics.
4. That he also know one Del Agha who had visited his shop with Mamoor Khan, on a few occasions.
5. That one Wali had also accompanied them, for helping them to lift the purchased goods.
6. That Abdul Qahar had also visited his shop with them once, for purchasing the suits.
7. That he does not know any Olga Kozireva.
He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants and presently facing trial before this Court. 29 Sh. Pradeep PW29 Pradeep Kumar Yadav was the Personal Assistant to Kumar Yadav Addl. Commissioner Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha who has (PW29) - Official deposed on the following aspects: witness 1. That in the year 2000, he was working as Personal Assistant to Addl. Commissioner Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha, in the department of Custom, at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
2. That an alert was issued on 19.06.2000 by V.K. Singh Kushwaha to ensure proper quantification and valuation of textile before adjudication, which contained in Vigilance File bearing No. V 757/11/2000 of Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi.
3. That a circular dated 9/21.08.2000 was issued by Sh.
V.K. Singh Kushwaha, the then Additional Commissioner of Custom, IGI Airport, New Delhi which is Ex.PW29/A (D29) regarding thorough checking of CIS Nationals, particularly Uzbek Nationals, at IGI Airport, as they were involved in CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 60 of 135 smuggling activities particularly drugs and goods etc. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants facing trial before this Court.
30 Sh. Prasanna PW30 Prasanna Kumar Dash was the Additional Kumar Dash Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai and has (PW30) - Official deposed on the following aspects: witness 1. That during November, 2000, he was associated with this case by directions of his the then D.G. (Vigilance), Sh. N. Raja, to head the special investigating team, which was constituted for vigilance investigations, into the smuggling of silk fabrics, by Ms. Olga Kozireva.
2. That the team consisted of Sh. Vishwanathan, A.C. (Vigilance); Sh. Ahmed, Superintendent from Chennai; Sh. M. Padmanabhan, Superintendent from Mumbai and Sh. Narain Singh, Superintendent, from Mumbai.
3. That the team was asked to investigate the matter and submit report within thirty days.
4. That during their vigilance investigations, their team checked the record of IGI Airport, New Delhi and examined the officer and staff, deputed there and submitted an interim report dated 22.12.2000, running into five pages which is annexed to the letter dated 16.02.2001 of Sh. N. Raja, the then Director General (Vigilance), which interim report is now Ex.PW30/A (D1).
5. That the further report dated 31.01.2001 running into 17 pages is Ex.PW30/B. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants facing trial before this Court.
31 Sh. H.K. Sharma PW31 H.K. Sharma was the Assistant Director, Intelligence (PW31) - Official Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi who has witness deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of April, 2001, he was working as Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. That he has provided arrival/departure detail in respect of Olga Kozireva, Nazira Ibragimova, CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 61 of 135 Mamoor Khan and Del Agha, for the period w.e.f. January 1997 onwards, vide his letter dated 26.04.2001 which is Ex.PW31/A.
3. That alongwith this letter, he had enclosed appendix A, appendix B and appendix C which are computer generated print out, which was maintained in their office which are Ex.PW31/B.
4. That he had provided these documents/information on telephonic request of Smt. Sunderi Nanda, S.P. SIUIX, on the same day i.e on 26.04.2001.
He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court. 32 SI Harish Kumar PW32 SI Harish Kumar was the ACIOII at IGI Airport (PW32) - Official who has deposed on the following aspects and has proved witness that the blue color stamp E8 of arrival date 28.08.2000, bearing his initials at point A on the passport of Olga Kozireva which is Ex.PW32/A. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants facing trial before this Court.
33 Sh. Zamir Ahmed PW33 Zamir Ahmed was the Superintendent, Directorate (PW33) - Official General of vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Witness Delhi and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the year 2001, he was working as Superintendent, Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi.
2. That vide seizure memocuminspection memo dated 13.12.2001 which is Ex.PW33/A, he had supplied some documents to the CBI officials (computer generated document bearing his signatures at point A) which is Ex.PW33/B.
3. That vide the said memo Ex.PW33/A, the Investigating Officer had also seized some documents taken out from the computer of Sh. V.K. Kushwaha, Addl. Commissioner, Customs which documents are Ex.PW33/C1 to Ex.PW33/C5.
4. That vide seizure memocuminspection memo dated 03.12.2001 which is Ex.PW33/D, the CPU installed in the office of Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha, Addl.
Commissioner, Custom, was taken over in his presence.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 62 of 135
5. That vide panchnama dated 22.12.2000 Ex.PW33/E the file containing in CPU of computer of Mr. V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5 - Prosecution withdrawn), was copied in the floppy.
6. That vide receipt memo dated 16.04.2001 which is Ex.PW33/F, he had handed over the document mentioned therein to Sh. Rajesh Chahal, Inspector, CBI, New Delhi.
7. That vide another receipt memo dated 16.04.2001 which is Ex.PW33/G, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Inspector Rajesh Chahal, CBI, New Delhi.
8. That vide another receipt memo, dated Nil which is Ex.PW33/H (D28), he had handed over documents mentioned therein to Inspector S. Bala Subramany, CBI, New Delhi.
This witness was relevant qua the accused V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5 - Prosecution Withdrawn) and has been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
34 Dr. Gautam Ray PW34 Dr. Gauram Ray was the Commissioner of Customs (PW34) - Official (Administration) at Kolkata and has proved the Sanction witness Order dated 25.10.2005 which is Ex.PW34/A (D180) against the Superintendent Sh. Ajay Yadav.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants facing trial before this Court.
35 Dr. Nirmal PW35 Dr. Nirmal Kumar Soren was the Under Secretary, Kumar Soren Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of (PW35) Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of August or September, 2001, his department received a query from the Parliament regarding the smuggling of Chinese silk textile from some foreign nationals and on the parliament question, they asked for some replies and clarifications from the custom office at New Delhi.
2. That vide letter dated 31.10.2001 bearing F. No. 394/71/97Cus(AS) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, anti Smuggling Unit, CBEC which is Ex.PW35/A, he had attached the guidelines for arrest and/or prosecution for CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 63 of 135 custom offences.
This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants facing trial before this Court.
36 Captain Sanjay PW36 Captain Sanjay Gehlot was the Joint Commissioner Gehlot (PW36) - (personnel & vigilance), in Mumbai Customs and has proved Official witness the following aspects:
1. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/A (D184) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. Yashpal, the then Preventive Officer.
2. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/B (D185) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. Pradeep Rana, the then Preventive Officer.
3. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/C (D186) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Preventive Officer.
4. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/D (D187) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. Praveen Teotia, the then Preventive Officer.
5. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/E (D188) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. A.K. Varshney, the then Preventive Officer.
6. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/F (D189) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. S.A. Lamb, the then Preventive Officer.
7. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW36/G (D190) he had granted sanction for prosecution of Sh. V.S. Teotia, the then Preventive Officer.
8. That all the aforesaid preventive officers, were posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi, at that time and at that time, their duties as preventive officers, were to clear the passengers after assessing and charging due custom duty and to prevent smuggling.
He was a formal witness who had granted the sanctions against the various accused public servants. He has been CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 64 of 135 crossexamined at length on this aspect by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
37 Sh. P.K. PW37 P.K. Bhardwaj was the FRRO, New Delhi and has Bhardwaj deposed on the following aspects: (PW37) - Official 1. That in the month of April, 2001, he was working as witness FRRO, New Delhi
2. That in reply to the letter dated 09.04.2001 of SP, CBI he had written a letter dated 12.04.2001 which is Ex.PW37/A vide which he had provided the computerized record of the details of arrival/ departure of four foreigners, accused Olga Kozireva, Ibragimova, Mamoor Khan and Del Agha, for the period from 1997 to 11.04.2001 which record is running into 35 pages and is Ex.PW37/B. He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court and has not been crossexamined by them.
38 Sh. N. Sasidharan PW38 N. Sasidharan was the Commissioner of Customs (PW38) - Official (General), Mumbai who has deposed on the following Witness aspects:
1. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW38/A (D182) he had granted sanction for prosecution of accused Yashvir Singh the then Superintendent.
2. That vide Sanction Order dated 13.01.2006 which is Ex.PW38/A (D183) he had granted sanction for prosecution of accused D.S. Nandal, the then Custom Superintendent.
He was a formal witness who had granted the sanctions against the accused public servants. He has been cross examined at length on this aspect by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial. 39 Sh. Sanjib Basu PW39 Sanjib Babu was the Clearing Officer at IGI Airport, (PW39) - Official New Delhi and proved the departure stamp W17, in red, Witness dated 17.07.2000, bearing his initials at point 'A' on the passport of accused Olga Kozireva, a foreign national from Uzbekistan, which is Ex.PW39/A. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 65 of 135 He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offender Olga Kozireva and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court and has not been crossexamined by them.
40 Sh. Santosh PW40 Santosh Kumar Srivastava was the Intelligence Kumar Officer, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit who has proved the seizure Srivastava memo dated 25.09.2001 which is Ex.PW40/A (D35) vide (PW40) - Official which he had provided one case file pertaining to Olga Witness Kozireva to Sh. S. Balasubramony, Inspector, CBI.
He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offender Olga Kozireva and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court. 41 Sh. S.K.S. PW41 Sh. S.K.S. Somvanshi was the Commissioner, Somvanshi Central Excise, New Delhi and has proved the following (PW41) - Official aspects:
Witness 1. That he was posted as Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi1, at CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW41/A (D169) he had granted sanction for prosecuting Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10 - Prosecution Withdrawn), the then Air Custom Superintendent posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
3. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW41/B (D170) he had granted sanction for prosecuting V.K. Bhardwaj, the then Air Custom Superintendent posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
4. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW41/C (D171) he had granted sanction for prosecuting Anil Madan, the then Air Custom Superintendent posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
5. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW41/D (D172) he had granted sanction for prosecuting R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.,21 - Prosecution Withdrawn), the then Air Custom Superintendent posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
He was a formal witness who had granted the sanctions against the accused public servants. He has been cross examined at length on this aspect by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial. 42 Sh. Rajiv Talwar PW42 Rajiv Talwar was the Deputy Director (Intelligence), (PW42) - Official Delhi Zonal Unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who witness CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 66 of 135 has deposed as under:
1. That during the period, w.e.f. 05.07.1999 to 03.09.2001, he remained posted as Dy. Director (intelligence), Delhi Zonal Unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
2. That one Sh. Ajay Dhiman had given him a follow up statement, running into four pages, written by Ajay Dhiman in his own handwriting, in his presence under Section 108 of Custom Act, 1962, which is Ex.PW42/A (part of D105).
3. That vide letter dated 20.08.2001 he had sent documents detailed therein, to the CBI, which letter is Ex.PW42/B (D14).
He was a formal witness and has been crossexamined at length by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial before this court. 43 Sh. Suresh PW43 Sh. Suresh Kishnani was the Additional Kishnani (PW43) Commissioner (P&V), Central Excise, Delhi1, at CR
- Official Witness Building, IP Estate, New Delhi and has proved the following aspects:
1. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/A (D173), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of R.N. Zutshi, the then air Custom Officer posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
2. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/B (D174), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of S.D. Rajpal (Accused No.17 - Prosecution Withdrawn), the then Air Custom Officer posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
3. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/C (D175), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of Kanwal Suman, the then air Custom Officer posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
4. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/D (D176), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of R.K. Dakolia (Accused No.29 - Prosecution Withdrawn), the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive) posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
5. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/E (D177), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of V.K. Khurana, the then Air Custom Officer posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
6. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/F (D178), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of J.A. Khan, CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 67 of 135 the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive), posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
7. That vide Sanction Order Ex.PW43/G (D179), he had accorded sanction for prosecution of Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No.28 - Prosecution Withdrawn), the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive), posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
He was a formal witness who had granted the sanctions against the accused public servants. He has been cross examined at length on this aspect by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial. 44 Sh. Sanjiv PW44 Sh. Sanjiv Srivastava was the Deputy Commissioner Srivastava at IGI who has deposed about the procedural aspects, as (PW44) - Official under:
Witness 1. That in the year 2002, he was posted as Dy.
Commissioner, IGI Airport, new Delhi.
2. That his duties were to perform all the duties which were expected of Dy. Commissioner (Shift), i.e., monitoring the working of shift to facilitate smooth clearance of passengers from the airport.
3. That the oral declaration card is a small card, hardly 2 x 1 inch in size, on which incoming passengers are expected to make declaration, in respect of the value of the goods being carried by them.
4. That at the time of exiting from the airport, the passenger should hand over this card to the sipoy, normally put at the gate duty.
5. That sometimes it may happen that the passenger may not hand over the said card to the gate officer.
6. That if the passenger has any goods to declare, he makes the declaration on the card and approaches the red counter for assessment of duty and payment of duly.
7. That this is a voluntary declaration that passenger has to make and if officer on counter after visual inspection or assessment, finds that the declaration is acceptable and no duty payable, he asks the passenger to leave.
8. That the passengers not approaching the red counter, walk through the green channel, to the gate.
9. That some officers, who was normally from Preventive, are put in the green channel and they may, on the basis of visual examination, profiling or sampling, pick up one or two passengers for their CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 68 of 135 examination.
10. That after the shift is over, all the card collected, were handed over to the store for safe custody.
11. That manifest weight and matter adjudicated may have differences because of many reasons.
12. That while checking in, if a group of passengers check in together, airlines normally tend to assign all the weight on boarding card of one passenger.
13. That whereas, adjudicated weight will be in reference of the actual goods belonging to that passenger.
14. That the adjudicated weight normally is determined on the basis of visual examination, without actual weighment, whereas, manifested weight is after the proper weighment of baggage by the airlines.
15. That normally manifested weight is not available to the customs at the time of adjudication.
16. That adjudication is made in respect of the offence of misdeclaration or carrying goods, which are not permitted to be cleared as baggage item.
17. That on adjudication, the goods are confiscated, but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fines and penalty.
18. That at the airport, during the shift, all adjudications are summary in nature, whereby, no proper or detailed show cause notice is issued to the passenger.
19. That this is basically a facilitation measure, so that passengers are not unnecessarily detained for very long time at the airport.
20. That in case of serious offence, matter taken up by the Preventive and investigated in details and thereafter, proper show cause notice and adjudication may take place.
21. That he was posted at the Airport, only after the incident of the present case has happened.
22. That during his tenure, nothing in relation to this case actually happened and it was the follow up investigation, which was being conducted under the guidance of Asstt. Commissioner (Preventive).
This witness had deposed on the procedures relating to the Oral declaration Cards and Adjudication Orders. He was crossexamined on the said aspect by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 69 of 135 45 Mohd. Lukman PW45 Mohd. Lukman is a public witness who has deposed (PW45) - Public on the following aspects:
Witness 1. That he is working as Waiter in Sahara Lodge, Ballimaran, Delhi for the last 20 years and in the year 2000, he did not meet any person by the name of Mamoor Khan.
2. That he knew a person by the name of Wali, who was working as Manager in Sahara Lodge, Ballimaran, Delhi.
3. That later on, he was removed from the service and he joined in Sameer Guest House, at Ballimaran, Delhi and worked there with Mamoor Khan.
This witness was relevant qua the Proclaimed Offender and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
46 Sh. Praveen PW46 Praveen Gulia was the Air Custom Officer who has Gulia (PW46) deposed on the following aspects: Official witness 1. That in the year 2000, he was working as Air Custom from Customs Officer at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Department 2. That at that time, he was using a mobile of his brother, namely Sh. Rajesh Gulia, number of which he does not remember now.
3. That he does not remember any phone number 9811041291 and to whom it belongs.
4. That he does not know any person in the name of Mamoor Khan or Olga Kozireva.
This witness has resiled from his previous statement made to the CBI and has denied having made any statement Ex.PW46/X to the CBI and has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants presently facing trial.
47 Sh. Pradeep PW47 Pradeep Singh Dhamija is a businessman who has Singh Dhamija deposed on the following aspects: (PW47) - Public 1. That he is doing business of ladies suits at 572, Katra witness Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in the name and style M/s. Dhamija fashions.
2. That he knew Mammor Khan, as he was the resident of Kabul, in Afghanistan as his forefather belongs to Kabul and migrated to India in the year 1988.
3. That he is not aware what Mamoor Khan was doing. However, he (Mamoor Khan) had telephoned to other persons from their shop, from their landline CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 70 of 135 phone, number of which he does not remember.
4. That he knew Del Aga also as he used to accompany Mamoor Khan.
5. That he (witness) was called once by some officers of some department, which he does not know.
6. That he was interrogated by the said officers in the year 2000 and after sometime of interrogation by them, the CBI officials had also made inquiries from him, regarding Mamoor Khan and Del Aga.
7. That his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded on 03.01.2001 which statement alongwith the summons is Ex.PW47/A.
8. That during the recording of his aforesaid statement, he identified the photograph of Mamoor Khan, which is also annexed with his statement.
This witness was relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
48 Sh. Pursushottam PW48 Sh. Purushotam Lal Tandon is a businessman who Lal Tandon has deposed on the following aspects: (PW48) - Public 1. That he is doing the business of Banarasi Sarees and Witness Kanjivaran and other dress materials in the name and style of M/s. Ushnak Mal Mool Chand, at 2874, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
2. That there are three landline phones installed in his shop, having numbers as 561696 and 25726197 but he does not remember the other phone number.
3. That his son Rajesh Tandon was running a company in the name of Source India Impax, from the same address of his shop and this company used to import various kinds of fabrics.
4. That in the year 2000, one Mamoor Khan visited his shop and showed him a sample of Chinese velvet and he offered him to purchase the said Chinese velvet but he refused the said offer.
5. That no official from the custom department ever visited his shop and his statement was never recorded by them.
6. That however, CBI officials and the officials of Enforcement Directorate had made inquiries from him, regarding the import of fabric by their company.
7. That he had received a notice under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 dated 30.12.2000 which is Ex.PW48/A pursuant to which his statement was CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 71 of 135 recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 recorded on 30.12.2000 which is Ex.PW48/B.
8. That the photocopy of some diary attached to the said statement is Ex.PW48/C. He was relevant qua the Proclaimed Offenders and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
49 Sh. Navyug PW49 Sh. Navyug Taneja was the Air Custom Officer Taneja (PW49) - (Preventive), at IGI Airport who has deposed on the Official witness following aspects:
from Customs 1. That in the year 2000, he was posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
2. That on 28.08.2000, he was posted in Departure Hall at IGI Airport when at about 11.30 AM their Superintendent Incharge, namely Sh. Ajit Singh asked them that they have to assist him in a case being booked.
3. That Sh. N.K. Sharma was one of the officers, who was also assigned the job of preparation of inventory.
4. That the case was booked at arrival hall of IGI Airport, as the imported goods were lying there.
5. That he went there and he was asked to help in the preparation of inventory of the said goods after which they prepared about 45 inventories and he prepared the rough estimate of the goods which he submitted to the senior officer i.e. Sh. Satish Bansal, Air Customs Superintendent or Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Air Customs Officer.
6. That at that point of time, he did not know as to whose luggage was and he had heard the name of Olga Kozireva, while the case was being processed at IGI Airport, on that day or subsequent thereto and had also seen that lady namely, Olga Kozireva, in the preventive room.
7. That CBI officers also got identified that lady Olga Kozireva, from him, during investigations at the CBI office.
8. That statement of Olga Kozireva, recorded under Section 108 Customs Act which is Ex.PW49/A (D
122) running into five pages.
9. That statement of Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Ramnath recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act which CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 72 of 135 is Ex.PW49/B (D122).
10. That the statement of Mirza Farid Beg son of Mirza Wahid Beg recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act which is Ex.PW49/C (D122).
11. That the statement of Kachkyn Oeganbaeo son of Degen, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act which is Ex.PW49/D (D122).
12. That vide Panchnama dated 28.08.2000 in the handwriting of Sh. Rakesh Gupta, the then ACO (P) is Ex.PW49/E (Colly).
13. That the Panchnama dated 17.02.2001 in the handwriting of Sh. Rakesh Gupta, the then ACO (P) which is Ex.PW49/F (Colly) He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offender Olga Kozireva and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court.
50 Sh. Neeraj Babu PW50 Neeraj Babu was the Air Custom Officer at IGI Jain (PW50) - Airport who has deposed on the following aspects: Official witness 1. That in the month of July, 2000, he was posted as Air from Customs Custom Officer, at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
2. That he had prepared the spot adjudication order No. 20344 in respect of passenger Ibragimova Nazira, on 23.07.2000 which was prepared on the basis of oral declaration taken by the Superintendent, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW50/A.
3. That at page99 of the adjudication order register (D49), there is an entry regarding aforesaid Order No. 20344 from portion A to A which entry is Ex.PW50/B.
4. That the spot adjudication order Ex.PW50/A was put up before the Deputy Commissioner Sh. Rajiv Gupta, through superintendent Sh. Bhardwaj.
5. That the adjudication order of Sh. Rajiv Gupta, the then Dy. Commissioner is at the back of Ex.PW50/A and it bears signatures of Sh. Rajiv Gupta at point 'B' and is Ex.PW50/C.
6. That in the said adjudication order the redemption fine was Rs.4,000/ and personal penalty was Rs.1,000/ imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. That the quantity mentioned in the spot adjudication order is 500 meter of textile @ Rs.40/ per meter which was mentioned on the basis of oral declaration of the passenger.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 73 of 135
8. That some countries were separated from USSR and those countries were later on named as CIS (Confederation of Islamic States), which included Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tazakistan etc.
9. That Mr. Bhardwaj had asked him to prepare the spot adjudication order in the present case, which is Ex.PW50/A. The witness is relevant qua the Proclaimed offender Nazira Ibragimova and had resiled from his previous statement given to the CBI. He had been crossexamined by the Ld. Senior PP for CBI wherein he has deposed that he had not filled in the column for previous visits of the passenger and the Adjudication Order was prepared in a casual way and all the details were not filled in due to rush of work. 51 Sh. Rakesh Gupta PW51 Sh. Rakesh Gupta was posted at Preventive Wing of (PW51) - Official IGI Airport, New Delhi on 28.08.2000 and has deposed on Witness from the following aspects: customs 1. That on 28.08.2000 at 10.50 AM, his Superintendent Late Sh. Satish Bansal called him and instructed for examination of the lady passenger Ms. Olga Kozireva, who was standing before Sh. Satish Bansal, at the exit gate, after crossing the green channel.
2. That he (Satish Bansal) called two independent witnesses and asked the lady whether she is carrying any contraband / prohibited article, i.e., gold or any goods in commercial quantity, to which she replied in negative and then he asked her to hand him over her travel documents, including excess baggage ticket.
3. That on examining the documents, he found that 27 bags were booked in her name.
4. That since she was carrying only one bag in trolley, he asked the lady about the other 26 bags.
5. That she told him that these bags are lying near the conveyor belt No.1 and her intention was to take them out of the airport with the help of loader one by one.
6. That thereafter, Sh. Satish Bansal directed him to bring those bags near the preventive room of the arrival hall.
7. That those bags were identified and brought near the preventive room of the arrival hall.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 74 of 135
8. That as per instructions, these bags were opened in presence of the witnesses and Olga Kozireva and they found to contain offwhite Chinese silk fabric.
9. That these were inventorized and detail has been given as per annexure to the panchnama, dated 28.08.2000.
10. That since Ms. Olga Kozireva could not produce any lawful document or otherwise for lawful import of the same, the same were seized on the reasonable belief that these were liable for confiscation under Section 110 of the Custom Act, 1962.
11. That packing material in which these fabrics were also seized, as per provisions of law.
12. That Panchnama proceedings were conducted in presence of two independent witnesses, Ms. Olga Kozireva and an interpretor since Ms. Olga Kozireva could understand the English language, but was not able to write.
13. That the panchnama dated 28.08.2000 is Ex.PW49/E bearing his signatures at point 'A' and it also bear the signatures of the witnesses Kamlesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar.
14. That alongwith panchnama, baggage tags 26 in numbers and 26 baggage stub, custom oral declaration card, excess baggage ticket were also recovered.
15. That the file pertaining to seizure of 81160 yards Chinese silk fabric from Olga Kozireva on 28.08.2000 was seized vide seizure memo dated 25.09.2001 which is Ex.PW40/A (D35).
16. That his noting dated 28.08.2000 regarding the report of seizure of offwhile Chinese silk from Olga Kozireva vide panchnama dated 28.08.2000, is at the first page of the file which noting is Ex.PW51/A.
17. That he received the said file again from Superintendent (Preventive), on 30.08.2000 and he again put up the draft DRIII report in the file on 30.08.2000.
18. That he put up the file with details of hotels in which she had stayed earlier which nothings are at page no. 4 & 5 of the file Ex.PW40/A and his noting dated 30.08.2000 are Ex.PW51/B.
19. That in his noting dated 01.09.2000, at page6 of the file Ex.PW40/A, he proposed for consideration of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 75 of 135 detention of Ms. Olga Kozireva under COFEPPOSA, in view of her frequent visits, which are Ex.PW51/C.
20. That in his noting dated 04.09.2000, he had put up draft of COFEPPOSA proposal for approval from the competent authority, which nothing is Ex.PW51/D.
21. That the further investigation of the case has been transferred to the Directorate Revenue Intelligence.
22. That vide panchnama dated 17.02.2001 which is Ex.PW49/F was prepared by him since in the earlier panchanama dated 28.08.2000 Ex.PW49/E, marking found on each baggage and weight of per baggage was not recorded.
23. That on the asking of DRI, he prepared the panchnama Ex.PW49/F in which the package was marked as per baggage tag number, the weight in kilogram was also mentioned and the marking found on the bale and average length in meter per kilogram of the fabric was also recorded, at warehouse Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
24. That the Investigating Officer has got recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW51/E (running into 8 pages).
He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offender Olga Kozireva and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court. 52 Sh. Gopal PW52 Gopal Dokania is a businessman and has deposed on Dokania (PW52) the following aspects: Public witness 1. That Sh. Arun Kumar Dokania is his younger brother and during the year 1995 to 2003, he was having shop in the name and style of M/s. Anjali Fab, at Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, having business of Bhagalpuri Silk Fabric.
2. That he used to assist him in his business. However, he does not know any Mamoor Khan.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was crossexamined by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI wherein the witness has deposed as under:
3. That he had stated before the Investigating Officer that Mamoor Khan had visited their shop in the year 1999 for purchase of tusssar silk and cotton.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 76 of 135
4. That the CBI officials have shown him a colour photograph of Mamoor Khan which was identified by him.
5. That he used to make telephone calls to Mamoor Khan on his mobile number but he does not remember the said mobile number.
The witness is relevant qua Proclaimed offender Mamoor Khan. He has denied having urchased 122 meters of silk fabric from Mamoor Khan and having visited Mamoor Khan at Sameet Guest House, Ballimaran, Delhi. 53 Sh. Surender PW53 Sh. Surender Shah was posted as Superintendent Shah (PW53) - (Protocol) at IGI Airport, New Delhi, during August, 2000 Official witness and has proved the adjudication order bearing no. 20154, dated 31.07.2000 passed by Sh. H.R. Bhimashanker (Accused No.6 - Prosecution withdrawn) regarding passenger Nazira Ibragimova, vide which the value of goods was assessed at Rs.46,000/, which Adjudication Order is Ex.PW10/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for accused public servants presently facing trial. 54 Sh. Ravinder PW54 Sh. Ravinder Saroop was posted as Deputy Saroop (PW54) Commissioner of Customs (preventive) at IGI Airport, New Official Witness Delhi, during August 2000 and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on the morning of 28th August 2000, he received specific intelligence that some textile material may be brought on a flight and may be attempted to be smuggled, by a passenger from one of the CIS country.
2. That he deployed officers from the preventive team, i.e. superintendent preventive Sh. V.K. Verma and Sh. Dass Gupta, to intercept such passenger at the green channel if such attempt was made.
3. That thereafter, one passenger Ms. Olga Kozireva was intercepted at the green channel by the preventive team.
4. That after interception of the passenger, her baggage details were obtained and it was found that she was carrying 27 bags of textile material.
5. That the manifest details were obtained by the preventive team and the file was submitted to him along with the details of the investigation.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 77 of 135
6. That he recorded that the details of her visit may be obtained and follow up investigations should be conducted.
7. That he also proposed arrest of the passenger in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and submitted the file to the Additional Commissioner of the customs Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha who was his supervising officer.
8. That his nothing dated 28.08.2000 is at pageIII of the noting portion of the file (D35) marked 'X', bearing file No. VIII(AP)/10/ P&I/ 65B/ 2000 which is Ex.PW54/A.
9. That his noting at page6 of the noting portion of this file is Ex.PW54/B vide which he had asked to obtain all details of Olga Kozireva of her earlier visits in India.
10. That vide letter dated 13.09.2001 which is Ex.PW54/C (part of D15 at page274) to Deputy Director, DRI, he had sent the copies of documents mentioned therein.
11. That his statement was also got recorded by the CBI under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi on 20.11.2001, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW54/D, carbon copy of the proceedings dated 20.11.2001 running into two pages is Ex.PW54/E.
12. That on 20.11.2001, he had submitted a typed statement running into eight pages to the Ld. MM, which is Ex.PW54/F. He was an official witness relevant qua the Proclaimed Offender Olga Kozireva and not qua the accused who are public servants presently facing trial before this Court. 55 Sh. Kamal Bajaj PW55 Sh. Kamal Bajaj was posted at IGI Airport as Custom (PW55) - Official Officer during the period from October, 1997 to May, 2000 witness from and has deposed on the following aspects: Customs 1. That during his tenure, in later 1999, he came to know one Mr. Khan, as he used to call on his mobile phone, which he could have taken from protocol Section at IGI Airport and he used to call through his mobile number generally, but he does not remember his mobile number.
2. That during conversations, he told him that he used to help the passengers who come to India from CIS CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 78 of 135 Countries and also help such passengers for their hotel bookings and for selling & buying of their imported goods.
3. That he also met the said Mr. Khan at the IGI Airport, once or twice.
4. That he had also heard the name of Olga Kozireva but he does not know any reason as to why the name of said Olga Kozireva was known to everybody in the airport.
5. That he had received a show cause notice from the DRI, in the year 2001, regarding his interaction with the said Mr. Khan, which show cause notice dated 23/24.08.2001 running into 201 pages is Ex.PW55/A (D152) and he had given the reply to the same and an inquiry was also conducted by the Commissioner Customs and he had already been exonerated in the said inquiry.
This witness has not incriminated any of the public servant accused presently facing trial and has not been cross examined by them.
56 Sh. Naushad PW56 Sh. Naushad Assanar was posted in COPEPOSA Assanar (PW56) Unit as Preventive Officer at IGI Airport during the year Official witness 20002001 and has deposed on the following aspects: from Customs 1. That a seizure memo of fabric was made in the month of August, 2000, from a Russian lady, namely, Olga Kozireva but he had not seen the said lady at that time or even during the investigations and inquiries conducted by the CBI.
2. That he was called by the CBI officials to their office for investigations in this case.
3. That the detention receipt dated 29.08.2000 (part of D122 at page18) which is Ex.PW27/C was not prepared by him nor the same bears his signatures.
4. That his statement was recorded by the custom officials during the year 2001 under the provisions of Customs Act, photocopy of which statement is Ex.PW56/A.
5. That the page3 of D124 which is the photocopy of a photograph was shown to the witness, but the witness was unable to identify the same, the said page is Ex.PW56/B.
6. That the photocopy of statement dated 22.12.2000, recorded at the office of Director General of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 79 of 135 Vigilance, Customs Department is ex.PW56/C (page 5 to page 14 of D14).
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, he was crossexamined by the Ld. PP for CBI, wherein the witness was confronted with portion A to A, B to B, C to C, D to D and E to E of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW56/X but the witness has denied having made such statement before the CBI.
The witness is relevant only qua Proclaimed Offender Olga Kozireva and has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite giving an opportunity. 57 Sh. Arvind PW57 Sh. Arvind Prabhakar was working as Cargo Officer Prabhakar in Kyrgyzstan Airlines, having its office at IGI Airport, New (PW57) - Official Delhi, during the year, 19992000 and has proved the Witness computer generated passenger manifest and cargo manifest, running into 145 pages, for the period w.e.f. 02.01.2000 to 26.12.2000 which are Ex.PW57/A collectively.
The witness has not incriminated any of the public servant accused presently facing trial and has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite giving an opportunity.
58 Sh. Arun Kumar PW58 Sh. Arun Kumar Dokania is a businessman who has Dokania (PW58) deposed on the following aspects:
- Public witness 1. That during the year, 1997, he was running a shop in the name and style of M/s Anjali Enterprises at Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
2. That in the year 19992000, twothree pathani persons used to visit his shop for purchase of cloth, in cash.
3. That he had not asked their names as they used to pay in cash.
4. That on their second visits onwards, they used to show him silk cloth and requested him to purchase from them for selling the same in the market, but he did not purchase the said silk cloth from them despite their repeated request.
5. That in the year 20002001, the custom officers as well as the CBI officials had enquired from him about the aforesaid pathani persons.
6. That photocopy of his statement dated 05.01.2001 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 80 of 135 is Ex.PW58/A (collectively) and he had identified the photograph of a person who used to visit his shop for purchase of cloth and had offered top sell the silk to him but he was not aware the name of the said persons.
The witness has not incriminated the public servant accused and has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite giving an opportunity. 59 Sh. Satinder Bist PW59 Sh. Satinder Bist was the Inspector in EOUVII, CBI (PW59) - Official who has deposed on the following aspects: witness (CBI) 1. That he was an Inspector in the EOUVII, CBI, New relating to Delhi from 2001 to July, 2010 and was authorized to investigations seize the documents by the IO Sh. Balasubramaniam.
2. That on 28.05.2002 on the instructions of the IO, he had taken over possession of the documents from Sh. K. C. Kalra, the then Deputy Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi, vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW59/A (D143),
3. That he had also taken the documents in possession vide memo dated 07.06.2002 from Sh. Nemi Chand, Inspector of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi, which Seizure Memo is Ex.PW59/B (D153),
4. That on oral instructions of the IO, he had also examined Sh. Rajender Prasad Kamal, Sh. Hem Chand, Aruender Singh, Vijay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, Ashutosh Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Sanjib Basu and A. K. Mishra.
The witness has not incriminated any of the public servant accused presently facing trial in the present case and has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite giving an opportunity.
60 Sh. U. K. Mishra PW60 Sh. U. K. Mishra was the Senior Intelligence officer (PW60) - Official in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, who has deposed Witness from DRI on the following aspects:
1. That he was working as a Senior Intelligence Officer in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi from January 2000 to March 2005.
2. That during his tenure, he had the occasion to investigate the case of imports by Olga Kozireva and her associates, through Delhi Airport, on instructions of his senior officers.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 81 of 135
3. That during investigations, he had examined many officers of the Customs, Airlines and from the trade under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also assisted in other incidental investigations.
4. That the associates of Olga Kozireva were Nazira, Mamoor Khan and others, whose names were not remember to him.
5. That during investigations, he came to notice that Olga Kozireva and her associates were importing mainly silk fabrics through passenger terminal of IGI Airport and were disposing them off to the members of the trade located in Old Delhi.
6. That some of the custom officers posted at IGI Airport were in touch with the passengers like Olga Kozireva and Nazira and her associates like Mamoor Khan and were apparently facilitating the clearance of these goods without payment of duty.
7. That after investigations, the entire material were placed before his superior officers and an investigation report signed by his superior officers Mr. Donald Ingty, alongwith the documents generated during investigations were handed over to the Commissioner of Customs (Import and General), who was incharge of the airport at that time, sometime in August, 2011.
8. That when CBI was investigating the case, he had also handed over some documents to Sh. S. Balasubramaniam, the then IO vide seizure memo dated 24.04.2001 which is Ex.PW60/A (D120).
9. That during investigation by the DRI, he had taken over certain relevant documents from Sh. S. K. Gupta, ACO(P) of Airport Customs on 12.04.2001 vide memo Ex.PW60/B (D16).
The examination in chief of this witness U.K. Mishra (PW60) was deferred for want of original documents but thereafter the witness has not appeared and his examination in chief is hereby discarded.
61 Sh. R. L. Yadav PW61 Sh. R. L. Yadav was the Inspector in EOUVII (SIU (PW61) - Official 9), Delhi and has deposed on the following aspects: witness (CBI) 1. That during the year 1996 to 2010, he was posted as Inspector in EOUVII (SIU9), CBI, New Delhi.
2. That on 12.06.2002, he took investigations of the present case on the directions of branch SP Sh. S. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 82 of 135 Balasubramaniam.
3. That during investigations, prosecution sanction, in respect of Sh. V. K. Kushwaha, Sh. Virender Kumar, Sh. Upender Gupta, Sh. Rajeev Gupta, H. R. Bhimshanker, Sudhir Sharma, V. K. Bhardwaj, Anil Madan, R. K. Srivastava, R. N. Zutshi, S. D. Rajpal, Kanwal Suman, R. K. Dakolia, V. K. Khurana, J. A. Khan, Vinod Kumar Kain, Ajay Yadav, T. R. K. Reddy, Yashvir Singh, D. S. Nandal, Yashpal, Pradeep Rana, Neeraj Kumar, Parveen Teotia, A. K. Varshney, S. A. Lamb and V. S. Teotia was received from the competent authorities and he filed the charge sheet in the present case on 24.02.2006.
The witness is only of a formal nature who had obtained sanction to prosecute the accused public servants from the competent authority. He has been duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
62. Ms. Seema Maini PW62 Ms. Seema Maini was the then Ld. MM and has (PW62) - Official proved the following aspects:
witness 1. That on 11.7.2001 an application was moved on behalf of accused Del Aga before the Court of the then Special Judge, CBI, Sh. R. L. Chugh Tis Hazari, Delhi and the same was marked by the Ld. Special Judge to the Ld. CMM, Delhi for assigning the same to some MM, for recording the same U/s 164 Cr. P. C, vide orders dated 11.7.01.
2. That on 11.7.2001, the Ld. CMM had marked the said application to herslef for disposal in accordance with the law and she had fixed the recording of statement for 16.7.2001 at 3:00 PM vide order dated 11.7.2001, vide order Ex.PW62/A.
3. That on 16.7.2001, the accused Del Aga was produced before her by the IO Inspector S. Balasubramaniam and was duly identified by him, after which she recorded the statement of accused Del Aga and the proceedings drawn by her in this regard including the statement of the accused are Ex.PW62/B bearing her signatures on page 9 at point A.
4. That she also gave the certificate regarding the authenticity and voluntariness of the statement of accused which is at point X on Ex.PW62/B. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 83 of 135
5. Thereafter, she directed the Ahlmad to sent the proceedings in a sealed cover to the court of the Ld. CMM, Delhi vide her endorsement at point Y on page 10.
6. That the IO had moved an application for obtaining copy of the statement of accused, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which application is Ex.PW62/C which was allowed vide her endorsement and signatures at point X. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.
63 Rajender PW63 Rajender Parshad Kamal was the Assistant Manager, Parshad Kamal State Bank of India, IGI Extension Counter, New Delhi who (PW63) - Official has deposed on the following aspects:
witness from 1. That during the period w.e.f July 1997 to March State Bank of 2002, he remained posted as Assistant Manager, India State Bank of India, IGI Extension Counter, New Delhi and was looking after the work of foreign exchange currency change.
2. That he could not identify the signatures and name of the officer who had dealt with the various challan sheets.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement given to the CBI, therefore the witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI wherein he has deposed as under:
That the challan books as shown to him, during his examination in chief, pertains to SBI, Indira Gandhi International Airport Extension counter. That Sh. Pahal Singh, Asst. Manager; S.R. Mehdiratta, Asst Manager; K. M. Verma, Asst. Manager; P. S. Sehtal, Asst. Manager; S. C. Saluja, Dy Manager; Mahesh Chand, Asst. Manager; A. S. Jain, Asst Manager and R. R. Aseri Asst. Manager were posted at IGI Extension Counter of the SBI during the time when he was posted there. That the signatures on challan receipt bearing no. 32735 appears to be the signatures of Sh. S. R. Mendiratta, Asst. Manager of their Branch, at point A which is Ex.PW63/PX1.
That the signatures on challan receipt bearing no. 32736 which is Ex.PW63/PX2 appears to be signatures of Sh.Pahal Singh, Asst. Manager of their CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 84 of 135 Branch, at point A. That the signatures on challan receipt bearing no. 29976 which is Ex.PW63/PX3 appears to be signatures of Sh. K.M. Verma, Asst. Manager of their Branch at point A. That the signatures on challan receipt bearing no. 104283 which is Ex.PW63/PX4 appears to be signatures of Sh. R.R. Adseri, Asst. Manager of their Branch, at point A. That the signatures on challan receipt bearing no. 32393 which is ex.PW63/PX5 and challan receipt bearing no. 32395 which is Ex.PW11/B bears signatures of Sh. Mahesh Chandra at point A. This witness does not incriminate any of the accused public servants who are presently facing trial.
64. R. K. Sharma PW64 R. K. Sharma was the Assistant in the Directorate (PW64) - Official General of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, new witness from Delhi and has deposed on the following aspects:
Customs 1. That during the month of December 2001, he was working as Assistant in the Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, 2nd floor, C. R. Building, New Delhi.
2. That on 13.2.2001, CBI officer came to their office, and contacted Sh. Zameer Ahmed, the then Superintendent of their office, thereafter he took out the hard disk of the computer which was in possession of Sh. Zameer Ahmad, in sealed condition.
3. That the hard disk was taken out in his presence and some documents were prepared in this regard and a seizure memo cum inspection proceedings Ex.PW33/A (D137) was prepared and the annexures attached to the same are Ex.PW33/B and Ex.PW33/C1 to C5.
This witness had carried out formal investigations and has not incriminated any of the accused public servants who are present facing trial and has been formally crossexamined by them.
65. Rajesh Chahal PW65 Rajesh Chahal was the Inspector in SIUIX Branch (PW65) - Official and has deposed on the following aspects: witness from CBI 1. That from the year 1997 to 2003, he remained posted relating to as Inspector in the SIUIX branch of CBI, New Delhi. investigations CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 85 of 135
2. That on 16.4.2001, as per the instruction of SP Ms. S. Sundari Nanda, he visited the office of DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, CR Building, New Delhi and received the documents from Sh. Zameer Ahmed, Superintendent (Vigilance) and prepared a receipt memo which is Ex.PW33/F.
3. That similarly on 16.4.01, he further received documents from Sh. Zameer Ahmed, Superintendent (Vigilance) and prepared another receipt memo, which is Ex.PW33/G.
4. That after receipt of the documents, he had handed over the same to IO Sh. S. Balasubramani, Inspector.
The witness had only carried out formal investigations and does not incriminate any of the accused public servants presently facing trial before the court.
66 S. PW66 S. Balasubramony is the Investigating Officer of the Balasubramony present case who has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW66) - Official 1. That during the period 2001 he was posted as witness/ Inspector in SIUIX Branch of EOIII, CBI, New Investigating Delhi and was entrusted with the investigation of RC Officer 5/2001 by the then S.P. Smt. Sunderi Nanda for investigation.
2. That the FIR which is Ex.PW66/A (colly. running into 9 pages)(D2) of the case bears the signatures of the then Superintendent of Police, CBI Smt. Sunderi Nanda at point mark A.
3. That the FIR had been marked to him for investigation vide S.No. 4 and the endorsement made on page no. 9 is Ex.PW66/A.
4. That the FIR had been registered on the basis of a complaint from Sh. N. Raja, Director General, Vigilance for investigating into the matter of Smuggling of Chinese silk through IGI Airport, New Delhi, pertaining to the interception of one Uzbek national Olga Kozireva with 27 bags of Chinese silk on 28.08.2000.
5. That it was suspected that there were many previous instances of smuggling of Chinese silk through the airport without proper adjudication in connivance with the customs officers who were posted in the airport.
6. That the original complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered is Ex.PW66/B bearing the CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 86 of 135 signatures of the Director Vigilance Sh. N. Raja which complaint was marked to him by his Superintendent of Police on 23.02.2001 vide endorsement at point encircled A.
7. That the same also enclosed with the interim investigation report and further investigation reports of P.K. Dash, Joint Commissioner, Vigilance, Customs into the smuggling of Chinese silk which reports are Ex.PW30/A(D1) and Ex.PW30/B(D1).
8. That during the course of investigation, he had examined various witnesses and collected documents.
9. That a letter dated 03.04.2001 was written by the SP to the Director General (Vigilance) for handing over all the documents pertaining to the accused Olga Kozireva case to him which letter is Ex.PW66/C (D
3).
10. That vide letter dated 09.04.2001 which is Ex.PW66/D (D5), he had written to the DCP, FRRO for providing the immigration records of accused who were allegedly smuggling Chinese Silk namely Mamoor Khan, Del Agha, Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova.
11. That vide letter dated 20.04.2001 which is Ex.PW66/E (D6) bearing the signatures of the then SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda to the Addl. Director General (Vigilance), Customs the customs Warehouse Register for the period 1997 - 2000 and the copies of the detainment receipts in the name of Olga Kozireva, Nazira, Mamoor Khan and Del Agha were called for.
12. That vide letter (dated Nil) which is Ex.PW66/F (D
7) bearing his signatures at point A to the Country Manager, Pakistan International Airlines the Flight Manifests for the period 19972000 were called for.
13. That vide letter dated Nil which is Ex.PW66/G (D8) bearing his signatures at point A to the Station Manager, Uzbekistan Airlines the Flight Manifests for the period 19972000 were called for.
14. That vide letter dated Nil which is Ex.PW66/H (D9) bearing his signatures at point A to the Kyrgistan Airlines the Flight Manifests for the period 1997 2000 were called for.
15. That he identifies the letter dated 26.04.2001 which is Ex.PW4/A (D11) addressed to Inspector V.K. CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 87 of 135 Pandey who was assisting him in the case, written by one Rajesh Kumar enclosing the receipts of goods which were sold to them vide Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C.
16. That he identifies the letter dated 22.05.2001 Ex.PW66/I (D12) written by Sh. P.K. Dash Addl. Commissioner Vigilance to the ADG (Vigilance) and copy to SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda, regarding a typographical error in the investigating report.
17. That he identifies the Red Corner Notice dated 09.08.2001 issued by the Assistant Director Interpol CBI, New Delhi in respect of Mamoor Khan who was absconding during the course of investigations, copy of which notice is Ex.PW66/J (D13).
18. That vide letter dated 20.08.2001 which is Ex.PW42/B (D14) addressed to SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda by Sh. Rajiv Talwar, Dy. Director (Intelligence), DRI, the customs file relating to one Abdul Qahar and also the details regarding the assessment of baggage of Olga Kozireva, Nazira Ibragimova and another Russain National namely Merkulova was sent to his SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda in connection with the investigations of this case.
19. That this file contains the detention order dated 30.03.2001 which is Ex.PW66/K (D15) of Abdul Qahar for a period of one year in connection with the smuggling of Chinese Silk.
20. That vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 14.04.2001 which is Ex.PW7/A (D20), he had collected the original visitors register for foreigners for the period 04.04.1999 to 12.04.2001 from Abdul Qaiyum, Manager Sameer Guest House, Ballimaran, Delhi, which register is Ex.PW7/B (D21).
21. That vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 16.04.2001 which is Ex.PW14/A (D22), he had collected the original visitors register for foreigners for the period 01.02.1999 to 16.10.2010 from Nathu Lal, Manager Hotel Yes Please, Paharganj, Delhi which register is Ex.PW14/B (D22).
22. That vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 04.04.2001 which is Ex.PW66/L (D23), he had collected the original ticket entry register for the period 01.04.1998 to September 1999 from Amit Singh, House No. 5114, Gali Thanedar Wali, Main CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 88 of 135 Bazar, Paharganj, Delhi, which register is Ex.PW66/M (D24).
23. That the details of travel of one Sh. Sunil Puri and Nazira Ibrogimova to whom tickets were issued during the period 1999, are at serial no. 17 on page no. 67 of the register which is encircled A and at serial no. 54 on page no. 74 of the register which is encircled B.
24. That vide production cum seizure memo dated 02.05.2001 which is Ex.PW66/N (D25) the bills and receipts related to sales of synthetic fabrics to Mamoor Khan by Mahesh Gupta were seized.
25. That the copy of the photographs of Mamoor Khan, Dil Agha, Olga Kozireva and Abdul Qahar were shown to Mahesh Gupta and he identified the photograph of Mamoor Khan as the person who had purchased the synthetic fabric from him.
26. That vide production cum seizure memo dated 02.05.2001 which is Ex.PW66/O (D27), he had seized the bills and receipts related to sales of synthetic fabrics to Mamoor Khan by Rajesh Kumar, a businessman with address Shop No. 1428, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi.
27. That vide production cum seizure memo dated Nil which is Ex.PW33/H (D28), he had seized the customs file No. VIII (AP) 48/OP/106/2000 relating to involvement of CIS (Community of Independent States) Nationals in illegal activities and also the preventive charge register for the period 01.05.2000 to 26.11.2000 and PRO Register from 16.02.1996 to 08.12.2000 which was seized from Zammer Ahmed, Superintendent (Vigilance), Customs.
28. That vide letter dated 26.04.2001 which is Ex.PW31/A (D32) addressed to SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda from Sh. H.K. Sharma, Assistant Director (IB) the arrivaldeparture details of Olga Kozioreva, Nazira Ibragimova, Mamoor Khan and Del Agha, for the period from January 1997, were enclosed.
29. That vide letter dated 20.11.2001 which is Ex.PW66/P (D33) addressed to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, IGI Airport, New Delhi, the copies of the baggage receipts on the duties paid by Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova for the adjudication orders passed against them were called for.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 89 of 135
30. That vide letter dated 31.10.2001 which is Ex.PW35/A (D34) addressed to his SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda by Sh. N.K. Soren, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance the guidelines regarding arrest and prosecution for customs offences were enclosed.
31. That vide production cum seizure memo dated 25.09.2001 which is already Ex.PW40/A (D35)he had seized the customs file of 81,160 yards of Chinese Silk from Olga Kozireva on 28.08.2000 for a value of Rs.1.55 Crores, from Sh. S.K. Srivastava, Intelligence Officer, DRI, New Delhi, which file is Ex.PW51/A (D35).
32. That vide production cum Seizure Memo dated 10.05.2001 which is Ex.PW66/Q (D36), he had collected the visitor's entry register for the period 29.04.1997 till 10.05.2001 from Mirza Farid, Owner of Sarah Lodge, Ballimaran, Delhi, which register is Ex.PW66/Q1 (D36).
33. That the details of Abdul Qahar are at serial no. 796/9 on page no. 84 of this register which entry is encircled A; at serial no. 1077/5 on page no. 119 of the register which is encircled B and at serial no. 1252/5 on page no. 136 of this register which is now encircled C.
34. That vide production cum Seizure Memo dated 16.04.2001 which is Ex.PW33/F (D37), he had collected the spot adjudication orders mentioned therein and attendance registers and customs warehouse registers for the period 19972000.
35. That he had also collected the statement of customs officials recorded under the Customs Act which are Ex.PW33/G (D37).
36. That vide letter dated 12.04.2001 which is Ex.PW37/A (D66) addressed to SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda by Sh. P.K. Bhardwaj, FRRO, the arrival departure details of Olga Kozireva, Nazira Ibragimova, Mamoor Khan and Del Agha from 1997 till 11.04.2001 were collected.
37. That vide production cum Seizure Memo dated 05.04.2001 which is Ex.PW66/R (D67), he had collected the statements of customs officials recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and other relevant documents from Sh. U.K. Mishra, Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 90 of 135
38. That vide production cum Seizure Memo dated 24.04.2001 which is Ex.PW60/A (D120 running into six pages), he had collected the arrival registers for various shifts, spot adjudication orders, Airways Manifests and certified copies of the statements of customs officials recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from Sh. U.K. Mishra, Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI, New Delhi.
39. That copies of the Airways Manifests which are Ex.PW66/S (running in to 56 pages) bear the details of baggage bought in by Nazira and Olga Kozireva on various dates which have been highlighted at point A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P.
40. That vide seizure memo Ex.PW60/A (D120), he had also seized a file pertaining to the arrest of accused Olga Kozireva and the seizure of Chinese Silk from her possession on 28.08.2000, which entry at page No. 4 at serial no. 51 is encircled X, from Sh. U.K. Misra, Sr. Intelligence Officer and the Panchnama dated 28.08.2000 in this regard is Ex.PW49/E (D
122).
41. That letter dated 01.11.2001 vide Ex.PW19/A (D
136) addressed to SP Smt. S. Sundari Nanda by Sh. V.K. Gupta, Under Secretary, Government of India, was marked to him by his SP which encloses the certified copies of the circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance with regard to import of goods in commercial quantity in the baggage.
42. That vide Production Cum Seizure Memo dated 13.12.2001 which is Ex.PW33/A (D137), he had seized the original CPU and documents which have been generated through the CPU by Sh. V.K. Singh Kushwaha from Sh. Zameer Ahmed, Superintendent.
43. That the annexures to the above memo are Ex.PW33/B, Ex.PW33/C1 to Ex.PW33/C5 and a memorandum of seizure of CPU 03990C92568 of HCL Info Systems was also drawn vide Ex.PW33/D (D138).
44. That vide Production Cum Seizure Memo dated 02.04.2002 which is Ex.PW20/A (D140) bearing, he had seized the copy of baggage receipts of Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova for the period 1999 to 2000 from Sh. R.N. Khullar, Officer State Bank of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 91 of 135 India, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
45. That vide Production Cum Seizure Memo dated 14.05.2002 which is Ex.PW20/B (D141), he had seized the copy of baggage receipts of Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova for the period 2000 from Sh. R.N. Khullar, Officer, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
46. That vide Seizure Memo dated 16.05.2002 which is Ex.PW66/T (D142), he had seized the copy of baggage receipts of Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova for the period 2000 from Sh. K.C. Kalra, Officer, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
47. That vide Receipt Memo dated 28.05.2002 which is Ex.PW59/A (D143), Inspector Sh. Satender Bisth had seized the copy of baggage receipts of Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova for the period 2000 from Sh. K.C. Kalra, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Division, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
48. That vide Production Cum Seizure Memo dated 12.04.2002 which is Ex.PW66/U (D144), he had seized the copies of the statements of Nodal Officers of mobile companies and airlines from Sh. S.K. Nath, Intelligence Officer, DRI, New Delhi.
49. That during the course of his investigations, he also got recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Del Agha which is Ex.PW62/B (D145); statement of Waliullah which is Ex.PW66/V (D146); statement of Sunil Puri which is Ex.PW66/V1 (D147); statement of Ravinder Swaroop which is Ex.PW54/E (D148); statement of Rakesh Gupta which is Ex.PW51/E (D149); statement of Mehrunisa which is Ex.PW66/V2 (D150) and statement of Jagdish Kumar which is Ex.PW66/V3 (D151).
50. That vide letter dated 09.07.2001 which is Ex.PW66/W (D161) addressed to his SP by the Station Manager Uzbekistan Airways, the copies of the passenger manifest for the year 1999 was enclosed which are Ex.PW66/W1 running into 25 pages and the entry at point A on page no.2 of Ex.PW66/W1 relates to the travel of Nazira Ibragimova.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 92 of 135
51. That vide letter dated 23.04.2001 which is Ex.PW66/X (D162) addressed to him by the Manager Pakistan International Airways, the copies of the passenger manifest for the year 1997 to 2000 containing the flight details of Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova were enclosed which are now Ex.PW66/X1 running into 50 pages.
52. That vide letter dated 26.04.2001 which is Ex.PW66/Y (D163) addressed to him by the Manager Kyrgyzstan Airways, the copies of the passenger manifest for the year 1997 to 2000 was enclosed which are Ex.PW57/A running into 145 pages and the relevant entries relating to the travels of Olga Kozireva and Nazira are encircled at point A to N at pages no. 9 (A), 24 (B and C), 72 (D), 97 (E, F and G), 98 (H and I), 105 (J), 107 (K), 113 (L and M) and 119 (N).
53. That he had also obtained the Orders of Sanction for prosecution through Inspector Sh. R.L. Yadav in respect of accused persons i.e. V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Prosecution Withdrawn), Rajiv Gupta (Prosecution Withdrawn), H. R Bhima Shankar (Prosecution Withdrawn), Sudhir Sharma Superintendent Air Customs vide Ex.PW41/A (D169); in respect of accused V.K. Bhardwaj Superintendent Air Customs vide Ex.PW41/B (D170); in respect of accused Anil Madan Superintendent Air Customs vide Ex.PW41/C (D171); in respect of accused R.K. Srivatava Superintendent Air Customs (Prosecution Withdrawn); in respect of accused R.N. Zutsi Air Customs Officer vide Ex.PW43/A (D173); in respect of accused S.D. Rajpal ACO (Prosecution recommended to be withdrawn) vide Ex.PW43/B (D
174); in respect of accused Kamal Suman ACO vide Ex.PW43/C (D175); in respect of accused R.K. Dacolia ACO (Preventive Prosecution recommended to be Withdrawn) vide Ex.PW43/D (D176); in respect of accused V.K. Khurana ACO vide Ex.PW43/E (D177); in respect of accused J.A. Khan ACO (preventive) vide Ex.PW43/F (D178); in respect of accused Vinod Kumar Kain ACO (Preventive) Ex.PW43/F (D179); in respect of accused Ajay Yadav ACS vide Ex.PW34/A (D180); in respect of accused T.R.K. Reddy ACO vide CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 93 of 135 Ex.PW21/A (D181); in respect of accused Yashvir Singh Superintendent Air Customs vide Ex.PW38/A (D182); in respect of accused D.S. Nandal Superintendent Air Customs vide Ex.PW38/B (D
183); in respect of accused Yashpal ACO (Preventive) vide Ex.PW36/A (D184); in respect of accused Pradeep Rana ACO vide Ex.PW36/B (D
185); in respect of accused Neeraj Kumar ACO vide Ex.PW36/C (D186); in respect of accused Praveen Tewatia ACO (Preventive - prosecution recommended to be withdrawn) vide Ex.PW36/D (D
187); in respect of accused A.K. Varshney ACO (Preventive) vide Ex.PW36/E (D188); in respect of accused S.A. Lamb ACO vide Ex.PW36/F (D189) and in respect of accused V.S. Tewatia ACO (Preventive) vide Ex.PW36/G (D190).
54. That he also recorded the statement of the witnesses Jagdish Kumar which is Ex.PW33/A, G.P. Dhokania which is Ex.PW52/PX, Pradeep Singh Dhamija which is Ex.PW47/PX, Kamal Bajaj which is Ex.PW55/PX, Ansar Naushad which is Ex.PW56/PX and S.C. Dahuja which is Ex.PW5/B. This witness is the Investigating Officer who had collected the documentary record and prepared the chargesheet against the accused. He has been exhaustively cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused public servants wherein he has deposed as under:
That during the course of his investigations, he had not sized any Chinese Silk alleged to have been smuggled out of IGI Airport without payment of duty on the dates mentioned in AnnexureB of the charge sheet.
That the various manifests which are Ex.PW66/S (D
120), Ex.PW66/W1, Ex.PW66/X1 and Ex.PW57/A do not bear any signatures, attestation or certification by the concerned department.
That he has never met N. Raja, Director (Vigilance) of Customs at any time and he had never seen Sh. N. Raja writing and signing in official course of duties.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 94 of 135 That a similar case has been filed by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act before the designated Custom Court.
That he had never personally crosschecked the existing market rate/ cost of the material i.e. Chinese Silk in the Indian Market nor can he tel the existing market rate of the said material on the date of its seizure.
That he had not made any independent calculation with regard to the loss to the State Exchequer and has adopted whatever calculated by the DRI i.e. Rs.1,01,17,966/.
That without the OD Card, no passenger is allowed to leave the Customs area in the Airport.
That he has examined all the relevant officers but he does not recollect if he has examined the officers who were dealing with OD Card.
That he had made efforts to seize the OD Cards but could not seize the same as they were never handed over to him on the pretext that they were not traceable.
That he does not recollect if he had placed on record the communications sent to the Customs requisitioning these OD Cards.
That he is not aware if the Customs Department had moved an application for withdrawal of the complaint against 14 accused persons in the customs case pending before the designated court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide Ex.PW66/DX2. That the Adjudicating Officers who had actually passed the orders, are not accused in the present case.
That the Adjudication Order dated 12.06.2000 which is Ex.PW66/DX3 and order dated 18.08.2000 which is Ex.PW66/DX4 have been passed by Sh. Rajiv Gupta and Virender Kumar, the then Deputy Commissioners respectively.
That the adjudication order bearing No. 20165 and 20356 dated 21.08.2000 which are Ex.PW66/DX5 and Ex.PW66/DX6 have been attached with the charge sheet but he is not aware of their correctness since many forged Adjudication Orders were detected later.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 95 of 135 That the accused T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18) and Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22) were not GradeI Officers at the relevant time and had not passed any adjudication orders.
That in the Air Manifests including Ex.PW66/W1 (collectively) relied upon by him, the details of the date, description or type and contents of baggage are not mentioned.
That he had not collected any call details record from the mobile phone companies and whatever records collected by the DRI has been relied upon.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(15) After completing the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded wherein all the incriminating material was put to them, which they have denied. The accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
(16) The accused Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10) has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI by manipulating the evidence. He has stated that no loss has been caused to the State Exchequer as he has not passed/ prepared/ put up or dealt with in any manner any spot adjudication order and the same were passed by ClassI officer. He has further stated that the CBI after charge sheeting five classI officers namely Sh. V.K.S. Kushwaha (A5), Sh.
H.R. Bhima Shanker (A6), Sh. Rajiv Gupta (A7), Sh. Virender Kumar (A8) and Sh. Upender Gupta (A9), who had passed the adjudication order in the present case, has withdrawn the prosecution against them and some of the ClassI officers were not even made accused in the present case. He has also stated that the CBI has withdrawn the case CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 96 of 135 against the above named 5 ClassI officers and R.K. Srivastava (A21) a classII officer on the ground that they have been exonerated in the departmental enquiry conducted under the CCS (Code of Conduct Rules 1964) and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to accept the request of the CBI for withdrawal of the present case against them vide order dated 14.11.2014 and 08.11.2016. He has further stated that he is also similarly placed as his departmental enquiry has been completed and the CVC has advised "Dropping of Charges" against him vide letter C No. 004/CEX/092334157 dated 16.01.2017. According to the accused, he had given two representations to the CBI dated 03.05.2016 and 01.06.2017 for withdrawal of the present case against him, but no action has been taken by them till date.
(17) The accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11) has stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any evidence against him. He has stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Superintendent during relevant period of time i.e. October 1998 to October 2000 and he has been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings of the show cause notice (D152) by the Commissioner (Adjudication), New Custom House, New Delhi vide order C No. COMMR/ADJ/NCH/10/2006 dated 01.10.2007 and also by the Appellate Tribunal i.e. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), R.K. Puram, New Delhi vide order No. C/A/5386453877/2015 dated 30.12.2015. According to the accused, the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi had also filed a compliant case under Section 135 of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 97 of 135 Customs Act being complaint CC No. 167/1/01 dated 176.11.2001 before the court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi containing the same allegations based on same evidence as in the present case, which complaint case has been withdrawn by the Customs Department against him and the court of the Ld. CMM vide order dated 05.07.2017 has permitted such withdrawal. (18) The accused Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj (Accused no.12) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions. He has stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Superintendent during relevant period of time and he has not forged or used any Adjudication Order nor he was instrumental in passing of false adjudication order. He has also stated that all the Adjudication Orders of this case were passed by five grade one officers namely Rajeev Gupta, V.K. Kushwaha, Bhima Shankar, Upender Gupta and Virender Singh the then Deputy Commissioners and the case against the said officers have been withdrawn by the CBI during the trial. He has further stated that proceedings under Section 135 Customs Act pending adjudication before ACMM Patiala House Courts against him on the same allegations have been withdrawn on 05.07.2017 by the prosecution. He has also stated that he is innocent and have nothing to do with this false case against him.
(19) The accused Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13) has stated he is innocent and the present false case was planted on him. He has further stated that in the present case no loss has been caused to the exchequer due to him. According to the accused, every adjudication order has to be CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 98 of 135 finally passed by the senior officers i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Addl. Commissioner and in the present case, the adjudication order was passed by Sh. Virender Kumar (A8) and prosecution/CBI filed application for withdrawal of the present case qua him and finally the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2014 allowed the application of CBI while discharging the said accused alongwith other four senior officers. (20) The accused D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14) has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any evidence against him. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Superintendent during relevant period of time i.e. June 1998 to 05 th July 2000. He has also stated that he has been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings of the show cause notice (D152) by the Commissioner (Adjudication), New Custom House, New Delhi vide order C No. COMMR/ADJ/NCH/10/2006 dated 01.10.2007 and also by the Appellate Tribunal i.e. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), R.K. Puram, New Delhi vide order No. C/A/5386453877/2015 dated 30.12.2015. He has stated that the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi had also filed a complaint case under Section 135 of Customs Act being complaint CC No. 167/1/01 dated 176.11.2001 before the Court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi containing the same allegations based on same evidence as in the present case. He has also stated that the said complaint case has been withdrawn by the Customs Department against him and the court of the Ld. CMM vide order CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 99 of 135 dated 05.07.2017 has permitted such withdrawal. (21) The accused Anil Madan (Accused No.15) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Superintendent during relevant period of time and he has not passed any adjudication order including AO No. 20165 and 20356 both dated 21.08.2000. According to the accused, all the Adjudication Orders of this case were passed by five grade one officers namely Rajeev Gupta, V.K. Kushwaha, Bhima Shankar, Upernder Gupta and Virender Singh and then Deputy Commissioners and the case against these officers have been withdrawn by the CBI during the trial. The accused has further stated that the Adjudication Orders no. 20165 and 20356 both dated 21.08.2000 were passed by Sh. D.K. Soni the then Assistant Commissioner, Shift Incharge who has neither been cited as accused nor as witness in this case by the IO as nothing was found from illegal and wrong in passing these AOs. He has further stated that the CVC also advised for dropping of charges in favour of him vide office memorandum No. 004/CEX/092 334157 dated 16.01.2017.
(22) The accused R.N. Zutshi (Accused No. 16) has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI by manipulating the evidence. He has further stated that no loss has been caused to the exchequer as he has not passed/ prepared/ put up any adjudication order. According to the accused, the CBI after charge sheeting five ClassI officers namely Sh. V.K.S. Kushwaha (A5), Sh. H.R. Bhima Shanker (A6), Sh. Rajiv Gupta (A7), Sh. Virender Kumar CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 100 of 135 (A8) and Sh. Upender Gupta (A9), who had passed the adjudication order in the present case has withdrawn the case against them and some of the classI officers were not even made accused in the present case. He has further stated that on 10.07.2000, the accused Olga Kozireva did not pass through Green Channel with any commercial quantity of luggage and he did not prepare any adjudication order on 01.08.2000. He has also stated that the adjudication orders were passed by ClassI officer after physically verifying, the quality and quantity of goods in question. According to the accused, the officers who were responsible for passing adjudication orders were already been discharged by the ld. Predecessor this Court vide order dated 14.11.2014 after receipt of withdrawal of the present case.
(23) The accused S.D. Rajpal (Accused No.17) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumption. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer during relevant period of time and he was never posted as Superintendent at IGI Airport nor he has committed any offence as alleged by CBI. He has also stated that all the Adjudication Orders of this case were passed by five grade one officers namely Rajeev Gupta, V.K. Kushwaha, Bhima Shankar, Upernder Gupta and Virender Singh the then Deputy Commissioners. He has further stated that the case against these officers have been withdrawn by the CBI during the trial. According to the accused, CVC also advised for dropping of charges in favour of him vide office memorandum no. 004/CEX/092334157 dated 16.01.2017. Further, proceedings under Section 132 and 135 Custom Act, which CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 101 of 135 were pending against him on the basis of same allegation before the court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, have also been withdrawn. He has also stated that he has also been exonerated from the adjudication proceedings vide CESTAT final order No. CA/53684/2015CU(B) dated 30.12.2015.
(24) The accused T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions and he has been implicated only because he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer during relevant period of time. He has stated that the CBI registered this case in that period of time and falsely implicated him in this case. He has also stated that he is innocent and have nothing to do with this false case against him.
(25) The accused Vijay Kumar Khurana (Accused No.19) has stated that he is innocent and false case has been foisted on him. He has further stated that in the present case, no loss to the exchequer has been caused due to him as he has not prepared wrong adjudication orders. He has also stated that the adjudication orders were finally passed by the Superior officers namely Sh. Virender Kumar D.C. and Sh. H.R. Bhimashankar D.C. after hearing the passenger and after physical verification of the quantity and quality of the goods. He has further stated that the case against both the aforesaid superior officers has been withdrawn by the CBI on the ground that they have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. He has also stated that vide order dated 14.11.2014 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court has pleased to discharge them and he is similarly placed with them as he has also been CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 102 of 135 discharged by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings and inquiry report has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and same has been forwarded to the Director General of Vigilance for Second Stage Advice. According to the accused, he had requested two times to the CBI for dropping the case but till date no decision was taken by them for reasons well known to them.
(26) The accused Yashpal (Accused No.20) has stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any evidence against him. He has further stated that during the trial the prosecution has not produced any evidence either documentary or oral to prove any of the charges against him. He has also stated that none of the prosecution witness has deposed against him nor the prosecution has been able to produce any evidence against him. According to the accused, no loss has been caused to the government as he has not passed/prepared/dealt with the preparation of Adjudication Orders in any manner. He has also stated that there is no allegation much less evidence against him having dealt with the clearance of the passenger Olga Kozireva and Nazira Ibragimova or any other Russian national in any manner.
(27) The accused Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions. He has admitted that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer during relevant period of time and the CBI had registered this case in that period of time and falsely implicated him in this case. According to him, he is innocent and have nothing to do with this false case against him.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 103 of 135 (28) The accused Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24) has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI by manipulating the evidence. He has also stated that no loss has been caused to the exchequer as he has not passed/ prepared/ put up any false/ forged adjudication order. He has further stated that the adjudication order has to be finally passed after physical verification of quantity and quality of the goods in question by the competent superior officer. He has also stated that in the alleged AO, the competent superior officer who had passed the adjudication order has not been arrayed as an accused in the present case. According to the accused, the CBI after charge sheeting five classI officers namely Sh. V.K.S. Kushwaha (A5), Sh. H.R. Bhima Shanker (A6), Sh. Rajiv Gupta (A7), Sh. Virender Kumar (A8) and Sh. Upender Gupta (A9), who had passed the adjudication order in the present case, had withdrawn the case against them and some of the classI officers were not even made accused in the present case. He has further stated that the CBI has withdrawn the case against the above named 5 ClassI officers and R.K. Srivastava (A
21) a classII officer on the ground that they have been exonerated in the departmental enquiry conducted under the CCS (Code of Conduct Rules 1964) and the Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to accept the request of the CBI for withdrawal of the present case against them vide order dated 14.11.2014 and 08.11.2016. According to the accused, he is also similarly placed as his departmental enquiry has been completed and the disciplinary authority has exonerated him and had forwarded the case to CVC for CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 104 of 135 second stage advise. He has further stated that he has given representation to the CBI dated 04.05.2016 for withdrawal of the present case against him, but no action has been taken by them till date. The accused has also stated that he has been exonerated in the departmental, show cause notice/adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act 1962 and the department vide letter dated 08.05.2017, addressed to the Customs Senior Public Prosecutor, Patiala House Complex, has conveyed the accordance of approval of the competent authority for withdrawal of Customs Prosecution case against him and finally the Ld. CMM, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.07.2017, allowed the prosecution to withdraw the complaint against him.
(29) The accused J.A. Khan (Accused No. 26) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer (Baggage) during relevant period of time and never posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport at any point of time nor on 27.02.2000 and 23.04.2000 nor dealt with any passenger at IGI Airport being Air Custom Officer (Preventive). He has also stated that all the Adjudication Orders of this case were passed by five grade one officers namely Rajeev Gupta, V.K. Kushwaha, Bhima Shankar, Upernder Gupta and Virender Singh the then Deputy Commissioners but the case against these officers have been withdrawn by the CBI during the trial. He has further stated that the proceedings under Section 132 and 135 Custom Act, were pending against him on the basis of same allegations before the court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, the said proceedings CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 105 of 135 have also been withdrawn. According to the accused, he has also been exonerated from the adjudication proceedings vide CESTAT final order No. CA/53684/2015CU(B) dated 30.12.2015. (30) The accused Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No.28) has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI by manipulating the evidence/record. He has further stated that no loss has been caused to the State exchequer as he has not passed/ prepared/ put up any adjudication order and in any case the adjudication order has to be finally passed after physical verification of quantity and quality of the goods in question by the competent superior officer. He has also stated that during the period 19992000, when he was posted at IGI airport, he was never instrumental in allowing accused Olga Kozireva to walk through Green Channel on 10.07.2000 and nothing incriminating has been revealed by any witness or documents against him for any of the charges leveled against him by the CBI. He has further stated that the CBI after charge sheeting five ClassI officers namely Sh. V.K.S. Kushwaha (A5), Sh. H.R. Bhima shanker (A6), Sh. Rajiv Gupta (A7), Sh. Virender Kumar (A8) and Sh. Upender Gupta (A9) who had passed the adjudication order in the present case has withdrawn the case against them and some of the classI officers were not even made accused in the present case. He has also stated that the CBI has withdrawn the case against the above named 5 ClassI officers and R.K. Srivastava (A21) a classII officer on the ground that they have been exonerated in the departmental enquiry conducted under the CCS (Code of Conduct Rules 1964) and the Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 106 of 135 to accept the request of the CBI for withdrawal of the present case against them vide order dated 14.11.2014 and 08.11.2016. According to the accused, he is also similarly placed as his departmental enquiry has been completed and the disciplinary authority has exonerated him vide order in original no. 01/2017 dated 09.02.2017 issued by the Disciplinary Authority (Principal Commissioner of Customs, Preventive, New Delhi on the 2nd Stage advise of CVC. He has further stated that he has given representation to the CBI dated 16.03.2017 followed by two remainders for withdrawal of the present case against him, but no action has been taken by them till date. He has also stated that he has been exonerated in the departmental, show cause notice/adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act 1962 and the department vide letter dated 08.05.2017, addressed to the Customs Senior Public Prosecutor, Patiala House Complex, has conveyed the accordance of approval of the competent authority for withdrawal of Customs Prosecution Case against him and finally the Ld. CMM, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.07.2017, allowed the prosecution to withdrew the complaint against him.
(31) The accused Raj Kumar Dacolia (Accused No.29) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer (Baggage) during relevant period of time but he never posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport at the relevant point of time nor he has forged adjudication order dated 12.06.2000 nor used the same as genuine as alleged by the CBI. According to the accused, he was never CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 107 of 135 instrumental in passing adjudication order dated 12.06.2000 and all the Adjudication Orders of this case were passed by five grade one officers namely Rajeev Gupta, V.K. Kushwaha, Bhima Shankar, Upernder Gupta and Virender Singh the then Deputy Commissioners and the case against these officers have been withdrawn by the CBI during the trial. He has further stated that the CVC also advised for dropping of charges in his favour vide office memorandum no. 004/CEX/092334157 dated 16.01.2017 after advise of CVC for dropping of charges. According to him, the Principal Commissioner, Customs, Air Cargo also exonerated him on merits from all charges levelled against vide charge memo 30.07.2007 vide order in original no. 01/2017 dated 20.03.2017. He has further stated that the proceedings under Section 132 and 135 Custom Act, were pending against him on the basis of same allegations before the court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which proceedings under Section 132 and 135 Custom Act, were pending against him on the basis of same allegations before the court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which proceedings have also been withdrawn. He has also stated that he has also been exonerated from the adjudication proceedings vide CESTAT final order No. CA/53684/2015CU(B) dated 30.12.2015. (32) The accused Anil Kumar Varshney (Accused No.30) has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any evidence against him. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer during relevant period of time i.e. 25th June 1998 to 05th July 2000. According to the CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 108 of 135 accused, he has been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings of the show cause notice (D152) by the Commissioner (Adjudication), New Custom House, New Delhi vide order C. No. COMMR/ ADJ/ NCH/ 10/2006 dated 01.10.2007 and also by the Appellate Tribunal i.e. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), R.K. Puram, New Delhi vide order No. C/A/5386453877/2015 dated 30.12.2015. According to the accused, the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi had also filed a complaint case under Section 135 of Customs Act being complaint CC No. 167/1/01 dated 176.11.2001 before the Court of Ld. CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi containing the same allegations based on same evidence as in the present case. He has also stated that the said complaint case has been withdrawn by the Customs Department against him and the court of the Ld. CMM vide order dated 05.07.2017 has permitted such withdrawal. According to the accused, he was not working as ACO (Preventive) but was working as ACO (Baggage) on 04.07.2000 at IGI Airport, New Delhi, which was in the knowledge of Investigating Officer of this case. He has also stated that he had performed Escort Duty to Bombay from departure side on 04.07.2000. (33) The accused S.A. Lamb (Accused No.30) has stated that the whole case is based on assumption and presumptions. He has further stated that he was posted at IGI Airport as Air Custom Officer during relevant period of time this case as he has not passed any Adjudication Orders including no. 18413 & 18414 dated 14.08.2000. According to CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 109 of 135 him, the case has been withdrawn against Class 1 Officer namely Rajiv Gupta (the then DC), V.K. Kushwaha, Bhima Shankar and Upender Gupta who had admittedly passed all the adjudication orders of this case by the CBI during the trial. According to the accused, he has been exonerated in the same case by CESTAT, New Delhi of the charges of smuggling. He has also stated that the department has withdrawn the prosecution case filed in ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi based on the same facts. He has stated that he is innocent and have nothing to do with this false case against him.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(34) I have heard the arguments advanced before me and also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI as well as the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
My findings are as under:
Application of the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution against the accused Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10), S.D. Rajpal (Accused No. 17), Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No. 28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (Accused No. 29):
(35) It is evident from the record that the accused Ms. Olga Kozireva (Accused No.1); Ms, Nazira Ibragimova (Accused No.2);
Mamoor Khan (Accused No.3) and Abdul Qahar (Accused No.4) have already been declared Proclaimed Offender by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 110 of 135 (36) During the course of trial, the prosecution had moved an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of prosecution in respect of the accused V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5), H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6), Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7), Virender Kumar (Accused No.8) and Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9), which application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide a detailed order dated 11.11.2014. (37) Similarly, an application was filed for withdrawal of prosecution in respect of the accused R.K. Srivastava (Accused No. 21), which application was filed on the same parameters as that of the case of the earlier accused namely V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5), H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6), Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7), Virender Kumar (Accused No.8) and Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9). Vide order dated 08.11.2016 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had permitted the withdrawal of prosecution against the accused R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21).
(38) Now another application has been filed by the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI for withdrawal of prosecution in respect of the accused Sudhir Sharma (A10), S.D. Rajpal (A17), V.S. Teotia (Accused No.27), Vinod Kumar Kain (A28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (A29). In so far as the accused V.S. Teotia (Accused no.27) is concerned, the proceedings against him have been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21.01.2016 in Crl. M.C. No. 1250/2012. Hence, under these circumstances, I now proceed to decide the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by the Ld. Senior PP for CBI as agaisnt the accused Sudhir Sharma (A10), S.D. Rajpal (A17), Vinod Kumar Kain CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 111 of 135 (A28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (A29).
(39) I may observe that representations have been filed before the CBI by accused Neeraj Kumar (Accused No.23) the then Preventive Officer; S.A. Lamb (Accused No. 31) the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive); V.K. Khurana (Accused No. 19) the then Inspector, Customs; A.K. Varshney (Accused No. 30) the then Inspector Customs; J.A. Khan (Accused no.26) the then Inspector Custom; Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11) the then Superintendent of Custom (Preventive); Yashpal Singh (Accused no.20) the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive); R.N. Zutsi (Accused No.16) the then Inspector Custom; Kanwal Suman (Accused No. 24) the then Inspector Custom & Central Excise; Praveen Teotia (Accused No.25) the then Inspector Custom and V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12) the then Superintendent of Custom and Central Excise, for dropping the criminal proceedings against them on the ground of exoneration on merits from Show Cause Notices as well as in the departmental proceedings, based on the same set of facts and identical evidence. It is submitted by the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI that prosecution against the accused V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5), H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6), Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7), Virender Kumar (Accused No.8), Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9) and R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21) have already been permitted to be withdrawn on the grounds of parity and since the allegations involved against the accused namely Sudhir Sharma (A10), S.D. Rajpal (A17), Vinod Kumar Kain (A28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (A29) are also the same therefore the prosecution against the said accused may be permitted to be withdrawn. It is further submitted that similar application of the CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 112 of 135 CBI under Section 321 Cr.P.C. had been accepted by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2014 and further on similar application for withdrawal of prosecution against the accused R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21), the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had accepted the said application and granted consent for withdrawal of prosecution against them and hence, on the grounds of parity it is requested that the prosecution may be permitted to be withdrawn against the accused Sudhir Sharma (A10), S.D. Rajpal (A17), Vinod Kumar Kain (A28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (A29).
(40) I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that the Ld. Predecessor Court vide its detail order dated 11.11.2014 and subsequent order dated 08.11.2016 had consented to the withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5), H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6), Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7), Virender Kumar (Accused No.8), Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9) and R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21). Therefore, on the grounds of parity, I accept the application of the prosecution and consent for withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10), S.D. Rajpal (Accused No.17), Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No.28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (Accused No.29) and accordingly acquit them for the offences charged against them. The bail bonds furnished by the above accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 113 of 135 Allegations against the accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31):
(41) Coming now to the remaining accused facing trial namely Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20);
Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Neeraj Kumar (Accused No.23); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); Praveen Teotia (Accused No.25); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); V.S. Teotia (Accused No.27); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31). Out of the above accused, the proceedings against the accused Neeraj Kumar (Accused No.23); Praveen Teotia (Accused No.25) and V.S. Teotia (Accused No.
27) have been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and hence, I am not proceedings against them. Further, I note that out of these accused persons, representations have been filed before the CBI by accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11) the then Superintendent of Custom (Preventive); V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12) the then Superintendent of Custom and Central Excise; R.N. Zutsi (Accused No.16) the then Inspector Custom; V.K. Khurana (Accused No. 19) the then Inspector, Customs; Yashpal Singh (Accused No.20) the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive); Neeraj Kumar (Accused No.23) the then Preventive Officer;
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 114 of 135 Kanwal Suman (Accused No. 24) the then Inspector Custom & Central Excise; Praveen Teotia (Accused No.25) the then Inspector Custom; J.A. Khan (Accused no.26) the then Inspector Custom; A.K. Varshney (Accused No. 30) the then Inspector Customs and S.A. Lamb (Accused No. 31) the then Air Custom Officer (Preventive) for dropping the criminal proceedings against them on the ground of their exoneration on merits from Show Cause Notices as well as in the departmental proceedings but no decision on their case has been taken by the prosecution till date. I may also observe that the allegations against all the above accused are on the same set of facts and identical evidence and the CBI had followed the same parameters after taking a decision on the application and request made by the other accused namely V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5), H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6), Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7), Virender Kumar (Accused No.8), Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9), R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21), Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10), S.D. Rajpal (Accused No.17), Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No.28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (Accused No.29). I now proceed to decided the case of the above accused i.e. Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31), on merits.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 115 of 135 (42) The prosecution has examined as many as Sixty Six witnesses as discussed herein above, to substantiate the allegations against the above accused. Before proceeding with the merits of the allegations involved, for the sake of convenience the allegations made by the prosecution against all the above accused and the evidence on record are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Name of the Charges against the accused Allegations and Evidence as per No. accused the Prosecution
1. Yashvir The allegation against the Sh. Prasanna Kumar Dass Singh (A11) accused are that during the (PW30 has proved the period 19992000 being interim reports Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW30/A (D1) and into criminal conspiracy final report Ex.PW30/B. with coaccused persons These reports were and cheated Government of prepared after investigation India to the extent of by the Custom officials Rs.1,01,17,966/ by under the direction of Sh.
allowing smuggling of N. Raja, D.G. Vigilance to Chinese silk, textile in India the head of Special on payment of less duty/ no Investigation team duty and also forged/ constituted of smuggling caused to be forged of silk fabrics by accused adjudication order dated Olga Kozireva.
23.04.2000, 12,06.2000 in favour of accused Olga As per the report, it is the Kozireva (PO) and Nazira accused who had to put up Ibragimova (PO) and has the Adjudication Order no. shown less quantity of 20311 Ex.PW50/A (D38) goods in adjudication order. passed by DC Upendra Gupta, Adjudication Order no. 20313 to DC Upendra Gupta and Adjudication Order no.20327 Ex.PW50/A (D38) to DC Virender Kumar for adjudication for a lesser quantity. The show cause CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 116 of 135 notice Ex.PW55/A (D
152) issued to the accused also proved the charge against him. The accused had admitted the above said facts regarding the charge in his statement recorded under Section 108 of Custom of Act 1962 dated 19.01.2001 (D77).
2. V.K. The allegations against the As per the report Bhardwaj accused are that during the Ex.PW30/A and (A12) period 19992000 being Ex.PW30/B (D1) and Public Servant, he entered show cause notice into a criminal conspiracy Ex.PW55/A (D152), it is with coaccused persons and proved that passenger cheated Government of India accused Nazira Ibragimova to the extent of had arrived on 17.02.2000 Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing by KY2545 Flight with smuggling of Chinese silk, manifest weight of 2364 textile in India on payment of Kg i.e. 41653.68 meters of less duty/ no duty and also Chinese silk but only 9000 forged/ caused to be forged meters was assessed for adjudication order dated duty therefore she was 17.07.2000, 12.08.2000, allowed to smuggle out 18.08.2000 in favour of 32654 meters of Chinese accused Olga Kozireva (PO) silk of worth and Nazira Ibragimova (PO) Rs.22,20,450/ and evaded and has shown less quantity Rs.13,58,919/.
of goods in adjudication
order. The Adjudication Order
17119 (D45) dated
17.02.2000 was put up by
the accused to Additional
Commissioner.
On 12.08.2000 the accused
Olga Kozereva (PO) had
arrived by flight HY129
with manifest weight 1400
KG i.e. 24,668 meters of
Chinese silk whereas only
2000 meters Chinese silk
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 117 of 135
was assessed by him vide
Adjudication Order no.
18407 which was put by
the accused.
On 18.08.2000 accused
Nazira Ibragimova (PO)
had arrived by flight PK
270 with manifest weight
500 kg of Chinese silk i.e.
8810 meters Chinese silk
whereas she was assessed
only 2400 meter Chinese
silk and further the accused
put up AO no. 21752 (D
42) before Dy.
Commissioner Rajeev
Gupta for adjudication for
a lesser quantity and she
smuggled 6410 meters of
Chinese silk of worth
Rs.4,35,880/ and evaded
custom duty of
Rs.2,66,759/ (not proved
beyond reasonable doubt).
3. Ajay Yadav The allegations against the As per the reports
(A13) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/A &
period 19992000 being Ex.PW30/B (D1) and
Public Servant, he entered show cause notice
into a criminal conspiracy Ex.PW55/A (D152), it is
with coaccused persons and the accused who had put
cheated Government of India up the AO no.17730 to
to the extent of Deputy Commissioner
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing whereby only 800 Mtr of
smuggling of Chinese silk, Chinese silk was revealed
textile in India on payment of whereas accused Olga
less duty/ no duty and also Kozireva had declared
forged/ caused to be forged manifest weight of 1530
adjudication order dated Kg. i.e. 25958.6 Mtr in the
27.02.2000 in favour of flight no. HY155 dated
accused Olga Kozireva (PO) 27.02.2000 and thereby
and Nazira Ibragimova (PO) allowed the smuggling of
and has shown less quantity 26159 Mtr. of Chinese silk
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 118 of 135
of goods in adjudication of Rs.1,77,885/ and
order. evaded custom duty worth
Rs.10,88,616/ (not proved
beyond reasonable doubt).
4. D.S. Nandal The allegations against the No Evidence
(A14) accused are that during the
period 19992000 being
Public Servant, he entered
into a criminal conspiracy
with coaccused persons and
cheated Government of India
to the extent of
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing
smuggling of Chinese silk,
textile in India on payment of
less duty/ no duty and also
forged/ caused to be forged
adjudication order in favour
of accused Olga Kozireva
(PO) and Nazira Ibragimova
(PO) and has shown less
quantity of goods in
adjudication order.
5. Anil Madan The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A &
(A15) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1), and
period 19992000 being show cause notice
Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show
into a criminal conspiracy that the accused Anil
with coaccused persons and Madan had processed the
cheated Government of India fake adjudication orders
to the extent of nos. 20165 and 20356
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing dated 21.08.2000 passed in
smuggling of Chinese silk, favour of accused Nazira
textile in India on payment of Ibragimova (PO) whereby
less duty/ no duty and also the passenger was assessed
forged/ caused to be forged for 800 & 700 mtrs of
adjudication orders no. 20165 Chinese silk for value
and 20356 dated 21.08.2000, Rs.40,000/ and
in favour of accused Olga Rs.35,000/ which orders
Kozireva (PO) and Nazira appear to be fake since
Ibragimova (PO) and has passenger has not arrived
shown less quantity of goods on the said date i.e.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 119 of 135
in adjudication order. 21.08.2000 as per FRRO
records. (not proved
beyond reasonable doubt).
6. R.N. Zutshi The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A &
(A16) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and
period 19992000 being Show Cause Notice
Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show
into a criminal conspiracy that on 10.07.2000 the
with coaccused persons and accused was in touch with
cheated Government of India accused no.3 Mamoor
to the extent of Khan (PO) and on the
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing same day accused no.1
smuggling of Chinese silk, Olga Kozireva (PO) had
textile in India on payment of arrived by KY2545 flight
less duty/ no duty and also with manifest weight 1220
forged/ caused to be forged Kg. of baggage i.e.
adjudication order in favour Chinese silk and she was
of accused Olga Kozireva allowed to smuggle
(PO) and Nazira Ibragimova Chinese silk by allowing to
(PO) and has shown less walk through green
quantity of goods in channel without payment
adjudication order. of any duty. The Chinese
silk was 21496.4 Mtrs.
worth Rs.14,61,455/ and
therefore custom duty of
Rs.8,94,594/ was evaded
(not proved).
On 01.08.2000 the accused
Olga Kozireva (PO) had
arrived by flight PK270
having manifest weight of
370 Kg. i.e. 6519.4 Mtrs.
Chinese silk whereas only
1100 Mts. of Chinese silk
was assessed by officer
and adjudication order
no.21727 was passed
whereby the custom duty
of Rs.2,25,534/ was
evaded (not proved).
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 120 of 135
The accused Nazira
Ibragimova (PO) arrived
on same day i.e.
01.08.2000 with same
flight with manifest weight
of 320kg i.e. 5638.4 meters
of Chinese silk worth
Rs.3,83,411/ and was
allowed to walk through
green channel without
paying any custom duty
worth Rs.3,34,648/ (not
proved beyond reasonable
doubt).
Statement of the accused
under Section 108 of
Customs Act dated
17.01.2001 is relevant (D
79 not proved).
7. T.R.K. The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A &
Reddy (A18) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and
period 19992000 being show cause notice
Public Servant, the entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show
into a criminal conspiracy that on 17.07.2000 the
with coaccused persons and accused was on duty at IGI
cheated Government of India airport and the accused
to the extent of Nazira Ibragimova (PO)
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing had arrived by KY2545
smuggling of Chinese silk, flight with manifest weight
textile in India on payment of 2364 Kg. and she was able
less duty/ no duty and also to smuggle out 32654 Mts.
forged/ caused to be forged of Chinese silk without any
adjudication order in favour adjudication order and
of accused Olga Kozireva without paying custom
(PO) and Nazira Ibragimova duty of Rs.13,58,919/ and
(PO) and has shown less also remained in touch
quantity of goods in with accused Mamoor
adjudication order. Khan (PO) (not proved).
The accused was in touch
with accused Mamoor
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 121 of 135
Khan (PO) on 22.05.2000
when accused Olga
Kozireva (PO) and Nazira
Ibragimova (PO) arrived
by flight K2545 with
baggage manifest weight
1220 Kg. and they were
only assessed for 3200
Chinese silk vide
Adjudication Orders no.
14241 and 14243
therefore, 18296 Mtrs. of
textile were left unassessed
and duty worth
Rs.7,61,423/ was evaded
(not proved).
The accused also admitted
the above said facts in his
statement recorded under
Section 108 of Custom of
Act 1962 dated 24.01.2001
(D70 - not proved).
8. V.K. The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A &
Khurana (A accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and
19) period 19992000 being show cause notice Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152), into a criminal conspiracy show that accused had put with coaccused persons and up the adjudication order cheated Government of India no. 17730 dated to the extent of 27.02.2000 to Deputy Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing Commissioner Virender smuggling of Chinese silk, Kumar whereby only 800 textile in India on payment of Mtrs. Chinese silk was less duty/ no duty and also assessed, whereas the forged/ caused to be forged passenger had declared adjudication orders dated manifest weight 1530 Kg. 27.02.2000, 01.08.2000 and i.e. 25958.6 Mtrs silk, 04.08.2000 in favour of therefore, she was able to accused Olga Kozireva (PO) smuggle out 25159 for and Nazira Ibragimova (PO) worth Rs.17,78,785/. and has shown less quantity of goods in adjudication orders.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 122 of 135 The accused had also put up the Adjudication Order no. 21730 on 27.02.2007, whereby only 620 Mtr.
Chinese silk was assessed whereas she had declared manifest weight 378 Kg.
i.e 6660 Mtr. and hence she evaded the custom duty of Rs.2,51,376/ (not proved beyond reasonable doubt).
The accused had further put up Adjudication Order no. 21227 dated 01.08.2000 on arriving of accused Olga Kozereva (PO) by flight PK270 with manifest weight 320 kg i.e. 6519.4 meters Chinese silk whereas 1100 meters Chinese silk was assessed by him and allowed the evasion of custom duty worth Rs.2,25,534/ (not proved beyond reasonable doubt).
Statement of accused under Section 108 of Custom Act 1962 dated 17.01.2001 & 28.01.2001 (D76 - not proved).
9. Yashpal The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A & (A20) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and period 19992000 being show cause notice Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show into a criminal conspiracy that accused had allowed with coaccused persons and to smuggle the baggage cheated Government of India containing 820 Kg. i.e. to the extent of 14448 Mtr. of Chinese silk Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing without paying any custom CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 123 of 135 smuggling of Chinese silk, duty amounting to textile in India on payment of Rs.6,01,285/ as declared less duty/ no duty and also in the manifest weight on forged/ caused to be forged 04.07.2000 (not proved adjudication order in favour beyond reasonable doubt). of accused Olga Kozireva (PO) and Nazira Ibragimova The accused was on duty (PO) and has shown less at the airport on that day quantity of goods in and was in touch with adjudication orders. accused Mamoor Khan (PO) over his mobile (not proved).
10. Pradeep The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A & Rana (A22) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1), and period 19992000 being show cause notice Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show into a criminal conspiracy that accused had put up the with coaccused persons and adjudication order no. cheated Government of India 14234 dated 08.05.2000 to to the extent of Additional Commissioner Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing V.K. Singh Kushwaha smuggling of Chinese silk, whereby only 3100 Mtrs. textile in India on payment of Chinese silk was assessed less duty/ no duty and also whereas the passenger had forged/ caused to be forged declared manifest weight adjudication order dated 520 Kg. i.e. 9162 meters 05.08.2000 and 12.08.2000 in silk, therefore, she was favour of accused Olga able to smuggle out 6062 Kozireva (PO) and Nazira worth Rs.2,52,293/ (not Ibragimova (PO) and has proved beyond reasonable shown less quantity of goods doubt).
in adjudication orders.
The accused had processed the Adjudication Order no.
18407 whereby only 2000 Mtr. Chinese silk was assessed whereas she had declared manifest weight 1400 Kg. i.e 24668 Mtr and hence, she was not assessed 22668 Mtr. of silk worth Rs.9,43,351/ (not proved beyond reasonable CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 124 of 135 doubt).
The accused had admitted the above said facts in his statement recorded under Section 108 of Custom of Act 1962 dated 23.01.2001 (D71 - not proved).
11. Kanwal The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A & Suman (A accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and
24) period 19992000 being show cause notice Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show into a criminal conspiracy that accused Kanwal with coaccused persons and Suman had processed fake cheated Government of India adjudication order nos .
to the extent of 20165 and 20356 both
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing dated 21.08.2000 (D40)
smuggling of Chinese silk, passed in favour of
textile in India on payment of accused Nazira Ibragimova
less duty/ no duty and also (PO) whereby the
forged/ caused to be forged passenger was assessed for
adjudication order dated 800 & 700 mtrs of Chinese
21.08.2000 in favour of silk for value of
accused Olga Kozireva (PO) Rs.40,000/ and
and Nazira Ibragimova (PO) Rs.35,000/, which orders
and has shown less quantity are allegedly fake because
of goods in adjudication on 21.08.2000 the
orders. passenger has not arrived
on the said date as per
FRRO records (not proved
beyond reasonable doubt).
12. J.A. Khan The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A &
(A26) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1), and
period 19992000 being show cause notice
Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show
into a criminal conspiracy that accused was on duty
with coaccused persons and on 27.02.2000 &
cheated Government of India 23.04.2000 at IGI Airport
to the extent of and the accused Olga
Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing Kozireva (PO) had arrived
smuggling of Chinese silk, by HY155 flight with
textile in India on payment of manifest weight 1530 Kg.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 125 of 135
less duty/ no duty and also & 163 Kg. and the accused forged/ caused to be forged failed to prevent to said adjudication order dated smuggling (not proved 27.02.2000 and 23.04.2000 in beyond reasonable doubt). favour of accused Olga Kozireva (PO) and Nazira The accused has also Ibragimova (PO) and has admitted the above said shown less quantity of goods facts in his statements in adjudication orders. recorded under Section 108 of Custom Act 1962 (D125 - not proved).
13. A.K. The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A & Varshney (A accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and
30) period 19992000 being show cause notice Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show into a criminal conspiracy that accused was on duty with coaccused persons and on 04.07.2000 at IGI cheated Government of India airport and the accused to the extent of Olga Kozireva (PO) had Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing arrived by KY219 flight smuggling of Chinese silk, with manifest weight 820 textile in India on payment of Kg. and the accused failed less duty/ no duty and also to prevent to said forged/ caused to be forged smuggling (not proved adjudication orders dated beyond reasonable doubt). 12.06.2000 and 04.07.2000 in favour of accused Olga The accused has also Kozireva (PO) and Nazira admitted the above said Ibragimova (PO) and has facts in his statement shown less quantity of goods recorded under Section in adjudication orders. 108 of Custom Act 1962 (D100 - not proved).
14 S.A. Lamb The allegations against the The reports Ex.PW30/A & (A31) accused are that during the Ex.PW30/B (D1) and period 19992000 being show cause notice Public Servant, he entered Ex.PW55/A (D152) show into a criminal conspiracy that accused had put up with coaccused persons and fake adjudication order no. cheated Government of India 18414 dated 14.08.2000 to the extent of vide which the passenger Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing Nazira Ibragimova was smuggling of Chinese silk, assessed 1000 Mtrs. of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 126 of 135 textile in India on payment of Chinese silk value of less duty/ no duty and also Rs.45,000/ but from the forged/ caused to be forged record of FRRO it was adjudication order dated revealed that the passenger 14.08.2000 in favour of did not visit on 14.08.2000 accused Olga Kozireva (PO) (not proved).
and Nazira Ibragimova (PO) and has shown less quantity of goods in adjudication orders.
(43) I have considered the material on record and the rival contentions. At the very Outset I may observe that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record to connect the accused persons namely Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) with any of the private persons i.e. Ms. Olga Kozireva (Accused No.1); Ms, Nazira Ibragimova (Accused No.2); Mamoor Khan (Accused No.3); Abdul Qahar (Accused No.4) and the alleged approved Del Agha with whom the criminal conspiracy has been alleged. Neither the Call Details record (CDRs) have been placed on record nor any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. (44) Secondly, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B Indian Penal Code along with other public servants particularly with the accused Ms. Olga CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 127 of 135 Kozireva (Accused No.1); Ms, Nazira Ibragimova (Accused No.2); Mamoor Khan (Accused No.3); Abdul Qahar (Accused No.4) who are Proclaimed Offenders. No evidence has been lead by the prosecution to prove that the accused were in constant touch with the CIS passengers and Afghan nationals i.e. Ms. Olga Kozireva (Accused No.1); Ms, Nazira Ibragimova (Accused No.2); Mamoor Khan (Accused No.3); Abdul Qahar (Accused No.4).
(45) Thirdly, no investigation has been conducted by the CBI with regard to the details of the officer who was competent to prepare the Airline Passenger Manifest. I may observe that the Airline Passenger Manifest have not been proved in accordance with law by calling the witnesses who had prepared the same. In fact, the Investigating Officer S. Balasubramony (PW66) has denied that the Airline Passenger Manifest bears his signatures. He has also admitted that he has not investigated the aspect as to who is competent to prepare the Airline Passenger Manifest. Further, I may note that the Airline Passenger Manifest do not bear any certification by the Department. The Airline Passenger Manifest is a computer generated record and no certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been produced in the court to prove the same in accordance with law.
(46) Fourthly, I may observe that an Oral Declaration is taken on the Oral Declaration Card (OD Card) and the passenger baggage is cleared on the basis of the declaration made by the passenger, as per the provisions of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 as deposed by Sh. Jagdish Kumar (PW3) in his crossexamination; Sh. S.C. Dahuja (PW5) in his crossexamination; Sh. Shiv Shankar Singh (PW8) in his cross CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 128 of 135 examination; Sh. D.P Sharma (PW10) in his crossexamination and also by Bisan Chand (PW12) in his crossexamination and by Sanjiv Srivastava (PW44) in his examination in chief. These Oral Declaration Cards are the most important documents which form a basis of the calculations of under valuation and duty evasion. This was the best possible evidence available with the prosecution which could have established the extent of duty evasion and to connect the passenger visà vis his/ her baggage/, but the same have not been collected by CBI during investigation and have been withheld from the Court. In fact, the passenger manifest is not even required to be referred for the purpose of baggage clearance as deposed by S.C. Dahuja (PW5), Shiv Shankar Singh (PW8), R.S. Meena (PW9), D.P. Sharma (PW10), Bisan Chand (PW12) and Neeraj Babu (PW50) in their crossexamination and by Sanjiv Srivastava (PW44) in his chief and crossexamination. (47) Fifthly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11); V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) were instrumental in passing the Adjudication Orders showing less quantity of goods and had forged any Adjudication Order including Adjudication Orders dated 27.02.2000, 23.04.2000, 17.07.2000, 12.08.2000, 14.08.2000, 18.08.2000 and 21.08.2000. In fact no evidence has been lead that the above accused CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 129 of 135 were competent to pass such Adjudication Orders. (48) Sixthly, the loss of revenue to the State Exchequer has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt since the nature, quantity and value of the goods in question are imaginary and were never seized by the prosecution. No evidence with regard to the quantity of baggage of the passenger traveling in the Airline has been lead nor the weight of the baggage has been proved and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not proved that the Adjudication Orders were prepared for less quantity. The manner in which the goods have been calculated, has not been established.
(49) Seventhly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused no.13 Ajay Yadav used to negotiate and decide the bribe money to be charged from Mamoor Khan (accused No.3) and its distribution amongst the various officers. Not even a single witness has made such an allegation.
(50) Eighthly, the arrival/ departure details of accused no.1 to 3 i.e. Ms. Olga Kozireva (Accused No.1); Ms, Nazira Ibragimova (Accused No.2); Mamoor Khan (Accused No.3) and the approver Del Agha w.e.f. 1997 onwards which are collectively Ex.PW31/B (D32) and Ex.PW37/B (D66) have not been proved in accordance with law. (51) Ninthly, the complainant Sh. N. Raja has never appeared to formally prove the complaint Ex.PW66/B (D1) whereas on the other side the Investigating Officer Sh. S. Balasubramony (PW66) has in his crossexamination admitted that he had never met the complainant and had never seen him while signing and writing.
CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 130 of 135 (52) Lastly, all the accused public servants have also been exonerated in Adjudication proceedings by The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi vide order No. C/A/5386453877/2015 CU[DB] dated 30.12.2015. Further, in the complaint filed by the Customs Department on 17.11.2001 in the Customs Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi to prosecute the accused Customs Officers for the offences punishable under Customs Act and consequent to exoneration on merit of 14 Customs Officers, in the adjudication proceedings, the Customs Department had filed an application for withdrawal of Customs Prosecution case which request of the Customs Department has now been accepted by the Court of Ld. CMM, Patiala House, New Delhi who has allowed the withdrawal of prosecution case against the 14 customs officers on 05.07.2017 (not disputed by the prosecution/ CBI). On similar set of facts and identical evidence, the other coaccused i.e. V.K. Singh Kushwaha (Accused No.5), H.R. Bhima Shankar (Accused No.6), Rajiv Gupta (Accused No.7), Virender Kumar (Accused No.8), Upendra Gupta (Accused No.9), R.K. Srivastava (Accused No.21), Sudhir Sharma (Accused No.10), S.D. Rajpal (Accused No.17), Vinod Kumar Kain (Accused No.28) and Raj Kumar Dacolia (Accused No.29) have already been exonerated and prosecution against them have been permitted to be withdrawn.
(53) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 131 of 135 No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) beyond reasonable doubt.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(54) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(55) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it stands established that the present FIR was registered on CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 132 of 135 the basis of a complaint dated 16.02.2001 by Director General (Vigilance), Custom & Central Excise, New Delhi. Further, it has been established that the accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11) was posted as Air Custom Superintendent at IGI Airport; accused V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12) was posted as Air Custom Superintendent at IGI Airport; accused Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13) was posted as Air Custom Superintendent at IGI Airport; accused D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14) was posted as Air Custom Superintendent at IGI Airport; accused Anil Madan (Accused No.15) was posted as Air Custom Superintendent at IGI Airport; accused R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16) was posted as Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport; accused T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18) was posted as Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport; accused V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19) was posted as Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport; accused Yashpal (Accused No.20) was posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport; accused Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22) was posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport; accused Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24) was posted as Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport; accused J.A. Khan (Accused No.26) was posted as Air Custom Officer at IGI Airport; accused A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) was posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport and accused S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) was posted as Air Custom Officer (Preventive) at IGI Airport.
(56) However, it has not been established that the above accused were competent to pass the Adjudication Orders or that during the period 19992000 being Public Servant, the above accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused persons and cheated Government of CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 133 of 135 India to the extent of Rs.1,01,179,66/ by allowing smuggling of Chinese silk, textile in India on payment of less duty/ no duty and also forged/ caused to be forged adjudication orders in favour of accused Olga Kozireva (PO) and Nazira Ibragimova (PO) and has shown less quantity of goods in adjudication orders.
(57) Therefore, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused persons. The materials brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient so as to hold that each of the accused namely Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31) was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 134 of 135 circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Yashvir Singh (Accused No.11), V.K. Bhardwaj (Accused No.12); Ajay Yadav (Accused No.13); D.S. Nandal (Accused No.14); Anil Madan (Accused No.15); R.N. Zutshi (Accused No.16); T.R.K. Reddy (Accused No.18); V.K. Khurana (Accused No.19); Yashpal (Accused No.20); Pradeep Rana (Accused No.22); Kanwal Suman (Accused No.24); J.A. Khan (Accused No.26); A.K. Varshney (Accused No.30) and S.A. Lamb (Accused No.31), beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(58) The bail bonds furnished by the above accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 03.08.2017 Special Judge (PC Act), CBI01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CBI Vs. Olga Kozireva Etc., RC No. 5(E)/2001 Page No. 135 of 135