Bangalore District Court
State By vs A1-K.Muniraja @ K.Muniraju on 31 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
CASES (CCH-48), BANGALORE.
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2015
Present : Sri.R.K.TALIKOTI, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.)
XLVII Addl. CC & SJ & Spl. Judge for CBI Cases,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL (CORRUPTION) CASE No.11/2007
Complainant: State by
Central Bureau of Investigation : ACB :
Bangalore.
/Vs./
Accused: A1-K.Muniraja @ K.Muniraju
@Vijay Muniraj @ L.K.Vijaya Muniraju
@ Muniraja K.
S/o. Kariappa,
Mechinist, Engine Division,
HAL, (Bangalore Complex),
Bangalore.
R/o.No.9, Sangam Road Cross,
Jai Ambe Building, Bangalore-42.
Permanently r/a.No.20, 2nd Main,
Sir M.Vishveswarayya Nagar,
Rammurthy Nagar,
Bangalore-16.
A2-Smt.N.Hamsaveni
@ Mrs.N.Hamsaveni @ Hamsaveni
@Hamsaveni Narayana @ Hamsa
Muniraju @ Hamsaveni Muniraj,
W/o. K.Muniraja,
2
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
R/o.No.9, Sangam Road Cross,
Jai Ambe Building, Bangalore-42.
Permanently r/a.No.20, 2nd Main,
Sir M.Vishveswarayya Nagar,
Rammurthy Nagar,
Bangalore-16.
1 Date of : During 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006
Commission of
.
Offence
2 Date of Report : 29.4.2006
of Offence
.
3 Name of the : Source Information
complainant
.
4 Date of : 5.5.2010
recording of
.
Evidence
5 Date of closing : 22.8.2012
Evidence
.
6 Offences : U/s.109 IPC
complained of and Sec.13(1)(e) r/w.13
.
(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988
7 Opinion of the : A-2 is acquitted u/S.235(1) of
Judge Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable
. u/Sec.13(1) (e) r/w.13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
r/w.Sec.109 of I.P.C. and A-1 is
convicted u/S.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for
the offence punishable u/Sec.13(1)
(e) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
3
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
State : Smt.K.S.Hema,
8
represented by Public Prosecutor.
.
9 Accused : A-1 & A-2 by Sri N.P., Adv.
defended by
.
(R.K.TALIKOTI)
XLVII Addl. CC & SJ & Spl. Judge
for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
:JUDGMENT:
This is a case arising out of charge-sheet filed by the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Bangalore against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/S.109 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is as under:-
(i) The accused No.1 - K.Muniraja was appointed in H.A.L. as Machinist (Scale-4 Group) on regular basis on 4.7.1996 in Engine Division. He was promoted as Machinist Group-C on 1.1.2001. Accused No.2 - Hamsaveni is the wife of accused No.1.
(ii) A FIR came to be registered against accused No.1 on 28.4.2006 in RC/8 (A)/2006 for the offence U/s.13(2) r/w.13 (1)
(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A reliable information had been received that 1st accused had amassed pecuniary 4 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
resources to the extent of Rs.10,82,877/- disproportionate to his known and lawful sources of income, for which the accused could not account for satisfactorily. It is also revealed that accused No.1 Muniraja had acted as a middle man in mobilizing personal loans to the employees of HAL, from Syndicate Bank, Personal Banking Branch, Manipal Centre, Bangalore, on the basis of forged and inflated salary certificates. He is also shown as accused in R.C.No.20(A)/04, which is under investigation and search operations were conducted at his residential premises on 2.3.2006, wherein several incriminating documents pertaining to accumulation of assets were recovered, which were disproportionate to his lawful sources of income.
(iii) It is also revealed that 1st accused was from ordinary family; he had no contacts with his relations; he did not have any property. His wife - Hamsaveni has no source of income. It is also revealed that Muniraja had purchased a site and constructed a house in Ramamurthy Nagar Bangalore by availing loan of Rs.11-lakhs. The value of the said house is at least Rs.13-lakhs.
(iv) It is also further revealed that he has incurred expenditure of Rs.2,10,000/- towards the purchase of a land in the name of his wife in Palamner Town, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. He has also availed various housing loans, vehicle loans, personal loans from various banks.
(v) On the basis of information received, it was revealed that at the end of check period accused No.1 was in possession of Rs.20,54,197/- whereas he did not possess any property prior to 5 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
the check period. Thus, FIR came to be registered by showing that accused No.1 has disproportionate income to the tune of Rs.10-lakhs. Investigation was carried out by the I.O. and Charge Sheet is filed against both the accused Nos.1 and 2.
3. As per the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, it was found that accused No.1 was having assets in his name and in the name of his family members, amounting to Rs.1,200/- at the beginning of the check period i.e. on 1.10.1996, as per Inventory list 2.3.2006. The assets of the accused at the end of check period i.e. 2.3.2006 in his name and in the name of his wife Hamsaveni - accused No.2 is amounting to Rs.13,70,559/-. The details of the properties are enumerated in the Charge Sheet.
4. The income during the check period was Rs.1,60,312.00 by way of net salary. The total income from various sources including availing of loan etc. is Rs.19,86,283/-. The details of the said assets are shown in the 'B' statement.
5. The expenditure during the check period is Rs.14,64,190.43. The details of the expenditure is mentioned in the Charge Sheet. The accused has disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.8,47,266.43. The details of the calculation are as under:-
Rs. Ps.
Assets at the beginning of the check 1,200.00
6
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
period
Assets at the end of the check period 13,70,559.00
Assets acquired during the check 13,69,359.00
period
Receipts and Income during the check 19,86,283.00 period Expenditure during the check period 14,64,190.43 Likely savings during the check period 5,22,092.57 Extent to which assets and expenditure 8,47,266.43 are disproportionate to likely savings
6. It is alleged that 1st accused - K.Muniraja with the aid and abetment of accused No.2 - N.Hamsaveni conspired with each other have purchased vehicles and agricultural land at Palamner in Andhrapradesh in the name of accused No.2, even though she had no sources of income of her own. Thus, an amount of Rs.8,47,266.43 during the check period from 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006 is disproportionate and it is not satisfactorily accounted for. Therefore, Charge Sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/S.109 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared in this case and are on regular bail.
7: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
7. After filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused was taken by the 21st Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore and the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. has been complied with, by furnishing copy of charge-sheet and concerned documents to the accused. Thereafter, after hearing both sides and on going through the charge-sheet material, the charge against A-1 for the offence punishable u/S.13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charge against A-2 for the offence of abetment punishable U/S.13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w section 109 IPC was framed. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence of its witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
8. The Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case against the accused has examined 64 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 64 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.294.
9. Thereafter, when the case was posted for recording statement of accused u/S.313 Cr.P.C., this case was made over to this Court from 21st Additional Dist. And Sessions Judge, Bangalore, as per Notification No.PSJ(CBI)/AOW/13/12 dtd.7.6.2013 for disposal according to law.
10. After receipt of this case, this Court has recorded the statement of the accused as required u/S.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein 8 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false. The defence of the accused is one of total denial of the prosecution case and has not chosen to adduce any evidence.
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsels for the accused. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in the case and also have gone through the written arguments submitted by the learned PP and the decisions relied upon by the counsel on the defense.
12. In the light of the arguments and on the basis of the materials available on record, the following points arise for my determination:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is a valid sanction u/S.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting accused No.1 for the offence punishable u/S.13(2) r/w. Sec 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the 1st accused while working as Machinist in Engine Division, H.A.L., Bangalore, during the check period 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006 has acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.8,47,266.43 in his name and in the name of his wife accused No.2 and has not satisfactorily accounted 9 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
for it and thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w. section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.2 Smt.N.Hamsaveni w/o. K.Muniraju (1st accused), has committed an offence of abetting disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.8,47,266.43 during the check period 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006 in the name of accused No.1 - Muniraju and accused No.2 - N.Hamsaveni, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S.13(2) r/w.
section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w.Sec.109 of I.P.C.?
4) What Order?
13. My answers to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 - In the Affirmative.
Point No.3 - In the negative.
Point No 4 -As per final order.
for the following:-
:REASONS:
14. Point No.1:- The accused No.1 K.Muniraja was a Machinist working in Engine Division, H.A.L., Bangalore. He is a public servant. It is not disputed that accused NO.1 is a public servant. Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 'Bars taking cognizance of certain offences alleged to have been committed by 10 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
public servant punishable U/s.7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, except with the previous sanction by the persons mentioned in the said sanction.' As far as this case is concerned, section 19 (1) (c) is applicable i.e. authority competitive to removing employee from service is sanctioning authority.
15. It is the case of the prosecution that proper and valid sanction is accorded by Sri Ashok Kumar Saxena as per Ex.P272 and he is examined as PW61 in this case. The learned public prosecutor in her written argument has submitted that PW61 Sri Ashok Kumar Saxena is the sanctioning authority, he is the competent authority to remove the accused - K.Muniraja from services and accordingly the sanction is duly obtained. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 has canvassed her argument and contended that there is no proper and valid sanction.
16. I have gone through the evidence of PW61 Ashok Kumar Saxena and perused the sanction order Ex.P272. PW61 has stated in his evidence that he has worked as Managing Director, HAL, Bangalore Complex between 1.6.2002 to 1.7.2007 and Engine Division, HAL was under the control of Managing Director. The General Manager is the head of Engine Division. He is the appointing and removal authority of a person holding the post of Machinist of all categories. The Managing Director is the appellate authority. He has produced photo copy of the Amendment to the Certified Standing Orders at Ex.P271. He has further stated that K.Muniraja was an employee of HAL working 11 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
as a Machinist in Engine Division, he has passed sanction order dated 29.11.2006 as per Ex.P272. He has further stated that at that particular point of time there was no full fledged General Manager heading Engine Division, HAL, Bangalore Complex and therefore, since he was the superior officer to the rank of General Manager, he has accorded sanction to prosecute K.Muniraja, as per Ex.P272. He has also stated that the order was passed after going through the document and by application of mind.
17. The witness PW61 is cross-examined on behalf of accused. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the General Manager heading Engine Division has power to remove the official of the cadre of Machinist. A suggestion is made stating that witness did not have power to remove Machinist from the service and same is denied.
18. Nowhere in the cross-examination it is denied by the defence side to the effect that at that time, there was no full fledged General Manager heading Engine Division as stated by PW61. The Amendment to the Certified Standing Orders dtd.13.9.2004 as well as the evidence of PW61 mentions that General Manager has the power to appoint and remove Machinist of any grade from his post. It is also not disputed that General Manager is the post below the rank of Managing Director post as held by PW61. Now, when there was no full fledged General Manager at HAL during that period, it would be proper on the part of superior officer to exercise the right of sanction. Especially in this case when there was no full fledged Officer of the cadre of 12 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
General Manager, the Managing Director was the competent to pass sanction order.
19. A perusal of the order Ex.P272 reflects that the Officer has taken into consideration the FIR and detail allegation made against accused, the details of the assets as well as the sources of income have been narrated and ultimately it is stated that the assets were disproportionate to the tune of Rs.8,47,266.43 as per the material, and therefore, sanction is accorded to prosecute accused No.1.
20. In the cross-examination it is suggested that, the witness has just signed sanction order mechanically without applying his mind and it is also suggested Section 109 of IPC is included as per references made by the CBI. The said suggestions have been denied by PW61. A perusal of report Ex.P61 will reveal that reference is made to Section 109 of IPC. The said offence OF section 109 IPC is certainly relating to the abetment made by wife of accused No.1. The use of said Section 109 IPC by the sanctioning authority in the report does not itself reflect that mechanical order is made. Under the circumstances, the arguments and contentions made on behalf of the accused that Sanction Order is not valid is not acceptable. On the other hand, the evidence of PW61 coupled with Exs.P271 and P272 clearly reflect that there is valid sanction order. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the 'affirmative.' 13 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
21. Point Nos.2 and 3 :- Both these points are interlinked, evidence let in is connected to both the points, therefore they are taken up together for determination.
It is not in dispute that the 1st accused had joined Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., on 4.7.1995 on contract basis and was appointed as Machinist (Scale-4 group) in Engine Division, on regular basis with effect from 4.7.1996. It is also not in dispute that accused K.Muniraju was promoted as Machinist, Group-C and continued to hold that post when this case came to be registered.
The allegation against accused No.1 is that he has acted as a middle man in mobilizing personal loans to the employees of HAL, from Syndicate Bank, Personal Banking Branch, Manipal Centre, Bangalore, on the basis of forged and inflated salary certificates. This was one of the allegation made in the F.I.R., produced at Ex.P273, through investigating Officer PW63. According to prosecution case, search operation was conducted at the residential premises of K.Muniraju on 2.3.2006 and several incriminating documents pertaining to accumulation of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income were recovered. The investigation is made and the investigating Officer recorded the statements of 77 persons, shown as witnesses in the Charge Sheet and collected as many as 99 documents and filed Charge Sheet against the accused by accusing that during the check period 1.10.1996 to 2-3-2006 the accused by abusing his official position has acquired assets and 14 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
pecuniary resources worth Rs.8,47,266.43 disproportionate to his known sources of income.
It is the case of the prosecution that properties were held in the name of accused No.1 as well as his wife accused No.2 - N.Hamsaveni and that accused No.2 aided and abetted the commission of crime.
22. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution must establish against the accused that:
1) Accused is a public servant;
2) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession;
3) It must be proved as to what were his known sources of income; and
04) The properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Once these factors are established by the prosecution, the burden then shifts upon the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. This law is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 1186 (State of Maharastra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar). In the same decision it is also held that 'the extent of nature of burden of proof on the accused cannot be higher and it has to be established by preponderance of probability, by relying on decision AIR 1966 SC 1762.' The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1983 SC 313 (M.Krishna Reddy Vs. Dy.Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad) has also reiterated the above mentioned factors to 15 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
be proved. It is further held that accused has to satisfactorily account for the possession of said property and the burden shifts to him.
The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. Page 3967 (P.Nallamal etc. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police) wherein a law is laid down that, non-public servant can be tried in same trial along with public servant for abetting the offence. In this case, accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1 and she is not a public servant, she has been tried along with 1st accused for abetting commission of Offence punishable U/s.13(2) r/w.13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. From the law laid down in P.Nallamal's case, it is clear that accused No.2 can be tried in this case only along with 1st accused for abetment of offence.
23. The learned Counsel for the accused has argued at length by taking the Court through the evidence of almost all the witnesses and submitted that prosecution has failed to take into consideration various income of the accused based on invoices but those articles are not found in house .
24. It is argued that there is no allegation against the accused of taking any gratification either at the time of employment or otherwise. Advocate has pointed out towards cross-examination of Investigating Officer PW63 who has in unequivocal terms admitted that during his investigation he did not come across any imputation against accused relating to receiving of gratification during the employment of accused at 16 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
HAL. It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the accused that 2nd accused has acquired income while she has worked in a Private Concern and as a tailor. It is further argued that the prosecution has not examined the witness who has registered FIR, Ex.P273, Biju George and it is also a lacuna on the part of prosecution.
Lastly, the learned Counsel has placed reliance upon decision reported in (2011) 2 SC Cases (Cri) 258 (Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim and 1988 SC Cases (Cri) 91 (State of Maharastra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla). The arguments advanced on behalf of accused and the decision relied upon by the learned Counsels will be dealt with at appropriate stage hereinafter.
25. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 refers to Criminal misconduct by public servant. Section 13(1)
(e) is reproduced below:-
13(1) Criminal misconduct by a Public Servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the office of criminal misconduct.-
(a)-----------
(b)-----------
(c)-----------
(d)-----------
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.17
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
26. The prosecution in order to establish that accused is a public servant, it has examined PW47 - B.R.Suryanarayana. He has stated in his evidence that he was working as a Senior Manager in the Engine Division, HAL, in the year 2006. On the request made by the Vigilance Officer, he has made available documents relating to salary, service particulars and P.F., Loan and advances of Muniraju.
The prosecution has examined one B.V.Bhaskar as PW37. He has stated in his evidence that K.Muniraju worked as Machinist in Engine Division, HAL, Bangalore, and he has issued Ex.P155 salary particulars of K.Muniraju from Oct-1996 to March-2006. He has further stated that gross salary of accused No.1 from October-1996 to Feb-2006 is Rs.7,06,341.07. He has also produced Xerox copies of Form No.16 pertaining to accused No.1 as per Ex.P157 to Ex.P164 and stated that there is no reference of any other income in these Form No.16. The witness has been cross-examined on behalf of accused. But, however, the particulars of accounts shown in Ex.P155 and the Form No.16 have not been denied. A suggestion is made to the effect that the Form No.16 will not contain any amounts like Bonus and overtime payment. The witness has also admitted that Form No.16 will not contain particulars relating to income derived by 18 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
party through sources like agriculture, rental income and income of other family members. Thus, from the evidence of the witness, the prosecution has established that gross salary received by accused No.1 between October-1996 to February-2006, check period was Rs.7,06,341.07 and the net salary taken is Rs.1,60,312/-.
27. Ex.P239 is the bunch of documents relating to service details and bio-data of K.Muniraju. It contains bio-data, which mentions the date of appointment and joining date of 1st accused to the post of Machinist i.e. on 4.7.1996. His address is shown as No.20, 2nd Main, SMV Nagar, Rammurthy Nagar, Bangalore and date of Birth is 1.10.1969. It also has the family details of 1st accused which consists of wife Smt.Hamsaveni who is accused No.2 in this case, she is shown to be wife and Deepthi M. is the daughter, date of birth of his wife is 22.3.1977 and date of birth of Deepthi M. is 2.4.1998.
In the Charge Sheet the total net salary received by Muniraju is shown as Rs.1,60,312/-. In statement 'C' Income and other receipts during the check period, Ex.P239 contains all the various salary slips pertaining to the accused towards salary received by him for his employment. Thus prosecution has placed sufficient material regarding accused no 1 being public servant.
28. Section 17 of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 is regarding persons authorized to investigate. In this case, PW63 K.M.Ramesh, Inspector of Police, CBI, has investigated the 19 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
matter and filed the Charge Sheet. Section 17 of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 provides that a Inspector of Police in case of Delhi Special Police Establishment, is authorized to investigate the matter. One another important aspect touching the authorization of investigation U/s.13(1) (e) of the Act is that the case shall not be investigated without the Order of Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police as per the proviso to that section. In the case on hand, PW63 - K.M.Ramesh, Investigating Officer has stated that he was authorized by Superintendent of Police U/s.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the authorization Letter is produced at Ex.P274. I have perused the Order passed by the Superintendent of Police-Biju George Joseph. As per Ex.P274, K.M.Ramesh, Inspector has been authorized to investigate the mater connected to FIR in R.C.No.08(A)/2006 dated 28.4.2002. Thus, the investigation carried out by the Officer is inconformity with the Provisio of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
29. In order to prove disproportionate assets acquired by accused No.1, prosecution has taken the check period between 1.10.1996 and 2.3.2006. The length of the check period fixed by the investigating agency is fairly longer period and the accused will have sufficient opportunity to put forth or explain about acquisition of assets satisfactorily.
30. While calculating the disproportionate assets, the formula adopted in general, is to prepare the list of assets at the beginning of the check period called statement 'A', to prepare the list at the end of check period called statement 'B', to 20 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
prepare the list of receipts and income during the check period called statement 'C' and to prepare the expenditure list during the check period called statement 'D'. With these input the likely saving during the check period has to be calculated by deducting the expenditure amount from the income amount i.e. statement 'C' minus statement 'D'. Thus, the disproportionate assets will be with the formula E=[(B-A)+D] -C. In the instant case on hand, the prosecution has built up its case based on such statements. This Court has to see whether the prosecution has established the particulars of the statements with amount as stated in the Charge Sheet and find out whether there is any disproportionate assets amassed by the 1st accused.
31. In the case on hand, a perusal of Charge Sheet gives out statement 'A' at the beginning of check period Sl. Description of Assets Valuation of No. assets (in Rs.) 1 Two numbers Gas Cylinders procured 700.00 during 1995 2 Double Steel cot procured ruing 1996 500.00 Total 1,200.00 PW63 is the investigating Officer in this case. He has stated in his evidence that search of the house of accused No.1 was made on 2.3.2006 by Manoj Kumar, Investigating Officer in R.C.20(A)/2004 in the presence of witnesses Subbaram, Manager, N.M.Rajender Kumar, Manager, SBM (Vigilance). Out of them Rajender Kumar N.M. is examined as PW46. He has 21 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
stated that he has accompanied the investigating officer and an inventory was prepared as per Ex.P215 and Ex.P216 about the articles and other incriminating materials found in the house of A-1. The witness has also identified the documents seized from the house and the documents which are already marked in the case. In the cross-examination it has been suggested to the witness that the initials of witnesses have been fixed to the documents only in the CBI Office and that suggestion is denied. The witness has been cross-examined on that aspect, but however, nothing is elicited to discard the say of PW46. Further, PW63 has clearly stated that he has visited the house of accused No.1 and prepared an inventory as per Ex.P215 and Ex.P216. His evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW46. In the cross-examination of PW63 nowhere it is denied that investigating Officer had visited the house of accused and prepared inventory list. On the other hand, the cross-examination to PW63 is relating to non-consideration of certain earnings of accused No.2 and some variations in the income stated by the I.O. Thus, from the evidence of PW63 and PW46, the prosecution has proved that inventory was conducted as per Ex.P215.
32. Ex.P216, inventory list contains list of 2 gas cylinders valued about Rs.700/-. In the Charge Sheet the assets held by accused are shown as 2 gas cylinders worth Rs.700/- and double steel cot worth Rs.500/- in the list. These 2 properties are shown as assets at the beginning of check list.22
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
33. In the cross-examination to PW63, investigating Officer, it has been suggested as to whether the investigating Officer has made any enquiry as to where the accused was working prior to joining HAL in the year 1996, for which, PW63 has answered that he has not investigated about his income during that period. It has been suggested that accused No.1 was working in the Company called Wellman Incandescent India Ltd. and TRALA Pvt.Ltd., prior to joining HAL, for which, PW63 shown his ignorance and stated that he is unaware of the earlier occupation. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that accused had sufficient assets at the beginning of check period, but the same is not counted. Except for making such suggestions no material is placed by the defence as to what was his assets at the beginning of check period. No doubt, it will be difficult for any person to remember what were assets held and nature of acquiring income relating to 10 years prior period, but when the suggestions are made that accused was working in 2 private Companies, at least some effort ought to have been made to say what was his salary in those Companies and for how many years accused No.1 has worked in those Office. In the case u/S.13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, if the accused wants to explain and prove that he had more assets prior to the beginning of the check period than mentioned by prosecution in charge-sheet, it is for the accused to satisfactorily explain about the assets which are within his knowledge. This principle is enunciated in a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1993 SC 313 ( 23 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
M.Krishnareddy Vs. State of A.P.), in para No.6 :-
"An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law."
34. According to prosecution case, accused No.1 has worked in the year 1995 on Contract basis in HAL itself before joining the service on permanent basis. Further, it is brought on record in the cross-examination of PW63 that parents of accused hail from Chikkajala village and they had 3 acres of land. Further, it is also elicited in the evidence of PW63 that there was two storied building. It has been suggested to PW63 that 1st accused was given share of Rs.3-lakh through the sale of ancestral property - 3 acres of land at Chikkajala and the same is denied by PW63. The accused has established that his parents held ancestral property of 3 acres land and a two storied building. But, however, no materials are placed by the accused to show that ancestral property was sold. Further, no material is shown as to which property was sold for what amount. Therefore, suggestion made to PW63 that Rs.3-lakh has been 24 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
given to 1st accused as his share is not proved. No defence evidence is adduced in this regard.
It is also suggested that accused No.1 had a Maruthi Van before he joined HAL and the witness has stated that he is not aware of it, but however, the accused has not placed material to these aspects. A suggestion is made on behalf of accused that PW63 has intentionally avoided to ascertain these factors also cannot be accepted, because U/s.13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, IO is only expected to take note of the income derived from salary and the assets reported to any authority. Known source of income mentioned in section will be the salary of accused and not any other income as they are not reported to any authority. The suggestion made on behalf of accused are within his knowledge and at least accused has to establish these factors by preponderance of probability by placing certain materials. In the absence of such material, the assets stated by the I.O. as Rs.1,200/- at the beginning of check period is accepted and proved.
The total proved asset at the beginning of check period (Statement-A) - Rs.1,200/-.
35. The second statement submitted by the prosecution as per Charge Sheet is assets at the end of check period as on 2.3.2006. The said statement 'B' is reproduced below.
Sl. Immovable Assets Valuation of
No. assets
(in Rs.)
1 House Site No.20, 2nd Main, SMV Nagar, 80,000.00
Ramamurhy Nagar, Bangalore held in he (cost of the 25 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
name of K.Muniraja (acquired in the year site) 2002) 2 House at the above Site No.20, 2nd 8,45,525.00 Main, SMV Nagar, Ramamurhy Nagar, Bangalore 3 Agricultural land measuring 3 acres at Nil Sy.No.1095-1 and 1095-4 of Bommidoddi, Palemner, Dist. Chittur, A.P. Total 9,25,525.00 Immovable Assets item No.1: House Site No.20, 2nd Main, SMV Nagar, Ramamurhy Nagar, Bangalore valued at Rs.80,000/-. Prosecution has examined PW28 and PW32 to prove this aspect and relied upon the documents Exs.P106, 108 and 144. PW28 E.S.Rangaswamy is the FDA in the office of Sub-Registrar, KR Puram and he has stated about the registration of sale deed Ex.P106 pertaining to site No.20. The document reflects that the said site is valued at Rs.80,000/-.
PW32 - G.Prakash is the owner of the site. He has stated that he has sold the said site to K.Muniraju. Thus, from the evidence of these witnesses and documents relating to Ex.P106 and 107 (certified copy of Ex.P106), the prosecution has proved the immovable asset site of Rs.80,000/- at Sl.No.1 The statement 'B' item No.2 house in the above site No.20 is valued at Rs.8,88,500/- In order to prove this aspect prosecution has examined PW18 and PW54 and got marked documents at Exs.P61, 254, 255, 107 and 144. G.Prakash - PW32 has stated in his evidence that he has sold the site No.22 26 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
to accused No.1 for Rs.7,40,000/- and thereafter, as per agreement at Ex.P144 he has put up ground floor construction in the said site. He has stated that later on he has put up first floor construction. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused it is only suggested that still 1 lakh amount is balance to be paid towards construction of the 1st floor.
PW18 - Ishwar Bhat Kasargod is the approved valuer. He has stated in his evidence that he has prepared Ex.P61 - Valuation report relating to the valuation to be made about ground floor in the site No.20. He has valued property at Rs.8,88,500/- as on 27.8.2003. There is no cross-examination on this point.
Similarly, PW54 - P.Subramanya Sastri is the Executive Engineer, CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that he has valued the property bearing site No.20 and submitted his report as per Ex.P255 and as per the report valuation of the property is Rs.9,25,525/-. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that property was not worth Rs.9,25,525/- and the same is denied. It may be noted that there is evidence to show that accused has borrowed a loan of Rs.11-lakh from Vijaya Bank for the purpose of house construction. This would mean that the constructed house will be certainly of a value more than Rs.9,25,000/-. Otherwise, the Accused ought to have placed material or tendered evidence as to what was the value of the house according to him. In the absence of such material, the valuation made by the PW54 - P.Subramanya Sastri, Executive Engineer, CPWD, Kendriya 27 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore at Rs.9,25,000/- has to be accepted.
36. In the Charge Sheet there is reference to valuation of property mentioned as Rs.8,45,525/-. Whereas, in the written argument filed by the public prosecutor the amount is mentioned as Rs.7,40,000/- for the ground floor and Rs.4,50,000/- for first floor. Construction of first floor is not disputed by accused No.1 but, however, the said construction of accused is not mentioned in list in the Charge Sheet. But accused has also not denied the said fact of 1st floor in the cross-examination to PW32 and it is only suggested that Rs.1-lakh is still due. The prosecution has valued the house property as Rs.8,45,525/-. Under the circumstances, value of immovable house property has to be taken as Rs.8,45,525/- as shown in the charge-sheet. Hence, to that extent the acquisition of immovable property is proved.
37. The immovable assets 3rd item is Agricultural land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.1095. According to prosecution case, the said land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.1095/1 and 1095/4 of Bommidoddi, Palemner Dist. Chittur is acquired in the name of accused No.2. Concerned sale deed is produced by prosecution at Ex.P171 and its copies are also furnished.
Further, prosecution has also examined PW64, Tahsildar of said area and he has given out details of this land. In the cross-examination of PW63 it is stated that said land was a grant land and same is not disputed. The land is resumed back to Government. It is suggested that amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has 28 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
been refunded by vendors PW40 Bhaskar T. and PW50 T.Shankar to accused. But, however, it is not elicited from PW50 T.Shankar or PW40 Bhaskar T. to the effect that Rs.2,10,000/- has been repaid to accused No.2. The evidence of PW40 and PW50 and Exs.P170 to 175 will establish that this property is acquired in the name of accused No.2. But, however, prosecution has not valued this property as an asset because it is grant land. P.W 64 Deputy Tahasildar has stated that now property is granted to Hamsaveni. In the cross examination he has stated that grant lands are given at free cost. Therefore, this property will not be taken as an asset and as such, prosecution has only established that such property is exiting in the name of K.Muniraju.
38. Regarding movable property at item Nos.1 to 41, these movable assets have been found in the house of accused while causing inventory by Sri.Manoj Kumar, I.O in Crime No.R.C.No.20(A)/2004, in the presence of witnesses Subbaram, Manager, N.M.Rajender Kumar, Manager, SBM (Vigilance).
MOVEABLE ASSETS Household articles as per Inventory Sl.
prepared at his residence during the Amount No. search operation on 02.03.2006
1. One Deewan 1,100.00
2. One Sofa Set 3,000.00
3. One Teapoy 250.00
4. One wooden flower vaz 300.00
5. One greenish glass vaz 50.00
6. Hanging flower basket 100.00 29 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
7. Wall hanging - metal and glass frame 1,000.00
8. One AKAI - SLIM 029 Colour TV 10,000.00
9. One TV stand 300.00
10. Deck Pioneer 1,200.00
11. Hanging Bells - 18 piece 50.00
12. CIELO wall clock 100.00
13. Flower Stand 250.00
14. Embroidery Carpet 1,100.00
15. Bamboo vaz 50.00
16. Toys/Dolls/Show pieces 1,000.00
17. Decorative Hanging Light 4,000.00
18. BPL Emergency light 375.00
19. Two Nokia and one Motorola cell phones 4,000.00
20. Whirlpool Fridge 5,000.00
21. Indco 800.00
22. Super stove 800.00
23. V-Guard Stabilizer 500.00
24. All types of Utensils 2,000.00
25. LPG Geizure 2,000.00
26. Two plastic buckets 175.00
27. Books, Cassettes and CD's 500.00
28. Quartz wall clock 150.00
29. BSNL landline Telephone 2,000.00
30. Double cot 2,100.00
31. Three suit cases 2,000.00
32. Godrej Steel Almirah 1,000.00
33. U-foam Mattress 800.00
34. Screen sets 1,000.00
35. Total cloths 2,600.00
36. Wall hanging cotton 50.00
37. Baby Cycle SABTO 500.00
38. Blazer Suit 2,500.00
39. Wall Plate painted 25.00
40. Two numbers Gas Cylinders procured during 700.00 1995
41. Double Steel cot procured during 1996 500.00 Total 55,925.00 Bank Balances
1. Balance in SB A/c No.008131 in Syndicate 40.00 Bank, Dickenson road, Bangalore.
2. Balance in SB A/c No.3938 in ICICI Bank, 2,389.00 30 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Indira Nagar, Bangalore
3. Balance in SB A/c No.01/8788 in Corporation 1,316.00 Bank, Indira Nagar, Bangalore Total 3,745.00 Vehicles
1. Wagon-R Car No.KA-03-MF-667, purchased 3,22,105.00 from M/s. Mandovi Motors, Cox Town, Bangalore.
2. Bajaj Discover No.KA-53-E-2555 purchased 49,259.00 from M/s. Jatti Motors Pvt. Ltd., Miller Road, Bangalore.
3. Bajaj Chetak No.KA-04-S-4570 purchased 14,000.00 from Shri.I.Veera Raghava Rao, HAL, Bangalore Total 3,85,364.00 Grand Total Rs.13,70,559.00 It is established that movables at Sl.No. 1 to 41 properties were found in the house of accused while preparing inventory by Sri.Manoj Kumar, I.O. The prosecution has produced the inventory list at Ex.P215 and P216 through I.O, K.M.Ramesh. The inventory witness Rajendra Kumar is examined as P.W.46. Nothing is elicited on the side of the accused to show that these properties were not found in the house of accused. Apart from that, if the articles mentioned are looked into, those articles are natural movables that will be available in most of the house and therefore, there is no reason to accept the case of prosecution regarding movables worth Rs.55,925/- and said fact is established.
39. To prove the Bank Balances shown in 'B' schedule in the Charge Sheet, item No.1 Rs.40/- in SB A/c.No.008131 in Syndicate Bank, Bangalore, the prosecution has examined PW38 31 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
- A.M.Prabhakar Rao, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 K.Muniraja maintained SB A/c.No.04772010008131 and credit balance was Rs.40/- as on 19.9.2006. This witness is not cross-examined. The statement of account is produced at Ex.P166 and thus this entry is established by prosecution.
Balance in SB A/c.No.3938 in ICICI Bank, Indiranagar, Bangalore - Rs.2,389/-. To prove this fact, the investigating Officer is examined as PW63. He has stated in his evidence about securing the statement of account Ex.P277 from ICICI Bank, Indiranagar. In Ex.P277 SB Account is in the name of K.Muniraju and as on 28.2.2006, the balance amount is shown is Rs.2,389/-. The accused has not disputed this aspect. From the statement of accounts and evidence of PW63, this entry relating to balance amount being in ICICI bank is proved.
Balance in SB A/c.No.01/8788 in Corporation Bank, Indiranagar, Bangalore - Rs.1,316/-. To prove this fact, prosecution has examined P.Shridhar, the then Manager, Corporation Bank, Indiranagar. He has stated that Vimanapura Co-operative Society, HAL, had an account in Corporation Bank, Indiranagar, there was an agreement between society and bank whereby the society had agreed to deduct monthly installments from salary of employees of HAL. The account bearing No.01/008788 of K.Muniraju covering the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 and 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. He has further stated that Ex.P243 and P245 are pertaining to SB A/c.No.12/020095 32 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
and the balance shown is Rs.1,316/-. He has not been cross-examined and thereby this aspect has been proved by prosecution.
40. Vehicles :-
Item No.9 - Wagon-R Car purchased from M/s.Mandovi Motors, Cox Town, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.3,22,105/-.
In the Charge Sheet value of the vehicle purchased is shown as Rs.3,22,105/-. So also, PW63 - Investigating Officer has deposed in the cross-examination, in page No.27, that accused No.1 has purchased a new Maruthi Wagon Car for a sum of Rs.3,22,105/- in the year 2006. In the written argument of the Public Prosecutor, she has shown the value of the vehicle as Rs.4,47,204.96 + 9,891/- towards accessories and she has placed reliance on Ex.P125 and 126 spoken through the evidence of PW31. I have perused the evidence of PW31. He is one Nagesh, Dy.Accounts Manager in Mandovi Motors, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 has purchased a Wagon-R Car, Ex.P142 is the payment details. The said payment details Ex.P142 reflects that an amount of Rs.4,47,204.96 is paid towards purchase of a Maruthi Car with accessories. As far as the prosecution case is concerned, in the Charge Sheet, the amount is shown as Rs.3,22,105/-, which is also admitted by investigating Officer, PW63. Under the circumstances, inflated amount of Rs.4,47,204.96 as shown in Ex.P125 cannot be considered because it is exceeding the amount, for which the accused has been charged with earlier 33 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
calculation, hence the value amount of asset proved is Rs.3,22,105/-
41. Item No.10 - Bajaj Discover Bike purchased from M/s.Jatti Motors, Bangalore.
The prosecution has shown value of this vehicle as Rs.49,259/-. The Public Prosecutor in the written argument has mentioned the value of said vehicle as Rs.40,000/- spoken through PW34 and PW46 in accordance with Exs.P149 to 150 and Exs.P215 and 216. PW34 - A.Rajesh Kumar, has stated in his evidence that he was working as Senior Executive in M/s.GE Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd. from 2003 and 2007 and Muniraju had applied for loan and availed two wheeler. He has also stated that an amount of Rs.36,500/- was disbursed as loan as per Ex.P150.
PW46 - Rajendra Kumar N.M., who is the witness to the seizure of certain articles and documents while search was made in the house of accused while carrying inventory Ex.P215 has stated in his evidence that he had attended search conducted by IO in the house of accused while preparing inventory and has signed on Ex.P215, inventory report.
Ex.P149 is the statement of account of Muniraju, wherein an amount of Rs.36,500/- is shown as loan borrowed. In Ex.P215 Bajaj Discover bike value is shown as Rs.40,000/-. PW34 is cross-examined on behalf of accused and it is suggested that Exs.P149 and 150 are concocted. It may be noted that Bajaj Discover bike bearing No.KA53 E 2555 was available in the house of accused and the loan particulars of Accused no.1 is also 34 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
produced at Exs.P149. In the loan particulars, the amount is shown as Rs.36,500/-. In my view, the evidence of PW34 and PW46 can be relied. The value of Bajaj bike at the time of purchase is taken as Rs.36,500/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.
42. Item No.11 - Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.KA 04 S 4570 purchased by accused, Muniraju from I.Veera Raghava Rao, for Rs.14,000/-.
To prove this aspect prosecution has examined I.Veera Raghavarao as PW58. He has stated in his evidence that he had purchased a scooter bearing No.KA 04 S 4570 for Rs.13,500/- from one M.Srinivas of Chikkajala. Then on the same day he has sold the said Scooter to Muniraju for a sum ofRs.14,000/-. Accordingly, he had made part payment and balance payment was paid within 3 installments. He has also stated that he got transferred the RTO records in the name of accused. In the cross-examination he has stated that transaction took place on 2.4.1998. The suggestion is made to this witness to the effect that he is deposing falsely against the accused, but the same is denied by the accused. It may be noted that this Bajaj Chetak Scooter was found in the house of accused, during inventory and value is shown as Rs.10,000/-. There are no other records relating to amount of Rs.14,000/- paid towards purchase of Scooter. The oral evidence of PW34 alone cannot be relied for fixing the sale amount of the Scooter. Therefore, the prosecution has established the acquisition of Scooter No.KA 04 S 4570 by the accused in the year 1998 and the asset value of the Scooter is Rs.10,000/-.
35: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Thus the proved assets acquired during the check period is immovable property Rs.9,25,525/- + Movables Rs.55,925/- + Bank balance Rs.3,745/- + Vehicles Rs.3,68,605 = Rs.13,53,800/-.
43. The proof of Statement-C regarding income and other receipts during the check period 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006, are reproduced herein below:-
Sl. Details of Income Valuation of
No. assets
(in Rs.)
1 Salary received by K.Muniraja from HAL 1,60,312.00
2 Vehicle loan from GE Countrywide 36,500.00
towards purchase of Bajaj Discover two wheeler from M/s.Jatti Motors, Miller Road, Bangalore
3 Amount received from LIC through 7,500.00 Money Back Policy No.611557772 4 Loan availed from ING Vysya Bank for 1,36,000.00 purchase of Maruti 800 Car No.KA-29 P 1000 by Mrs.N.Hamsaveni 5 Loan availed from Co-operative Society, 1,55,000.00 Engine Division, HAL for various purpose on '7' occasions by K.Muniraja 6 Interest received from Co-operative 570.00 Society, Engine Division, HAL 7 Loan availed from Co-operative Society, 55,000.00 Air Craft Division, HAL for various purpose on '3' occasions by K.Muniraja 8 Interest received from Co-operative 160.00 Society, Air Craft Division, HAL.
9 Loan availed from Corporation Bank 30,000.00
through Vimanapura Co-operative
Society, HAL by K.Muniraja
10 Loan availed from Vasavi Co-operative 65,000.00
Society, through Vimanapura
36
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Co-operative Society, HAL by K.Muniraja 11 Loan availed from Employees Welfare 1,05,900.00 Fund, HAL by K.Muniraja 12 Rental Income earned from his house at 15,000.00 Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore 42,400.00 13 Loan availed from ICICI Home Finance 3,48,722.00 Ltd. for House construction by K.Muniraja and Mrs.N.Hamsaveni 14 Loan availed from Vijaya Bank, Ulsoor, 7,28,000.00 Bangalore for House Construction by K.Muniraja 15 Withdrawals from PF A/c.KN 80,540.00 24/61588-21, HAL, by K.Muniraja 16 GPF Loan availed during August 1998 to 19,679.00 October 2005 from HAL by K.Muniraja Item No.1 :- As per the Charge Sheet, salary received from HAL, between October-1996 to Feb-2006 is Rs.1,60,312/-. In this regard, B.V.Bhaskar, Accounts Manager, Payroll Section, Engine Division, HAL, is examined as PW37. He has stated in his evidence that gross salary of the accused for the period Oct-1996 to Mar-2006 was Rs.7,06,341.07 and the net salary during the said period was Rs.1,60,312/-. He has produced Ex.P156 - breakup with the salary particulars, the form No.16 Exs.P157 to 164.
Further prosecution has examined one B.R.Suryanarayana, as PW47. He was working as Sr.Manager in Engine Division, HAL, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that he has sent the particulars of salary, service particulars, details regarding PF loan and advances and other loan advances to the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P239. There is no Cross examination to the 37 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
evidence tendered by P.W.37 and 47 on the side of Accused. From the oral evidence of PWs.37 and 47 and the documents produced at Ex.P156, the prosecution has established that the net salary received by the accused is Rs.1,60,312/-.
Item No.2 :- Vehicle Loan from GE Countrywide towards purchase of Bajaj Discover 2 wheeler from M/s.Jatti Motors for Rs.36,500/-.
To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined PW34 - A.Rajesh Kumar who has worked as Senior Executive in M/s.GE Countrywide. He has stated in his evidence that an amount of Rs.36,500/- is disbursed as loan for the purchase of motorcycle and the document is marked at Ex.P149. The possession of the said vehicle with the accused is evidenced by inventory list Ex.P216. Ex.P149 is the particulars of loan amount of GE Countrywide and it reflects that there was loan amount of Rs.36,500/-. Thus, this particular receipt through list is established.
Item No.3 :- Amount of Rs.7,500/- received from LIC through Money Back Policy No.611557772. To evidence this fact, the prosecution has examined PW8, Asst.Divisional Manager, LIC, Bangalore. He has stated that accused No.1 had money back policy No.611557772 dtd.28.11.1997 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He has stated that accused NO.1 was paid Rs.7,500/- as per Ex.P26. A perusal of Ex.P26 would reveal that accused has received this amount. The said witness is not cross-examined and receipt of Rs.7,500/- is 38 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
not disputed by accused. Hence, this fact is established by prosecution.
Item No.4:- Loan of Rs.1,36,000/- availed from ING Vysya Bank for purchase of Maruti 800 Car No.KA-29 P 1000 by Mrs.N.Hamsaveni accused No.2.
To establish this fact, prosecution has examined PW17 M.R.Sridhar, Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that accused no.2 had availed loan of Rs.1,36,000/- along with co-borrower Accused no.1 for purchase of Maruti Car bearing No.KA 29 P 1000. The documents regarding availment of loan is produced at Exs.P49 to 56. Ex.P56 is the receipt executed by Hamsaveni for having availed the loan amount. The said witness is not cross-examined on the side of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has established the availment of loan of Rs.1,36,000/-.
Item No.5:- Loan of Rs.1,55,000/- availed from Co-operative Society, Engine Division, HAL for various purposes on '7' occasions by K.Muniraja.
To prove this aspect, prosecution has examined PW22 - Ramalingaiah, Secretary, Engine Division, Co-operative Society, HAL, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 has availed loan on 7 occasions, to a tune of Rs.1,55,000/-. The documents are marked at Exs.P72 to 78. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to this witness on the side of the accused that there is still an amount of Rs.75,000/- to be paid. There is no denial of availing these loans in the cross 39 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
examination. From the evidence of PW22, the prosecution has established receipt of Rs.1,55,000/-, as claimed by prosecution.
Item No.6:- The interest received from Co-operative Society - Rs.570/-. It is not disputed by the Accused that he was the member of Co-operative Society, Engine Division, HAL. He will have contributed towards share in the society. There is no denial by the Accused that he has received Rs.570/- as interest and thus the said fact is established.
Item No.7:- Loan of Rs.55,000/- availed from Co-operative Society, Aircraft Division, HAL, Bangalore.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW27 - D.B.Manjunath, worked as SDA in Aircraft Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that accused has availed loan of Rs.10,000/- on 14.1.1999 as per Ex.P95; Rs.20,000/- on 1.2.2001 as per Ex.P96 and Rs.25,000/- on 7.10.2005 as per Ex.P97. This aspect is not disputed on the side of the accused in the Cross examination of P.W.27 and therefore, this aspect is proved.
Item No.8:- Interest amount of Rs.160/- received from co-operative society, Engine division, HAL, To evidence this fact, the prosecution has examined PW27 - D.B.Manjunath, worked as SDA in Aircraft Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence about the accused being member of that Society and the accused has not cross-examined denying the receipt of Rs.100/- as interest. Therefore, this entry is proved.
40: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Item No.9:- Loan availed from Corporation Bank through Vimanapura Co-operative Society, HAL to a tune of Rs.30,000/-.
In this regard, prosecution has examined PW44, M.Shivamalla, Production Manager, HAL Design Complex, Bangalore who was deputed by the HAL management as CEO. He has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 was granted loan of Rs.30,000/- on 13.2.2002 to meet his domestic needs. The document is marked at Ex.P202. He has also stated that loan was repaid by accused as per Ex.P204 document. There is no Cross examination on the side of Accused to this witness. From this evidence, prosecution has established borrowing of Rs.30,000/- and clearing of loan by accused.
Item No.10:- Loan availed from Vasavi Credit Co-operative Society through Vimanapura Co-operative Society, HAL to an extent of Rs.65,000/-.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined one K.G.Shantaiah as PW42, who has worked as paid Secretary in Hindustan Aeronautic Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. He has stated in his evidence that CBI Inspector has taken 5 documents from him by way of seizure and those documents are marked at Ex.P182. He has also stated that accused availed loan of Rs.65,000/-. He is not cross-examined on behalf of accused. Therefore, this aspect has been proved.
Item No.11:- Loan availed from Employees Welfare Fund,
HAL, to an extent of Rs.1,05,900/-.
41
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW43- Gurulingappa Edravi, who is a HAL employee. He has stated in his evidence that he is a elected secretary of HAL Employees' Welfare Fund in the year 2006 and accused Muniraju has availed loan of Rs.1,05,900/- from Jan-1997 to Oct-2005. The document is marked at Exs.P191 and 192. There is no cross-examination of this witness and thus prosecution has established this fact.
Item No.12:- Rental income earned from the house of accused at Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore. Rs.15,000+42,400=57,400/-.
In this regard, prosecution has examined PW46 - Rajendra Kumar N.M. He has stated in his evidence that he has worked as Manager in Vigilance department, S.B.M. Head office. He has further stated that he went along with Investigation officer for inventory on 2.3.2006 and out of that they seized a rent agreement marked at Ex.P226. A perusal of rent agreement reveals that there was a rental agreement between 2nd accused
- Hamsaveni and Avik Roy, and the rate of rent is Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from 25.6.2004 and an amount of Rs.15,000/- is given as advance in respect of premise house bearing No.20, 2nd main, Ramamurthy Nagar.
The prosecution has also examined PW63 Investigating Officer. While cross-examining PW63 it is suggested that there were 2 portions in the first floor of the house and they were let out on a rent of Rs.2,500/- and 4,000/- respectively, for which, PW63 has expressed his ignorance. In the 313 statement, A-2 42 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
has filed her written statement but she has not stated about receipt of any amount of such rental income as suggested by PW63. Further, accused have not got them examined or they have not examined other witness for the proof of receipts of rental income as suggested by them. Therefore, the amount shown by the prosecution has to be taken as the rent amount received. Hence, it is proved that there was a receipt of amount of Rs.42,400/- towards rent and Rs.15,000/- towards advance amount.
Item No.13:- Loan of Rs.3,48,722.00 availed from ICICI Home Finance Ltd. for House Construction by K.Muniraja and Mrs.N.Hamsaveni.
To evidence this fact, prosecution has examined IO, who is examined as PW63. He has stated about availment of loan by accused to a tune of Rs.3,48,722/- as per Exs.P276,278 and
281. This aspect has not been disputed.
A perusal of statement of ICICI Bank reveals that an amount of Rs.3,48,722/- was availed by accused Nos.1 and 2 for house construction and that part is proved.
Item No.14:-Loan of Rs.7,28,000/- availed from Vijaya Bank, Ulsoor, Bangalore for House Construction by K.Muniraja. To evidence this fact, prosecution has examined PW33 - Vinod Kumar Gupta, Manager of Vijaya Bank. He has stated in his evidence about availment of loan of Rs.11-lakh as per Exs.P146 and 147.
The learned Public Prosecutor in her argument has mentioned this amount as Rs.11-lakh. But it has to be noted 43 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
that loan amount of Rs.3,72,000/- of ICICI Bank was repaid directly out of Rs.11-lakh by paying DD to said Bank (See S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of CW40). Ex.P276 the statement of loan account of ICICI bank reflects the receipt of amount of Rs.3,72,000/- from Vijaya Bank. Further it may be noted that the loan of ICICI bank is already taken into consideration as receipt of Rs.3,48,722/-. Therefore, the loan amount borrowed from Vijaya Bank is correctly shown as Rs.7,28,000/- by deducting the amount. Hence, it is proved.
Item No.15 and 16:- Withdrawals from PF A/c.KN 24/61588-21, HAL, by K.Muniraja Rs.80,540/- and Rs.19,679/-.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW41 - K.Thinakaran, Deputy Manager (Finance) HAL, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence about availment of non-refundable loan and PF amount withdrawal by the 1st accused as per Exs.P180 and 181. The witness is not cross examined. Hence, it is proved.
Thus, the proved income is Rs.19,86,343/-.
44. STATEMENT-D: Expenditure incurred during the period of check Sl.
Details of Expenditure Value (in Rs.) No. 1. Household expenditure @ 1/3 of Gross income 2,35,447-00
of Sri.K.Muniraja during the check period.
2. Purchase of Gold Chain from M/s.Moti Jewel 9,100-00 Palace, Ulsoor, Bangalore.
3. Purchase of Gold chain from M/s.Navaratna 19,993-00 Jewels, M.G.Road, Bangalore.
4. Expenditure towards purchase of jewels from 33,389-89 M/s.Bhima Jewels, Dickenson Road, Bangalore.44
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
5. Expenses incurred towards purchase of Gem 11,300-00 Rings, Logo etc, from M/s.Real Gem, Jayanagar, Bangalore.
6. Purchase of jewelry from M/s.Hanuman 2,751-00 Jewellers, T.Dasarahalli, Banggalore.
7. Purchase of Onida TV from M/s.Girias, 7,200-00 Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
8. Purchase of Bajaj CT Deluxe two wheeler from 40,008-00 M/s.VST Bajaj Auto Agency, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
9. Amount spent towards insurance of Maruti 10,476-00 800 Car No.KA-29 P 1000 with M/s.Oriental Insurance Co.
10. Amount spent for servicing of Maruti 800 Car 18,201-00 No.KA-29 P 1000 at M/s.Bimal Auto Agency, Mahadevapura, Bangalore.
11. Expenditure towards servicing of Maruti Car at 9,694-00 M/s.Sagar Automobiles, Banasawadi, Bangalore.
12. Amount spent towards insurance of Bajaj 1,341-00 Chetak Scooter No.KA-04-S-4570 with National Insurance Co. Ltd.
13. Purchase of Engine Oil and bulb for his vehicle 141-00 from M/s.JATTI Motors, Miller road, Bangalore.
14. Expenditure incurred towards purchase of 1,62,000-00 second hand Maruti Car No.KA-29 P 1000 from Sri.Raman.P, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore.
15. Amount spent towards mobile phone of 2,894-00 M/s.Airtel Bharati.
16. Expenditure incurred towards recharging of 3,306-00 Airtel mobile Phone No.9845545560
17. Expenditure incurred towards TATA Indicom 6,400-00 Phones
18. Telephone charges towards BSNL telephone 10,076-00 No.5231755
19. Telephone charges towards Reliance 22,800-00 telephone No.080-31843872
20. Amount spent for purchase of suits from 5,880-00 M/s.Puran's collections, Malleswaram, Bangalore
21. Amount spent towards purchase of Samsung 7,700-00 TV from M/s.S.R.L.Home Appliances, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore.45
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
22. Donation paid to Kamakoti Ramacharya 300-00 Memorial Trust, Srisailam
23. Amount spent towards purchase of shoes from 780-00 M/s.Sierra Industrial Enterprises, Indira Nagar, Bangalore
24. Expenditure towards membership at BITS 2,000-00 Club, Kammanahalli, Bangalore.
25. Expenditure towards House Construction 300-00 Estimate prepared by Sri.G.Somashekar, Ulsoor, Bangalore
26. Amount spent towards House Construction 750-00 Valuation prepared by Sri.Ishwar Bhatt, Malleswaram, Bangalore
27. Expenditure towards House Construction 300-00 Estimate prepared by Sri.N.Shantharam, Yelahanka, Bangalore
28. Amount spent towards purchase of 949-50 Newspapers/ Magazines from M/s.Prakash News Agency, Kammanahalli, Bangalore
29. Share contribution made to Co-operative 5,075-00 Society, Engine Division, HAL, Bangalore
30. Loan Re-payment by cash to Co-operative 71,379-00 society, Engine Division, HAL, Bangalore
31. Share contribution made to Co-operative 6,300-00 society, Air Craft Division, HAL, Bangalore
32. Loan Re-payment by cash to Co-operative 25,480-00 society, Air Craft Division, HAL, Bangalore
33. Re-payment of loan by cash to Employees 51,910-00 Welfare Fund, HAL, by Sri.K.Muniraja
34. Electricity charges paid to BESCOM, 13,953-00 K.R.Puram, Bangalore pertaining to house of Sri.K.Muniraja
35. Purchase of Gas Geyser from M/s.Vijaya 3,200-00 Marketing, Malleswaram, Bangalore
36. Daughter's Education expenses at Cambridge 28,345-00 School, K.R.Puram, Bangalore.
37. Purchase of a VCD Player 2300 ME from 5,900-00 M/s.India Home, Bangalore.
38. Purchase of Soloride from M/s.Pioneer 3,300-00 Enterprises, Mysore road, Bangalore
39. Purchase of petrol from Retail Outlet, 1,560-00 Channarayapatna
40. Purchase of petrol from M/s.Aman 1,153-60 46 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Enterprises, Basavanagudi, Bangalore
41. Purchase of petrol from Reliance Petro 4,050-00 Marketing, Palamner, A.P.
42. Repayments of House Loan to Vijaya Bank, 3,32,155-44 Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore.
43. Repayment of Home loan to ICICI home 33,717-00 Finance Limited., Bangalore
44. Repayment of PF loan to HAL through DD of 1,880-00 Punjab National Bank
45. Repayment of loan to Corporation Bank 27,307-00 through Vimanapura Co-op. Society, HAL
46. Payment of House tax to City Municipal 348-00 Council, K.R.Puram by Sri.K.Muniraja
47. Amount spent towards purchase of 3 acres of 2,10,000-00 land at Bommidoddi, Palamner, Andhra Pradesh, in the name of Mrs.N.Hamsaveni, from Sri.T.Shankar
48. Registration charges of House site No.20, II 11,700-00 main, SMV Nagar, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore TOTAL:- 14,64,190.43 Item No.1 Household Expenditure :- Household expenditure @ 1/3rd of Gross income of K.Muniraja.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW37 and PW47. PW37 has stated particularly that gross salary of accused No.1 for the period Oct-1996 to Mar-2006 is Rs.7,06,341.07.
Out of this the household expenses is taken at 1/3rd, which will be Rs.2,35,447/-. While examining PW63 investigating Officer, it is suggested that the household expenses calculated by the investigating agency includes expenses towards clothing, footwear, telephone charges, electricity charges, water charges, school fee, news paper expenses, mobile currency charges and petrol. The said suggestion is denied by the witness. There are 47 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
certain expenses shown in schedule 'D' towards particular purpose and they will be dealt at that time as to whether it should be considered as part of household expenses or otherwise. The household expenses is considered at 1/3rd gross income as Rs.2,35,447/-.
Item No.2(Expenditure):- Purchase of Gold chain from M/s.Moti Jewel Palace, Ulsoor, Bangalore - Rs.9,100/-. In proof of this expenditure, the prosecution has examined PW1 - B.Sunil Kumar, who is the owner of M/s.Moti Jewel Palace at Ulsoor, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that he and his brother Rajesh kumar are carrying on business and he has issued Ex.P1 receipt for sale of gold chain weighing 20.69 gms. for Rs.9,100/- in favour of accused No.1. A perusal of Ex.P1 will reflect that said gold article is sold in the name of Muniraja. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was not present when the transaction took place. A suggestion is made that document like Ex.P1 can be printed outside. But, however, while cross-examining PW63 on behalf of accused No.1 it is suggested that gold articles as per Exs.P1, 2 and 4 were not found in the house at the time of making inventory. It is further suggested that accused Nos.1 and 2 had sold these Exs.P1, 2 and 4 gold articles for Rs.80,000/- to purchase a site No.20 and the IO has shown his ignorance. Now by making such suggestions, it is clear that gold articles item Nos.1, 2 and 4 were purchased by accused No.1. Thus entry No.2 making expenditure of Rs.9,100/- for purchase of gold article is proved.48
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Item No.3(Expenditure):- Purchase of Gold chain worth Rs.19,993/- from M/s.Navratna Jewels, Bangalore.
To establish purchase of gold from Navratna Jewels, prosecution has examined Director of the shop as PW3. He has stated in his evidence that a gold chain weighing 44.67 grams was sold to Mr.K.Raju, the bill is marked at Ex.P6. He has stated the amount was paid through credit card No.5543747310014781. In the cross-examination this witness has submitted that he cannot identify K.Raju. It is suggested that Ex.P6 is created, but the same is denied.
A perusal of Ex.P6 will reveal that the chain worth Rs.19,983/- is sold to one Raju K. The credit card number is mentioned in bill. The accused has not denied that the said credit card belongs to him. Under such circumstances, the contention of accused that Ex.P6 is created cannot be believed. Further, it may be noted that even in Exs.P2 to P4 bill, the name is mentioned as Vijay and not K.Muniraju. But those bills have been admitted by first accused in the cross-examination. Therefore, mentioning of name as K.Raju in the bill will not affect the case of prosecution, because accused has got receipts in different names. Hence, the contention of accused is rejected. The prosecution has proved the purchase of gold chain from Navrathan Jewellers for an amount of Rs.19,993/-.
Item No.4(Expenditure):- Purchase of Gold chain worth Rs.33,389.89 from Bhima Jewels, Dickenson Road, Bangalore.
To substantiate the said expenditure, the prosecution has examined PW2 - M.K.Sridhar, who has stated that he has 49 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
worked as Accounts Manager in Bheema Jewelers and a gold chain was sold by their office as per Ex.P2 for Rs.16,321.70 in the name of Vijay through Credit card bearing No.4731960169052522 and cash. He has also stated that another sales tax invoice dated 1.5.2005 for Rs.12,624.19 was issued by their showroom and Vijay purchased it through credit card No.4731960169056770 and cash. It is marked as Ex.P3. Another sales invoice dated 1.5.2005 for Rs.4,444.00 was paid by Sri Vijay through credit card 4731960169052522 and cash as per Ex.P4. In the cross-examination it is suggested that the bills are created. But however, as mentioned above, while cross-examining PW63 it is suggested that the gold articles purchased under Exs.P1 to P4 has been sold for the purchase of site. By making such suggestion, the accused has admitted purchase of gold articles as per Exs.P1 to P4. This expenditure of Rs.33,389/- at Sl.No.4 is established by prosecution.
Item No.5(Expenditure):- Expenses of Rs.11,300/- towards purchase of Gem Rings, Logo etc, from M/s.Real Gem, Jayanagar, Bangalore.
In order to prove the entry, the prosecution has produced documents at Ex.P278 to 282 through PW63. I.O. has collected these documents from M/s. Real Gem, Jayanagar. Out of these documents, document at Ex.P280 has the name of Hamsaveni. The said bill is for Rs.2,250/-. The bill Ex.P279 is in the name of Nagendra. Ex.P281 is a statement of business concern. There is no material to connect the bill standing in the name of Nagendra to accused and therefore Ex.P279 cannot be relied. Similarly, no 50 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
person is examined for proof of Ex.P281 statement and the said document is not proved. Thus, the prosecution has established only expenditure of Rs.2,250/- through Ex.P280 instead of Rs.11,300/- as claimed by prosecution. Item No.6(Expenditure):- Purchase of Jewellery from M/s.Hanuman Jewellers, T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.2,751.00 For proof of this expenses, the prosecution has examined PW36 and produced document Ex.P154 - estimate bill issued by Hanuman Jewellers worth Rs.2,751/- . Ex.P154 is not issued in the name of any person. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that the bill does not contain the name. In my view, this expenditure cannot be taken into consideration because it is only a estimate bill and it is not known who has purchased this gold ring. Hence, it is not allowed.
Item No.7(Expenditure):- Purchase of Onida T.V. for Rs.7,200/- from M/s.Girias, Gandhinagar, Bangalore. The prosecution has examined PW7 - Rajendra Kumar to prove this expenditure. He has stated in his evidence that he is working as Manager in Girias Investments Pvt.ltd. and one Onida 20 Marvel Colour TV was sold to one Vijay for Rs.7,200/- and out of it Rs.4,000/- was paid by way of cash and remaining Rs.3,200/- by way of credit card No.4731960169052522. In the cross-examination the witness has stated that he cannot identify Vijay; Ex.P25 invoice is issued in the name of Vijay and address mentioned in invoice is Rammurthy Nagar, Bangalore which is the same address of the accused. Further, in Ex.P2 to P4 also 51 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
name is mentioned as Vijay. Therefore, objections to this extent by accused cannot be considered. The prosecution has established the expenses of Rs.7,200/-. Item No.8(Expenditure):- Purchase of Bajaj CT Deluxe 2 wheeler for Rs.40,008.00 from M/s.VST Bajaj Auto Agency, Bangalore.
In this regard, prosecution has examined - B.S.Gangadhar, PW4, Sales Manager, VST Auto Agency. He has stated in his evidence that the receipt bearing No.81406 dtd.10.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.39,273/- was issued by M/s.VST Auto Agency as per Ex.P7. Further, 2 bills for Rs.355/- and Rs.380/- have been issued as per Exs.P8 and 9 are in the name of accused No.2. Ex.P10 is the Invoice for sale of Bajaj CT 100 bike for Rs.39,273/-. These documents Exs.P7 to 10 are in the name of Mrs.Hamsaveni N. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that name of purchaser is not mentioned in Ex.P7. It may be noted that cash receipt was issued in the name of Mrs.Hamsaveni. Ex.P8 is for purchase of helmet and Ex.P9 for seat cover for Rs.355/- and Rs.380/- respectively do not bear the name. Though it is suggested that Hamsaveni has not purchased this vehicle from their shop, but however, the said defence cannot accepted since invoice is in the name of accused No.2. Thus, the prosecution has proved expenditure of Rs.40,008/-.
Item No.9(Expenditure):- Amount spent towards insurance of Maruti 800 Car - Rs.10,476/-. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW5 - C.Selvam. He has stated in his evidence that Policy Exs.P.13, 52 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
P14, 15 and 16 have been issued in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA 29 P 1000. This witness is cross-examined on behalf of accused and has contended that middle man has misused the name Muniraju and same is denied. Ex.P13 Policy, Ex.P15 Policy and Ex.P16 receipt and Ex.P17 Policy are issued in the name of Muniraju in respect of Maruti-800 old Car KA 29 P 1000 for the period 11.9.2004 to 10.9.2005. It may be noted that accused was having Car bearing No.KA 29 P 1000. Therefore, naturally, insurance policies will be taken by the accused Muniraju. Thus, expenditure incurred towards Insurance of vehicle is proved by prosecution.
Item No.10(Expenditure):- Amount of Rs.18,201/- spent for servicing of Maruti Car at M/s.Sagar Automobiles, Banaswadi, Bangalore.
To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined one G.Narayanaswamy as PW12, who is the authorized dealer of M/s.Bimal Auto Agency. He has stated in his evidence that he is working as recovery executive in the said agency. The invoice No.016694 for a sum of Rs.18,201/- produced at Ex.P34 was issued by their office. He has stated that the said amount was spent for Engine work purpose for KA 29 P 1000 Car. It is suggested that A-2 has not brought the vehicle to the garage for servicing and witness has stated that he does not know. It may be noted that the bill Ex.P34 is in the name of Hamsaveni. It is proved that Maruti Car bearing No.KA 29 P 1000 belonged to the accused. Under such circumstances, the contentions raised in the cross-examination cannot be accepted. Therefore, the 53 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
expenditure of Rs.18,201/- incurred for servicing of Maruti Car is proved by prosecution.
Item No.11(Expenditure):- Expenditure of Rs.9,694/- towards servicing of Maruti Car at M/s.Sagar Automobiles, Banaswadi, Bangalore.
In this regard, the prosecution has examined one Shivanand Hiremath as PW19. He has stated in his evidence that he has worked as Works Manger in M/s.Sagar Automobiles, Bangalore. He has stated that the invoice bearing No.012167 dtd.14.9.2005 produced at Exs.P64 and 65 are pertaining to the Maruti Car No.KA 29 P 1000. In the cross-examination it is elicited from the witness that he had no occasion to verify the correctness of the cash memo. Exs.P64 and 65 are the cash memos issued by Sagar Automobiles. It is in the name of Hamsaveni Muniraju, No.20, RM Nagar, Bangalore. As mentioned above, the vehicle KA 29 P 1000 Maruti Car belonged to accused No.2 Under the circumstances, amount has been spent for repairs. Therefore, the prosecution has established expenditure of Rs.9,694/-.
Item No.12(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.1,341/- spent towards insurance of Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.KA 04 S 4570.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW14 - Narasimhan V. who has worked as Sr.Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Marathahalli Branch, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that Insurance Policy was issued in the name of accused No.1 K.Muniraju for the period 24.10.2002 to 23.10.2003 for Bajaj Chethak Scooter. He has also stated that 54 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Exs.P39 to 42 have been issued by their Office. This witness has been examined on behalf of accused, wherein it is suggested that there could be possibility of new purchaser/representative approaching the Company for renewal of policy. The same is accepted as true by this witness. There is onus on accused to show that the vehicle has been sold to someone and new purchaser has taken the policy. In this case, no such material is placed. So, evidence of PW14 and documents Exs.P39 to 42 are to be accepted and prosecution has proved the expenditure of Rs.1,341/-.
Item No.13(Expenditure):- Purchase of Engine Oil and bulb - Rs.141/- from M/s.Jatti Motors, Bangalore. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW24, Ramakrishna. He has stated in his evidence that he has worked as Accountant Assistant (Recovery) in M/s.Jatti Motors, and he has also stated that Invoice as per Ex.P85 for Rs.141/- was issued in the name of Vijay. It is suggested in the cross-examination of this witness that accused No.1 has not visited the Company, but the same is denied by this witness. The witness has also stated that Oil was purchased for vehicle No.KA 03 EK 5856. Under the circumstances, Ex.P14 can be relied and nothing is elicited to discard his evidence. Hence, expenditure of Rs.141/- is proved by prosecution.
Item No.14(Expenditure):-Expenditure of Rs.1,62,000/- incurred towards purchase of second hand Maruti Car KA 29 P 1000.55
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW25 - P.Raman and got marked document at Ex.P86. PW25 - P.Raman has stated in his evidence that he has sold Maruti Car bearing No.KA 29 P 1000 for Rs.1,62,000/- as per Ex.P86 on 2.6.2003 and delivery note is as per Ex.P87. He has also stated that the consideration amount of Rs.1,62,000/- also includes his commission. The witness is cross-examined on behalf of accused. It is suggested that accused No.2 has not paid any amount as per Exs.P86 and 87. It may be noted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused No.2 had availed loan of Rs.1,36,000/- from ING Vysya Bank for the purpose of above mentioned Maruti Car. Therefore, cross-examination of the witness that accused has not paid amount, do not hold any substance. On the other hand, the evidence of PW25 is corroborating with other materials relating to availment of loan.
Under such circumstances, the prosecution has established that Rs.1,62,000/- was paid towards purchase of Car. Item No.15(Expenditure):- Amount spent towards Mobile Airtel Bharati - Rs.2,894/-.
In this regard, prosecution has not placed any material like invoice etc. Therefore, this item is not proved. Item No.16(Expenditure):- Expenditure of Rs.3,306/- incurred towards recharging of Airtel Mobile. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined one Stanley Agnelo as PW6. He has stated in his evidence that he was working as Manager, HR and Administration in Bharati Airtel, Bangalore. Further, he has stated that accused No.2 56 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Hamsaveni has taken Mobile Sim Card number as per Ex.P19 and she has deposited Rs.400/-. Ex.P19 attested copy given by the witness to the I.O. Ex.P20 is relating to receipt of Rs.400/- from Hamsaveni, Ex.P21 is the payment statement showing cash payment of Rs.1090/- and another amount of Rs.190/- The computer statement is at Ex.P22. Ex.P23 is a computer receipt. Ex.P24 is a receipt for Rs.1214/-. In the cross-examination it is suggested that Hamsaveni has not purchased the Sim card and has not paid the amount and documents are fabricated. The said suggestions are denied by the witness. There is no reason as to why the witness should fabricate these documents. There is no material to discard the evidence of this witness. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has established the said fact.
Item No.17(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.6,400/- incurred towards TATA Indicom Phones.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW35 - Ravi Noronha. He has stated in his evidence that he was working as Head Nodal and Regulatory Affairs in Tata Services, Bangalore and stated that Vijayamuniraju has given application as per Ex.P151 and telephone connection provided to Vijaymuniraju bearing No.56800919 and 56901104 on payment of Rs.6,400/-. There is no cross-examination to this witness. Hence, Prosecution has established this fact.
Item No.18(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.10,076/- incurred towards BSNL Telephone No.5231755.
In order to establish this fact the prosecution has examined one Syed Iqbal as PW26. He has stated in his evidence that 57 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
they have given telephone connection to A-1 as per Ex.P89 bearing telephone No.25231755. Further he has stated in his evidence regarding details of deposits and amount paid as per Exs.P89, 90 and 92. Ex.P89 is the application filed for telephone connection to BSNL. Ex.P90 is the copy of demand note and Ex.P92 is a payment bill particulars to show the payment of amounts to BSNL. There is no cross-examination on this point. Therefore, the prosecution has established expenditure of Rs.10,076/-.
Item No.19(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.22,800/- incurred towards Reliance Telephone No.080-31843872. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has examined PW30 - K.Shivaraj, Secretary to CEO Reliance Communication. He has stated in his evidence that telephone No.31843872 was allotted to K.Muniraju and accused No.1 has totally paid Rs.22,800/- as per documents marked at Exs.P122 and 123. Ex.P122 is the payment details which mentions the total payment of RS.22,800/-. Ex.P123 is the statement of accounts. PW30 has stated that K.Muniraju has paid Rs.21,600/- by way of DD bearing No.225324 and on 23.7.2003 a cheque No.519689 of ICICI Bank for Rs.80/- is paid towards bill and cash of Rs.1120 is paid on 2.1.2007. In the cross-examination it is elicited that except for statement of account there is no document which states that K.Muniraju was allotted telephone No.31843872. It is suggested that such connection is not availed and amount is not paid. The accused has not stepped into the witness box to say that he has not obtained such 58 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
telephone connection to his house. Further, he has not denied the tendering of DD for Rs.21,600/- and cheque for Rs.80/-. Mere denial of availing connection on the part of accused cannot take away the positive evidence of PW30. Therefore, expenditure of Rs.22,800/- is proved.
Item No.20(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.5,880/- incurred towards purchase of suits from M/s.Puran's Collections, Bangalore.
In order to prove this expenditure, prosecution has examined PW11 and produced Ex.P33. PW11 - Nasir Khan has stated in his evidence that he is working in Puran's Collections since 2000 and Ex.P33 is the bill issued by their Company evidencing sale of 2 suits, 2 ties and one shirt. He has stated that Ex.P33 is the bill paid on payment of cash. In the cross-examination it is elicited that witness is unable to identify who has purchased items. I have perused the Puran's Collections sale bill for Rs.5,880/-, it does not bear the name of purchaser. The purchase is made on 3.1.2003. The inventory list Ex.P215 mentions about recovery of 3 suits out of which one suit is a gift and it is valued Rs.2,500/-. In my view, value mentioned in receipt cannot be taken as purchase of the 3 blazers. But, however, the value of the suits can be taken as Rs.2,500/- as no evidence is adduced by he accused to show when the suits are purchased. Hence, prosecution has proved Rs.2,500/-.59
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Item No.21(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.7,700/- incurred towards purchase of Samsung TV from M/s.Sierra Industrial Enterprises, Indira Nagar, Bangalore. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW13 - G.S.Dinesh Kumar. He has stated in his evidence that a Colour T.V. is delivered to accused No.1 Vijay Muniraju on 7.10.2005 for Rs.7,700/- and the bill is Ex.P37. He has also stated that initially Rs.5,000/- is paid and subsequently Rs.2,700/- was paid. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that accused No.1 has not come to his shop for purchase of colour T.V. but the said suggestion is denied. The witness has clearly stated that he was present when accused No.1 purchased TV. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW13. Under the circumstances, prosecution has proved the expenditure of Rs.7,700/-.
Item No.22(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.300/- is donated to Kamakoti Ramacharya Memorial Trust, Srisailam. In this regard prosecution has examined PW10, the Managing trustee of Kamakoti Ramacharya Memorial Trust, Srisailam. He has stated in his evidence that Ex.P31 is issued for receiving Rs.300/- donation from one K.Raju. In the cross-examination he does not know the donar K.Raju personally. It may be noted that in several other transactions name of accused No.1 is mentioned as K.Raju. Therefore, the prosecution has established expenditure of Rs.300/-.60
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Item No.23(Expenditure):- Amount spent towards purchase of Shoes from M/s.Sierra Industrial Enterprises, Indiranagar, Bangalore - Rs.780/-.
To evidence this fact, prosecution has examined one Fareed Syed Hussain as PW9. He has stated in his evidence that he has worked as Asst. Sales Manager and Area Sales Manager in M/s.Sierra Industrial Enterprises Pvt.ltd. and the Cash memo dtd.20.2.2005 for Rs.780/- as per Ex.p30 for purchase of Footwear was issued to the purchaser. In the cross-examination it is suggested that Ex.P30 is created to help the CBI. The Cash memo does not contain the name of purchaser. The document was seized by the I.O. and it bears the signature of PW46 as stated by him. It may be noted that Ex.P30 was issued for Rs.780/-. In the cross-examination to PW63 it is suggested that the household articles will include footwear and other materials. This suggestion will reflect that some footwear have been purchased by accused. There is no reason to disbelieve PW9, PW46 and I.O. Hence, expenditure of Rs.780/- is established. Item No.24(Expenditure):- Expenses of Rs.2,000/- incurred towards membership at BITS Clubs, Kamanahalli, Bangalore.
In order to prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW15
- R.Shivakumar and got marked Exs.P44 to 48. He has stated in his evidence that one Vijay Muniraju got a membership by paying Rs.2,000/- as fees as per Exs.P44 and 45. It is suggested to this witness in the cross-examination that the said document is created. Ex.P44 has the photo of first accused.61
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
There is no reason why the Manager has to depose falsehood against 1st accused. Hence, under such circumstance, prosecution has proved the expenditure of Rs.2,000/-.
Item No.25(Expenditure):- Expenses of Rs.300/- incurred towards House Construction Estimate prepared by G.Somashekar, Ulsoor, Bangalore.
In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW16- Somashekar, Civil Engineer Contractor. He has stated in his evidence that he has collected Rs.300/- as professional fee for making estimate Ex.P48. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of accused and a suggestion is made to the effect that Ex.P48 is created by PW16 and the same is denied. In my view there are no other material elicited by accused to discard the evidence of PW16. Therefore, expenditure of Rs.300/- is established.
Item No.26(Expenditure):- Amount of Rs.750/- spent towards House Construction Valuation prepared by Sri Ishwar Bhatt, Malleswaram, Bangalore.
In this regard, prosecution has not examined any witness and not placed any material. Therefore, it is not established. Item No.27(Expenditure):- Amount of Rs.300/- spent towards House Construction Estimate prepared by Sri N.Shantharam, Yelahanka, Bangalore.
In this regard, prosecution has examined PW21 and got marked Ex.P71. PW21 - M.Shantharam, Consulting Civil Engineer, has stated in his evidence that he has estimated first floor of the building and he has received Rs.300/- for preparing 62 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
estimation. In the cross-examination it is suggested that he is deposing falsehood. It may be noted that there is estimation as per Ex.P71 and there is every possibility of paying Rs.300/-. No material placed to discard his evidence. Therefore, expenditure of Rs.300/- is proved.
Item No.28(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.949.50/- spent towards purchase of News papers, Magazines from M/s.Prakash News Agency, Kammanahalli, Bangalore. To prove this fact prosecution has examined PW23 - H.B.Rajashekar. He has stated in his evidence that he is doing business in the sale of newspaper under the name and style of M/s.Prakash News Agency, Bangalore. Further he has stated that he is issued bills as per Exs.P80 and 81 for Rs.159.50 and Rs.250/-. He has also stated that accused has paid an amount of Rs.540/- during 2004-05. The witness is cross-examined and it is suggested that false evidence is tendered against accused. In the cross-examination to I.O. PW63 a suggestion is made that household expenses will include newspapers expenses. This suggestion would reflect that accused used to purchase newspapers. In my view, there is no material to discard the evidence of this witness as Ex.P80 is in the name of Hamsaveni. The witness has also produced Ex.P82 to show the list of particulars of Magazines and newspapers supplied. Now on going through these records, it can be seen expenditure of 2 bills amounting Rs.250/- and 159/- are supported by document. As regards other amounts, there is no clear evidence regarding maintaining of the loose papers produced at Ex.P82. Under the 63 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
circumstances, only Rs.250/- +Rs.159.50/- = Rs.409.50 is the expenditure established by prosecution.
Item No.29(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.5,075/- spent towards share contribution made to Co-operative Society, Engine Division, Bangalore.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW22 and got marked Exs.P73 to 78. PW22 - Ramalingaiah, working as Secretary in Engine Division of HAL has stated in his evidence that A-1 has paid total amount of Rs.5,075/- as per Ex.P73 and ledger extract is marked at Ex.P74. This is not disputed by the accused. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs.5,075/- is proved by prosecution.
Item No.30(Expenditure):- Loan repayment by cash to Co-operative Society, Engine Division, HAL, Bangalore - Rs.71,379/-.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW22 and got marked Exs.P73 to 79. PW22 - Ramalingaiah, working as Secretary in Engine Division of HAL has stated in his evidence that accused was a member of Co-operative Society, Engine Division. He has stated about various payments relating to loan amount. There is repayment of Rs.1,02,107/- out of loan of Rs.1,45,000/- availed by A-1. There is repayment of amount and it is not disputed by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has established this fact.
Item No.31(Expenditure):- An amount of Rs.6,300/- spent towards share contribution made to Co-operative Society, Engine Division, Bangalore.64
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
In order to prove this entry, prosecution has examined PW27 and got marked Ex.P98. PW27 - D.B.Manjunath, working as SDA, Aircraft Employees Co-operative Ltd., Bangalore since 2002. He has stated that accused was member of the Air Craft Employees' Co-operative Society and he has produced documents at Ex.P95 to P98. He has identified share ledger at Ex.P98. There is no cross-examination by accused regarding investment of Rs.6,300/- towards share in Society and therefore, the prosecution has established this fact.
Item No.32(Expenditure):- Loan repayment by cash Co-operative Society, Aircraft Division, HAL, Bangalore - Rs.25,480/-.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW27 and got marked Exs.P98 to 103. PW27- D.B.Manjunath is working as SDA, Aircraft Employees Co-operative Ltd., Bangalore since 2002. He has deposed about execution of loan papers by accused No.1. PW27 has clearly stated that A-1 has availed loan and an amount of Rs.25,480/- was recovered by Cash and Rs.11,088/- was recovered from the salary. He has produced documents Exs.P98 to 103 to prove the said fact. Evidence of this witness is not challenged by cross-examination. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness and the documents like statement of accounts, prosecution has proved the expenditure towards repayment of Rs.25,480/-.
Item No.33(Expenditure):- Re-payment of loan of Rs.51,910/- by cash to Employees Welfare Fund, HAL, by A-1.65
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW.43 - Gurulingappa Edravi, is the Secretary of HAL Employees' Welfare Fund, during the year 2006. He has stated in his evidence that the total loan amount availed by accused between Jan-1997 to Oct-2005 was Rs.1,05,900/-. Out of this the accused has repaid Rs.90,554/-. This witness is not cross-examined on behalf of accused. In the Charge Sheet the prosecution has mentioned only an amount of Rs.51,910/- whereas in the evidence of this witness it is elicited that there is repayment of Rs.90,554/-. Only expenditure of Rs.51,910/- is mentioned in column No.33 towards repayment of said amount and therefore, only that amount is taken as proved.
Item No.34(Expenditure):- Electricity charges of Rs.13,953/- paid to BESCOM, K.R.Puram, Bangalore pertaining to house of A-1.
In this regard, prosecution has examined PW20 - M. Mallikarjuna Reddy and got marked BESCOM Statements at Exs.P66, 67 and 68. PW20 - M.Mallikarjuna, Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Bangalore has stated in his evidence that RR No.7ELG 13155 belongs to K.Muniraju and the electricity connection was given to that RR situated at house No.20, 4th Main, MV Nagar, Rammurthy Nagar P.O. Bangalore. He has also stated that A-1 has paid certain amounts as per Exs.P66 and 67. In his cross-examination it is suggested that Exs.P66 and 67 are created documents. It may be noted that no materials are placed by the accused to show what was the electricity consumption for these period. The ledger extract mentions the name of 66 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
K.Muniraju with RR No.13155. In the absence of accused furnishing any other RR number connected to his house the evidence of this witness can be relied. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs.13,953/- is proved.
Item No.35(Expenditure):- Purchase of Gas Geyser for Rs.3,200/- from M/s.Vijaya Marketing, Malleswaram, Bangalore.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW46 and PW63 and got marked Ex.P225. PW46 - Rajendra Kumar N.M. has stated in his evidence that search was made in his presence. Ex.P225 is a Cash memo issued by Vijaya Marketing on 23.2.2005 for sale of a Gas Geyser for Rs.3,200/-, it is in the name of Vijay, No.20, main road, Ramamurthy Nagar. There is no specific denial about this document on the side of accused.
When the receipt bears the name of accused and there is no denial by entering into witness box by accused, the expenditure for purchase of Gas Geyser is proved.
Item No.36(Expenditure):- A-1's Daughter's Education expenses at Cambridge School, K.R.Puram, Bangalore - Rs.28,345/-.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW29 and produced Exs.P110 to 121. PW29 - Vinodh Mani is the Principal of Cambridge School, Bangalore. He has stated in his evidence that the student by name Deephti studied in their school and left the school during May-2006. He has also stated that fees include transportation etc. are paid as per Exs.P110 to 121. There is no cross-examination by defence to this witness. A perusal of 67 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
receipts issued by school will reflect that expenditure of Rs.28,345/- is proved.
Item No.37(Expenditure):- Purchase of a VCD Player 2300 ME from M/s.India Home, Bangalore for Rs.5,900/-.
To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW46. PW46 - Rajendra Kumar N.M., who is the inventory witness, has stated in his evidence that Ex.P234 document was seized from the house of accused. A perusal of Ex.P234 will reflect that a Samsung VCD player in the name of Muniraja was sold on 2.2.2003. This property is not found in the seizure memo and the person who has sold this property is not examined in this case. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has not established expenditure of Rs.5,900/- by accused towards purchase of a VCD player.
Item No.38(Expenditure):- Purchase of a Soloride from M/s.Pioneer Enterprises, Mysore road, Bangalore for Rs.3,300/-.
To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW46. PW46 - Rajendra Kumar N.M., who is the inventory witness, has stated in his evidence that Ex.P235 document was seized from the house of accused and it is in the name of K.Muniraja and Ex.P235 bears the signature said to be accused. It is mentioned that there is balance of Rs.3,000/- in that bill. No material is produced to show that balance amount is paid. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P235. Hence, this aspect is not proved.
Item No.39(Expenditure):- Purchase of Petrol from retail outlet, Channarayapatna. - Rs.1,560/-.
68: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
In order to prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW46
- Rajendra Kumar N.M., who is the inventory witness, has stated in his evidence that petrol has been purchased. Accused was having vehicle and therefore fuel has to be purchased . No other explanation is offered by accused. Hence, expenditure of Rs.1,560/- is proved.
Item No.40(Expenditure):- Purchase of Petrol from Aman Enterprises, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. - Rs.1,153.60/-.
To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW39. P.W. 39 - Ramana Reddy has stated about sale of Petrol under receipt Nos.167 and 168. Accused has possessed vehicles and petrol will be purchased to his vehicles. Hence, expenditure of Rs.1,153.60 is proved.
Item No.41(Expenditure):- Purchase of Petrol from Reliance Petro Marketing, Palamner, A.P. - Rs.4,050/-.
In this regard, prosecution has examined PW45. PW45 - Vijaya Shekar has stated about sale of Petrol under cash memos
- Exs.P205 to 214. Accused has possessed vehicles and petrol will be purchased to his vehicles. Hence, expenditure of Rs.4,050/- is proved.
Item No.42(Expenditure):- Repayments of House Loan of Rs.3,32,155.44 to Vijaya Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore.
In order to prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW33 - Vinod Kumar Gupa, Asst. Manager, Vijaya Bank. He has sated in his evidence that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had availed loan of Rs.11-lakh as per Exs.P145 to 147. He has also stated that an amount of Rs.3,32,155.44 is repaid. There is no 69 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
cross-examination on this point. Therefore, the repayment expenditure of loan 3,32,155.44 is proved.
Item No.43 (Expenditure):- Repayment of Home loan to ICICI Home Finance Limited., Bangalore - Rs.33,717.00 To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has produced document Exs.276 to 278, through PW63 - I.O. In the written argument, the learned PP has shown this repayment amount as Rs.4,05,717/-. But the repayment amount shown in Charge Sheet is Rs.33,717/-. It may be noted that while availing loan of Rs.11-lakh from Vijaya Bank the ICICI Bank loan has been repaid. In the income column the loan availed from Vijaya Bank is shown as Rs.7,28,000/- after deducting that loan amount paid towards ICICI Bank. Under the circumstances, once again the repayment of loan towards ICICI Bank for Rs.4,05,000/- cannot be taken. A perusal of Ex.P276 statement of ICICI Bank will reflect that payment of Rs.33,717/- has been made apart from clearing the loan by paying Rs.3,72,000/-. The accused has not denied the particulars of repayment shown at Ex.P276 and therefore, that amount of Rs.33,717/- is proved as expenditure.
Item No.44(Expenditure):- Repayment of PF loan to HAL through DD of Punjab National Bank - Rs.1,880/-.
To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has not examined any witness nor got marked any document. Therefore, this item is not proved.70
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Item No.45(Expenditure):- Repayment of loan to Corporation Bank through Vimanapura Co-op. Society, HAL - Rs.27,307/-.
To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has examined P.W.44 - M.Shivamalla. He has stated that he was deputed as CEO, Vimanapura Co-operative Society, Bangalore and the society had tie up with corporation bank for providing loan to the employees. He has also stated that on 13.2.2002, K.Muniraju, member of the society was granted loan of Rs.30,000/- and same has been repaid. In this connection, documents Ex.P202 to P204 are produced. Ex.P204 is a certificate issued by corporation bank stating that Muniraju has repaid the loan amount. Ex.P202 is the statement of account from 1.1.2002 to 22.2.2003. At the foot of statement, amount of Rs.27,307/- is shown as paid by cash. The documents have not been disputed by cross examining P.W.44. Further, in 313 statement, Accused no.1 has admitted about the loan. Thus, the prosecution has established the expenditure of Rs.27,307/-.
Item No.46(Expenditure):- Payment of House tax to City Municipal Council, K.R.Puram by Sri.K.Muniraja - Rs.348/-.
To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has examined PW59 - N.Anantha Rao and Ex.P267 is produced.
PW59 - N.Anantha Rao, Revenue Inspector, B.B.M.P. has clearly stated about payment of house tax of Rs.348/- by A-1 to City Municipal Council, K.R.Puram. He has further stated that Ex.P266 is the assessment declaration. From this document, prosecution has established the payment of house tax.
71: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Item No.47 and 48(Expenditure):-
Amount of Rs.2,10,000/- spent towards purchase of 3 acres of land at Bommidoddi, Palamner, Andhra Pradesh, in the name of Mrs.N.Hamsaveni, from Sri.T.Shankar and Registration charges of House site No.20, II main, SMV Nagar, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore - Rs.11,700/-.
To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW40 and got marked Exs.P170 and 171.
PW40 - Bhaskar T. has stated in his evidence that he owned land in Bommidoddi, Palamner, Andhra Pradesh, and he has sold 3 acres of land to accused No.2. In this regard, he has produced Exs.P170 and 171 - certified copy of sale deed. In the cross-examination of PW63 I.O. it has been suggested that an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been repaid by Shankar relating to purchase of land. By this suggestion, whether the amount is repaid or not by Shankar will be considered later on, but as of now it can be safely concluded that Rs.2,10,000/- expenses is incurred towards purchase of the property and its registration of Rs.11,700/- made as per document Nos.46 and 47. Apart from that PW60, the document examiner, working as Deputy Government Examiner, Questioned documents, has stated in his evidence that he has received questioned documents pertaining to this case for examination. He has stated about the specimen signature of T.Sudhakar, T.Shankar, T.S.Bhaskar and specimen handwriting of K.Muniraja and he has given his opinion, which is marked as Ex.P268. The witness is not cross-examined on behalf of accused; the signature of the persons on questioned 72 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
documents has not been challenged. Thus the expenditure of Rs.2,10,000/- for purchase of land and Rs.11,700/- towards registration charges is established.
45. In the above paragraphs the amounts mentioned in the statement A,B,C and D in the charge-sheet have been dealt and the correctness or otherwise of those entries is decided.
There are some arguments canvassed on behalf of accused regarding taking of some entries as expenses incorrectly even though, those items have been covered under the household expense. The learned Counsel for defence has taken up the evidence of PWs.1 to 63 separately and invited the attention of the Court.
46. It is submitted by the counsel for the accused that there is no allegation of taking gratification by accused No.1 while working in H.A.L. or otherwise. It is submitted that the I.O. has not valued the agricultural land and a Maruti Car was owned by accused prior to the check period.
47. It is further submitted on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has not considered the income of 2nd accused and that is evidenced by the income tax returns produced in this case. It is further submitted that the land was SC/ST's land and the amount has been repaid to the accused by the vendors and accused has availed number of loans and still Rs.11-lakh loan is 73 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
outstanding. It is also argued on behalf of the accused about certain gold articles, Samsung TV, VCD player not being found at the time of inventory and this has led to the miscarriage of investigation.
48. The learned Counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258 : (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 402 - (Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'Unexplained income was merely a paltry sum which any government employee could save every year.' The learned Counsel for accused has also relied on another decision 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 91 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Pallonji Darabshaw Daruwalla) regarding the negligible difference found in the savings of that case. She has also pointed at the onus of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of the offence by the standard of criminal evidence.
49. In the instant case on hand, in order to explain satisfactorily and account for the possession of the properties, the accused has cross-examined most of the witnesses and in particular, the defence seems to be projected in the cross-examination of investigating Officer PW63. In the said cross-examination it is suggested that the accused had sold gold worth Rs.80,000/- and that had been used for construction of 74 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
the house. The gold articles are marked at Exs.P1 to P4. The witness has answered that Exs.P1 to P4 were not found in the house at the time of inventory but only those receipts were marked. The amount of gold articles mentioned in Exs.P1 to P4 are worth Rs.38,489/- as per the bills. The value of the gold sold is contended to be Rs.80,000/-. Accused has not stepped into witness box to say about sale of gold and its value. According to the suggestion made on behalf of accused, the amount was used for construction of house. In the instant case on hand, the prosecution has contented that the value of the house is more than Rs.13-lakh. There is a loan of Rs.11-lakh availed from Vijaya Bank for construction of the said house. Whereas, in Statement B, the entire value of the house itself is shown as Rs.9,25,525/-. Therefore, the contention of Accused that the gold was sold and amount was utilized for the purpose of construction of house cannot be accepted under the existing material available in this case. It is for the accused to prove that gold articles have been sold, by placing some material or entering into witness box. Mainly because gold articles were not found on the day of inventory, it does not necessarily mean that they were sold for Rs.80,000/-. Therefore, unless there is any proof on the side of the accused to that effect, the defence of the accused cannot be accepted and amount of Rs.80,000/- cannot be taken as income or receipt. Thus, the contention that RS.80,000/- is an income out of sale of gold articles Exs.P1 to P4 is not established.75
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Further, PW63 has stated in his evidence that a Maruti-800 Car was not found at the time of inventory and the accused had informed that it was sold to Mr.Hebbal for Rs.95,000/- but accused did not furnish full address of said Hebbal. Therefore, Rs.95,000/- is not taken as income in 'C' statement. The witness has tried to give further statement that the Car was sold after the check period and for that reason also it was not included in income sheet. It may be seen that the Car was not found at the time of inventory and there is no material to show that the accused was owning this Car even after inventory. It may be noted that Car was purchased for Rs.1,62,000/- and on passage of time the value of the vehicle gets reduced. Under the circumstances, the defence of accused that Car was sold for Rs.95,000/- can be accepted. Hence, income amount of Rs.95,000/- has to be added to statement of income.
50. It is also suggested that accused raised Rs.2-lakh loan from Mr.Ramanareddy for paying balance amount towards Wagon R car. To establish this fact, accused has not got himself examined nor any witness is examined. No documentary evidence is produced. Even they have not examined Ramareddy to say that the accused had availed loan of Rs.2-lakh. Under the circumstances, this contention of the accused cannot be accepted.
51. Further, in order to prove the defence of the accused, that accused No.2 was working and paying income tax, the 76 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
accused No.2 has filed the written statement during recording of 313 Statement of accused and has stated that she is a B.Com., graduate from R.B.A.N.M. College. She got married to 1st accused on 2.5.1997, she had joined Company by name Qualities Spares and Services as Assistant Accountant and was drawing Salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to her family. She has further stated that she resigned the Company job in the year 2001 to maintain the family and children and thereafter she has started her own tailoring business and earning Rs.6,500 to 7,500/- per month. She has further stated in the written statement that at the time of her marriage her parents has gifted gold ornaments weighing about 110-120 gms. and the said articles were sold by her while constructing the house.
52. Section 13 (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, cast a duty on the accused to explain satisfactorily the source of income and acquisition of property regarding the allegations made. As mentioned above, accused Nos.1 and 2 have not stepped into witness box to put forth their defence.
53. The proof of explanation to be offered by accused is as per preponderance of probability. In the instant case on hand, Ex.P257 to P259 are the income returns filed by accused No.2 Hamsaveni. Ex.P257 is the Form No.2D-SARAL along with income tax challan receipt issued by Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch. The income tax is assessed for the year 2002-03 in 77 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
respect of the income pertaining to period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002. The income declared from business or profession is shown as Rs.80,690/-. The income tax paid is shown as Rs.250/-. The Form No.2D-SARAL is dated 28.8.2003. It is annexed with computation of taxable income an amount of Rs.1,12,615/- is shown as income from tailoring business. The form is also accompanied with challan amount paid in the Bank.
54. Ex.P258 is form 2D-SARAL submitted by accused No.2 Hamsaveni for the assessment year 2003-2004 regarding income from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. The application is dated 28.8.2003. The said form has the seal of income tax department. The income from business on profession is shown as Rs.84,250/-. The challan for having paid to Canara Bank of RS.1,000/- is also produced.
Ex.P259 is the form 2-D SARAL submitted by accused No.2 Hamsaveni for the assessment year 2004-2005. It bears the income tax office seal for having received the Saral form; an amount of Rs.98,396/-is shown as income from business. The tax payers counterfoil is also filed.
55. It is submitted by the learned Prosecutor that accused No.2 has not tendered evidence regarding her income and profession and therefore, the income tax returns cannot be taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the income tax returns clearly establish the 78 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
profession as well as the income and that has to be taken into consideration.
The FIR against accused is registered in the year 2006 and the inventory is conducted in the house of accused on 2.3.2006. The income tax returns filed at Ex.P257 to 259 are for the period prior to 2006 and before filing of the FIR.
Ex.P257 and 258 income tax returns are filed in the year 2003 itself. The accused could not have anticipated such case against them during that time. There is no material to show that accused No.2 has filed these income tax documents to achieve some other object. It is not disputed that accused No.2 is a B.Com., graduate. It is not uncommon in City like Bangalore that house wives also undertake some work to support the expenses of her family. Otherwise, it will be difficult for a family with salary like accused No.1 to lead life in the City. Under the circumstances, the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution cannot be accepted. The documents Ex.P257 to 259 are on record and therefore, through these documents the Court can give finding about the income of accused No.2 even in the absence of her oral evidence. Since Hamsaveni the wife of accused No.1 is made as a accused in this case, this income of accused No.2 has to be taken into consideration. Hence, the income declared under Ex.P257 to 259 has to be taken in C Statement.
Thus, the income amount to be taken into consideration is Rs.80690+84250+98396 = 2,63,336/-.79
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
56. As regards the statement of accused that she had worked in two Companies and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, no material is placed. Further, accused No.2 is also not examined for proof the said earnings. The said earning cannot be established by filing statement or by suggesting to PW63. Hence, to that extent the explanation offered by accused No.2 is not acceptable.
57. As regards the contention that accused was having a Car prior to the check period, and same has not been taken into consideration, there is no material produced in this regard. Therefore, the contention is not accepted.
58. It has been argued that agricultural land has not been valued and taken as asset. In this regard, there is copy of sale deed Ex.P171 which reflect that the agricultural land bearing No.1095/1 and 1095/4 is purchased for Rs.2,10,000/- from P.Bhaskar and others. PW64 - Revenue Officer has stated in his evidence that the land bearing No.1095/1 and 1095/4 is a government land and the allotment of the said land in favour of earlier allottees has been cancelled and it is allotted in the name of Hamsaveni. The accused has not placed any material to show that any amount is paid to acquire the same from the government. In the cross-examination it is suggested on behalf of the accused that such lands are given free of cost and it is admitted by the witness. Therefore, the prosecution has not taken into consideration the value of this property as an asset.
80: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
But there is material to show that an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid to the earlier vendors and same is shown in the expenditure column. The accused has not stepped into witness box or examined any person to prove that the amount paid to earlier vendors has been repaid. Therefore, unless the accused explains these facts, it cannot be said that there is lacuna in not valuing the agricultural land. Further, the accused has failed to prove that amount of Rs.2,10,000/- paid under the sale deed has been returned by the earlier vendors.
59. One another contention taken by the accused is that the household expenses includes clothing, footwear, telephone charges, electricity, mobile currency charges and petrol. It has been suggested to PW63 accordingly and same is denied by the witness. In this case, the prosecution has taken the household expenses at Rs.2,35,447/- which is 1/3rd of the gross income. The check period is from 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006 i.e for about 9 years and 5 months. The average monthly expenses will be Rs.2,35,447 / 113 = Rs.2,083/- per month.
60. The education expenses of daughter of accused is Rs.28,345/- which is for about 3 years school expenses. The said amount cannot be taken as household expenses, because the higher amount cannot fit into the monthly expenses. As far as the question of purchasing 2 suits which is valued at Rs.2,500/- is concerned, it also cannot be taken into household expense as they are expensive clothing. The amount spent 81 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
towards purchase of shoes Rs.780/- item No.23 can be considered as included in household expenses and as such the item No.23 expenses separately shown has to be deducted.
61. Similarly, an amount of Rs.409.50 paise proved as spent for purchase of news paper can also be taken into household expenses and same has to be deducted.
62. The electricity expenses is shown as Rs.13,953/-. This amount is a higher amount and having regard to the fact that the average spending amount for month is Rs.2000/-, the electricity expenses cannot be deducted.
63. Similarly, petrol purchase made at Rs.1153.60 for Sl.No.40 and Rs.4050/- at Sl.No.41 of charge-sheet also cannot be deducted, because it cannot be included in household expenses.
64. Another contention is taken by the accused that there is rental income of Rs.2500/- and 4000 respectively out of 2 portions of the house. Such a suggestion is made to the PW63, but same is denied. The accused has not let in any evidence to show that such rents were received by them. On the other hand, the prosecution has taken into consideration a rent agreement and based on it an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards advance and Rs.42,400/- has been taken into consideration in income C statements. Therefore, the contention of the accused that rent income has not been considered is not acceptable.
82: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
65. A contention is also taken on behalf of accused that telephone bills have to be taken as household expenses. In the instant case on hand, telephone expenses paid to BSNL telephone No.5231755 is Rs.10,076/- and towards Reliance telephone No.080-31843872 is Rs.22,800/-. The expense incurred towards payment of telephone charges is on the higher side compared to the average monthly income available for expenditure. Therefore, this amount also cannot be considered under the household expenses.
The income receipt statement-C proved amount is Rs.19,86,283/- as shown in the charge sheet. We have to add an amount of Rs.2,63,336/- income tax paid by Accused no.2 as her income, further add an amount of Rs.780/- allowed towards purchase of footwear and Rs.409.50 pertaining to newspaper allowed. Rs.95,000/- regarding sale of Car has to be added to income. Thus the total income and receipt in statement-C for Rs.23,45,808/- is established.
66. With the above-mentioned proved and established income, expenditure, asset at the beginning of check period and during the check period, the following established entries in statements and the established explanations emerge.
Calculation of Disproportionate Assets of A-1 1 Statement-A Assets at the beginning of the check Rs.1,200/- period 83 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
2 Statement-B Assets at the end of the check period Rs.13,53,800/- 3 Statement-C Receipts and Income during the check Rs.23,45,808/- period 4 Statement-D Expenditure during the check period Rs.14,00,026/- 5 Assets acquired during the check Rs.13,52,600/-
period (B-A) 6 Likely savings during the check Rs.9,45,782/-
period (C-D) 7 Extent to which assets and Rs.4,06,818/-
expenditure are disproportionate to likely savings E=[(B-A) +D) - C The learned Counsel for the accused has relied upon decision reported in the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim {(2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258 :
(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 402}. In the said decision it is laid down in Para No.47 and 48 as under:-
"47. In State of Maharashtra V. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla this Court held as under:
"22. .... On a consideration of the matter, it cannot be said that there is no disproportion or even a sizeable disproportion. .... There are also other possible errors in the calculations in regard to point (c). The finding becomes inescapable that the assets were in excess of the known sources of income.
23. But on the question whether the extent of the disproportion is such as to justify a conviction for criminal misconduct .... A somewhat liberal view requires to be 84 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes 'disproportion' for purposes of Section 5(1) (e) of the Act."
"48. In view of the above, at the most a sum of Rs.2,71,613.69 remained unexplained. The appellant entered into service in 1972 and there is no break-up so far as assets and expenditures, etc. are concerned in the Charge Sheet though the check period covered both the Acts i.e. the PC Acts, 1947 or 1988. Even if the said amount is spread over the period from 1987 to 1996, the alleged unexplained income remains merely a marginal/paltry sum which any government employee can save every year."
67. A finding that liberal view has to be taken and unexplained income remains merely a marginal/paltry sum in the above case is not applicable to the case on hand. Because in that case the income of the appellant and his wife was Rs.14,54,629/-. The likely savings was Rs.17,10,176/- and unexplained amount was Rs.2,71,613/-. Whereas, in this case, gross income itself is Rs.7,06,000/-, likely savings is Rs.9,45,782/- and unexplained amount is Rs.4,06,818/-. What is the income, expenditure and assets are to be explained satisfactorily by the accused by placing cogent material. In the instant case on hand most of the defences taken by the accused including taking income of wife on the basis of income tax documents and sale of car, have been taken into consideration but still there is unexplained amount of Rs.4,06,818/-.
85: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
68. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 96 SC 484 : 1995 SCC (6) 749 (B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India) has held that:-
"It is true that a three-judge Bench of this Court in Krishanand's case (supra) held in para 33, that if the excess was comparatively small (it was less than 10% of the total income in that case), it would be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the accused were not disproportionate to his known source of income raising the presumption under sub-section (3) of Section 5. It is to be remembered that the said principle was evolved by this Court to give benefit of doubt, due to inflationary trend in the appreciation of the value of the assets. The benefit thereof appears to be the maximum. The reason being that if the percentage begins to rise in each case, it gets extended till it reaches the level of incredulity to give the benefit of doubt. It would, therefore, be inappropriate, indeed undesirable, to extend the principle of deduction beyond 10% in calculating disproportionate assets of a delinquent officer. The salary of his wife was not included in the assets of the appellant. The alleged stridhana of his wife and fixed deposits or gifts of his daughter, in appreciation of evidence, were held to be the property of the appellant. It is in the domain of appreciation of evidence. The Court/Tribunal has no power to appreciate the evidence and reach its own contra conclusions."
In a decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 313 (M.Krishnareddy Vs. State of A.P.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered an allowance of 10% margin on the total income of the appellant to find out the disproportionate assets and the percentage of margin has not been raised or reduced.
69. The ratio laid down in B.C.Chaturvedi's case clearly states that, it would be in appropriate and undesirable to extend the principle of deduction beyond 10% in calculating 86 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
disproportionate assets. Even in the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused, the Accused in that case has explained and accounted for amount as per Ex.D4 in that case to a tune of Rs.15,88,400/- and thereafter only Rs.2,72,000/- amount remained unexplained, that amount is very small amount when it is compared with the income of the accused in that case. Whereas, in this case, the unexplained amount crosses 10% margin, that could be given. Therefore, the decisions reported in Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim as well as State of Maharastra Vs. Pollanji Darbshaw Daruwala, cannot come to the aid to the facts on hand. Thus, it is held that accused No.1 has failed to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets of Rs.4,06,818/- to his likely savings.
70. In the statement filed by Accused no.2 at the time of recording statement u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., it is stated that parents of Accused no.2 has gifted gold ornaments weighing 110 to 120 grams and also parents had gifted gold chain and finger ring to her husband and that she and her husband has jointly sold the gold articles to meet out the house construction expenses.
71. The Accused no.2 has not stepped into witness box to state about the gold articles received by her as gift during her wedding. No specification of the articles is given. It may be customary regarding presentation of certain gold articles at the time of marriage to the bride but that has to be brought on record and proved by placing material or at least, evidence. Even 87 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
otherwise, the second Accused states that gold articles have been sold for incurring construction expenses of house. In the case on hand, the house property valuation is taken at Rs.9,25,525/- much less than the loan amount of Rs.11 lakh borrowed from Vijaya Bank. The value of the house property may be more. The gold articles worth 110 grams have not been taken as an asset, income or expenditure. For the rest of the contentions if any relating to gold articles, no assessment can be made without there being a material. Further when the account of 110 grams of gold articles is not taken into account, it will not affect the case of Accused. Thus, the contention raised by the Accused no.2 is unacceptable.
72. The main argument and contention raised on behalf of the Accused is that several loans raised by the Accused, several income have not been taken into consideration and some expenditure has been unnecessarily shown. It is also the case of Accused that loan of Rs.2 lakh was availed from Ramanareddy and that is not taken into consideration. It is also the contention that Rs.3 lakh amount was acquired by Accused no.1 as his share when the ancestral land has been sold. These contentions require material and evidence, they cannot be established by making suggestions because Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act casts a burden on the Accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the acquisition of assets and pecuniary sources. Therefore, such contentions raised on behalf of the Accused are unacceptable.
88: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
It has been argued on behalf of Accused that the prosecution has not examined the person who has registered the FIR and submitted that it is lacuna on the prosecution.
73. In a case u/S.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the offence will be complete only when there is no proper explanation and accounting by the Accused. In such a situation, the non-examination of person who has registered the case will become a formal evidence. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Accused is unacceptable. The point No.2 is answered accordingly in the 'affirmative' holding that the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.4,06,818/- between check period 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006 and has committed an offence punishable U/s.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
74. As regards accused No.2 is concerned, she is the wife of accused No.1 and allegation against her is that she has aided and abetted accused No.1 for acquisition of disproportionate wealth. The ingredients of Sec.107 IPC are;
"Section 107 IPC defines abatement of a thing. The offence of abatement is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing, when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing or (2) engages one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids by act or illegal 89 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
omission the doing of that thing. Those things are essential to complete abatement as a crime."
On going through the entire evidence, there is no material to show that accused No.2 had either conspired or abetted accused No.1 to acquire the assets. It may be noted that there is evidence to show that accused No.2 herself was earning member and she has contributed the amount to the family. In such a situation, it cannot be held that accused No.2 has abetted accused No.1. Therefore, as against accused No.2 the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt as alleged. Hence, point No.3 is answered in the 'negative.'
75. Point No.4 :- In view of my findings on point Nos.1 to 3 and for the reasons discussed above, prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 has acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.4,06,818/- during the check period from 1.10.1996 to 2.3.2006 by placing cogent, consistent, oral and documentary evidence, therefore, accused No.1 is found guilty of the offences punishable u/S.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he is liable to be convicted. Further, prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No.2 for the offence punishable u/S.13(1) (e) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w.Sec.109 of IPC and accordingly, A-2 has to be acquitted for the said offence.
90: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
76. A criminal miscellaneous case No.4462/2010 is pending before this Court wherein a petition is filed U/s.3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 1944 r/w.5(6) of Prevention of Corruption Act for attachment of the house property bearing No.20 and an interim attachment order is made 12.10.2010 in that case. Section 12 (1) of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 provides that if Court is convicting the accused a finding has to be recorded as to the amount of money or value of the other property procured by means of the offence. In this case, the accused is found to have acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.4,06,818/- during the check period 1.10.1996 to 1.3.2006 and accused is found guilty U/s.13 (1) (e) r/w.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus a finding is recorded to the effect that the amount of money procured by the accused by means of offence is Rs.4,06,818/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
: ORDER :
Acting u/S.235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/Sec.13(1) (e) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. Sec.109 of I.P.C.
Acting u/S.235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.13(1) (e) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The defalcated amount procured by the accused by means of offence is found to be Rs.4,06,818/-. Intimation of finding of this amount relating to the amount procured by means of offence be kept in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4462/2010 for taking 91 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
further action in that case as per Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
Bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused and their sureties stand cancelled.
Sentence will be passed on hearing the accused No.1.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, revised by me personally and incorporated additional paragraphs directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of January, 2015) (R.K.TALIKOTI) XLVII Addl. CC & SJ & Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
31.1.2015 ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE I have heard the Public Prosecutor, accused No.1 and his Counsel regarding sentence. Accused No.1 has submitted that he has two school going children and his mother is hospitalized due to old age and ailment. He further submits that he has been removed from the service.
The learned Counsel for accused No.1 submits that the amount of disproportionate assets said to be proved is less. He submits that accused has to look after his children and family and prays for taking lenient view.
92: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
In the case on hand an amount of Rs.4,06,818/- is found to be disproportionate assets in the hands of accused. The accused was working as Machinist in HAL, and now he is said to be removed from the said job. Having regard to the difficulties mentioned by the accused regarding taking care of his children and mother and the fact that accused is no more in the job, I am of the opinion that a sentence for one year simple imprisonment would suffice sentencing policy. As far as imposing fine is concerned, a separate C.Mis.No.4462/2010 is initiated under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 and house property of accused is attached. Under the circumstances, a fine of Rs.25,000/- can be imposed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
: ORDER :
Acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (e) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of one year and accused No.1 to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand). In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of six months.
The period of detention undergone by the accused, if any, during the trial is given set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Supply a free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.93
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court today i.e., on this the 31st day of January, 2015) (R.K.TALIKOTI) XLVII Addl. CC & SJ & Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
: ANNEXURE :
1) List of witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:-
Sl.No. Name of the witnesses CWs. Date PW-1 B. Sunil Kumar CW-1 5.5.2010 PW-2 M.K. Sridhar CW-8 30.6.2010 PW-3 Nirmal Kumar CW-2 16.8.2010 PW-4 B.S. Gangadhar CW-4 -"- PW-5 C.Selvam CW-5 -"- PW-6 Stanley Agnelo CW-6 -"- PW-7 Rajendra Kumar CW-3 -"- PW-8 R. Muniswamy CW-14 20.11.2010 PW-9 Fareed Syed Hussain CW-15 -"- PW-10 S.Krishna Murthy CW-13 22.12.2010 PW-11 Nasir Khan CW-7 -"- PW-12 G. Narayan Swamy CW-9 17.1.2011 PW-13 G.S. Dinesh Kumar CW-10 -"- PW-14 Narasimhan V. CW-16 -"- PW-15 R. Shivakumar CW-17 -"- PW-16 Somashekar CW-18 -"- PW-17 M.R.Sridhar CW-19 -"- PW-18 Iswar Bhatt Kasargod CW-20 -"- PW-19 Shivanand Hiremath CW-11 21.3.2011 PW-20 M. Mallikarjuna Reddy CW-25 -"- PW-21 N. Shantharam CW-28 -"- PW-22 Ramalingaiah CW-22 -"- PW-23 H.B. Rajashekar CW-21 6.6.2011 PW-24 Ramakrishna CW-26 -"- 94 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 : PW-25 P. Raman CW-29 -"- PW-26 Syed Iqbal CW-30 -"- PW-27 D.B.Manjunath CW-24 -"- PW-28 E.S. Rangaswamy CW-23 -"- PW-29 Vinodh Mani CW-33 4.8.2011 PW-30 K.Shivaraj CW-35 -"- PW-31 Nagesh CW-36 -"- PW-32 G.Prakash CW-37 -"- PW-33 Vinod Kumar Gupta CW-40 -"- PW-34 A. Rajesh Kumar CW-12 3.10.2011 PW-35 Ravi Noronha CW-41 -"- PW-36 Dinesh Jain CW-43 -"- PW-37 B.V. Bhaskar CW-45 -"- PW-38 A.M. Prabhakar Rao CW-38 -"- PW-39 P.V. Ramana Reddy CW-44 16.11.2011 PW-40 Bhaskar T. CW-60 -"- PW-41 K.Thinakaran CW-46 19.12.2011 PW-42 K.G.Shantaiah CW-49 -"- PW-43 Gurulingappa Edravi CW-50 -"- PW-44 M. Shivamalla CW-48 11.1.2012 PW-45 Vijaya Shekar CW-52 -"- PW-46 Rajendra Kumar N.M. CW-55 -"- PW-47 B.R. Suryanarayana CW-53 -"- PW-48 P. Sridhar CW-56 2.2.2012 PW-49 T.S. Sheshachala CW-64 -"- PW-50 T.Shankar CW-62 -"- PW-51 G. Srikanth CW-63 26.3.2012 PW-52 E. Eran CW-67 -"- PW-53 Vasudevakrishna CW-68 -"- Kalakundri PW-54 P.Subramanya Sastri CW-65 13.4.2012 PW-55 Kumara Ajeeth CW-69 -"- PW-56 J.Gnanendra Kumar CW-70 -"- PW-57 Govindaraj CW-73 -"- PW-58 I. Veera Raghava Rao CW-74 -"- PW-59 N. Anantha Rao CW-66 -"- PW-60 Vijaya Shankar CW-72 22.5.2012 PW-61 Ashok Kumar Saxena CW-75 -"- 95 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 : PW-62 Prasanna Simha Rao CW-77 -"- PW-63 K.M. Ramesh CW-59 -"- PW-64 S. Girishwaraiah CW-71 22.8.2012
2) List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution side:-
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P1 Cash Bill No.3554 dt 26.3.2001 for Rs.9100/-
Ex.P1(a) Signature of A1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of Manohar (staff) of M/s Moti Jewel
Palace
Ex.P2 Bill dt 2.3.04 for Rs.12,321=70
Ex.P3 Sales Tax Bill dt 11.5.2005 for Rs.12,624=19
Ex.P3(a) Signature of Ramesh
Ex.P4 Bill for Rs.5,965=56
Ex.P5 Customer's Copy of Credit Card
Ex.P6 Cash Bill No.4657 for Rs.19,993/-
Ex.P6(a) Signature of Gyanchand
Ex.P7 Cash Bill No.81406 dt 10.3.05 for Rs.39,273/-
Ex.P7(a) Initial of Somashekar
Ex.P8 Cash Bill No.67442 dt 10.3.05 for Rs.355/-
Ex.P9 Cash Bill No.67436 dt 10.3.05 for Rs.380
Ex.P10 Invoice dt 10.3.05 for Rs.39,273/-
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW-4
Ex.P11 Receipt Memo
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW-4
Ex.P11(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P12 Confirmation Letter dt 28.11.2006
Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW-4
Ex.P13 Copy of Certificate of Insurance Policy No.
7355/2004 in favour of A-1
Ex.P14 Xerox copy of cash receipt No.0230873
dt 27.3.03
Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW-14
Ex.P15 Copy of Certificate of Insurance Policy
No.8673 in favour of A-1
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW-5
96
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P16 Receipt No.8351 dt 10.9.04
Ex.P17 Copy of Transfer Insurance Policy No.8673 in
favour of A2
Ex.P18 Receipt Memo
Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P18(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P19 Copy of Subscription Form of A2 (2 sheets)
Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P20 Cash Receipt No.877091 dt 4.8.04
Ex.P21 Statement of Account of A2
Ex.P21(a) Relevant Entries
Ex.P22 Computerized statement account of A2
Ex.P23 Computerized Receipt No.10506700690 dt
21.12.04
Ex.P24 Receipt for Credit Card Swiped
Ex.P25 Invoice No.247987 dt 25.7.05
Ex.P25(a) Signature of Pratap
Ex.P25(b) Signature of Chandran
Ex.P26 Status Report regarding Money Bank Policy
No.611557772
Ex.P26(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P27 Status Report regarding Endowment policy
No.611590631
Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P28 Status Report regarding Endowment policy
No.361265442
Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P29 Seizure Memo
Ex.P29(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P29(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P30 Cash Memo dt 20.2.2005
Ex.P30(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P31 Receipt dt 10.4.04
Ex.P31(a) Signature of Narendra
Ex.P32 Covering Letter
Ex.P32(a) Signature of PW10
Ex.P33 Sales Bill
97
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P34 Invoice dt
Ex.P34(a) Signature of Proprietor
Ex.P34(b) Signature of Service Manager Ex.P35 Covering Letter dt 14.7.06 Ex.P35(a) Signature of Service Manager T. Ravi Kumar Ex.P36 Delivery Letter dt 7.10.2005 Ex.P36(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P36(b) Signature of A1 Ex.P37 Copy of Credit Bill dt 7.10.05 Ex.P38 Seizure Memo dt 18.7.06 Ex.P38(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P38(b) Signature of IO Ex.P39 Attested copy of Insurance Policy ( 2 sheets) Ex.P39(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P40 Attested copy Insurance Policy Ex.P40(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P41 Attested copy of Insurance Policy Ex.P41(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P42 Receipt dt 10.2.05 Ex.P43 Seizure Memo dated 28.7.06 Ex.P43(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P43(b) Signature of IO Ex.P44 Attested copy of the application of A1 Ex.P44(a) Signature of Sridhar Bhat Ex.P45 Attested copy of the Provisional Receipt Ex.P45(a) Signature of Sridhar Bhat Ex.P46 Form of Affiliated Clubs Ex.P47 Covering letter dt 26.7.06 Ex.P47(a) Signature of Sridhar Bhat Ex.P48 Xerox copy of Estimate for construction of house Ex.P49 Attested copy of application dated 27.9.04 of A2 Ex.P50 Attested copy of Co-Borrower dated 27.9.04 (A1) Ex.P50(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P51 Attested copy of RC Book Ex.P51(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P52 Attested copy of the B Register Extract 98 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P52(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P53 Attested copy of the Valuation Report Ex.P53(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P54 Attested copy of the Demand Draft dated 6.10.04 Ex.P54(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P55 Attested copy of Post Dated Cheques details (Statement) of A2 ( 2 sheets) Ex.P55(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P56 Attested copy of details of receipt of A2 Ex.P56(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P57 Cash Receipt dated 26.4.2005 for Rs.5,578/-
Ex.P58 Cash Receipt dated 22.11.05 for Rs.10000/-
Ex.P58(a) Signature of A2
Ex.P59 Letter dated 7.10.04
Ex.P59(a) Signature of PW17
Ex.P60 Seizure Memo dated 28.8.06
Ex.P60(a) Signature of PW17
Ex.P60(b) Signature of IO
Ex.P61 Xerox copy of Valuation Report
Ex.P62 Copy of Receipt dated 28.7.03
Ex.P63 Seizure Memo dated 28.8.06
Ex.P63(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P63(b) Signature of IO
Ex.P64 Cash Memo dated 12.9.05
Ex.P64(a) Signature of M.S. Sheela
Ex.P65 Cash Memo dated 14.9.05
Ex.P65(a) Signature of M.S. Sheela
Ex.P66 Certified Extract of Consumer Details
Ex.P66(a) Signature of PW20
Ex.P67 Certified Extract of Bills Details
Ex.P67(a) Cash Receipt dated 22.4.03
Ex.P68 Cash Receipt dated 22.4.03
Ex.P69 Letter dated 22.7.06
Ex.P69(a) Signature of PW20
Ex.P70 Seizure Memo dated 4.9.06
Ex.P70(a) Signature of PW20
Ex.P70(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P71 Proposed Estimate 3 sheets
99
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P71(a) Signature of PW21
Ex.P72 Receipt dated 18.11.2005
Ex.P72(a) Initial of Cashier
Ex.P73 Certified Extract of Share Ledger Folio
Ex.P73(a) Signature of PW22
Ex.P74 Certified Extract of Ledger No.4 relating to
loan and P.F. of A1 July 1998 to March 2000 Ex.P74(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P75 Certified Extract of Leger No.5 Folio No.49 (2 sheets) Ex.P75(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P76 Certified Extract of Ledger 4 folio No.88 (2 sheets) Ex.P76(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P77 Certified Extract of Ledger No.5 Folio 150 Ex.P77(a) Signature of PW22 ( 2 sheets) Ex.P78 Certified Extract of Ledger No.5 Folio No.78 Ex.P78(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P79 Seizure Memo dated 29.8.06 Ex.P79(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P79(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P80 Cash Bill dated 20.3.05 Ex.P80(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P81 Cash Bill dated 10.1.06 Ex.P82 to Pages of Register P84 Ex.P82(a) to Name of the accused P84(a) Ex.P85 Invoice No.04000108 dated 8.6.05 Ex.P85(a) Initials of A1 with company seal Ex.P86 Sale Receipt dated 22.9.03 Ex.P86(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P87 Delivery Note dated 2.6.03 Ex.P87(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P88 Seizure Memo Ex.P88(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P88(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P89 Attested copy of Application for Telephone connection of A1 100 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P89(a) Signature of Kariappa
Ex.P90 Attested copy of Demand Notice
Ex.P90(a) Signature of Kanniyappan
Ex.P91 Attested copy of Waiting List
Ex.P91(a) Signature of Kanniyappan
Ex.P92 Letter dated 11.9.06
Ex.P92(a) Signature of Kanniyappan
Ex.P93 Telephone Bill of A1
Ex.P94 Seizure Memo dated 12.9.06
Ex.P94(a) Signature of PW26
Ex.P94(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P95 Attested copy of the loan Bond No.1665 dated
14.1.99
Ex.P95(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P96 Attested copy of the Loan Bond No.1899 dated
1.2.2011
Ex.P96(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P97 Attested copy of Loan Bond No.578 dated
7.10.05
Ex.P97(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P98 Attested Copy of Share Ledger Sheet
Ex.P98(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P99 Attested copy of Instalment Loan Ledger
Ex.P99(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P100 Attested copy of Instalment Loan Ledger
Ex.P100(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P101 Attested copy of Instalment Loan Ledger
Ex.P101(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P102 Attested copy of PF Deposit Ledger
Ex.P102(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P103 Attested copy of PF Deposit Ledger
Ex.P103(a) Signature of Secretary
Ex.P104 Cash Receipt dated 7.10.05
Ex.P104(a) Signature of Sridhar
Ex.P105 Seizure Memo dated 29.8.06
Ex.P105(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P106 Attested copy of the Sale Deed dated
20.5.2002
Ex.P106(a) Signature of Sub Registrar Shankaralingaiah 101 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P107 C.C. of Ex.P106 Ex.P107(a) Signature of Sub Registrar Shankarlingaiah Ex.P108 Letter dated 10.8.06 Ex.P109 Seizure Memo dated 29.8.06 Ex.P109(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P109(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P110 to Fee Receipts and Transportation Receipts Ex.P119 Ex.P120 C.C. of the T.C. dated 23.5.2006 Ex.P121 Covering Letter Ex.P121(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P122 Payment Details dated 13.9.06 Ex.P122(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P123 Statement of account Ex.P124 Covering Letter dated 6.9.06 Ex.P124(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P125 Customer Order Booking Form dated 6.2.2006 Ex.P125(a) Signature of K. Muniraju Ex.P125(b) Signature of Sales Executive Amrith Sequeira Ex.P126 Copy of Delivery Order dated 28.2.2006 Ex.P126(a) Endorsement Ex.P126(b) Signature Ex.P127 to Receipts P139 Ex.P127(a) Signatures to P139(a) Ex.P140 Delivery Note/Gate Pass dated 23.2.2006 Ex.P140(a) Signature of Muniraju Ex.P141 Proforma Invoice dated 3.2.2006 for Rs.4,12,364/-
Ex.P141(a) Signature of Amrith Sequeira, Sales Executive Ex.P142 Ledger Account Extract of M/s Mandovi Motors Ex.P143 Seizure Memo dated 16.9.06 Ex.P143(a) Signature of PW31 Ex.P143(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P144 Xerox Copy of Sale Agreement dated 20.5.2002 2 sheets Ex.P145 Certified copy of the Statement of Account SB A/c No.2684 3 sheets 102 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P145(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P146 C.C. of the Housing Loan A/c Statement 5 sheets Ex.P146(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P146(b) Relevant Entry Ex.P147 Certified copy of the Loan documents 13 sheets Ex.P147(a) Signature of Senior Manager 12th sheet Ex.P147(b) Signature of Shankar Shetty 13th sheet Ex.P148 Seizure Memo dated 23.9.06 Ex.P148(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P148(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P149 Loan Account Ledger of A1 dated 22.11.05 Ex.P150 Seizure Memo Ex.P150(a) Signature of PW34 Ex.P150(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P151 Customer's Application Ex.P152 Loan Statement Ex.P153 Acknowledgment Ex.P154 Bill Estimate Ex.P155 Letter Ex.P156 Particulars of Salary of A1 6 pages Ex.P156(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P157 to Form No.16 ( 8 sheets) Ex.164 Ex.P165 Letter dated 19.9.06 Ex.P166 Statement of account Ex.P167 Bill dated 10.10.05 Ex.P168 Bill dated 26.11.2005 Ex.P169 Letter dated 21.9.06 Ex.P169(a) Signature of PW39 Ex.P169(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P170 Agreement Ex.P170(a) Signature of Sudhakar
(c)(e) Ex.P170(b) Signature of Shankar
(d)(f) 103 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P171 Agreement on Stamp Paper Ex.P171(a) Signature of Shankar Ex.P171(b) Signature of PW40 Ex.P172 to Specimen Signatures of PW40, his father and Ex.P179 brother Ex.P180 Letter dated 12.7.06 Ex.P180(a) Signature of P. Krishnarajan Ex.P181 Letter dated 12.7.06 Ex.P181(a) Signature of P. Krishnarajan Ex.P182 Seizure Memo dated 17.10.06 Ex.P182(a) Signature of PW42 Ex.P182(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P183 Receipt dated 15.2.2002 Ex.P184 Loan Application of accused Ex.P185 Xerox copy of On Demand Promissory Note dated 16.5.2002 Ex.P186 Loan application of accused Ex.P187 Xerox copy of On Demand Pronote Ex.P188 Irrevocable Letter of Authorisation Ex.P189 Statement of Account 4 sheets Ex.P190 Statement Ex.P191 Seizure Memo dated 7.10.06 Ex.P191(a) Signature of PW43 Ex.P191(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P192 to Loan application of accused Ex.P198 Ex.P199 Loan Ledger Extract of accused No.7814 Ex.P200 Letter dated 10.2.2003 Ex.P201 Extract of contribution of the accused Ex.P202 Statement of Account of accused 3 sheets Ex.P202(a) Signature of PW44 with seal Ex.P203 Seizure Memo Ex.P203(a) Signature of PW44 Ex.P204 Attested copy of Certificate issued by Corporation Bank Ex.P204(a) Signature of PW44 Ex.P205 Letter dated 19.9.06 Ex.P205(a) Signature of Ravi Kumar 104 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P206 to Nine Cash Memos Ex.P214 Ex.P215 Xerox copy of Search List Ex.P215(a) Signature of PW46 Ex.P216 Inventory list Ex.P216(a) Signature of PW46 Ex.P217 Cash Memo Ex.P217(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P218 Account Statement dated 22.2.2003 Ex.P218(a) Initials of PW46 Ex.P219 Counterfoil of pay in slip by Corporation Bank dated 22.2.2003 Ex.P219(a) Initials of PW46 Ex.P220 Saral Form Ex.P220(a) Initials of PW46 Ex.P221 Saral Form Ex.P221(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P222 Computerized Form for Salary Income Ex.P222(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P223 Xerox copy of Income Tax Returns for 2002-03 Ex.P223(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P224 Counterfoil by Pay in Slip dated 8.3.2005 Ex.P224(a) Initials of PW46 Ex.P225 Bill No.209 dated 23.3.2005 Ex.P225(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P226 Rent Agreement on Stamp Paper Ex.P226(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P227 to Four Estimates of Real Gem P230 Ex.P227(a) Initials of PW46 to 230(a) Ex.P231 Application of ICICI Home dated 19.7.02 Ex.P231(a) Initials of PW46 Ex.P232 Post Sanction Procedure of ICICI Bank Ex.P232(a) Initials of PW46 Ex.P233 Telephone Bill dt.1.12.2003 Ex.P233(a) Initial of PW46 Ex.P234 Sales Invoice dated 2.2.03 105 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P234(a) Initial of PW46
Ex.P235 Order Form dated 5.9.98
Ex.P235(a) Initial of PW46
Ex.P236 Account Statement of ICICI Bank
Ex.P236(a) Initial of PW46
Ex.P237 Summary of accounts held on 31.12.05
issued by ICICI Bank
Ex.P237(a) Initial of PW46
Ex.P238 Receipt dated 21.12.04
Ex.P238(a) Initial of PW46
Ex.P239 Xerox copy of letter dated 1.8.06 with
endorsement
Ex.P240 Details of Salary Particulars of Accused
Ex.P241 Standing Order
Ex.P242 Covering Letter dated 12.10.06
Ex.P242(a) Signature of PW48
Ex.P242(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P243 Statement of Account of SB A/c 01/008788
Ex.P244 Statement of Account of DL 12/020095
Ex.P245 Statement of Account from 1.1.02 to 31.3.02
Ex.P246 Letter dated 20.9.06
Ex.P246(a) Signature of PW48
Ex.P247 Specimen Signatures and Handwriting of
accused 4 sheets
Ex.P247(a) Signature of PW49
Ex.P248 Specimen Writings of L. Bhaskar
Ex.P248(a) Signature of PW51
Ex.P249 Letter dated 31.10.06
Ex.P249(a) Signature of PW52
Ex.P250 Letter
Ex.P250(a) Signature of PW52
Ex.P251 Attested copy of Challan
Ex.P251(a) Signature of PW53
Ex.P252 Statement of Account
Ex.P252(a) Relevant Entry
Ex.P252(b) Seal with signature of PW53 Ex.P253 Covering Letter dated 31.10.06 Ex.P253(a) Signature of PW53 Ex.P254 Letter dated 19.10.06 106 : Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P254(a) Signature of PW54 Ex.P255 Report Ex.P255(a) Signature of G. Lakshminarasimhaiah 4 sheets Ex.P256 Letter dated 31.10.06 2 sheets Ex.P256(a) Signature of Pratap Singh Ex.P257 Copy of Income Tax Returns for the year 2002-03 Ex.P258 Copy of Income Tax Returns for the year 2003-04 Ex.P259 Copy of IT returns for the year 2004-05 Ex.P260 Letter dated 27.10.06 Ex.P260(a) Signature of Bala Subramanyam 3 sheets Ex.P261 Copy of letter dated 13.11.06 Ex.P262 Copy of letter dated 13.11.06 Ex.P263 IT returns for the year 2005-06 Ex.P264 Letter dated 14.11.06 Ex.P264(a) Signature of Shyamala Ex.P265 Seizure Memo Ex.P265(a) Signature of PW59 Ex.P265(b) Signature of PW63 Ex.P266 C.C. of Form No.III Ex.P266(a) Signature of PW59 Ex.P267 Xerox copy of self declaration of tax for the year 2004-05 Ex.P268 Opinion of GEQD Ex.P268(a) Signature of PW60 Ex.P269 Letter Ex.P270 Reasons of GEQD Ex.P270(a) Signature of PW60 Ex.P271 Attested copy of Personal Bulletin Ex.P271(a) Signature of PW61 Ex.P272 Sanction Order dated 29.11.06 Ex.P272(a) Signature of PW61 4 sheets Ex.P273 FIR (8 sheets) Ex.P273(a) Signature of Biju George Joseph Ex.P273(b) -"-
Ex.P274 Authorisation Letter
Ex.P275 Seizure Memo
Ex.P275(a) Signature of PW63
107
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
Ex.P276 Statement of Account of ICICI Bank
Ex.P277 Statement of Account of A1 dated 25.9.06
13 sheets
Ex.P278 to List of Fee details statement, cash, bills dated
Ex.P281 28.4.05 No.2070 and 2071 and order details
Ex.P282 Seizure Memo
Ex.P282(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P283 Seizure Memo dated 13.9.06
Ex.P283(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P284 Seizure Memo dated 25.9.06
Ex.P284(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P285 Seizure Memo
Ex.P285(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P286 and Two Indent Forms
Ex.P287
Ex.P288 Letter dated 6.10.06
Ex.P289 Seizure Memo dated 26.10.06
Ex.P289(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P289(b) Signature of PW63
Ex.P290 Letter dated 24.10.06
Ex.P291 Attested copy of IB Extract
Ex.P292 Seizure Memo
Ex.P292(a) Signature of PW63
Ex.P292(b) Signature of PW64
Ex.P293 Documents Seized under Ex.292
Ex.P293(a) Order regarding grant of land and cancellation
in respect of Sri Muneppa
Ex.P293(b) Order regarding grant of land and cancellation
in respect of T. Shankar
Ex.P293(c) Document pertaining to A2 regarding grant of
land
Ex.P293(d) Account Form No.10-1
Ex.P293(e) Letter dated 29.10.06
Ex.P294 Letter dated 22.11.06
3) List of Mos. marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
- Nil -108
: Spl.C.C.No.11/07 :
4) List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defence side:-
- Nil -
5) List of Documents marked on behalf of Defence side:-
- Nil -
(R.K.TALIKOTI) XLVII Addl. CC & SJ & Spl. Judge For CBI Cases, Bangalore.