Cbi vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 1 Of 110 on 19 March, 2020

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 1 Of 110 on 19 March, 2020

             IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ
                SPECIAL JUDGE [P.C. ACT] [CBI05]
            ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI


CC No.: 52/2019
CNR No. DLCT110002692019

Central Bureau of Investigation

       versus

Sh. Krishan Lall, IAS (HP 1973)
son of Late Subedar Ram Lall,
the then Regional Development Commissioner
for Iron and Steel, New Delhi.


R/o Flat No. 35 DDA Flats
Gulmohar Enclave,
Andrews Ganj
New Delhi110049.
                                                         ...Accused

Date of Institution           :           21.03.1997
Date of Arguments             :           07.03.2020
Date of Judgment              :           19.03.2020


                            JUDGMENT

1. Facts of the case: Pursuant to source information received against Sh. Krishan Lall (K. Lall), IAS (HP:1973), the then Regional CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 1 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel, New Delhi, present case i.e. RC3(A)/90 ACU.II was registered on 17.10.1990 u/S 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act 1988.

2. It was alleged in the FIR that Sh. K. Lall while working in different capacities in the Government of Himachal Pradesh and as Regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel, New Delhi during the period 1981 to 1990, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as public servant, had acquired huge assets and pecuniary resources/properties both movable and immovable, either in his own name or in the names of his family members which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to which he could not satisfactorily account for.

3. The chargesheet reads as under: "During investigation, it was disclosed that Sh. Krishan Lall (K. Lall) was born on 01 st July 1943 at village Guthawali, Khurd Distt., Bulandsahar, UP. His father, late Sh. Chajjua Singh had three sons and four daughters. Sh. K. Lall was the second son of his parents. His own brothers and sisters are grown up and they are living independently with their families. Sh. Chajjua Singh was an illiterate person and was an agricultural labourer with a meager income to meet his both ends. He had no property, except 8 bighas of ancestral land at village Guthawali, Khurd Distt. Bulandsahar.

Since Sh. Chajjua Singh was living in a poor CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 2 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 financial condition, therefore, he was unable to look after the children and impart proper education to them. Sh. K. Lall when he was an infant, was adopted by Sh. Ram Lall R/o Subhas Nagar, Meerut as Sh. Ram Lall and his wife Smt. Ram Piyari had no issue of their own. The wife of Sh. Ram Lall was the sister of Smt. Khajani Devi wife of Chajjua Singh. Sh. Ram Lall was a Subedar in the Indian Army and retired on superannuation and had income from pension only. Sh. K. Lall was brought up and educated by him. Sh. K. Lall got completed his education under guardianship of Sh. Ram Lall.

The parents (natural as well as foster) of Sh. K. Lall were living at subsistence level with very meager earning, hence he had to look after them and support them by sending them money orders. One file containing such money order receipts was recovered from his house search, which has revealed that he was sending Rs.100/ pm by money order to his natural parents upto May 1986. After 1986 onwards, the sending of money order to the parents was stopped as Sh. K. Lall started acquiring property in his name and in the name of his parents and children at a very fast pace, when he assumed the charge of Regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel, New Delhi. All the properties acquired in the name of his parents were subsequently willed to him, his wife and children by his parents when they were at the fag end of their lives. The parents did not distribute the said properties among their other sons and daughters.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 3 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375 Investigation has revealed that Sh. K. Lall joined IAS in July 1973 and thereafter, he has been functioning in different capacities at different places in Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. He was married with Ms. Archana Lall daughter of Late Sh. Ram Prashad R/o Gar Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad in the year 1977. He is having three children i.e. two daughters and one son from Smt. Archana Lall who is a housewife. His wife and his children are dependent on him.

Sh. K. Lall has not enjoyed good reputation regarding his conduct and integrity right from the beginning of his service. During his tenure as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dalhousie, Sh. K. Lall developed an illicit relation with Ms. XXX (name withheld) daughter of Sh. YYY (named withheld) and became father of two sons from her besides having legal wife Smt. Archana Lall. To get legalize his relationship with Ms. XXX, Sh. K. Lall converted himself into Muslim and sought permission to have second wife, but the government denied the said permission. He is still continuing relationship with her. Ms. XXX is financially independent as she is working in Punjab National Bank.

Investigation has further disclosed that Sh. K. Lall acquired most of the movable and immovable properties through ill gotten money after 1984. For the purpose of calculation of his disproportionate assets, the check period has been taken from 1st June 1984 to 29th August 1990, the date on which his residential premises were searched by CBI.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 4 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375 In the beginning of the check period, the total assets movable and immovable of Sh. K. Lall, either in his own name or in the name of his wife, children, parents and brothers were found to be Rs.3,95,072.00 as per the details mentioned in Annexure 1 of the chargesheet. The benefit of the said properties has been given to the accused Sh. K. Lall at the time of calculation of his disproportionate assets (emphasis supplied)."

4. The details of Annexure 1 referred in the chargesheet i.e. the assets before the check period are as under: ASSETS BEFORE THE CHECK PERIOD: ANNEXURE I

1. House No.209, Subhash Nagar, Rs.30,000/ Meerut:

2. Flat No.35, Yusuf Sarai acquired on Rs.1,98,700/ 16.12.1983:

3. Value of Household articles at Rs.1,39,325/ House No.23/209 Lodhi Colony (as per inventory prepared on 29th August 1990 during house search )

4. Value of household articles at House Rs.18,200/ No.B95, Sector 22, Noida :

5. Balance in A/c No.29707 of PNB, Rs.2,597/ Mall Road, Shimla:

6. Balance in A/c No.56004 (CTD) with Rs.3,750/ Head PO Bilaspur:

7. Gold Jewellery weighing 25 gms Rs.2,500/ recovered from locker No.35 of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 5 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 corporation Bank of Smt Archana Lal:

Total Rs.3,95,072/

5. The chargesheet mentions that during check period, i.e. 1 st June 1984 to 29th August 1990, Sh. K. Lall had total income of Rs.11,57,580.29 as mentioned in Annexure II of the chargesheet as under: INCOME ANNEXURE II

1. Income from pay & allowances of Rs.1,58,167.35 Sh. K. Lall

2. Salary of Smt. Archana Lal Rs. 262.00

3. Income from sale of jewellery by Rs.28,150.00 Smt. Archana Lal

4. Rental Income from: Rs.2,99,420.00

(a) House No.209: Rs.53,400/

b)H.No.B95,Sec22: Rs.34,300/

c)H.No.38/1, Shastri Nagar, Meerut : Rs.12,675/

d)H.No.35, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi: Rs.1,99,045/ CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 6 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375

5. Income from Forward Trading of Rs.19,950.00 shares

6. Gift received by accused Rs.19,000.00

7. Income from the interest from Rs.20,998.27 various bank accounts

8. Dividend Rs. 246.27

9. Income from sale of land at Village Rs.1,94,515.00 Saurakha

10. Motor car advance Rs. 42,700/

11. Income of Sh. Mahesh Chand as Rs.96,484.00 shown in his income tax return

12. Income of Smt. Shanti Devi as Rs.1,01,720.90 shown in her income tax return

13. Income of Sh. Chhajua Singh Rs. 77,636.00 natural father of SO as shown in his income tax return

14. Income tax of Smt. Khajani Devi Rs. 98,330.50 natural mother of the so as shown in the income tax return TOTAL Rs.11,57,580.29

6. According to the chargesheet, the expenses incurred by the accused during check period were Rs.5,29,659.98 which is shown in Annexure III of the chargesheet as under: EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 7 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375

1. Expenses on education of children. : Rs.34,705.00

2. Expenses on purchase of one : Rs.15,180.00 colt cobra Revolver.

3. Repayment of housing loan. : Rs.26,000.00

4. Payment of House tax to MCD : Rs.32,744.00 of House No.35, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.

5. Payment of CTD loan and interest. : Rs. 2,641.00

6. Payment to various clubs. : Rs.19,985.00

7. Expenditure on purchase of one : Rs. 9,020.00 Vision VCR.

8. Expenditure on insurance and : Rs. 2,382.00 registration of car No.HIB4.

9. Payment of LIC loan and interest : Rs. 7,057.00 LIC Policy No.2367880.

10. Payment of LIC Loan and interest : Rs. 2,408.80 drawn.

11. Expenditure on air tickets. : Rs.48,649.00

12. Payment of interest against : Rs.03,200.00 overdraft from UCO bank.

13. Expenditure towards payment of : Rs.11,662.00 rental charges of 5 lockers.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 8 of 110

CC No.52/19                                                  DL00375
 14. Payment towards motor car          : Rs.13,960.00
    advance.
15. Payment made to M/s Ajanta         : Rs.1,600/
   air conditioner bill on
   account of hiring AC.
16. Expenditure on petrol of           : Rs.17,611.80
   car No.HIB4 of S.O.
17.Payment of Sh.Yash Pal              : Rs.2,000.00
   Ahluwalia for brokerage.
18. Payment of Sh.Baldev Raj           : Rs.4,000.00
    Sharma, Architect.
19. Money order sent by accused        : Rs.2,318.80
   to his natural father
   Sh. Chhajua Singh and foster
   father Sh. Ram Lal.
20. Miscellaneous purchases by the     : Rs.2,781.80
   S.O. during the check period as
   per the receipts found during his
   house search
21. Expenditure on electricity and     : Rs.9,784.55
   water charges at Bilaspur
   and Delhi.



CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall                                 Page 9 of 110
CC No.52/19                                                   DL00375
 22. Payment of house tax of house      : Rs. 124.00
   No.209, Subhash Nagar, Meerut.
23. Expenditure on cooking gas at      : Rs.3,712.00
   Bilaspur and Delhi.
24. Expenditure on wooden cot          : Rs.489.00
   and mattresses.

25. Payment to Meerut Development : Rs.10,000.00 Authority.

26. Payment of Income tax by : Rs.3,419.00 Sh. K. Lall, his wife and children.

27. Extra expenditure on 35, : Rs. 4000/ Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.

28. Expenditure on repair of house : 7,666.00 as shown by the wife and children of Sh. K. Lall, in their income tax returns.

29. Cheque issued in favour of : Rs.3,000/ Sh. Phool Singh.

30. Cheque issued in favour : Rs.22,647.00 of various persons.

31. Expenditure on purchase : Rs.11,988.00 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 10 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 demand draft.

32. Payment of stamp duty in : Rs.42,324.00 respect of the land sold by Sh. Chhajua Ram to his wife Smt. Khajani Devi.

33. Expenditure on kitchen : Rs.1,20,600.00 expenses.

34. Expenditure on house hold expenses of Sh. Mahesh Chand. : Rs.30,000/.

Rs.5,29,659.98

7. Similarly, according to the chargesheet, the accused had total assets, movable and immovable, during the check period either in his own name or in the name of his wife Smt. Archana Lal, children Nikhil Lal, Nupur Lal and Naina Lal, father Sh. Chajjua Singh and mother Smt. Khazani Devi, younger brother Sh. Mahesh Chand, sister Mayawati to the tune of Rs.1,54,21,712.36 as per Annexure IV as under: ASSETS:

(A) MOVABLE ASSETS:

1. Cash recovered during search : Rs.19,000.00 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 11 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375

2. National Saving Certificate : Rs.34,500.00

3. Indira Vikas Patras : Rs.20,000.00

4. R.P. Deposits : Rs.25,000.00

5. Shares : Rs.25,000.00

6. House hold articles as per inventory

a) H.No.23/209 Lodi Colony :Rs.1,65,085.00

b) H.No.2/95, Sect22, Noida :Rs.39,000.00

7. Balance in various bank accounts : Rs.3,64,328.10 of Sh. K. Lall, his wife and children.

8. Fixed deposit receipts :Rs.5,000.00 :Rs.6,92,213.00 (B)IMMOVABLE ASSETS OF THE SO IN HIS OWN NAME, IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN

1. House No.B209, Subhash Nagar : Rs.3,70,651.00

2. House No.B95 Sec.22, Noida : Rs.1,97,550.00 Rs.5,68,201.00 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 12 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 ASSET ACQUIRED IN THE NAME OF LATE SHRI CHAJJU RAM, NATURAL FATHER OF SHRI K. Lall (A) BANK BALANCES : Rs.12,080.00 (B) IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES:

1. House No.R11/54, Raj Nagar : Rs.4,64,888.00 Ghaziabad (cost of land and construction of the building).

2. House No.38/1, Shastri Nagar : Rs.5,61,750.00 Meerut

3. Lands in the name of Chhajua Ram

a) Land purchased from Jhaman : Rs.2,41,407.00 Mian

b) Land purchased from Anchi : Rs. 91,857.00

c) Land purchased from Chhattar : Rs. 48,137.00 Pal Singh

d) Land purchased from Joginder : Rs. 12,137.00 Pal Singh Rs.14,32,256.00 ASSET ACQUIRED IN THE NAME OF HIS MOTHER SMT.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 13 of 110

CC No.52/19                                                           DL00375
 KHAJANI DEVI,
(A) MOVABLE
    Account No.7760 in OBC           : Rs.94,553.00
(B)IMMOVABLE
I) One plot No.D8 Kaushambi:        Rs.2,70,486.00
   Ghaziabad.
ii) Land purchased from          :   Rs.5,18,817.00
   Sh. Chottey Khan & his four
   brothers
iii) Land purchased from         :   Rs.2,28,497.00
   Jahid Ali
iv) Land purchased from          :   Rs.74,087.00
   Sheoraj Singh
v) Land purchased from           :   Rs.80,387.00
   Prem Chand
vi) Land purchased from          :   65,482.00
   Nahar Singh                       -
                                     Rs.13,32,289.00
                                     -

ASSETS ACQUIRED IN THE NAME OF YOUNGER BROTHER MAHESH CHAND :

(A) MOVABLE CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 14 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375

i) Indiara Vikas Patra : Rs.22,500.00

ii) FDR : Rs.15,000.00

iii) Tractor : Rs.80,000.00

iv) Moped : Rs. 6,095.00

v) Motorcycle : Rs.19,811.75

vi) Shares : Rs.77,900.00

vii) Bank balance in A/c No.6721 : Rs.45,580.00

viii) Bank balance in A/c No.3204 : Rs. 519.00

ix). Bank balance in A/c No.7759 : Rs.10.775.00

x).Bank balance in A/c No.7624 : Rs.26,424.00 Total : Rs.3,04,605.15 IMMOVABLE

i).Shop No.1894, Sec.22 Noida. : Rs.1,40,000.00

ii) House No.V39, Shahdara, Delhi :Rs. 1,02,000.00

iii) Land purchased from Mansoor : Rs.74,344.00 Singh

iv) Land purchased from Sukha : Rs.44,532.00 Nehrupur CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 15 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375

v). Cost of construction of his house at Nehrupur : Rs.4,03,178.00 ASSETS IN THE NAME OF SMT. MEWA WATI W/O CHARANPAL SISTER OF ACCUSED K. Lall IMMOVABLE Land in the name of Smt. Mewa: Rs.48,107.00 Wati purchased from Tek Chand SHIMLA COLD STORAGE: Rs.1,02,79,986.50 Total: Rs.1,54,21,712.36 _______________

8. Thus, during the check period i.e. 1.6.1984 to 29.8.1990, Sh. K. Lall had assets worth Rs.1,47,57,445.05 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he had no explanation to offer. The calculation of DA is therefore, as under:

1. Income: Rs.11,57,580.29 2 Expenditure Rs.05,29,659.98 3 Likely Savings Rs.06,27,920.31 4 Assets Rs.,01,54,21,712.36 5 Likely savings + Assets before check Rs.6,64,267.31 period which were carried over to the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 16 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 check period = 6,27,920+ 36,347 6 Disproportionate Assets Rs.1,47,57,445.05

9. With these allegations and after obtaining the sanction from the Sanctioning Authority, chargesheet was filed u/S 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act 1988.

10.After compliance of provisions of section 207 of CrPC, arguments were heard on charge. At that time, it was argued on behalf of the accused that the income or assets of the natural parents, grown up brothers and sisters of the accused cannot be clubbed against his income or assets.

11. Order dated 19th July 2002 directing framing of charge for the offence u/S 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of PC Act reduced the DA to Rs.53,80,172/ from Rs.1,47,57,445.05.

12. Since the DA was substantially reduced, it is important to see the reasoning of the court in this regard which is as under:

7: The defence counsel has referred to the allegation in the charge sheet itself that the accused, born on 1.7.1943 had been given in adoption by his natural parents to Subedar Ram Lall and his wife Ram Piari (who is the real sister of Khazani Devi, natural mother of the accused), and had been brought up and given proper education by his said adoptive parents only. He would also refer to the facts mentioned in the prosecution case itself that the brothers and sisters of the accused were grown up and CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 17 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 living independently with their respective families. The argument that has been advanced on the basis of the above case of the prosecution itself is that the income or assets of the natural parents grown up brothers and sisters of the accused cannot be clubbed against the income or assets so as to make him answerable for any excess found on account of such additions.

8. While the above argument appears to be just and proper to the extent of the inclusion of the income and assets of grown up brothers and sister of the accused in his income and assets, prima facie it cannot be accepted in the context of his natural parents in the fact of material indicating that the said couple was living a life of penury, so much so that it had to give the accused in adoption, and almost all their income and assets seem to have been acquired around the time of the check period.

9. One cannot ignore the evidence that the natural parents were living life at subsistence level with meagre earnings and the accused had to even financially support them by sending regular money orders till May 1986. He thus did not sever his links with the family of his birth and is rather shown prima facie to have become source of their sustenance. His father originally worked as agricultural labour and at one stage owned a small piece of cultivable land admeasuring only eight bighas. Almost all the riches they acquired pertain to the period after the accused had joined service. Both of his natural parents are shown to have later become income tax assesses (D51 and D53), but the income shown accruing to them from the business of general merchandise and sale of grocery (in the case of father), and dairy farming and CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 18 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 hotel business (in the case of mother), do not seem to be of such magnitude as to justify the acquisition of such a large number of properties, including a number of house and plots of land. The statements of their several bank accounts reflect rather unusually large number of cash credit transactions. Mahesh Chand, the other son, had been working only as a Peon in the local Municipal Board office and as per the evidence collect (D20 to be specific) he was in receipt of a monthly salary just above Rs.1 thousand per month even till August 1989. The other son of natural parents of the accused is also not shown by any material on record, filed even by the defence, to be in such lucrative financial position, or having suddenly acquired such substantially higher level of income as to change the financial status of his parents in a short span of three or four years. This, coupled with the fact that a large number of immovable assets in particular, acquired by his parents have been bequeathed in favour of his wife, his son and one of his daughters prima facie lead to a grave suspicion that the said assets had been acquired by them with the help of finances provided by the accused.

10. It is true that Mahesh Chand, the younger brother of the accused is shown by the evidence collected to be a person from a very weak financial background and that he was working in the capacity of a peon only in the municipality with the income as salary from the said employment hardly make two ends meet. A suspicion definitely stands raised to the effect that the assets acquired by his said brother and the wife of the latter could also possibly have come from the accused. But in the face of the prosecution's own case that the said CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 19 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 brother, as also other brothers and sisters, were leading their own independent lives, this suspicion alone would not justify the inclusion of their income or assets in the income and assets of the accused. This would equally apply to the assets in the name of sister Mewa Wati. On the basis of the same reasoning, I am on the considered view that it would not be just and proper to include the value of House No.R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, an immovable property own acquired in the name of the natural father of the accused, inasmuch as the same has been bequeathed by Chhajua Ram in favour of Mahesh Chand by way of Will (D91).

11. It must be mentioned here that if assets of the younger brother and wife of the said brother are to be excluded from consideration, even the income or expenditure pertaining to them must be excluded.

12. In above view of the matter, the amount of Rs.96,484/ and Rs.1,01,720/ shown as income of Mahesh Chand and Shanti Devi deserves to be excluded from the income of the accused and his family during the relevant period. By this reckoning, the income for purposes of considering the charge is made calculates to Rs.9,59,376/. Similarly, on the expenditure of Rs.30,000/ on the house hold of Mahesh Chand being excluded, the expenditure incurred by the accused and family would come to Rs.4,99,660/, thereby resulting in savings, during the check period of Rs.4,59,716/.

These savings, when added to the assets held at the beginning of the check period, would mean the accused and his family could not possibly be in possession of assets more than Rs.8,54,788/ at the end of the check period.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 20 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

13. I have already mentioned that the value of property comprised in House No.R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad an immovable property originally acquired in the name of Chhajua Ram, the natural father of the accused, bequeathed by him in favour of his younger son Mahesh Chand, by way of Will (D91) ought not be added to the assets of the accused. The value of the said property Rs.4,64,888/ alongwith the total value of the other movable and immovable assets of the said brother of accused as indeed the value of the immovable property held in the name of married sister Mewa Wati, as reflected in the charge sheet all total worth of Rs.11,16,766/ thus is being deducted. (Note: It is a clerical mistake because the sum total of cost of House No. R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Rs.4,64,888 plus movable and immovable assets of Mahesh Chand Rs.3,04,605/ and Rs.7,64,054 plus assets of Smt Mewa Wati Rs.48,107 is Rs.15,81,657 and not Rs.11,16,766/).

14. One of the main assets said to be held "Benami"by the accused is the property comprised in Shimla Cold Storage, which as per the assessment of the investigating agency was worth Rs.1,02,79,986.50. I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Defence counsel that the assessment of the basis of estimates prepared in 1994(D

92), being beyond the check period cannot be the proper basis of assessing its value. Since the material on record indicates for purposes of setting up the said cold storage, a loan of Rs.19.60 lakhs was taken from U.P. Financial Corporation and since the evidence of a chartered accountant relied upon by the prosecution itself indicates that was an investment to the tune of Rs.41,70,000/ as per the certification done in June 1991, which period is nearer home for purposes of his prosecution, the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 21 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 evidence contained in D92 ought not be acted upon even at this stage. I am therefore, proceeding on the assumption that the said asset was of the value of Rs.41,70,000/ and since a loan of Rs.19,60,000/ had also been taken towards the said project, investments to the tune of Rs.22,10,000/ had been made from personal savings.

15. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the said asset is owned by a registered Pvt. Ltd. Company which was incorporated as a Ltd company on 29.7.1989 and that neither the accused, nor any member of his family have any share or financial interest by way of deposits or loans, nor have made any investments in the said asset, and therefore its value cannot be added to his assets. On its face, it does appear that officially neither the accused nor his wife or children, nor his adoptive parents had made any direct investments in setting up the said project. But it cannot be ignored that other than the loan taken from a financial institution, neither the natural parents, nor any of his siblings were in a position to set up the said cold storage. It is common knowledge that the intention of the parties involved in 'Benami' transactions is almost always shrouded in a thick veil. In the given facts and circumstances, a reasonable inference and therefore, a reasonable grave suspicion does arise to the effect that the asset described as Shimla Cold Storage is a 'Benami' property of the accused. Since the investments from personal savings in the said asset appear to be only to the tune of Rs.22,10,000/ the prosecution appears to have overvalued this asset to the extent of Rs.80,69,986/.

16. From the amount of Rs.1,54,21,712.36, the amount of Rs.11,16,766/ and Rs.80,69,986/ when CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 22 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 deducted the value of the assets held by the accused and his family prima facie calculate to Rs.62,34,960/. When this is seen against the amount of Rs.8,54,788/ (found earlier as the maximum possible value of the assets with the accused and family could be in possession of at the end of the check period), the accused has been found in possession of assets of the value of Rs.53,80,172/ which are disproportionate to his known sources of income and in which respect there appears to be no reasonable explanation coming forth (emphasis supplied).

13.Therefore, the charge against the accused is that during the check period of 1st June 1984 to 29th August 1990, he was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.62,34,960/. His income and income of his family during this period was Rs.9,59,376/. The expenditure in this period was Rs.4,99,660/. The savings were Rs.4,59,716/. Since he was in possession of assets worth Rs.3,95,072/ at the beginning of the check period i.e. 1 st June 1984, he was in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.53,80,172/ which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

14.In the very beginning, a query was put to the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that once the order on charge has held that the value of the property H.No.R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. an immovable property originally acquired in the name of Sh.Chhajjua Ram, the natural father of the accused, bequeathed by him in favour of his CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 23 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 younger son Sh.Mahesh Chand, by way of WILL (D91) ought not be added to the assets of the accused, then how the DA would be 53,80,172 in as much as from the amount of Rs.1,54,21,712.36 besides deducting the amount of Rs.11,16,766/ (movable and immovable assets of Mahesh Chand, Brother and Mewa Wati, Sister) and Rs.80,69,986/ (over valuation of Shimla Cold Storage to the extent of Rs.80,69,986/), a sum of Rs.4,64,888/ would also be required to be deducted as this is the cost of the immovable property R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. as this has not been added to the assets of the accused. No explanation could be given for not deducting the sum of Rs.4,64,888/ from the disproportionate assets alleged against the accused. Therefore, the DA would be Rs.49,15,284/ and not Rs.53,80,172/. The charge can always be amended for correcting a clerical mistake more so when the same is beneficial to the accused and accused has not suffered any prejudice by such correction. Therefore, for the purposes of deciding this case, the charge of DA would be Rs.49,15,284/.

15.Several documents were admitted by the accused during admission/denial. Several prosecution witnesses were not found available or had died and were therefore dropped/not examined by the CBI. A total of 98 witnesses were examined by the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 24 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 prosecution to prove its case. After recording the statement of accused u/S 313 of CrPC, he was given opportunity to examine witnesses in defence and eight defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused to prove his innocence.

16. Arguments were addressed by Sh. B. K. Singh Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh. K. S. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused.

17.Points for determination: On the basis of chargesheet, evidence on record and arguments addressed, the points for determination in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the assets of the accused before the check period were Rs. 3,95,072/ or more?

(ii) Whether the income of the accused during the check period was Rs.9,59,376/ or more?

(iii) Whether the expenditure during the check period was Rs.4,99,000/ or less?

(iv) Whether the accused, his wife and children had movable assets worth Rs.6,92,213/ during the check period?

(v) Whether the accused, his wife and children had immovable assets worth Rs.3,70,651/ plus Rs. 1,97,550/ (Total Rs.5,68,201/) during the check period?

(vi) Whether Sh. Chajju Ram had in his name movable and immovable assets worth Rs. 9,67,368/ (after deducting Rs. 4,64,888/ towards the price of H. No. R11/54, Raj Nagar, CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 25 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Ghaziabad?

(vii) Whether Smt. Khajani Devi (biological mother of the accused) had movable and immovable assets worth Rs. 13,32,289/ in her name?

(viii) Whether the biological parents of accused namely Sh. Chajjua Ram and Smt. Khajani Devi, his brother Sh. Mahesh Chand and Subedar Ram Lall and his wife Smt. Ram Pyari (who had adopted the accused) were financially strong or were leading hand to mouth life?

(ix) Whether the properties in the name of biological father of the accused Sh. Chajjua Ram i.e. mentioned in AnnexureIV of the chargesheet excluding House No.R 11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad and the properties in the name of biological mother of the accused Smt. Khajani Devi as mentioned in AnnexureIV of the chargesheet are benami properties of the accused Sh. Krishan Lall?

(x) Whether M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. valued at Rs. 22,10,000/ is also benami property of Sh. Krishan Lall?

(xi) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused had assets disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for?

(xii) Whether the disproportionate assets of the accused during the check period were Rs.49,15,284/ or less and what is the percentage of disproportionate assets of the accused?

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 26 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

18.Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the accused: The Ld. Counsel for the accused referred to para 14 of the order on charge dated 19th July 2002 which notices that one of the main assets said to be held "Benami" by the accused is the property comprised of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. situated at Village Agwal, G.T. Road Khurja, District Bulandsher, U.P. It was submitted that according to the order on charge, investments to the tune of Rs.22,10,000/ had been made from personal savings, for acquiring this property. It was submitted that M/s. Shimla Cold Storage is a Private Limited company. However, no Director was interrogated to find out the real owner of the property. He submitted that the case of prosecution is that Sh.Mahesh Chand, Smt.Khajani Devi and Sh.Chajjua Singh were the conduits for the accused, but the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused had nothing to do with Shimla Cold Store.

19.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW27 Sh. B.S. Gautam, who was Assistant Manager (Technical) in UP Financial Corporation in the year 1987. The Ld. Counsel read from the cross examination of this witness to submit that M/s. Shimla Cold Storage was a Pvt. Ltd. company registered with Registrar of Company's and Certificate of Incorporation of the said company was proved as Ex.PW27/DA (D207, page no.139). At the time of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 27 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 incorporation, the subscribers of the company were Sh. Ram Prasad, Sh. Chhajua Singh and Sh. Mahesh Chand. He deposed that Sh. Mahesh Chand was the Director of the company and he used to visit UP Financial Corporation. The list of share holders of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. was proved as Ex.PW27/DG (D207, page 137). There are 10 share holders having one lakh shares of Rs.10/ each totalling Rs.10 lacs. The hypothecation deed and loan agreement were proved as Ex.PW27/DH (D207, page 47) and Ex.PW27/DI (D 207, page 76) respectively executed by the Director Sh. Mahesh Chand. It was argued that Sh.Mahesh Chand, the brother of accused from his biological parents was a crucial witness but he was not examined. It was argued that it is merely an inference that since Sh. Mahesh Chand was son of biological parents of the accused, therefore this property is Benami.

20. The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW73A Smt. Beerwati. This witness is the sister of the accused from his biological parents. She deposed that she had given a sum of Rs.20,000/ to Shimla Cold Storage. She deposed that her father had ample land, a Badarpur Shop and Milk Cattle and was also a contractor at Punjab and had ample money to start a cold storage. She deposed that Shimla Cold Storage belonged to her father. It was argued that this witness in no way connects the accused to CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 28 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Shimla Cold Storage and was not crossexamined that Shimla Cold Storage was not the property of her father but was the property of the accused Sh. Krishan Lall.

21. Next, the Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of Sh. V.M. Arora, PW77. The purpose for examining this witness by prosecution was to show that loan was arranged by him in favour of Sh. Ram Prasad just to show the source of income for Shimla Cold Store. However, the witness stated that he had arranged a loan in the form of two drafts of Rs.50,000/ each for his friend Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta. He deposed that these two drafts were got made by his client Mr. Parveen Malhotra at Jalandhar. In crossexamination, he deposed that he was told by Mr. Parveen Malhotra that the amount of two demand drafts of Rs.1 lac and interest thereof has been returned by Mr. Virender Gupta.

22.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW87, Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta. He deposed that he was a practicing Chartered Accountant since 1978 and was Chartered Accountant for the family members of Sh. Krishan Lall, IAS Officer. He denied knowledge about any Sh. Ram Prasad. He denied any knowledge about Mr. V.M. Arora or Mr. Parveen Malhotra.

23.The next witness referred by the Ld. Counsel is PW80, Sh. Ami Chand. This witness was the nephew of Mr. Chajju Ram. He CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 29 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 deposed that he had given a sum of Rs.50,000/ to Sh. Chajju Ram for Shimla Cold Storage at Khurja. This amount was given in the form of two cheques from the account of his son Rajender, who was getting scholarship from the school and the money from the same was deposited in his account. In crossexamination, he deposed that Sh. Chajju Ram was earlier a thekedar in Punjab. When he came to village Nehrupur, he started a dairy and a hotel. He was financially sound and used to lend money on interest and also had a badarpur, rori shop.

24.The next witness relied on by the Ld. Counsel is PW81, Sh. H.P. Singh. This witness was a Chartered Accountant since 1988 at Bulandsahar. He was a partner of M/s. V. Rattan and Company, a firm of chartered accountants. At that time, Shimla Cold Storage was being constructed at Khurja. The report of M/s. V. Rattan & Company was proved as Ex.PW27/DC (D207, pages 55 & 56). He deposed that he had not visited Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd but Mr. Mahesh Chand, its Director used to come to him for accounting purposes. He had not met Mr. Krishan Lal, brother of Mr. Mahesh Chand and was not even aware that Mr. Krishan Lal was the brother of Mr. Mahesh Chand.

25.Reliance was placed on the testimony of PW83, Sh. Bhim Singh, who was father in law of Sh. Mahesh Chand. He has deposed that CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 30 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 his son in law Sh. Mahesh Chand had cattle and farms and was employed in Municipal Corporation of Secunderabad. He deposed that he has never met Mr. K. Lall, the elder brother of Sh. Mahesh Chand. In crossexamination by the accused, he deposed that Sh. Mahesh Chand had sound finances. At Nehru Pur, Mahesh Chand's father had a hotel. He deposed that Sh. Chajju Mal was in the business of rodi and badarpur.

26.The Ld. counsel also referred to the evidence of PW74 Smt. Bas Kaur. This witness is the daughter of Sh. Chajjua Singh. During crossexamination by the accused, she stated that she had invested money in the cold storage and had given a sum of Rs.20,000/ from her account bearing No.11589 of PNB and the money was earned by farming. She deposed that she had given this money at the instance of Sh. Mahesh Chand and had earned this money by selling mustard, gud and cattle. She deposed that the financial condition of her father and brother Sh. Mahesh Chand was sound for starting a cold storage. She deposed that her father had land and her brother had a rodi/badarpur shop. She deposed that she has not seen the accused K. Lall meeting or visiting Sh. Mahesh Chand.

27.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW92 Mr. M.S. Bist, who was on deputation to CBI from Delhi Police during 19872008 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 31 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 and had assisted Sh. J.N. Prasad, the then Dy. SP CBI in the investigation of this case from 199092. The witness during his crossexamination was asked a question whether there is oral or documentary evidence regarding source of funding of M/s Shimla Cold Storage? The answer of the witness was that the investigation has shown that Shimla Cold Storage was funded by the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that inspite of a specific question, the witness gave a vague answer and there is no oral or documentary evidence for source of funding of M/s Shimla Cold Storage by the accused. The witness deposed that except the statements recorded of Sh. Devdatt, Sh. Khajan Singh, Sh. Bhagmal Singh, Sh. Nanwa Singh, Sh. Karambir Singh, Sh. Imrat Singh all residents of village Saurakha(UP) U/s 161 Cr.P.C, there is no other evidence of funding of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage by Mr. K. Lall. The witness categorically stated that he had not recorded the statement of any Director of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage or any share holder of the said Storage. The witness stated that he did not collect the ITRs of Smt. Khajani Devi or Sh. Chajjua Singh. When he was shown D 50 to D53, which are the ITRs of Sh. Chajjua Singh, Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Khajani Devi, Sh. Mahesh Chand, he deposed that these documents were not seized by him. In answer to a specific question, whether during investigation, he found any document to CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 32 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 show flow of funds from the accused to Smt. Khajani Devi, Sh. Chajjua Singh, Shimla Cold Storage, Sh. Mahesh Chand or from these persons to the accused, the answer of the witness was, No.

28.Next, Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW78 Sh. N.S. Negi, who was Inspector CBI and had conducted part investigation in this case. He deposed that he did not come across any movement of funds between accused on one side and Smt.Khajani Devi, Shimla Cold Storage and Sh.Mahesh Chand on the other side.

29.The Ld. Counsel referred to Krishnan & Agnihotri v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 AIR (SC) 796 and read from para 26 of the said judgment which is as under: "It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. (Vide Jayadayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra, (1974) SCR 90= (AIR 1974 SC 171). It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion, because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 33 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 legal grounds established by evidence. Here, in the present case, no evidence at all was led on the side of the prosecution to show that the monies lying in fixed deposit in Shanti Devi's name were provided by the appellant and howsoever strong may be the suspicion of the court in this connection, it cannot take the place of proof. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution has failed to show that the sum of Rs.11,180/ lying in fixed deposit in Shanti Devi's name belonged to the appellant."

30.The Ld. Counsel submitted that the judgment in the case of Krishnan & Agnihotri (Supra) was referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of N. Krishna Reddy v. State Dy. Supdt. of Police, Hyderabad, 1993 AIR SC 313. The Ld. Counsel submitted that inference of Benami transaction is only possible if the circumstances unerringly show that the property is Benami. He submitted that when during investigation neither the Directors of Shimla Cold Storage nor its share holders were examined, the investigating agency has not proved that the said property was the Benami property of the accused.

31.The Ld. Counsel for the accused referred to the order on charge dated 19th July 2002 to submit that this court has already held that Sh.Mahesh Chand, the younger brother of the accused is shown to be a person from a very weak financial background as he was working in the capacity of a peon only and with the income as salary from the said employment, hardly make two ends meet. It is also held that a suspicion definitely stands raised to the effect that the assets acquired CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 34 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 by brother and wife of the brother could also possibly have come from the accused. But in the face of the prosecution own case that the said brother, as also other brothers and sisters, were leading their own independent lives, this suspicion alone would not justify the inclusion of their income or assets in the income and assets of the accused.

32.The Ld. Counsel submitted that prosecution has examined PW38 Sh. Irfan Tyagi, a clerk in Secundarabad Municipality to prove certain documents from the service book of Sh. Mahesh Chand. However, as it was ordered at the time of framing of charge that the income, expenses and assets of Sh. Mahesh Chand are not to be taken into consideration, this witness is not relevant for decision of the case in hand.

33.Next, Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW60 Sh. Mool Chand. This witness has deposed that he used to purchase milk from Sh. Mahesh Chand of village Nehrupur. The evidence of this witness shows that Sh. Mahesh Chand had income from sale of milk.

34.With regard to the immovable property House No.38/1 Shastri Nagar, Meerut, he submitted that there is no evidence to prove that this property is in the name of Sh. Chhajua Ram. He submitted that in the absence of any such evidence, a sum of Rs.5,61,750/ ought to be deducted from the assets of the accused.

35.Ld. counsel referred to the evidence of PW64 Sh. Tej Singh, whose CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 35 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 relation Jhamman Singh had sold his agricultural land to Sh. Chajjua Ram. However, contrary to the case of prosecution, he denied that Sh. Jhamman Singh had sold the land to Sh. Chajjua Ram for a sum of Rs.2,28,000/.

36.Next, the Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW65 Sh. Etmonlugun, who was working as an officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce. This witness has proved the deposit slip dated 4 th August 1986 (D106) as Ex.PW65/A. As per this deposit slip, a sum of Rs.40,000/ was deposited in the account of Sh. Chhatarpal Singh in cash. This deposit is with regard to the property in the name of Sh. Chajjua Ram, which he purchased from Sh. Chattarpal Singh as per asset 3(c) for a sum of Rs.48,137/.

37.Ld. counsel referred to the evidence of PW73 Sh. Chattarpal Singh, who had sold his agricultural land to Sh. Chajjua Ram for a sum of Rs.40,000/. He deposed that the accused was present at the time of registration of the sale deed of the land sold to Sh.Chajjua Ram. However, in crossexamination, he deposed that he had been told by someone that the accused Mr. Lall was present at the time of registration of sale deed but he had not seen him. However, the Ld. Counsel relied on the evidence of this witness where he stated that the financial condition of Mr. Chaujja Ram was good from the beginning i.e. since a time when he came to the village.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 36 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

38.Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has examined PW75 Sh. Om Prakash with regard to property No.R11/54 Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad but this property was excluded from the assets of the accused in the order of charge and is therefore not relevant for decision of the case.

39.Ld. counsel submitted that the evidence of PW49 Sh. Attar Singh, an employee of M/s Rathi Alloy and Steel Ltd Ghaziabad is also pertaining to the property at Raj Nagar namely Plot No.R11/54 and is therefore, not relevant as the property has been excluded from the assets of the accused. Same is the position with regard to PW20 Sh. Baldev Raj Sharma, who has also deposed with regard to House No.R11/54 Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad which is not one of the assets of the accused.

40.Ld. counsel referred to the evidence of PW72 Sh. S.N. Singhal, Ex Manager of Punjab National Bank, who has proved the statement of account of Sh. Jhaman Singh who had saving bank account No.16196 and proved the statement of account as Ex.PW72/A. He deposed that as per this statement of account, there is an entry of deposit of a sum of Rs.2,20,000/ in cash in this account.

41.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW91 Sh. Vineet Kumar, Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Bulandsahar, UP. This witness proved the sale deed at serial No.3558/89 dated 28 th CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 37 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 July 1989 as Ex.PW91/B which is executed by Sh. Chajjua Ram in favour of his wife Smt. Khajani Devi.

42.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW3 Sh. Ganga Sharan Sharma, who was Sub Registrar, Charkhi Dadri and proved certified copies of sale deeds No.9499/87, 9500/87, 9501/87, 9503/87 and 9504/97 as Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/5.

43.With this, the Ld. Counsel concluded the arguments with regard to assets of Sh. Chajjua Ram.

44.Next, Ld. Counsel addressed arguments with regard to assets of Smt. Khajani Devi, the biological mother of the accused.

45.The first asset in the name of Smt. Khajani Devi is Plot No.D8, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad worth Rs.2,70,486/. However, it was submitted that no witness has been examined to connect this property with Smt. Khajani Devi and therefore, should be excluded from the assets of the accused straight away.

46.Next, the Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW46 Sh. Jahid Ali. This witness had sold his agricultural land in village Agwal. However, he could not tell who was the buyer and stated that he had received a sum of Rs.2,20,000/ in cash as his share from the said buyer. In crossexamination, he denied that he had received only a sum of Rs.42,000/. The witness had marked the sale deed as Mark PW46/P1. However, the said sale deed was exhibited by PW90 Sh.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 38 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375 Harinder Singh, Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Khurja as Ex.PW90/5 (Sale Deed 3489).

47.Next, Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW58 Sh. Nahar Singh, who had sold his land to Smt. Khajani Devi for a sum of Rs.60,000/ in November 1987. He deposed that he had sold the land vide sale deed Ex.PW58/A for a sum of Rs.60,000/, though the amount in the sale deed is mentioned as Rs.30,000/. He deposed that he had received the sum of Rs.60,000/ from Sh. Mahesh, R/o Vill. Nehrupur. Ld. Counsel submitted that the prosecution did not examine Sh. Mahesh, who had given the sale consideration to the seller. He submitted that no title deed was recovered from the accused Sh. Krishan Lall.

48.Next, the Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW69, Sh. Tehsin Khan. This witness alongwith his four younger brothers had sold his agricultural land in village Agwal, however, the witness could neither recollect the name of the person who had purchased the land nor he could recollect what was the amount for which the land was sold. He stated that he and his brothers had an account in Central Bank in Court at Distt. Bulandsahar and the sale proceeds were deposited in their bank account. The registration fee was paid by the purchaser. In crossexamination, he deposed that he and his brothers had individually deposited the money of the sale proceeds in their CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 39 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 bank accounts and they had separate bank accounts. He deposed that neither he had seen the person to whom the land was sold nor he has any knowledge of that person.

49.Next, the Ld. Counsel for the accused referred to the evidence of PW63 Sh. Ram Sawroop, who was an employee of State Bank of India. This witness proved the account opening form of A/c No.61/6401 in the name of Chottey Khan, Mansoor Ali, Kamruddin and Nassrudin as Ex.PW63/A. The exhibiting of the document was objected on the ground of admissibility and mode of proof. The statement of account was proved as Ex.PW63/B. As per this statement of account, a sum of Rs.3,30,000/ was deposited in cash in the account on 13th May 1989. The witness also proved that Ex.PW63/C by which this amount was deposited in the bank account of the four account holders referred above on 30th May 1989.

50.Next, the Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW71, Sh. Het Ram. This witness had brokered the sale of agricultural land of one person selling utensils in favour of Smt. Khajani Devi. However, he could not name the said seller of the land. He could not say what was the amount paid for the sale of the land or where the land was registered. He deposed that Smt. Khajani Devi owned big land in which she had cattle and also dealt with rodi/badarpur. He deposed that Sh. Chajju Singh and his brothers were thekedars and was doing CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 40 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 the business of rodi/badarpur and cattle.

51.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW93 Sh. Laxmi Narayan, who was patwari at Distt. Bulandsahar. From this witness CBI officials had inquired about the land and revenue documents of Smt. Khajani Devi. He deposed that he had given the statement on the basis of office record shown to him at that time. He could not say what was the status of agricultural land of Smt. Khajani Devi or estimated annual yield from the said agricultural activity. He deposed that he cannot tell about these facts unless he is shown the documents which were shown to him when his statement was recorded by CBI officials. However, as those documents were not on record and it was not clear whether those documents were seized or not, the witness was not examined any further.

52.The Ld. Counsel submitted that out of one RC i.e. RC3(A)/90 ACU:II recorded on 17th October 1990, three chargesheets were filed. One chargesheet is filed in present case. The second chargesheet was filed in Corruption Case No.19/97 titled as CBI v. Krishan Lal & Others. This case pertained to receiving one 800cc Maruti car No.DL3CA 3663 by Sh. Krishan Lall from coaccused K.L. Sahani, who had official dealings with him without consideration. However, that case resulted in acquittal vide order dated 30 th November 2010, as the accused were given benefit of doubt. The third case was registered as CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 41 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 CC No.9/95 with the allegation that the accused in conspiracy with his wife and brother had opened dishonestly and fraudulently bank accounts and fixed deposit accounts in Union Bank of India at Moti Bagh and Yusuf Sarai Branches and hired lockers for the purposes of hiding/concealing huge unaccounted money. However, all the accused in that case were also acquitted by the Ld. ACMM vide orders dated 4th December 2009. The Ld. Counsel referred to following para from the aforesaid order of acquittal which is as under: "PW7 Sh. C.M.Philip Osk deposed that in the year 199293 he was incharge of Moti Bagh Branch. Locker No.328 was searched and a search list Ex.PW7/1 was prepared in his presence. Locket No.328 was in the name of one Sh. Sugriv. He has identified accused Mahesh Chand as Sugriv who has operated the locker. He has also recognized accused Archana Lall as Asha Gupta, who was maintaining locker No.327....

The other method was the identification of accused Mahesh Chand and Archana Lall by some independent prosecution witness who has seen them as of with alleged fake names. As far as the witnesses are concerned, only PW7 Sh. C.M. Philipose has deposed that he has seen Asha Gupta and Sugriv operating bank accounts in UBI Bank, Moti Bagh Branch. He also identified accused Archana Lall as Asha Gupta and accused Mahesh Chand as Sugriv who have operated the lockers. In crossexamination, he has deposed that he worked in the said branch since May 1992 to 1993. He further deposed that the locker were not opened in his presence. He has further deposed that he was never called by CBI officials for TIP proceedings of accused CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 42 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 persons. Ld. Counsel for defence has pointed out a document filed by the prosecution. The same is D46 i.e. a letter dated 5.2.1993 from Chief Manager Union Bank of India to DSP CBI. As per this letter at serial No.10, it is stated that locker No.327 in the name of Asha Gupta is operated on 04.05.1988, 06.03.1989 and 09.05.1991. Similarly, in the later part of the said letter regarding locker No.328 it is mentioned that the same was operated on 04.05.1988 and 06.03.1992."

53.The Ld. Counsel submitted that the same witness Sh. C.M.Philipose has been examined in this case as PW98 and the testimony of this witness has already been rejected in the earlier case as referred above and deserves similar treatment in the present case.

54.Next, the Ld. Counsel referred to Annexure IV of the chargesheet which deals with immovable properties namely House No. B209, Subhash Nagar and House No.B95 Sector22, Noida. The property House No. B209 Subhash Nagar, Meerut is shown at entry No.1 of Annexure 1 as asset which was acquired before the check period for a sum of Rs.30,000/. However, the value of this asset as per Annexure IV is now shown as Rs.3,70,651/. PW13 Sh. S.P. Goel, retired Executive Engineer (Surveyor of work) from CPWD in the year 1994 proved the valuation report of this property as Ex.PW13/A. This report mentions that the date of present construction is noted as 198586 and this was intimated by Dy. SP CBI.

55.The Ld. Counsel referred to P79, Ex.P1/1 which is submission of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 43 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Annual Property Return for the year 1987. As per the return enclosed with this letter, the house at Meerut City, Subhash Nagar, a double storied house on land area of around 100 sq. meter worth Rs.1,60,000/ was bequeathed in favour of Nikhil Lall son of the accused by father of the accused Subedar Ram Lall (who expired on 17th March 1988) by way of a registered Will.

56.Reliance is placed on evidence of DW4 Sh. Kulbhushan, grandson of late Subedar Ram Lall. As per this witness, the Will dated 4 th February 1998 executed by Late Subdear Ram Lall was challenged by his aunt Smt. Maya Suman and a decree was passed on 30 th July 1996 as per which House No.95B sector 22 Noida Distt. Ghaziabad was given to Nupur Lal, House No.209 Subhash Nagar, Meerut was given to Nikhil Lall and House No.281 Subhash Nagar, Meerut was given to Kulbhushan, DW4. The certified copy of order and decree dated 30 th July 1996 was exhibited as Ex.DW4/A (colly) and House Tax bill for the year 201718 and receipt No.2017243164 dated 26th October 2017 for property bearing No.281, Subhash Nagar, Meerut was exhibited as Ex.DW4/B. It was submitted that since intimation of this property was given to the Department, this became a property acquired from known sources of income. It was submitted that no suggestion was given to DW4 during crossexamination by the prosecution that the Will is forged or the property did not belong to CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 44 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Subedar Ram Lall. Therefore, it was submitted that it is proved that this property was acquired by way of Will. It was further submitted that the expenses incurred on this asset will therefore, not be treated as expenses by the accused.

57.With regard to property No. B95, Sector 22 Noida, it was submitted that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence.

58.The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of DW5 Sh. Pushpender Kumar who proved the Will executed by Smt. Khajani Devi which was registered on 3rd May 1991 as Ex.DW5/A1. It was submitted that no suggestion was given to this witness that the Will is a forged Will to help the accused Sh. Krishan Lal. It was submitted that the assets of the children of the accused are not the assets of the accused.

59.The Ld. Counsel submitted that if all these immovable assets go out of his hand, no offence could be made out.

60. So far as expenditure and income during check period is concerned, the arguments of the Ld. Counsel shall be dealt with at each entry.

61. Discussion on the material on record and findings of the Court on points for determination: The first point for determination is "Whether the assets of the accused before the check period were Rs. 3,95,072/ or more"?

62. The Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that there is no issue CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 45 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 between the accused and prosecution with regard to assets of the accused before the check period. Therefore, the assets of the accused before the check period are taken as Rs.3,95,072/ as also stated by CBI in AnnexureI of the chargesheet.

63.The second point for determination is "Whether the income of the accused during the check period was Rs.9,59,376/ or more"?

64.The law with regard to the expression "Known sources of income"

has been laid down in C.S.D. Swami vs. The State, AIR 1960, Supreme Court 7, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

"the expression "Known sources of income" must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. It was not, and it could not be, contented that "Known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs, of an accused person. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge"

of the accused within the meaning of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution can only lead evidence to show that the accused was known to earn his living by service under the Government during the material period."

65. The salary of the accused during check period is stated to be Rs.1,58,167/. As per Ex.PW31/A, the pay and allowances of the accused from 23rd June, 1984 to 30th May 1986 after deductions were Rs.45,409/. PW33 has proved the pay particulars of the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 46 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 accused from June 1986 to August 1990 as Ex.PW33/A. The sum total of the same is Rs.1,11,176.35P.

66. The accused has objected to his Pay & Allowances as shown in Ex.PW28/A on the ground that it does not show the arrears of DA paid to him from time to time. With regard to Ex.PW31/A which is the statement of Pay & Allowances drawn by the accused from 24.06.1984 to 30.05.1986, the response of the accused was only that this statement was not prepared by the summoned witness. So far as Ex.PW33/A which is the Pay & Allowances of the accused from 01.06.1986 to 30.08.1990 is concerned, the response of the accused was that the original PBR from which the statement was prepared was not brought.

67. This Court has carefully perused Ex.PW31/A. It mentions arrears of DA Rs.720/ given in February, 1985. This Court has also carefully perused Ex.PW33/A. It mentions arrears of DA from January, 1987 to July, 1987 Rs.20,183/, arrears of DA from July, 1987 to November, 1987 Rs.875/, arrears of DA from 01.01.1988 to 30.04.1988 Rs. 816/, arrears of DA from July, 1988 to September, 1988 Rs.612/, arrears of DA from 01.01.1989 to 31.05.1989 Rs.1310/, arrears of DA from July, 1989 to September, 1989 Rs.474/, arrears of DA from 01.01.1990 to 31.03.1990 Rs.486/ and arrears of DA from 01.07.1990 to 31.08.1990 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 47 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Rs.432/.

68. Therefore, it cannot be said that arrears of DA have not been included in the Pay & Allowances Ex.PW28/A, Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW33/A. The accused has availed the opportunity for defence evidence, but he did not summon any witness to show that he deserves benefit of arrears of DA over and above Pay & Allowances shown in three exhibits referred above.

69.The accused only examined DW2 Sh.Hans Raj, Assistant Comptroller, Finance & Accounts, Deputy Commissioner's office, Bilaspur for proving that vide letter dated 20.04.1987 the accused was awarded a reward of Rs.2,500/. The same is Ex.DW2/1. However, Ld. Sr.PP for CBI pointed out that this Rs.2,500/ was not given in cash, but in the form of National Savings Certificate which is evident from Ex.DW2/1 itself. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Pay & Allowances of the accused has been rightly shown as Rs.1,58,167.35P during the check period of 01.06.1984 to 29.08.1990.

70. The other contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused is about the salary of Smt. Archana Lal. As per CBI, the salary of Smt. Archana Lal during check period was merely Rs.262/. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied on the evidence of PW1 in this regard to submit that there is variation in the salary of teachers as shown in CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 48 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5. He submitted that the witness could not give any reason for the variation of the salary of the teachers. According to him, the salary of the Smt. Archana Lal should be treated as Rs.1,305 and not Rs.260/. However, this is not born out from the records. The salary register has shown that for the month of February and March 1986, the salary was Rs. 1/ only. In the month of April, the salary was Rs. 300/ and taking into account working days, she was given only Rs. 240/. For the month of May, the salary is Rs.145/ and the same is also stated to be refunded to management committee. Therefore, the salary of Smt Archana Lal would be Rs.262/ only during the said period.

71.At this stage, it is appropriate to note that CBI has given benefit of Rs.1,94,515/ to the accused as income from sale of land at Village Saurakha. This is shown in S.No.9 of the AnnexureII of the chargesheet. The above land was purchased by Sh. Chajjua Ram in the year 1987 and he sold this land in the year 1989 and thereby claimed that he has made a profit of Rs.1,94,515/. Since the land was purchased during the check period, it should have been included in the expenses, AnnexureIII of the chargesheet. By showing this amount as income, the accused has been given double benefit, first this amount was not included in the expenses and secondly, the higher Sale Deeds have been relied on to give the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 49 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 benefit of income of Rs.1,94,515/. However, this Court leaves it at this point as the trial has lingered on for nearly 23 years and amending the charge at this stage will further delay the disposal of the case.

72.The accused has not shown any other source of income which has not been included in AnnexureII. Therefore, this Court is proceeding with the case treating that the income of the accused during check period was Rs.9,59,376/.

73.Now, the Court will examine the third point for determination i.e. "Whether the expenditure during the check period was Rs.4,99,660/ or more?"

74.Entry No.1: The children of the accused have studied at Bilaspur as well as at Delhi. According to CBI, expenses on their education incurred by the accused were Rs.34,705/. These expenses have been proved by PW2 Sh.Om Dutt Sharma and PW18 Smt. Deepa Pant. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is only evidence of expenses of Rs.25,185/ towards education of the children. However, on a perusal of Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW18/A, B, C & D, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the contention of CBI that the accused has spent Rs.34,705/ on the education of his children. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.34,705/.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 50 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

75.Entry No.2: The accused has purchased one Colt Cobra Revolver for a sum of Rs.15,180/. PW6 Sh. Mool Chand Khurana has proved the cash memo dated 31.08.1989 as Ex.PW6/A. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused in this regard is that the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs.8,000/ from his fatherin law Sh. Ram Prashad and Rs.7,000/ from Sh. Har Phool Singh on the occasion of purchase of the revolver. He has referred to letter dated 14.09.1990 written by him to his department which is mentioned in letter dated 16.10.1990 written by Joint Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel to the Secretary, to the Government of India, Department of Steel, Ministry of Steel & Mines, New Delhi about the purchase of this revolver by the accused by securing loan as noted above. The same is available in D113/2, Page147. The Ld. Counsel referred to the judgment in the case of Kedari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2015 CriLJ 4045 wherein para 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

10. "The expression "known source of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. In N. Ramakrishnaiah (2009 AIR SCW 1752) (supra), while dealing with said expression, it was observed:

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 51 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375 "... For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (1) his property, or (b) his investment."

The categories so enumerated are illustrative. Receipt by way of share in the partition of ancestral property or bequest under a Will or advances from close relations would come within the expression "known sources of income" provided the second condition stands fulfilled that is to say, such receipts were duly intimated to the authorities as prescribed."

76.This Court is inclined to accept the explanation given by Ld. Counsel for the accused and is of the opinion that this sum of Rs.15,180/ for purchase of revolver should not be added in the expenses. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

77.Entry No.3: This entry pertains to the housing loan of Rs.26,000/. The same has been proved by PW28 who produced the details of Pay & Allowances and the deductions made under various heads including HBA as Ex.PW28/A.

78.The Ld. Counsel dealing with the expenses of Rs.26,000/ incurred for repayment of housing loan referred to question No.42 of the questions put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC. In this question, the attention of the accused was drawn to the evidence of PW28 Sh. Girish Kumar, Jr. Accounts Officer in the Ministry of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 52 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Steel, who proved the details of pay, allowances and deductions made under various heads including HBA and motor car advance as Ex.PW28/A. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the answer of the accused in the statement u/S 313 CrPC was that Ex.PW28/A does not show the arrears of DA paid to him from time to time and Ex.PW28/A was not prepared by PW28 and he had not brought the record in the court on the basis of which he had prepared the same.

79.The question of arrears of DA has already been discussed in detail in earlier paragraphs and it is noted that all the arrears of DA have been shown in Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW33/A. The accused had not given any suggestion to PW28 that the details of HBA are wrong or instead of Rs.26,000/, some other lesser amount was paid as HBA. Same was the position in his response to the questions under Section 313 Cr.PC. It is not disputed by the accused that he had taken the housing loan from the department. During defence evidence, no effort was made by the accused to show that he had not paid Rs.26,000/ for HBA or some lesser amount was paid by him for HBA loan. Even during arguments, the learned counsel for the accused did not name any figure of the loan returned by him for HBA. In the entirety of circumstances, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.26,000/.

80.Entry No.4: The fourth expense by the accused is expense of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 53 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Rs.32,744/ towards payment of house tax to MCD for house No.35, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. The Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of PW24 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, UDC, House Tax Department, MCD New Delhi, who had proved certified copy of demand No.35, 16, 10 and 17 for Flat No. 35, SFS Flats, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi as Ex.PW24/A (5 sheets) including servant quarter and scooter garage. However, in crossexamination, the witness could not say who had written the contents of Ex.PW24/A and who had attested these sheets. He also stated that the extract Ex.PW24/A was prepared on the basis of assessment file of the MCD. He had not brought the said file as the file was not with him. He deposed that Ex.PW24/A is the attested copy of demand register. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the prosecution had not proved payment of Rs.32,744/ by the accused.

81.The certified copy of Demand Register was given to CBI alongwith seizure memo which is Ex.PW92/3 (D166, Page80). Ex.PW24/A was given to CBI by officials of MCD during the course of their official duties. Admittedly, accused is the owner of Flat No.35, SFS, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. It is common knowledge that every property owner has to pay Property Tax every year to MCD. It is not the case of the accused that he was exempted from the payment of property tax. He has not given a single suggestion to CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 54 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 the witness during cross examination that no property tax was given with regard to the property in question during check period. The witness was not given any suggestion that some lesser amount was given as Property Tax. In response to the question u/S 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has persisted with the answer that the original Demand Register was not produced and the maker of this document has not been examined in the Court.

82.Therefore, this Court is not satisfied with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused.

83.It is to be noted that the ratable value of the flat has been calculated treating the same as residential. However, the flat has all along been rented out to one Sh. Mahindru, therefore, the rateable value should have been calculated on commercial basis rather than on residential basis as the property was not used for self residence of the owner, but was rented out. Be that as it may, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.32,744/.

84.Entry No.5: This entry is for payment of CTD loan and interest Rs.2,641/. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW85 Sh. Prakash Chandra was examined to prove the CTD loan ledger card, Ex.PW85/1 (D37) but the witness was a cancer patient undergoing chemo therapy and had stated that he cannot say whether the statement given by him in court was correct or not.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 55 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375 He was not sure whether he had signed on Ex.PW55/1 or not and therefore, submitted that there is no evidence with regard to payment of this amount by the accused.

85.Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court gives benefit of doubt and directs that this amount of Rs.2,641/ shall not be treated as part of expenses. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

86.Entry No.6: This entry is payment of Rs.19,985/ to various clubs. These payments have been proved by PW22, PW23 and PW17. The learned counsel for the accused has challenged payments to Health Club at Holiday Inn Hotel. The sum and substance of the testimony of PW23 is that the accused had taken the membership of Health Club at Holiday Inn Hotel disclosing his name as Om Gupta. The witness categorically identified the accused as the person who had taken the membership pretending to be Om Gupta. The witness was the Manager of the Health Club and was interacting with the Members of the Club. He used to make calls to them for reminders and extending greetings on their birthdays. He has deposed that he was meeting Sh.Om Gupta when he visited the Health Club. The evidence of this witness rather shows that the accused had taken the membership of this Club by concealing his actual identity and by pretending to be one Sh.Om CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 56 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Gupta rather than Sh. Krishan Lall, IAS. So much so, the accused cleverly took back the photograph affixed on the membership form to remove any trace of this membership. This conduct of the accused where he concealed his identity and took membership in pseudonym speaks volumes about the conduct of the accused and shall be discussed at the later part of the judgment also. In the opinion of this Court, PW23 has proved that the accused was the Member of the Health Club. The membership was not complementary. Therefore, the expenses for this entry shall be treated as Rs.19,985/.

87.Entry No.7: This entry is for Rs.9,020/ for the purchase of one Vision VCR. The CBI during raid had come across one receipt Ex.PW35/A in the name of Sh. Mahesh Kumar for purchasing VCR for a sum of Rs.9,020/. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the expenses of Sh. Mahesh Chand have been excluded and therefore, this expense be not read against the accused.

88.The question is whether this expenditure should be added in the expenses of the accused or not?

89.A perusal of Observation Memo Ex.PW21/A of the search conducted at premises No.209, Block 23, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi has shown that in the Living Room No. 3 there was one VCR NV G10 VCR. It is noted at S.No.109 of Ex.PW21/A. The same shows CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 57 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 that the comments of the accused were that the same is inherited. The response of the accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he has no concern with the VCR. If the accused had no concern with the VCR, why it was found in his Living Room? Moreover, during his statement the accused did not persist with his case that the same was inherited. This is clear that the accused had purchased the VCR in the name of his younger brother Sh. Mahesh Chand, a peon in Secundrabad Municipality drawing a salary of Rs.1,000/ per month to evade any adverse consequences. Resultantly, this expense of Rs.9,020/ shall be treated as the expense of the accused.

90.Entry No.8: The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not object to S.No.8 i.e. expenditure on Insurance and Registration of car No.H1B4, Rs.2,382/. Therefore, the expense for this entry would be treated as Rs.2,382/.

91.Entry No.9: The next item is payment of LIC loan and interest on LIC policy 2367880. This is an amount of Rs.7,057. This expense has been proved by PW17 Sh.P.S.Gambhir. The witness was not cross examined. However, now the Ld. Counsel submitted that he had received a dividend of Rs.4,000/ and as the policy was a cash back policy that amount be included in the income. The response of the accused in statement U/s 313 CrPC with regard to Ex.PW17A/A CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 58 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 to C was that it is a matter of record. No other evidence has been led about receiving dividend of Rs.4,000/ during check period. No effort was made to elicit any such information from the witness when he was in the witness box. Therefore, this expense shall be treated as the expense incurred by the accused and the expense would be treated as Rs.7,057/.

92.Entry No.10: No objection was raised with regard to this expense of Rs.2,408/. These expenses have been indicated from Ex.PW40/E (D118, Page12, Sr. No.99, Page13, Sr. No. 106 & 117, Page17 & Sr. No.135). Therefore, the expense under this entry would be Rs.2,408/.

93.Entry No.11: The Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the witness in this regard examined by CBI is PW48 Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, Director of M/s Iyer & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The witness has stated that the accused was purchasing air tickets on credit from his company. The witness stated that it can be possible that payment of Rs.21,898/ was made through cheque and remaining amount of Rs.5,863/ by cash. The accused also admitted in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that the tickets were mostly purchased for official journey and payment was to be made after passing of TA bill regarding official journey. In this ambivalent stand of the witness, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Resultantly, this CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 59 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 sum of Rs.48,649/ as mentioned as S.No.11 of AnnexureIII shall not be treated as expenditure by the accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

94.Entry no.12: The Ld. Counsel did not object to payment of interest Rs.3,200/ against overdraft from UCO Bank which is shown at S.No.12. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.3,200/.

95.Entry No.13: The entry at S.No.13 of AnnexureIII is expenditure of Rs.11,662/ towards rental charges of lockers. No witness has deposed about payment of Rs.11,662/ towards locker charges, therefore, this amount of Rs.11,662/ shall not be treated as part of expenditure by the accused and the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

96.Entry No.14: The Ld. Counsel for the accused did not object to expense of Rs.13,960/ as shown at S.No.14 towards Motor Car Advance. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.13,960/.

97.Entry No.15: The expense at S.No.15 is for hiring of AC and payment of Rs.1600/. The witness examined by CBI in this regard is PW36 Sh.Kamal Krishan Bahl. This witness has proved as Ex.PW36/A the cheque given by the accused for hiring charges of the AC for three months. He has stated that he had received a CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 60 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 telephone call from the accused for installing the AC at his premises. As prosecution has proved the cheque given by the accused as hiring charges, the same shall be treated as expense incurred by the accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.1,600/.

98.Entry No.16: The expense at S.No.16 is on petrol of car No.H1B 4, Rs.17,611/. No witness has deposed in this regard. There is no evidence to show how many kilometers the vehicle had run to assess the mileage and expenses on petrol incurred by the accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

99.Entry No.17: The expense at Sr. No.17 is Rs.2,000/ for payment to Sh. Yashpal Ahluwalia as brokerage. However, the learned counsel for the accused has pointed out that there is no evidence of payment of Rs.2,000/ to Sh. Yashpal as brokerage. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

100. Entry No.18: The next expense is at Sr. No.18 for payment of Rs.4,000/ to Sh. Baldev Raj Sharma, Architect, PW20. This payment was given by the accused to the Architect Sh. Baldev Raj Sharma for supervising the construction of H. No.R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. The submission of learned counsel for the accused is that in the order on Charge, this asset has not been treated as the asset of accused and therefore the expenses incurred CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 61 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 by the accused be also not included in the expenditure of the accused. In the opinion of this court, even if this asset has been excluded from the Assets of the accused, the expenses incurred by the accused would be considered part of expenditure by the accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs. 4,000/.

101. Entry No.19: The next expense at Sr. No.19 is Rs.2,318/ towards money orders. PW32 Sh. M. R. Bhardwaj has proved the money order receipts as Ex.PW32/D1 to Ex.PW32/D26. He has also proved the acknowledgments as Ex.PW32/E1 to Ex.PW32/E21. The money order receipts which were sent to the biological father of the accused Sh. Chajjua Ram, Subedar Ram Lal (who had adopted the accused) and sisters of the accused were seized from the Ground Floor of House No.95B, Sector22, Noida, during search conducted on 29.08.1990 by CBI. During this time, file M720 was also seized which contains several documents including these money order's receipts and acknowledgments. These documents pertaining to RC 35(A)/90DLI, CBI, Delhi Branch were taken over from Sh. S. N. Saxena during investigation of RC No.3(A)/90 ACU(II)/SPE/CBI/New Delhi vide Ex.PW86/A (D114, Page2). Sr. No.3 of this receipt mentions that Sh. J. N. Prasad, Dy.SP had taken over all the documents mentioned in SearchcumSeizure Memo CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 62 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 dated 29.08.1990 seized by Sh. S. K. Peshin, Inspector, CBI, Delhi from Ground Floor, B95, Sector22, Noida. The sender as per the acknowledgments is the accused Sh. K. Lall, Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Therefore, this court has least hesitation in treating the payment of Rs.2,318/ as the expenses incurred by the accused. These money orders from accused to his parents would be circumstance indicative of their poor financial position. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.2,318/.

102. Entry No.20: The next expense at Sr. No.20 is Rs.2,781/ towards miscellaneous purchases during check period. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has not proved the receipts. This court is not inclined to add this amount as expenses of accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

103. Entry No.21: The other expense at Sr. No.21 is Rs.9,784/ for electricity and water charges. Learned counsel for accused submitted that PW26 Sh. Budhi Singh from HPEB has proved only payment of Rs.403/. This court is therefore, inclined to treat the expense as only Rs.403/ and not Rs.9,784/ for electricity charges. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.403/.

104. Entry No.22: The expense at Sr. No.22 is for payment of house CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 63 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 tax of H. No.209, Subhash Nagar, Meerut and is a small amount of Rs.124/. No submissions were made in this regard by the learned Sr. PP for CBI. Therefore, the expense for this entry shall be treated as zero.

105. Entry No.23: The expense at Sr. No.23 is Rs.3,712/ for cooking gas at Bilaspur, Delhi. The learned counsel for the accused has pointed out that PW25 Sh. Tek Chand Sharma has proved only payment of Rs.1,351/ for purchase of gas. Therefore, the expense for this entry shall be treated as Rs.1,351/.

106. Entry No.24: The expense at Sr. No.24 is Rs.489/ for wooden cot and mattresses. In the absence of any such evidence, the same shall be treated as zero.

107. Entry No.25: The expense at Sr. No.25 is payment of Rs.10,000/ to Meerut Development Authority. In this regard, the the IO of the case Sh. J. N. Prasad, Dy. SP had taken over from the Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi cheque no.720491 dated 22.06.1990 for a sum of Rs.10,000/ in the name of Secretary, Meerut Development Authority. This cheque is from the Saving Bank Account No.7121 in the name of Sh. K. Lall. The seizure memo/receipt is Ex.PW40/E (D118, Page14). Further, Ex.PW40/A (D27, Page17) is the Statement of Account of SB Account No.7121 in the name of Sh. K. Lall showing debit entry CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 64 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 of a sum of Rs.10,000/ with regard to cheque no.720491. Therefore, as the prosecution has proved this payment, for Entry No.25 the expenses would be Rs.10,000/.

108. Entry No.26: The expense at Sr. No.26 for payment of Income Tax by the accused, his wife and children for Rs.3,419/ was not agitated by the learned counsel for the accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.3,419/.

109. Entry No.27: So far as expenses of Rs.4,000/ at Sr. No.27 on H. No.35, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi are concerned, the same shall not be treated as expense in the absence of any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as zero.

110. Entry No.28: The expense at Sr. No.28 is for Rs.7,666/. This is the amount spent on repair of house by the wife and children of the accused in their ITRs. Ex.PW5/1 (D54) is the ITR submitted by Kumari Nupur Lall for the Assessment Year 198990. She claims that she had spent Rs.2,016/ on the repair of house property at 95 B, Sector22, Noida after the death of her grandfather. CBI has given her the credit of Rs.34,300/ as income from this house during check period. One witness who was the tenant in this house is PW51 Sh. N. K. Kadamb. He has deposed about payment of Rs.19,400/. The learned Senior PP submits that LW13 Sh. M. N. Thakur was the other tenant but he has not been examined. As this CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 65 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 expense is admitted by the accused in the form of ITR as Ex.PW5/1, this expense is accepted. The next expense is Rs.1,100/ (twice, for Assessment Year 198889 and 19891990) for repair of H. No.35, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. This is mentioned in the ITR filed by Smt. Archana Lall, Ex.PW4/1. Therefore, this expense is also accepted by the court. The ITR of Master Nikhil Lall for the Assessment Year 198990, Ex.PW3/1 also mentions that a sum of Rs.3,450/ was spent for the repair of House at 209, Subhash Nagar, Meerut. Therefore, the sum total of Rs.2,016/ + Rs.1,100/ + Rs.1,100/ + Rs.3,450/ = Rs.7,666/ is accepted as expense on the repair of Houses by the wife and children of the accused. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.7,666/.

111. Entry No.29: The expense at Sr. No.29 is cheque issued in favour of Sh. Phool Singh for a sum of Rs.3,000/. The same is evident from D29 which is Statement of Account of SB Account No.4245 of Sh. K. Lall where there is debit entry of Rs.3,000/ in favour of Sh. Phool Singh on 22.10.1984. Further, Ex.PW78/16A (D170) is the seizure memo as per which debit voucher dated 07.09.1984 for Rs.3,000/ against cheque no.434113 is mentioned at Sr. No.27 of the Seizure Memo. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.3,000/.

112. Entry No.30: The expense at Sr. No.30 is cheque issued in CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 66 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 favour of various persons totaling Rs.22,647/. D118 Ex.PW40/E is the receipt of taking over of documents by Sh. J. N. Prasad, Dy. SP, CBI from Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. Sr. No.98 of withdrawal cheques mentions cheque no.068403 dated 28.06.1988 for a sum of Rs.10,000/ in favour of M/s. Iyer & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. Sr. No.130 of withdrawal cheques mentions cheque no.720480 dated 06.12.1989 for a sum of Rs.5,500/ in favour of M/s. Iyer & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. D119, Ex.PW86/D1 is the receipt by Sh. J.N. Prasad IO of this case given to the officer of Indian Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi. Sr. No.65 refers to withdrawal cheque no.227408 dated 08.05.1987 for Rs. 747/ in favour of M/s. Iyer & Sons Pvt. Ltd. At Sr.No.100 is cheque no.239243 dated 15.10.1987 for Rs.280/ in favour of M/s. Iyer & Sons Pvt. Ltd. At Sr.No.101 is cheque no.239242 dated 15.10.1987 for Rs.2,480/ in favour of M/s. Iyer & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW40/A (colly.), D27, page no. 2 is the statement of account of account no.7121 of the accused Sh. K. Lal with Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. It shows debit entry of Rs.10,000/ for clearing of cheque no.068403 on 01.07.1988. It also shows withdrawal of Rs.5,500/ on 08.12.1989 with regard to cheque no.720480. D25, Ex.PW19/B shows payment of Rs.2,500/ in favour of Sh. Ram Prasad from account no. 29707 of Punjab CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 67 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 National Bank vide cheque no. 503427 on 04.06.1984. In the same document, there is a payment of Rs.300/ in favour of Sh. Chattar Singh on 25.07.1984 vide cheque no. 510871. On D29, which is statement of account of account no.4245 of the accused in UCO Bank, there are payments of Rs.500/ each to Jagdish Furniture and Surjeet Singh. However, this statement of account is not exhibited. Resultantly, the expenses for entry no.30 shall be Rs.21,807/.

113. Entry No.31: The expense at Sr. No.31 is expenditure on purchase of Demand Draft for Rs.11,988/. D116, Page1 is the receipt Ex.PW86/B as per which the IO of the case had taken over cheque no.011904 dated 25.06.1986 for Rs.11,988/ favouring Central Bank from the Sub Accountant of Central Bank of India, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. Ex.PW10/A (D28) is the Statement of Account of Sh. K. Lall for the Saving Bank Account with Central Bank of India which shows a debit of Rs.11,988/ against cheque no.904 for issuing a DD. Therefore, the expense for this entry would be Rs.11,988/.

114. Entry No.32: The Sr. No.32 is Rs.42,324/ towards stamp duty in respect of the land sold by Sh. Chajjua Ram to his wife Smt. Khajani Devi. The Sale Deed is Ex.PW91/B. As per this, the stamp duty is Rs.21,000/. As per Ex.PW90/8, Sh. Chajjua Ram has sold the land to his wife Smt. Khajani Devi and the stamp duty is CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 68 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Rs.20,810/. These expense are treated as expenses by the accused. The reasoning for the same shall be given in later part of the judgment while discussing the position of assets of Sh. Chajjua Ram. Therefore, the expenses for this entry would be treated as Rs.41,810/.

115. Entry No.33: The last expense is the expenditure on kitchen expenses i.e. Rs.1,20,600/. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that DW1 Smt. Archana Lal has deposed that she was receiving not only gift in the form of cash but she was also receiving from her parents household consumable such as pulses, oil and ghee from time to time. She has deposed that she was the youngest of all the siblings. The learned counsel submitted that in any case the expenditure for household expenses should be 1/3rd of the net pay and allowances which in this case is Rs.1,58,167/. His submission is that the expenses of kitchen should be Rs.50,000/ only. On the other hand, the learned Sr. PP for the CBI has argued that the household expenses are calculated on the basis of total income and not net income and therefore, the deduction of Rs.1,20,600/ towards kitchen expenses is reasonable expenditure.

116. This court is of the view that the expenditure on kitchen is on the basis of total pay and allowances. However, as DW1 has deposed that she was receiving household consumables such as pulses, oil CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 69 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 and ghee from time to time from her parents, the ends of justice would be met by treating the expenditure on kitchen as Rs.75,000/.

117. Entry No.34: The last expenditure of Rs.30,000/ as shown at the Sr. No.30 on household expenses of Sh. Mahesh Chand is already deducted from the expenses of the accused in the order of Charge itself. Therefore, this sum of Rs.30,000/ shall not be treated as expense of accused.

118. Therefore, the expenses of the accused during check period would be Rs.3,35,817/ and not Rs.5,29,659/.

119. The fourth point for determination is "Whether the accused, his wife and children had movable assets worth Rs.6,92,213/ during the check period?"

120. Movable Assets: The first movable asset recovered from the house search of the accused is a sum of Rs.19,000/. Ld. Counsel referred to the evidence of DW1 Smt. Archana Lall, who deposed that this money was recovered from the briefcase of her father, who was present at the house at the time of said search. He submitted that the presence of the fatherinlaw of the accused on the date of search at his house is mentioned in Ex.PW21/A, the seizure memo dated 29.08.1990 at internal page 6. He submitted that Sh. Ram Prasad, father in law of the accused died during pendency of the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 70 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 trial and therefore, could not be examined as a witness.

121. PW21 Sh. Suraj Bhan was the independent witness at the time of search at the residence of accused on 29th August 1990 and has proved Observation Memo as Ex.PW21/A (D4). In cross examination, he has deposed that Sh. Ram Prasad, fatherinlaw of the accused had come at about 1 noon whereas search was conducted since morning. He could not recollect whether Sh. Ram Prasad was questioned about Rs.19,000/ seized by CBI and that Sh. Ram Prasad had told the Raid Officer that the amount belonged to him.

122. The accused has admitted Ex.P1/23 which is letter dated 01.09.1990 written by him to the Secretary of Ministry of Steel & Mines (D5/3, Page159). In this letter, the accused has mentioned that "Out of this stupendous effort, the CBI officials seized Rs.19,000/ in total operation of search". The accused never mentioned that even this amount belonged to his fatherinlaw Sh. Ram Prasad.

123. Considering the evidence of PW21 and Ex.P1/23, this Court is of the opinion that the sum of Rs.19,000/ seized from the house of the accused belonged to the accused and not his fatherinlaw.

124. The second movable asset recovered are NSCs worth Rs.34,500/. The original NSCs are available in D70 and D71 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 71 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 which are in the name of Sh. K. Lall, Dy. Commissioner, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, Nikhil Lall S/o Sh. Krishan Lall, Ms. Nupur Lall C/o Sh. K. Lall, IAS, DC, Bilaspur, H.P. and some NSCs are in the name of Sh. K. Lall, Regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel, New Delhi. These NSCs were seized during search at the official residence of the accused at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, locker of Corporation Bank (Locker No. 35) and locker of Indian Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Locker No. 191). Vide Ex. PW86/A, the documents which were seized during investigation in RC No. 35(A)90DLI, CBI Delhi were taken over by IO of this case from Sh. S.N. Saxena, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi for investigation in this case. PW39 has proved NSC for Rs.1,000/ as Ex.PW39/A and NSC for Rs.500/ as Ex.PW32/B and NSC for Rs.10,000/ as Ex.PW37/C. The sum total of NSCs is Rs.34,500/. Therefore, the CBI has successfully proved this movable asset of Rs.34,500/.

125. The third movable asset is in the form of Indira Vikas Patras for a sum of Rs.20,000/. The ITR of Mrs. Archna Lall for Assessment Year 198889 Ex. P4/1 (D55, Page17) shows that she had purchased Indira Vikas Patra for Rs.10,000/ on 14.08.1987 Ex. PW41/A. The ITR of Mrs. Archna Lall for Assessment Year 198990 shows that she purchased second time Indira Vikas Patra on 19.01.1989 for a sum of Rs.10,000/, Ex. PW41/B. Therefore, the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 72 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 prosecution has proved Indira Vikas Patra of Rs.20,000/ with the accused.

126. The fourth movable asset is in the form of RP Deposits for Rs.25,000/. Ex.PW42/B (D71) is Reinvestment Plan Deposit of Indian Bank, Haus Khas, New Delhi dated 02.04.1987 for a sum of Rs.10,000/ in the name of Sh. K. Lall. The second Reinvestment Plan Deposit by the accused Sh. K. Lall is for Rs.15,000/ with Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi dated 01.03.1989 with maturity dated 01.03.1992. Therefore, the fourth movable asset of the accused is worth Rs.25,000/.

127. The fifth movable asset is in form of shares worth Rs.25,000/. Ex.PW45/H (D74) is the letter written by the accused to the Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel on 20.05.1988 informing that he has purchased Public Issue Shares of Rs.10,000/ from M/s B. D. Luggage, a public limited company. Therefore, the assets of the accused towards share shall be considered Rs.10,000/.

128. The sixth movable asset is in the form of household articles at H. No.23/209, Lodhi Colony, worth Rs.1,65,085/ and articles at H. No. B95, Sector22, Noida worth Rs.39,000/. The Observation Memo Ex.PW21/A of the search conducted at H. No.209, Block23, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi which is the official residence of the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 73 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 accused details the description of items, their year of acquisition and its approximate value. Similarly, Ex.PW14/A (D3) is the Observation Memo of the search of the premises No.95B, Sector 22, Noida in possession of Sh. K. Lall located at ground floor. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused is that the articles found at NOIDA belonged to the tenant and therefore, cannot be clubbed with the assets of the accused. The tenant in that property at that time was Sh. N. K. Kadamb who was examined as PW51. The testimony of this witness clearly shows that he was residing on first floor of the said property whereas, the search was conducted at the ground floor. The observation memo Ex.PW14/A records the presence of Sh. N. K. Kadamb during the search proceedings. However, no protest was made either by the accused Sh. K. Lall or by the said tenant Sh. N. K. Kadamb that the searched property was in his possession. Therefore, prosecution has proved household articles worth Rs.1,65,085/ and worth Rs.39,000/ in the two premises referred above.

129. The seventh movable asset is in the form of Bank Accounts of accused, his wife and children worth Rs.3,64,328/. D25 is Account No.29707 of accused Sh. K. Lall with PNB Maal Road, Shimla where the balance on 05.05.1990 was Rs.1,933/. The same is Ex.PW19/B. D26 is Account No.1092 in the name of Sh. K. Lall CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 74 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 at Indian Bank, Haus Khas, New Delhi where the balance on 22.07.1989 is Rs.28,944/. Same is Ex.PW42/A. D27 is Account No.7121 in the name of Sh. K. Lall at Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi where the balance on 07.09.1990 is Rs.28,311/. Same is Ex.PW40/A. D28 is Account No.2819 in the name of Sh. K. Lall at Central Bank of India, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi where the balance on 07.02.1990 is Rs.13,438/. Same is Ex.PW10/A. D30 is Account No.3142 in the name of Smt. Archna Lall at Corporation Bank, Lodhi Road, New Delhi where the balance on 28.07.1990 is Rs.73,941/. Same is Ex.A1/12. D31 is Account No.2577 in the name of Nupur Lall at State Bank of Hyderabad, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi where the balance on 19.10.1990 is Rs.24,413/. Same is Ex.PW11/A. D32 is Account No.4053 in the name of Ms. Nupur Lall at Syndicate Bank, Noida, where the balance on 10.10.1990 is Rs.30,260/. Same is Ex.PW57/D. D33 is Account No.2576 in the name of Nikhil Lall at State Bank of Hyderabad, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi where the balance on 27.09.1990 is Rs.19,371/. Same is Ex.PW11/B. D34 is Account No.4791 in the name of Sh. Nikhil Lall at Central Bank of India, Meerut, where the balance on 20.08.1990 is Rs.61,728/. Same is not exhibited. Therefore, this amount shall not be treated as the money in the hand of the accused. D36 is Account No.1583 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 75 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 in the name of Sh. K. Lall at IOB, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi where the balance in December, 1990 is Rs.68,750/. Same is Ex.PW40/B. D37 is Account No.278036 in the name of Sh. K. Lall, IAS, DC, Bilaspur (HP) at Post Office, Bilaspur, HP. However, in the light of evidence of PW85 the amount in this account shall not be treated as asset of the accused. Therefore, the balance in various bank accounts of the accused, his wife and children is Rs.2,89,361/.

130. The eighth movable asset is in the form of FDR for Rs.5,000/. No such FDR was proved on record. Therefore, this shall not be treated as movable asset of the accused.

131. Therefore, the movable assets of the accused and his family members would be treated as Rs.6,05,946/ during the check period.

132. The fifth point for determination is "Whether the accused, his wife and children had immovable assets worth Rs.3,70,651/ plus Rs. 1,97,550/ during the check period?"

133. With regard to House No.B209, Subhash Nagar, the allegation of CBI is that the accused incurred an expense of Rs. 3,70,651/ during check period on this property. PW4 Dr. Raj Kumar was a tenant in this property and he deposed that he was paying the rent in the name of Nikhil Lal. PW5 Sh. Earnest Holker has deposed that he was the tenant in this property and was paying the rent to Nikhil CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 76 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Lal. PW13 Sh. S.P. Goel, Surveyor had conducted the valuation of this property and as per Ex. PW13/A (D92), the valuation of this property was Rs. 3,70,651/.

134. As per Ex.PW37/A3 (Immovable Property Return for the year 1982) and Ex.PW37/A4 (Immovable Property Return for the year 1983), the property at Subhash Nagar, Meerut City was two bedroom house valued at Rs.30,000/ and Rs.40,000/ respectively. In Ex.PW37/A3, the submission of the accused is that this property was gifted by his mother and the rooms were constructed by the savings of his family and next year in Ex.PW37/A4 the accused informed the department that the property is in dispute as it stands in the name of his father. In D79, Ex. P1/6 which is statement of immovable property as on 01st April, 1990 given by the accused to the department, the property at Meerut City, Subhash Nagar was shown as a two storey house valued at Rs.1,60,000/ and stated to be gifted by registered will by father of the accused.

135. Therefore, during the check period, the worth of this property increased from Rs. 30,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ to Rs. 1,60,000/ in the own estimation of the accused. It underwent a change from two room house to a double storey building. According to the valuation report Ex. PW13/A, the cost of this property was Rs. 3,70,651/. It shows that during the check period, a sum of Rs. 3,30,651/ were CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 77 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 spent by the accused that is why its value increased from Rs. 30,000/ in the year 1982 and Rs. 40,000/ in the year 1983 to Rs. 3,70,651/ in the year 1990.

136. The property is stated to be gifted to the son of the accused Nikhil Lal by father of the accused Subedar Ram Lal. Nikhil Lal was a minor during the check period, having no source of income except rental income. He has been given the benefit of rental income of this property at serial no. 4 of Annexure II. Therefore, it is held that the accused had incurred an expense of Rs. 3,30,651/ on further construction of immovable asset H. No. B209, Subhash Nagar.

137. The other allegation of prosecution is that the accused has spent Rs. 1,97,550/ on the immovable property H. No. B95, Sector22, Noida.

138. As per Ex. PW13/A, the value of this property in the year 1990 is assessed as Rs. 2,15,550/. According to DW4 Sh. Kulbhushan, this property was bequeathed by Subedar Ram Lal in favour of Nupur Lal. Ex. PW8/4 is letter dated 18.04.1998 addressed by Noida Authorities to Nupur Lal for transferring this house in her name. In the letter dated 05.04.1998, Ex. DW8/P1, which is written by the accused to the Noida Authorities, the accused had written that this house is "his house". This property was purchased by Subedar Ram CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 78 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Lal from Noida Authorities in the year 1981 for a price of Rs. 18,000/. This is evident from Ex. P1/26. When the sum of Rs. 18,000/ is deducted from Rs. 2,15,550/, the value addition made on this property comes to Rs. 1,97,550/. Nupur Lal had no source of income except rental income. She has been given the benefit of rental income of this house Rs. 34,300/ in serial no. 4 of Annexure II of the Charge Sheet. Therefore, this sum of Rs. 1,97,550/ is the asset of the accused.

139. The sixth point for determination is "Whether Sh. Chajju Ram had in his name movable and immovable assets worth Rs. 9,67,368/ (after deducting Rs. 4,64,888/ towards the price of H. No. R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad)?"

140. There is nothing shown to the court with regard to bank balance of Rs. 12,080/ in the name of Chajju Ram.

141. The first immovable asset i.e. House No.R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad in the name of Sh. Chajju Ram was excluded from the asset of accused at the time of passing order on charge.

142. The second immovable asset is House No.38/1, Shastri Nagar, Meerut for Rs.5,61,750/. PW13 Sh. S.P. Goel, Surveyor has proved the valuation report of this property as Ex.PW13/A (D 92/1). As per this report, this house was purchased from U.P. Awas Vikas during the year 1984 for Rs.2,41,441/. However, further CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 79 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 alteration and construction was made during the year 198990. D 89 is the file as per which this house was allotted in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Verma by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vide Hire purchase tenancy agreement on 29.10.1984. D90 is the Agreement to Sell dated 26.05.1989 as per which Sh. Chajju Ram entered into Agreement to Sell with regard to this house with Sh. Ajay Kumar Verma. Ex.PW47/B (D91) is the Registered Will, as per which Sh. Chajju Ram bequeathed this house in favour of Smt. Archana Lal wife of the accused. The Will refers that Sh. Chajju Ram has purchased this property as per Agreement to Sell with Sh. Ajay Verma S/o Sh. Ram Prasad for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/. This Will was received from Chief SubRegistrar, Ghaziabad, U.P. by Sh. M.S. Bisht, Inspector of Police vide receipt memo Ex.PW47/A (D

144). Sh. Ajay Verma is the brother of Smt. Archana Lal, the wife of the accused. Therefore, this property was purchased in the name of Sh. Ajay Verma who entered into Agreement to Sell with Sh. Chajju Ram and Sh. Chajju Ram executed a registered Will and bequeathed the property to Smt. Archana Lal. The Will by clerical mistake mentions the property as 39/1. It is a clerical mistake in as much as the property owned by Sh. Ajay Verma is 38/1 and not 39/1. Ex.PW79/17 (D195) is the seizure memo dated 01.04.1992 executed by Sh. V.N. Kumar, Inspector of Police for seizure of file of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 80 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 HIG House No.38/1 in respect of Sh. Ajay Kumar Verma. Therefore, the above shows that the House no.38/1, Shastri Nagar, Meerut was bequeathed by Sh. Chajju Ram in favour of Smt. Archana Lal. It would be shown in later part of this judgment that Sh. Chajju Ram had no source of income to acquire this property. Therefore, once Rs. 2,41,441/ is deducted from Rs. 5,61,750/, the asset would have expenditure of Rs. 3,20,309/ incurred on the same. This amount is to be added in the assets of the accused.

143. The third immovable asset in the name of Chajjua Ram is land purchased from Sh. Jhaman Mian for Rs.2,41,407/. PW72 Sh. S.N. Singhal has proved the deposit of Rs.2,20,000/ on 13.02.1989 in the account of Sh. Jhaman Singh as Ex.PW72/A (D108). PW64 Sh. Tej Singh was a relation of Sh. Jhaman Singh and deposed that Sh. Jhaman Singh had sold his agricultural land to Sh. Chajju Ram. He deposed that he had accompanied Sh. Jhaman Singh to the office of Registrar for registration of said sale deed. However, he could not remember the sale consideration. There is insufficient material to show that Sh. Chajju Ram had purchased land from Jhaman Mian or Sh. Jhaman Singh for a sum of Rs.2,41,407/. PW 64 Sh. Prem Singh has spoken about sale of land by Sh. Jhaman Singh to Sh. Chajju Ram. Therefore, this asset shall not be treated as an asset in the name of Sh. Chajju Ram.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 81 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

144. The entry at serial no.3 (b) is for the purchase of agricultural land by Sh. Chajju Ram from Anchi. The certified copy of sale deed is Ex.PW90/11. As per this, the sale consideration is Rs.24,000/ and the stamp paper used is for Rs.11,600/. During pendency of this case, Smt. Anchi died and therefore could not be examined. Resultantly, the sale consideration of land sold by Smt. Anchi to Sh. Chajju Ram shall be treated as Rs.35,600/ and not Rs. 91,857/.

145. The property at Sl. No. 3 (c) is land purchased by Sh. Chajju Ram from Sh. Chhattar Pal Singh. PW73 is Sh. Chattar Pal Singh himself and has deposed that he had sold his land to Sh. Chajju Ram at Village Nehrupur for Rs. 40,000/ on 04.08.1986 and he had deposited this amount in the bank. PW65 is Sh. Etmonlugun from Oriental Bank of Commerce, who proved as Ex. PW65/A the original deposit slip dated 04.08.1986 in the saving bank account no. 6070 by the bank holder Chhattar Pal Singh. Ex. PW90/9 is Sale Deed No. 4787 dated 07.08.1986. As per this Sale Deed, the sale consideration is Rs. 30,000/ and Stamp Duty is Rs. 2,850/. This is a case where the Sale Deed was executed undervaluing the sale price. Therefore, the cost of this asset shall be treated as Rs. 42,850/.

146. The item at 3 (d) is land purchased from Sh. Joginder Pal Singh by Sh. Chajju Ram for a cost of Rs. 12,137/. During pendency of CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 82 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 this case, Sh. Joginder Pal Singh had died. Therefore, his evidence could not be recorded. Therefore, this asset cannot be treated in the name of Sh. Chajju Ram.

147. The result of above discussion is that Sh. Chajju Ram had immovable assets worth Rs. 3,98,759/ in his name. These assets are benami assets of the accused in the name of his biological father Sh. Chajju Ram. The reasoning for this conclusion would be given in the later part of this judgment.

148. The seventh point for determination is "Whether Smt. Khajani Devi (biological mother of the accused) had movable and immovable assets worth Rs. 13,32,289/ in her name"?

149. Bank balance in account no. 7760 in OBC: As per prosecution, Smt. Khajani Devi had a sum of Rs. 94,553/ in her account no. 7760 in Oriental Bank of Commerce. The same is evident from Ex. PW76/A, where there are credit entries of Rs. 59,000/ dated 16.02.1990, Rs. 20,000/ dated 31.03.1990, interest Rs. 1,333/ and Rs. 14,200/ dated 01.08.1990 totaling Rs. 94,553/. The witness deposed that he had compared this statement of account with the original. The document was exhibited without any demur by the accused. Therefore, it is proved that Smt. Khajani Devi had a sum of Rs. 94,553/ in her bank account as on 01.08.1990.

150. The first immovable asset of Smt. Khajani Devi is Plot No. D8 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 83 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad for Rs. 2,70,486/. The documents in this regard are available in D93. The receipt memo Ex. PW92/4 (D

182) shows that Sh. M.S. Bisht Inspector CBI had taken into his possession one original file of Ghaziabad Development Authority pertaining to Plot No. D8 Kaushambi Scheme allotted to Smt. Khajani containing one note sheet and correspondence pages 1 to

29. PW92 Sh. M.S. Bisht Dy. SP CBI has also deposed that on 27.01.1992 he had collected documents mentioned in receipt memo (D182) from Sh. Vijay Kumar of GDA, Ghaziabad. He identified his signatures as well as signatures of the said Sh. Vijay Kumar on the receipt memo Ex. PW92/4. This file contains original deposit receipt dated 29.11.1986 for Rs. 40,010/, receipt dated 08.05.1989 for Rs. 40,000/, receipt dated 23.06.1989 for Rs. 54,319/, receipt dated 31.12.1989 for Rs. 51,772/ and receipt dated 30.06.1990 for Rs. 49,226/ totaling thereby Rs. 2,35,327/. There is another receipt dated 01.06.1991 for Rs. 35,159/ and if the same is also included, the cost of the house would be Rs. 2,70,486/. However, as the same is beyond the check period, the same shall not be taken into consideration and the cost of this asset shall be treated as Rs. 2,35,327/.

151. The second property is land purchased from Sh. Chhottey Khan and his four brothers for Rs. 5,18,817/. Ex. PW90/4 is the CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 84 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 certified copy of the sale deed executed by Chhottey Khan and his brothers in favour of Smt. Khajani Devi for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/. The Stamp Duty paid for this sale deed is Rs. 18,125/. Therefore, as per sale deed, the cost incurred by Smt. Khajani Devi to purchase this land would be Rs. 1,53,125/. However, as per Ex. PW63/B which is the statement of account of Sh. Chhottey Khan and others, a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/ was deposited in this account on 30.05.1989. The case of prosecution is that the cost of this land is Rs. 5,18,817/. Although, the seller of the land had deposited Rs. 3,30,000/ in his bank account, but in the absence of any other evidence, the cost of this land shall be treated as Rs. 1,53,125/.

152. The fourth item is land purchased by Smt. Khajani Devi from Sheo Raj Singh for Rs. 74,087/. The sale deed in question is Ex. PW90/1. As per this sale deed, the sale consideration is Rs. 35,000/ for sale to Smt. Khajani Devi. The stamp duty paid was Rs. 4,087/. As per Ex. PW90/2, Smt. Khajani Devi further purchased land for Rs. 30,000/ and paid stamp duty of Rs. 4,087/. She, therefore, incurred expenses of Rs. 34,087/ for purchasing the land. The sum total of the two sale deeds would be Rs. 73,174/. Therefore, it is proved that the land was purchased by Smt. Khajani Devi for Rs. 73,174/.

153. The fifth item is land purchased by Smt. Khajani Devi from Sh.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 85 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375 Prem Chand for Rs. 80,387/. This is evident from Ex. PW90/6. As per this sale deed, the sale consideration was Rs. 70,000/ and stamp duty was Rs. 10,150/. Therefore, she incurred an expense of Rs. 80,150/ for the purchase of this land.

154. The sixth item is land purchased by Smt. Khajani Devi from Sh. Nahar Singh. This is evident from Ex. PW90/3. As per this Sale Deed, the sale consideration is Rs. 30,000/ on which stamp duty of Rs. 5,225/ was paid. Therefore, she incurred a sum of Rs. 35,225/ on the purchase of this land.

155. Therefore, it is proved on record that Smt. Khajani Devi, the biological mother of the accused had movable and immovable assets during check period worth Rs. 6,71,554/. Although these assets are in the name of Smt. Khajani Devi but it will be shown in the later part of this judgment that the same are benami properties of the accused.

156. The eighth point for determination is "Whether M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. valued Rs. 22,10,000/ is also benami property of the accused?"

157. The land over which this Cold Store was constructed was initially in the name of Smt. Khajani Devi. She had purchased this land from Jahid Ali on 29.05.1989. She sold this land to M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 59,500/ and stamp duty CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 86 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 paid on this was Rs. 8,630/. This sale deed is evident from Ex. PW90/7.

158. As per the report of the Chartered Accountant of the company, Ex. PW27/DC, a sum of Rs. 21,97,924/ were incurred and invested in this company. As per Ex. PW27/DG, which is list of shareholders of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Chajjua Singh has 10,000 shares of Rs. 10/ each totaling Rs. 1,00,000/, Sh. Mahesh Chand has 10,000 shares of Rs. 10/totaling Rs. 1,00,000/, Smt. Khajani Devi has 5,000 shares of Rs. 10/ each totaling Rs. 50,000/. PW73A Smt. Beerwati, daughter of Sh. Chajjua Ram, is also shown as shareholders with 4,000 shares worth Rs. 40,000/. However she deposed that she had invested only Rs. 20,000/ by way of cheque no. 19977. Therefore, there is no justification for remaining investment of Rs. 20,000/ on her behalf in M/s. Shimla Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

159. PW74 Smt. Bas Kaur, daughter of Sh. Chajjua Ram, also has 2,000 shares worth Rs. 20,000/ in the said company. She has deposed that she had invested Rs. 20,000/ in this company.

160. When the order was passed framing charge, it was noted as under : "But it cannot be ignored that other than the loan taken from a financial institution, neither the natural parents, nor any of his siblings were in a position to set up the said cold storage. It is CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 87 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 common knowledge that the intention of the parties involved in 'Benami' transactions is almost always shrouded in a thick veil. In the given facts and circumstances, a reasonable inference and therefore, a reasonable grave suspicion does arise to the effect that the asset described as Shimla Cold Storage is a 'Benami' property of the accused."

161. Except for two shareholders namely Smt. Beervati, PW73A and Smt. Bas Kaur, PW74, no other shareholder has been examined. In the absence of evidence of the financial capacity of other shareholders, it can only be said that the shares of Sh. Mahesh Kumar worth Rs. 1,00,000/, shares of Sh. Chajjua Ram worth Rs. 1,00,000/, shares of Smt. Khajani Devi worth Rs. 50,000/ and shares of Smt. Beervati worth Rs. 20,000/, all totaling Rs. 2,70,000/ were the benami shares of the accused.

162. The ninth point for determination is "Whether the biological parents of accused namely Sh. Chajjua Ram and Smt. Khajani Devi, his brother Sh. Mahesh Chand and Subedar Ram Lal and his wife Smt. Ram Pyari (who had adopted the accused) were financially strong or were leading hand to mouth life?"

163. This point for determination would be decisive for deciding whether the properties in the name of biological father of the accused Sh. Chajjua Ram as mentioned in Annexure4 of the chargesheet (excluding H. No.11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad) and the properties in the name of biological mother of the accused Smt. CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 88 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Khajani Devi are benami properties of Sh. Krishan Lall. This would also be decisive for determining the point of determination whether M/s Shimla Cold Storage (P) Ltd. is also benami property of the accused?

164. In the case of Jaydayal Poddar (deceased) vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though the questions, whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of fact and for determining this question, no absolute formua or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations, can be laid down; yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the courts are usually guided by the following circumstances:

(1) The source from which the purchase money came; (2) The nature of possession of the property, after the purchase;

(3) Notice, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;

(4) The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamdar; (5) The custody of the titledeeds after the sale and (6) The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 89 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

165. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on Krishnanand Agnihotri (Supra), where it is held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noticed that the essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through.

But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjecture or surmises as a substitute for proof. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence.

166. The judgment in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra) was again referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Krishna Reddy vs. State, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, 1993 AIR SC 313.

167. In the case of K. Ponnuswami vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 90 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 (Crl.) No.759 of 2001 dated 31.07.2001, assets were purchased in the name of the wife of the accused who was a house wife and daughter of the accused who was a student during the check period. The assets were purchased on the basis of cash deposited in their bank accounts. The explanation of the accused persons was that they had received gift cheques from son of the brother of the accused i.e. nephew of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that earlier judgment in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra) and held that Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines "Proved" as follows: " "Proved". A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists."

168. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Section 114 of the Evidence Act which is as under: "114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."

169. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that: Thus the fact is said to be proved when after considering CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 91 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 the matters before it, the Court believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exits. In coming to its belief the Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened having regard to the natural course of event, human conduct and public and private business, in relation to the facts of each case.

170. While analyzing the facts of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the public servant, his wife and daughter had no real source of income prior to the check period. The nephew of the public servant was not afflicted by any love and affection and had not made any gift to any member of the family of the public servant before the check period. The nephew started donating large sums of money to the wife and the daughter of the public servant when A1 became the Minister. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the natural presumption, considering the common course of natural events and human conduct is that the public servant would have used his nephew to transfer his moneys to his wife and daughter. This is the supposition which any prudent man under these circumstances would act upon considering the natural course of events. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and the High Court thus rightly took this as proved by legal evidence. It was further held that the prosecution having established by legal CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 92 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 evidence that the moneys were transferred by public servant to his wife and daughter through his nephew and that these were moneys of the public servant in the hands of his wife and daughter, it was for the public servant to satisfactorily account for the gifts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the public servant could have done so by showing that even before the check period, the public servant had made gifts of substantial amounts. It was not claimed by the wife or the daughter or nephew of the public servant that before the check period also, the nephew had made any such gift. It was also noted that it is not their case that after the check period, gifts were made. Thus, the Trial Court and the High Court were right in not believing the case of gifts supposedly made out of a sudden burst of love and affection.

171. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs Selvi J. Jaylalitha, (2017) 6 SCC 263 has referred to the judgment in the case of K. Ponnuswamy (supra) and has held that the significance of this decision is that while evaluating the evidence on record, the attendant facts and circumstances need be taken note of as well, to determine as to whether the materials available, having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct do logically prove the point in issue.

172. In the case of Selvi J. Jaylalitha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 93 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Court referred to State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police (Vigilance) and Anti Corruption vs N. Suresh Rajan & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 709 where it is held that the property in the name of the Income Tax Assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an assessee and that if this proposition was accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences. The Hon'ble court reflected that in such an eventuality it will give opportunities to the corrupt government public servant to amass property in the name of known person, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the mischief of law.

173. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Selvi J. Jaylalitha (supra) has also referred to the case of Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 1995 Supl. (2) 453 to emphasis that to examine the genuineness of a gift, the test of probability was very appropriate. It was reiterated that a gift cannot be accepted as such to be genuine merely because the amount has come by way of cheque or draft through banking channels unless the identity of the donor, his creditworthiness, relationship with the donee and the occasion was proved. Unless, the recipient proved the genuineness of the transaction, the same could be very well treated as an accommodation entry of the assessee's own money, which was not disclosed for the purpose of taxation.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 94 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

174. In the case of M. Krishan vs State, 2005 SCC online AP 57, the Hon'ble High Court has held that if the circumstances lead to an inference that the ostensible owner has no source of income to purchase such properties and if they lead an inference that the circumstances placed by the prosecution would establish that the money of the government employee was utilized for purchase of the said property, it is sufficient to establish the guilt of such government employee for possessing disproportionate asset to be the known sources of income by getting it purchased benami.

175. In the light of above noted propositions of law, it is to be decided whether the properties in question are benami properties of the accused?

176. Complaint by Naik Balwant Singh (elder brother of the accused) : Naik Balwant Singh, Railway Protection Force is the elder brother of the accused K. Lal. He had given five pages typed complaint in the month of May, 1990 to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Central Vigilance Commissioner, Vigilance Department of the Ministry of Iron & Steel, Ministry of Home Affairs, Press, IT Department, Crime Branch, Delhi Police and CBI. He alleged that the accused has amassed Rs.16 Crores black money and property by means of corruption since 15.04.1986 to 1990. He alleged that the adopted parents of the accused had a property in Meerut CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 95 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Subhas Nagar, plot admeasuring 200 sq. mtr. in 1978 in Gali No.2, in which a three storied Kothi was built by the accused K. Lal in 1986 at the cost of Rs.8,00,000/. He alleged that Flat No.95B, Sector22, NOIDA was also purchased by the accused in his adopted father's name Sh. Ram Lal in 1984 on which three storied building was constructed in 1988 by accused K.Lal at the cost of Rs.6,00,000/. He also mentioned that the younger brother of accused K.Lal namely Mahesh Chand was daily wage Peon of Municipal Board, Secundrabad, District Bulandsher, U.P. from 1980 to 1986 at a salary of Rs.350/ per month and he became a permanent employee of the Municipality in 1986 at a salary of Rs.700/ per month. He deposed that a bungalow was got constructed in Village Nehru Pur by accused K. Lal at a cost of Rs.6,00,000/. He stated that huge money has been deposited and withdrawn by the said Mahesh Chand w.e.f 1986 to 1990 in his account in Punjab National Bank, Secundrabad. He has kept golden ornaments and millions of rupees in this locker. He has also purchased agricultural land and tractor. He stated that huge agricultural land has been purchased by the accused in Khurja Tehsil w.e.f. 1986 to 1989. He also stated that one cold storage at a cost of Rs.1.05 crore has been got constructed from the black money of accused. He referred to several other movable and CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 96 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 immovable assets acquired by the accused during 1986 to 1989.

177. During admission / denial of the documents, the accused admitted this complaint and the same was exhibited as Ex.P1/19 (D5/3, page 136). The accused, in the presence of his Ld. Counsel, admitted this complaint under Section 294 Cr.PC and stated that he has no objection if the documents admitted by him may be read against him in evidence.

178. Financial condition of the accused before 1986 i.e. before the check period : The accused had to take loan from his department for the purchase of a scooter worth Rs.4,500/. The application for advance for purchase of scooter is Ex.P1/41 and Ex.P1/43. The Dy. Commissioner, Chamba had to recommend vide Ex.P1/44 that the scooter for which the accused has applied for loan would be useful in the performance of his official duties. He was not given any financial assistance either by his biological father Sh. Chajjua Singh or by his biological mother Smt. Khajani Devi or by Subedar Ram Lal (who had adopted him). However, only during check period they purchased number of immovable properties in cash bequeathing the same to the children of accused.

179. Loan for purchase of a car : The accused had booked for a Maruti car in the year 1983 by depositing Rs.10,000/. However, he had no financial capacity to pay for the same and had to avail CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 97 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 advance from the department. He was repaying this advance by monthly installment of Rs.100/ per month. This is evident from Ex.P1/12. He purchased the said car just before the check period. However, he had no money to pay for the same. Therefore, on 01.03.1986, he gave an application for advance for the purchase of a motorcar. The said application is Ex.P1/8. He requested for advance of Rs.45,770/. He submitted that the number of installments in which advance is desired to be repaid be made as much as possible. The advance was sanctioned by the Department vide memorandum dated 04.03.1986 Ex.P1/13. This advance was to be repaid in a period of 150 months. He was not given any financial assistance either by his biological father Sh. Chajjua Singh or by his biological mother Smt. Khajani Devi or by Subedar Ram Lal (who had adopted him). However, only during check period they purchased number of immovable properties in cash bequeathing the same to the children of accused.

180. Loan for purchasing a DDA Flat : The accused was allotted a flat by DDA in Delhi. This was before the check period. The accused had borrowed house building advance from his department for paying its cost price. The advance was released from 08.07.1980 to 23.11.1982 in five installments of Rs.20,269/, Rs.25,400/, Rs.31,750/, Rs.31,700/ and Rs.15,881/ totaling CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 98 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Rs.1,25,000/. This is evident from Ex.PW28/A as well as Ex.P 1/16. Besides availing advance from the department, the accused was constrained to seek loan from LIC also. This is evident from evidence of PW17A. The accused had to apply for a loan of Rs. 5,100/ on 05.11.1982 vide application Ex. PW17/B against the policy of LIC Ex. PW17/A. The accused was constrained to avail a loan of Rs. 1,900/ from Post Office, Bilaspur on 24.02.1983, which he returned with interest Rs. 741/ on 19.04.1986. He was not given any financial assistance either by his biological father Sh. Chajjua Singh or by his biological mother Smt. Khajani Devi or by Subedar Ram Lal (who had adopted him). However, only during check period they purchased number of immovable properties in cash bequeathing the same to the children of accused.

181. Financial help given by the accused by means of money orders before the check period to his father Chhajju Ram, Subedar Ram Lal (who had adopted the accused), Smt. Birmati and Smt. Maya Suman (sisters): The accused was sending money in the denomination of Rs. 51, Rs. 100 and Rs. 200 by way of Money Orders before the check period to his biological father Sh. Chhajjua Ram, Subedar Ram Lal (who had adopted the accused), Smt. Birmati and Smt. Maya Suman (sisters). He had sent Rs. 2,702/ by Money Order to these persons in the year 198586. This CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 99 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 is proved by Ex. PW32/D1 to Ex. PW32/D26 and Ex. PW32/F1 to Ex. PW32/F3. The acknowledgment cards bearing the name of accused with his status i.e. IAS DC Bilaspur, HP were proved Ex. PW32/E1 to Ex. PW32/E21. These money order receipts and acknowledgment cards were got seized during search at the residence of accused at B95/22, Noida vide M70/90 on 29/08/90. The said seizure memo under the signature of Inspector S K Peshin was taken over by Sh J. N. Prasad, the then Dy. S.P from S. N. Saxena Inspector CBI vide Ex.PW.86/A. The sending of Money Orders came to an end when the accused became Regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel, New Delhi and the said relations of the accused started purchasing scores of immovable properties in their names where sale consideration was given in cash to the sellers. It is without any logic that a person depending upon money orders of Rs.50/, Rs.100/, Rs.200/ per month from the accused before the check period went on to purchase scores of agricultural land, houses and set up M/s Shimla Cold Storage Pvt Ltd with an investment of Rs.22,10,000/ . These immovable properties were bequeathed by the relations of the accused either in favour of the accused himself or in favour of his wife and children which in itself is legal evidence of benami nature of the transaction.

CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 100 of 110

CC No.52/19 DL00375

182. Use of Pseudonym of Om Gupta by the accused: When a person occupying high status of responsibility in society i.e. IAS uses a pseudonym for taking membership of a health club, it proves that he was trying to conceal his actual identity to smoke screen his expenses. The accused took membership of health club of Hotel Holiday Inn under a pseudonym of Om Gupta. This is established from the evidence of PW23 Sh. Ajit Malik, who was the manager of the said health club. Being the manager of the club, he was interacting with the members and used to make calls to them for reminders and extending greetings on their birthdays. He has categorically identified the accused present in the court, but with the name Om Gupta. Cleverly the accused managed to take away his photograph affixed on the membership form submitted for taking membership of the club but the evidence of PW23 Sh Ajit Malik has established that the accused an IAS officer presented himself as Om Gupta for taking the membership of the health club. This is also an evidence against the accused that he was hiding his identity while incurring expenses.

183. Direct evidence of benami purchases: PW55 Sh. Sahmal Singh deposed that he has three other brothers namely Sh. Nanwa Singh, Bhagmal Singh and Rajender Singh. He deposed that they had sold their land to one Sh. Kela, 20 years ago and could not CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 101 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 remember the name of the person in whose name sale deed was executed and he could not remember the consideration amount. The true copy of sale deed (D44) dated 9th July 1987 in favour of Sh. Chajjua Ram was given Mark PW55/D2. (It appears that the answer of the witness in examinationinchief should be that they had sold their land to one Sh. K. Lall. However, by clerical mistake the name is written as Sh. Kela. It is clear from the cross examination, where suggestion was given that the witness has mentioned the name of K. Lall at the instance of CBI. Another suggestion is given that the land was not sold to K. Lall. The suggestions were denied. It shows that the witness has deposed that they had sold their land to Sh. K. Lall). PW55 deposed that he sold the land to Sh K. Lall but the buyer in the sale deed is Sh Chajju Ram which shows that the accused was purchasing the land in the name of his biological father Sh Chajju Lal but defacto owner of those properties was accused himself.

184. Involvement of accused in the properties purchased in the name of his relations: PW27 Sh B. S. Gautam, Asstt Manager (Technical) in UPSC has proved a note written by R S Malviya, Dy Senior Manager as Ex.PW27/B (D207/2, page 342) and the note reads as under:

"It is case of VVIP, who is brother of Sh. K. Lall, IAS, who is Regional Director, Industries and Steel, Government of India CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 102 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 (and is of Commissioner rank). Please take it for further action on priority basis and put up disbursement note immediately".

185. Ex.PW27/C, at running page No. 4 has a note "the promoter of the case is a brother of Sh. K Lal, IAS (Commissioner's Rank) who is at present Regional Director, Iron & Steel, Delhi."

186. PW70 Sh Vinod Kumar Joshi from Commercial Department of Noida Authority also deposed that when he handed over the file pertaining to the property in the name of Sh Mahesh Chand, the visiting card of Sh K. Lall was placed at page no. 120A of Ex.PW70/B. The above shows active participation of the accused in the acquisition of assets in the names of his relations for benami properties.

187. Financial capacity of Sh Chajjua Singh and Smt Khazani Devi: It was for the accused to show that his biological parents Sh Chajjua Singh and Smt Khazani Devi had financial capacity to purchase number of immovable properties. However, no such evidence is led in defence by the accused. PW97 Sh B. Saha the then Dy S.P., CBI has proved letter dated 14.03.1991 (D127) received from ITO Bulandshahar which was addressed to SP, CBI, ACU II New Delhi and identified the signatures and handwriting of Sh K.C Kanungo, the then SP CBI at point A. Along with this letter, the ITR of Smt Khazani Devi for AY 198889, 198990 and 1990 CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 103 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 91 and ITR of Sh Chajjua Singh for AY 198889, 198990 and 199091 in original were sent to CBI. Therefore, the ITRs of Smt Khazani Devi and Sh Chajjua Singh have been proved by this witness.

188. D51 is the Income tax return of Sh Chajjua Singh for the assessment year 199091. His income at that time was Rs.20,180/ and agricultural income was Rs.8500/. He has given the tax of Rs.654/. Contrary to the tall assertions of witnesses that he was having hotels and carrying on the business of rodi and badari and income from contractorship, the return shows that he claimed to be selling vegetables and had a kirana shop. The said file also contains ITR of Sh Chajjua Singh for assessment year 198990. His income at that time was Rs.19,050/ and agricultural income was Rs.7,500/. He paid a tax of Rs.315/. In the assessment year 1988 89, he claimed income of Rs18,500/ and agricultural income of Rs.5,000/. He paid a tax of Rs.125/.

189. As per D53/1, the income of Smt Khazani Devi in assessment year 198990 was Rs.19,000/ and agricultural income was Rs.15,000/. She paid a tax of Rs.300/. Interestingly the file contains a letter dated 23/08/1989 written by Smt Khazani Devi to the income tax Officer Ward II, Bulandshahar stating therein that she had no taxable income prior to 01.04.1987. She stated that CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 104 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 prior to 01.04.1987, the net taxable income was below the taxable limit. The file D53/2 shows that for assessment year 199091, her income was Rs.55,734/. As per D53/3, the income of Smt Khazani Devi for assessment year 198889 was Rs.18,100/ and her agricultural income was Rs.15,000/ and she paid a tax of Rs.30/.

190. Persons of the financial status like Sh Chajjua Singh and Smt Khazani Devi who were depending upon money orders of the accused before the check period could not have purchased immovable properties/shares in M/s Shimla Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. by any logic.

191. Bequeathing of assets in favour of the accused, his wife and children by his biological parents and Subedar Ram Lal : As per D88, which is the certified copy of the Will executed by Sh Chajju Ram on 28.07.90, the property no. R11/54, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad was bequeathed in favour of the accused Sh Krishan Lal. As per Ex.PW47/B (D91), the biological father of accused Sh Chajju Ram executed a registered Will and bequeathed property no. 39/1 (38/1), Shastri Nagar, Meerut in favour of Smt Archana Lal wife of the accused. He bequeathed 50 tola of gold and 8 kg of silver in favour of Smt Archana Lal wife of Sh Krishan Lal. He bequeathed his share in M/s Shimla Cold Storage Pvt Ltd in favour of Sh Mahesh Chand (son), Smt Khazani Devi (wife) and Sh Krishan Lal CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 105 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 (accused) in equal proportions. He also mentioned in the Will that the other movable and immovable properties not mentioned in this Will shall be bequeathed in favour of his son Mahesh Chand. DW4 Sh Kulbushan has deposed that Subedar Ram Lal vide his Will dated 04.02.1988 bequeathed property no 281, Subash Nagar, Meerut in favour of Nupur Lal ( daughter of the accused) and property no. 209, Subash Nagar in favour of Nikhil Lal (son of the accused). The Ld. Sr. PP for CBI submitted that the Wills in favour of Sh Mahesh Chand were only a short gap arrangement and the assets would have come to the family members of the accused. He submitted that Sh Mahesh Chand (younger brother of the accused) is beneficiary of huge assets though his income was meager and was only a conduit.

192. In view of the aforementioned submissions, it is necessary to look into the financial status of Sh Mahesh Chand.

193. Financial status of Sh Mahesh Chand: PW 38 Irfan Tyagi from Secundarabad Municipality has deposed that Sh Mahesh Chand was a peon and was promoted as Moharrir lateron. In the year 1981 his salary was Rs.165/ per month. In the year 1985, his salary was Rs.305/ per month. However, he went on to acquire huge assets during the check period. He was holding the assets only on behalf of the accused and whatever was to be given to him by CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 106 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 way of Will of Smt Khazani Devi and Sh Chajju Ram would have ultimately passed on to the family members of the accused.

194. The reliance by the accused on Ex.DW5/A1 which is the Will executed by Smt Khazani Devi on 03.05.1991 in favour of Sh Mahesh Chand is of no help to the accused as it is executed after the raid at the premises of the accused on 29.08.90 and after registration of FIR, which is dated 17.10.1990.

195. It is an old adage that witnesses may lie but circumstances do not.

196. There are certain self serving statements of few prosecution witnesses that Sh Chajjua Ram was a man of means. However, the ITRs of Sh Chajjua Ram as well as Smt Khazani Devi tell a different story. It is noted in earlier paragraphs above that during check period Sh Chajjua Ram acquired assets worth Rs.3,98,759/ and Smt Khazani Devi acquired assets worth Rs.6,71,554/. It is already noted above that Smt Khazani Devi herself had given in writing to the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Bulandshahar, UP that prior to 01.04.1987 her net taxable income had been below the taxable limit. During the check period she had spent Rs.6,71,554/. on purchase of immovable assets whereas her annual income was not more than Rs.20,000/ for assessment year 198889, 198990 and 199091. Same is the case which Sh Chajjua Ram, who purchased CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 107 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 immovable properties worth Rs.3,98,759/. whereas his taxable income for assessment year 198889, 198990 and 199091 was never more than Rs.30,000/ per annum. Once shares of Sh. Chajjua Singh in M/s. Shimla Cold Storage are taken into consideration, his assests would be Rs.4,98,759/ and assests of Smt. Khazani Devi would be Rs.7,21,554/.

197. These persons surviving on monitory help from accused of Rs.50/, Rs.100/ or Rs.200/ per month could not have purchased scores of immovable properties during check period. There are witnesses who have spoken that they had sold the land to Sh K Lall but the sale deed is found to be executed in favour of Sh Chajjua Ram.

198. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ponnuswamy (supra) has been discussed in detail in earlier paragraphs. It is well known that the essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. Before the check period, no immovable property was purchased by the biological parents of the accused. From their own documents such as ITRs and money orders, it is evident that they had no source of income to justify payment of sale price in cash for acquiring the assets. Only during check period when the accused became CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 108 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel, they started acquiring immovable assets. The natural presumption, considering the common course of natural events and human conduct is that accused would have used his parents to buy immovable properties in their names. This is the suposition which any prudent man under these circumstance would act upon considering the natural course of events. Therefore, the prosecution has established by legal evidence that the monies were given by accused for purchasing the agricultural land in the name of his parents.

199. After considering the matters on record, the court believes and considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of this case to act upon the supposition that the movable and immovable assets of biological parents of the accused namely Sh. Chajjua Singh and Smt. Khajani Devi and the shares of Sh. Chajjua Singh, Smt. Khajani Devi, Sh. Mahesh Chand and 2,000 shares worth Rs. 20,000/ of Smt. Beervati are benami properties/shares of the accused Sh. K. Lal.

200. The point for determination regarding financial capacity of Sh. Chajjua Singh and Smt. Khajani Devi is decided holding that they were hand to mouth persons. The point for determination whether the properties in the name of Sh. Chajjua Singh and Smt. Khajani CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 109 of 110 CC No.52/19 DL00375 Devi are benami properties of the accused is answered in affirmative.

201. Resultantly, considering that the assets of the accused before the check period were Rs. 3,95,072/, his income was Rs. 9,59,376/, expenses were Rs. 3,35,817/ and assets were 24,74,478/, it is held that the accused had disproportionate assets of Rs. 14,54,847/.

202. Therefore, the point of determination whether the accused had assets disproportionate to his known sources is also answered in affirmative. The extent of disproportionate assets is Rs. 14,91,829/.

203. The prosecution has successfully proved the charge framed against the accused that he had assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account and therefore, it is held that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence U/s 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act punishable U/s 13 (2) of the said Act.

204. Let a copy of this judgment be given dasti today itself to the accused persons.

Announced in the open court
On 19th of March, 2020                      (ARUN BHARDWAJ)
                                   SPECIAL JUDGE [P.C. ACT] [CBI]05
                                   ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
                                            NEW DELHI


CBI Vs Sh. Krishan Lall                                       Page 110 of 110
CC No.52/19                                                         DL00375

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Sh. Krishan Lall Page 1 Of 110 on 19 March, 2020