Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Puran Singh Rawat on 11 March, 2014

   IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE­07 
        (CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI


C.C.NO.  : 80/11
Unique Case ID :02401R0053142001


STATE                         VS.      PURAN SINGH RAWAT
                                       S/o Sh.Harni Ram Rawat,
                                       R/o Plot No. 22, Block­F, 
                                       Village Khanpur, New Delhi.

FIR NO.                            :      09/2001

U/S                                    :       13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of 
                                       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988


P.S.                            :     Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi


                       Date of Institution 23.11.2001
                       Judgment reserved on 26.02.2014
                       Judgment delivered on 11.03.2014


JUDGMENT

1. The precise case of the prosecution is that during the course of the hearing of C.M. No. 820/2000 in Civil Writ Petition bearing CW No. 6734/2000 titled "Sh.Rajiv Malhotra Vs. Union of India & Others", relating to the unauthorised construction etc. in Sainik Farm, New Delhi, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the alleged C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 1 of 75 possession of Property No.161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farm, New Delhi and Mobile Phones etc. by Puran Singh Rawat, Beldar, MCD, may be looked into by Vigilance Department of MCD with the assistance of Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi. In pursuance of said Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Vigilance Department of MCD has conducted the enquiry and same was ultimately marked to Inspector Niranjan Singh for further necessary action. After making some verification from the Vigilance Department of the MCD on the said Enquiry Report, Inspector Niranjan Singh submitted the Rukka Ex.PW45/A, on the basis of which on getting the approval from Addl. CP, Anti Corruption Branch, the then DCP, Anti Corruption Branch passed order for registration of the FIR, in pursuance of which the FIR bearing No.09/2001, U/S 13(1) (e) & 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 12.01.2001 at PS Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and copy of said FIR is Ex.PW45/2. After registration of the case, further Investigation was entrusted to Inspector Niranjan Singh (PW45).

2. During the course of the Investigation, the IO collected several evidence in the form of documents from various Departments and recorded statement of several witnesses and it was found by the IO that the accused Puran Singh Rawat, who was posted as Beldar in C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 2 of 75 MCD, was found in possession of disproportionate assets in his name as well as in the name of his father Harni Ram, his wife Smt.Tamo Devi and three minor sons namely Girwar Rawat, Nitin Rawat and Yogesh Rawat, which the accused could not duly satisfactory account for. Thus his total assets amounting to Rs.22,61,587/­, found to be disproportionate assets to the known sources of the accused during the Check period i.e. 01.04.1988 to 12.02.2001. The details of the Income, Expenditure and Assets during the Check Period as shown by by the IO as under:­ Income of Puran Singh Rawat Beldar, his wife Smt.Tomo Devi and father Sh. Harni Ram during check period w.e.f. 01.04.1988 to 12.02.2001

1. Income of Shri P.S. Rawat from Salary Rs.4,00,000

2. Income of Shri P.S.Rawat from Rs. 0,68,000/­ Agricultural land 4 canal 14 Marla in Village Ibrahim pur, Distt. Rewari, Haryana

3. Income of Harni Ram from Rs.7,45,000/­ Agricultural land 5 Acre 3 canal 17 Marla in Village Ibrahim pur, Distt. Rewari, Haryana

4. Income of Shri P.S.Rawat and Harni Ram Rs.9,20,000/­ from agricultural land of Village Sachod Distt Alwar 13 Bigha 11 Biswa pakka

5. Income of Smt.Tomo Devi from business Rs.13,93,134/­ M/s Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders TOTAL INCOME Rs. 35,26,134/­ C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 3 of 75 Expenditure of Puran Singh Rawat, Tomo Devi and Harni Ram during check period w.e.f. 01.04.1988 to 12.02.2001

1. School fee of three children/Sons Rs.1,18,440/­

2. Bill of mobile telephone Nos Rs. 0,29,000/­ 9810217726 and 9810250763

3. Bill of telephone No. 6518782 installed at Rs.0,29,857/­ 79/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi residential house of P.S. Rawat

4. Rent paid to Shri S.K.Dabar owner/allotee Rs.1,02,000/­ of Flat No. 79/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by Shri P.S.Rawat

5. Rent paid to Shri Hari Chand owner/allotee of Rs.0,43,200/­ Flat No.106/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by Shri P.S.Rawat

6. Rent paid to Sh.Radha Krishan allotee of Flat Rs.0,25,400/­ No. 63/6, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi

7. Misc.Expenditure 33% of the income of Shri P.S.Rawat Rs.1,33,000/­

8. Bill paid for the telephone No. 6162711 installed at Rs.0,21,106/­ 161A, Sanik Farms, New Delhi

9. Telephone Bill paid of telephone No. 6864250 Rs.0,71,440/­ installed at Shop No. 1, Naib Sarai

10. Expenditure on purchase of Maruti Zen Car Rs.6,33,908/­ DL 3 CH 2164, Tempo No DL ILA 0380, Five LIC Policies, Shutering material, Furniture, and Income­Tax etc. paid by Smt.Tomo Devi TOTAL SUM OF EXPENDITURE Rs.12,07,351/­ C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 4 of 75 Assets and their value in the Name of Puran Singh Rawat as well as Benami Assets in the name of his father, Harni Ram, Wife (Tomo Devi) and Minor Sons (Yogesh, Nitin and Girwar)

1. Flat No. L 72, Janta DDA, Saket New Delhi not proved so far purchased from the allotee Smt. Thuli Maya benami flat of Shri P.S. Rawat

2. Agricultural land 13 Bigha, 11 Biswa (Value of Sale Deed) Rs.1,17,500/­ purchased in July 1988 in Village (Value of stamp and Rs.0,15,530/­ Sachod Distt.Alwar,2/3 Share in the (Registration fee) Rs.0,00,566/­ name of Shri P.S.Rawat and 1/3 share in the name of his father Harni Ram

3. Agricultural Land 8 Bigha, 17 Biswa Rs. 12,00,000/­ purchased in the name of his minor Sons Girvar, Nitin, Yogesh in the Year of 2000 in Village Basoni, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan

4. Revolver purchased by Shri P.S.Rawat in the year 1988 Rs.0,17,413/­

5. Balance in Bank A/c No SB/AC No. 12229 in the Name of Rs.0,01,575 Shri P.S.Rawat and his wife Tomo Devi balance as On 07.04.2001

6. Value of the household items noticed during house search Rs. 0,90,280/­ in Flat No.79/5, Pushp Vihar resident of Shri P.S.Rawat vide Inventory memo dated 01.03.2001

7. Plot No. 161A, Kariappa Marg, Sanik Farm purchased Rs.0,50,000/­ in the year 1991 vide GPA as Benami property in the name of his father Harni Ram.(Cost of Land 500 Sq yards)

8. Value of the construction on the above Plot No 161 A Rs.15,49,700/­ in the year of 1992 as per valuation report of PWD

9. Value of the household items noticed during house Rs.1,16,580/­ search in 161A, Kariappa Marg, Sanik Farm vide Inventory memo dated 02.03.2001 C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 5 of 75

10. Plot/Shop No. 1 (300 Sq yards) on main IGNOU road, Rs.0,30,000/­ Naib Saria, New Delhi. (Cost of the Land) purchased in the year 1988

11. Cost of construction on the above plot at serial No.10 Rs.4,77,000/­ as per valuation report of PWD

12. Cost of Items noticed during search of the above Rs.1,05,000/­ shop at serial No. 10 as per Inventory memo of search dated 1.03.2001

13. Total surplus amount in cash, sale of Maruti Zen Car Rs.7,59,226/­ and sale of Tempo, as per record of Income tax returns TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS Rs.45,80,370/­ Expenditure + Assets - Income = Disproportionate Assets Rs.12,07,351 + Rs.45,80,370 = Rs.57,87,721 ­ Rs.35,26,134 = Rs.22,61,587 (DA) Thus, after calculating the aforesaid Income, Expenditure and Assets as found during Investigation, the accused was found to be in possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs.22,61,587/­ during the Check Period from 01.04.1988 to 12.02.2001. After completion of the Investigation and obtaining Sanction for prosecution as against the accused, Chargesheet was filed by the concerned IO.

3. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 6 of 75 punishable U/S 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 22.08.2005 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 48 prosecution witnesses namely Mahesh Prakash, the than Assistant Director (Vigilance) MCD, a formal witness as PW1 Sh. R.K.Sehrawat UDC, from House Tax Department, a formal witness as PW2, Sh. A.P.Jugran, the then Executive Engineer, Planning III, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW3, Sh. S.S.Sharma, a formal witness as PW4 Sh. S.K.Pahwa, from House Tax Department MCD, a formal witness as PW5, Sh. A.K.Govil, the then JE PWD, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW6, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, from House Tax Department, MCD, a formal witness PW7, Sh. R.K.Singh, Nodal Officer from Bharati Airtel Ltd., a formal witness as PW8, Sh. K.R.Goel, who is a witness to house search, as PW9, Ram Kumar, who is also a witness to house search as PW10, Sh. S.K.Maurya a formal witness as PW11, Smt. Pramod Verma, LDC from MCD Delhi, a formal witness as PW12, Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma, Commercial Official MTNL Office, Green Park, a formal witness as PW13, Smt. Bharati Sharma, C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 7 of 75 Principal Amity International School, Saket, as PW14, Sh. S.C.Sharma, Accounts Officer (Housing), from DDA, a formal witness as PW15, Smt. B. Chadha, Jt. Director, L&B (Housing), a formal witness as PW16, Sh. Sandeep Gupta, a formal witness as PW17, Sh. Susheel Kumar Dawar, as PW18, Sh. Hari Chand, as PW19, Sh. B.R.Gupta, the then Branch Manager, LIC Branch, Janak Puri, a formal witness as PW20, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aneja, a formal witness as PW21, Sh. Bal Kishan Jaidka, from Hauz Khas Telephone Exchange, a formal witness as PW22, Sh. Jagdish Singh, from Hauz Khas, Telephone Exchange, a formal witness as PW23, Sh. K.P.Yadav, JE, CPWD Office, Saket, a formal witness as PW24,Sh. S.C.Gupta, the then Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Saket, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW25, Sh. Veer Pal Singh, the then JE Flood Department, Civil Div. ­ I, Delhi, a formal witness as PW26, Sh. S.K.Gupta, UDC, from Transport Authority, Shekh Sarai, a formal witness as PW27, Sh. Naresh Kumar, LDC, MLO office, Rajpur Road, Delhi, a formal witness as PW28, Sh. M.K.Sharma, STO in ward no. 96, Delhi, a formal witness as PW29, Sh. Atul Dev, Power of Attorney Holder of Sh. Bhupinder Patel and his two sons, a material witness as PW30, Sh. Radhey Kishan, as PW31, Sh. J.S.Choudhary, the then Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax, New Delhi, as PW33 Sh. C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 8 of 75 S.K.Mehrotra, the then Dy. Commissioner, MCD, Karol Bagh, Zone, Sanctioning Authority against the accused as PW34, Sh. Raj Kumar, a material witness as PW35, Chandan Singh, a co­villager of accused as PW36, Sh. Subhash Gupta, a formal witness as PW37, Sh. T.K.Basu, the then AE, CPWD, Delhi, a formal witness as PW38, Patwari Mehpal Singh, as PW39, Sh. Goverdhan, a co­villager of accused as PW40, Sh. S.S.Jaspal, a material witness as PW41, Sh. Rohtas a formal witness as PW43, Sh. Meer Singh, Surplus Kanungo as PW42, Sh. Rohtas a formal witness as PW43, Sh. Ashok Kumar a formal witness PW44, The then Insp. Niranjan Singh, main IO as PW45, the then Insp. Sheel Nidhi, as PW46, Patwari Mohan Lal as PW47 and the then Insp. Mohd. Abdul Salam, last IO as PW48.

5. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied to have own any such properties and added that the IO has not investigated the case fairly and properly and has wrongfully included several properties as that of him whereas the said properties where purchased and owned by his father Hanni Ram and his wife Tomo Devi from their own sources of funds as they were earning independently. The accused claimed himself to be innocent and there is no case of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 9 of 75 disproportionate assests against him. The accused in support of his defence got examined five DWs namely Sher Singh Rawat, brother of the accused, as DW1, Mamman Singh, as DW2, Sh. Chandu Ram, father in law of the accused as DW3, Sh. R.S.Choudhary, Advocate, as DW4 and Sh. Ashok Kumar, LDC, from Building Department MCD South Zone as DW5 and thereafter DE was closed.

6. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. M.P.Singh, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh. I.U.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.

7. First of all let us discuss about the 'Expenditure' aspect. As per the case of the prosecution, the details of the Expenditure of the accused, his wife Tomo Devi and his father Harni Ram, during the check period i.e., from 01­4­1988 to 12­2­2001 have been shown as under :­

1. School fee of three children/Sons Rs.1,18,440/­

2. Bill of mobile telephone Nos 9810217726 and 9810250763 Rs. 0,29,000/­

3. Bill of telephone No. 6518782 installed at Rs.0,29,857/­ 79/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi residential house of P.S. Rawat C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 10 of 75

4. Rent paid to Shri S.K.Dabar owner/allotee Rs.1,02,000/­ of Flat No. 79/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by Shri P.S.Rawat

5. Rent paid to Shri Hari Chand owner/allotee of Rs.0,43,200/­ Flat No.106/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by Shri P.S.Rawat

6. Rent paid to Sh. Radhe Krishan allotee of Flat Rs.0,25,400/­ No. 63/6, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi

7. Misc. Expenditure 33% of the income of Shri P.S.Rawat Rs.1,33,000/­

8. Bill paid for the telephone No. 6162711 installed at Rs.0,21,106/­ 161A, Sanik Farms, New Delhi

9. Telephone Bill paid of telephone No. 6864250 Rs.0,71,440/­ installed at Shop No. 1, Naib Sarai

10. Expenditure on purchase of Maruti Zen Car Rs.6,33,908/­ DL 3 CH 2164, Tempo No DL ILA 0380, Five LIC Policies, Shutering material, Furniture, and Income­Tax etc. paid by Smt.Tomo Devi

8. Thus there are 10 items under the Head of Expenditure as shown by the prosecution. The Item no. 1 is school fee of children of the accused shown as Rs. 1,18,440/­. The prosecution is found to have examined PW14 Smt. Bharati Sharma, Principal of Amity International School, Saket, New Delhi, in this respect. She has deposed that on 7­3­2001 while she was working as Principal of the aforesaid school, on the request of AC Branch she had forwarded the details of the school fee paid concerning Master Yogesh Rawat S/o C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 11 of 75 Sh. Puran Singh Rawat for the period to 1994 to 2000 which is Ex.PW14/A and details of the school fee concerning Master Nitin Rawat S/o Puran Singh Rawat from 1992 to 1995 which is Ex. PW14/B vide covering letter Ex.PW14/C which bears her signatures at point A. As per the details of Ex.PW14/A total school fee paid is Rs. 89,210/­ and as per Ex.PW14/B the total school fee paid is Rs. 29,140/­ and therefore, it reflect about the total school fee paid for Master Yogesh Rawat and Master Nitin Rawat both sons of accused Puran Singh Rawat as Rs. 1,18,350/­.

9. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that since the concerned Receipt Books of school fee in this respect have not been produced and exhibited and therefore, the expenditure of school fee could not be proved by the prosecution and hence cannot be included in the list of expenditure. I did not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence counsel on this count, in view of the clear deposition of PW14 who has duly proved Ex. PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B showing the details of school fee as paid on behalf of Master Yogesh Rawat and Master Nitin Rawat respectively and I do not see any reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex. PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B, which were issued vide covering letter Ex. PW14/C. C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 12 of 75 Therefore, as regards the Item No. 1, expenditure concerning the school fee of both sons of accused for Rs. 1,18,350/­ is found established.

10. As regards the Item no. 2 under the head of Expenditure it shows expenditure of Mobile Phone no. 9810217726 and 9810250763 as Rs. 29,000/­. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was not the subscriber of said Mobile phones nor had paid any amount for having said Mobile phones and the prosecution has also failed to establish in this respect. However, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that prosecution has established regarding the expenditure of Rs. 29,000/­ by the accused on said Mobile phones.

11. PW8 Sh. R.K.Singh, Nodal Official from Bharati Airtel Ltd, has deposed that as per record on 23­2­2001 Captain Rakesh Bakshi had handed over to the IO the Call details of Mobile no. 9810250763 from 10­6­2000 to 29­8­2000 and Call details of Mobile no. 9810217726 from 29­8­2000 to 18­10­2000 and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A which bears the signatures of Captain Rakesh Bakshi at point A. The said Call Detail Record of both Mobile phones do not found bear the name of subscriber. Even said C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 13 of 75 PW8 in cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel has also stated that he do not know in whose name the said Mobile number 9810217726 and 9810250763 stand. As the prosecution has failed to establish regarding any payment on behalf of the accused for said Mobile number 9810217726 and 9810250763, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 2 relating to expenditure of Rs. 29,000/­ for said two Mobile phones on behalf of the accused could not be established by the prosecution.

12. As regards, the Item no. 3 it shows the expenditure of Rs. 29,857/­ as against telephone no. 6518782 installed at 79/5 Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the accused was not the subscriber of the telephone no. 6518782 but it was one Vikas Gupta who was the subscriber of the said telephone and accused has not made any payment for the said telephone and the prosecution has failed to establish in this respect. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the accused has incurred expenditure of Rs. 29,857/­ for payment of the said telephone number.

13. PW13 Shyam Sunder Sharma, the then Commercial Officer South­I, MTNL Office, Green Park, in his cross examination by Ld. C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 14 of 75 Defence counsel has stated that "it is correct that phone no. 6518782 is in the name of Sh. Vikas Gupta and O/B has also been issued in the name of Sh. Vikas Gupta". He has also added that said telephone connection and relevant record nowhere show the name of accused Puran Singh Rawat. PW17 Sandeep Gupta, who is the brother of said Vikas Gupta in the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has also denied the suggestion that his brother Vikas Gupta had sold the telephone connection no. 6518782 to Puran Singh Rawat and also denied the suggestion that thereafter the bills against said telephone connection were paid by Puran Singh Rawat. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel said PW17 further added that he do not know the accused Puran Singh Rawat nor he ever met him. In view of the abovesaid material available in the record, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 3 relating to expenditure of Rs. 29,857/­ towards the telephone no. 6518782 could not be established by the prosecution.

14. As regards, the Item no. 4 it shows the expenditure of Rs. 1,02,000/­ towards rent paid to Sh. S.K.Dabar for Flat no. 79/5 Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by the accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has not paid any such rent to S.K.Dabar C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 15 of 75 nor the prosecution could establish about the same and therefore, the expenditure in this respect should be deleted from the list of expenditure.

15. PW18 Susheel Kumar Dabar has deposed that in 1998 he was allotted flat no. 79/5 Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi, which was a govt. accommodation and on pursuance of his friend Kishan Chand Arora, he had allowed accused Puran Chand Rawat to keep some household articles in his flat for 2­3 months but he had not charged any rent from him. He also added that police never met him nor recorded his statement. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but it was of no help to the prosecution as he has specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that he had given said flat on rent to the accused from August, 1998 to February 2001 and accused paid him total amount of Rs. 1,02,000/­ to him. In the cross­examination Ld. Defence counsel said PW18 further added that the accused Puran Singh Rawat had never been his tenant nor he has paid any rent to him. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW18 Susheel Kumar Dabar, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 4 regarding payment of rent of Rs. 1,02,000/­ to said S.K.Dabar by the accused could not be established by the prosecution. C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 16 of 75

16. As regards the Item no. 5 under the Head of Expenditure it shows expenditure of 43,200/­ towards rent paid to Sh. Hari Chand allottee of Flat no. 106/5 Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has not paid any such rent to said Sh. Hari Chand and the prosecution has failed to establish in this respect and therefore, the said amount should be deleted from the Head of Expenditure. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the expenditure of Rs. 43,200/­ towards rent to Sh. Hari Chand has been duly proved by the prosecution.

17. PW19 Sh. Hari Chand has deposed in the court that he was the owner of Flat no. 106/5 Sector 1, Saket, New Delhi and in January, 1993 he had given the said flat to accused Puran Singh Rawat on rent for Rs. 1200/­ / 1400/­ per month. He further deposed that accused lived in that flat upto 1995 or 1996. He has also deposed that the accused paid the rent regularly during the course of his living in the said flat. Said PW19 in the cross examination by the defence counsel admitted that no written rent agreement was executed between him and the accused and accused used to pay the monthly rent by cash. He categorically denied the suggestion that the accused never resided in his flat nor paid any rent to him. In view of the C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 17 of 75 aforesaid deposition of PW19 Hari Chand, I am of the considered view that the prosecution could establish regarding the expenditure of Rs. 43,200/­ towards rent by the accused as per Item no. 5 under the Head of Expenditure.

18. As regards the Item no. 6 of Expenditure, it state about payment of Rs. 25,400/­ towards rent paid to Radhey Kishan, allottee of Flat no. 63/6, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused had not paid any such rent to said Sh. Radhey Kishan nor the prosecution could establish about the said expenditure by accused and therefore, the expenditure in this respect should be deleted from the list of Expenditure. However, it is added by Ld. Addl. PP that expenditure in this respect has been proved by the prosecution.

19. The prosecution is found to have examined Sh. Radhey Kishan as PW31 but he has not supported the stand of the prosecution in this respect despite cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP. As he has deposed that he had joined as Class IV employee in National Airport Authority, Safdarjung Airport and was allotted Quarter no. 63 in Pusph Vihar, Saket by the department and he started living there with C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 18 of 75 his family. But he denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that in April, 1998 he had given the said quarter on rent to the accused. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that on 24­4­1991 the accused vacated the said quarter after paying Rs. 25,200/­ as rent in total. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that it was accused who had vacated the said quarter on 24­4­1991. In the cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel said PW31 added that he never met the accused nor he has rented out his quarter to him. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW31 Radhey Kishan, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 6 regarding the payment of rent of Rs. 25,400/­ to Sh. Radhey Kishan by the accused could not be established by the prosecution.

20. The Item no. 7 under the Head of Expenditure state about the expenditure of Rs.1,33,000/­ towards Miscellaneous expenditure as 33 % of the income of accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused since there is no evidence on record regarding said Miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.1,33,000/­ and therefore, the same could not be proved by the prosecution. No doubt there is no specific evidence regarding the said Miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 1,33,000/­. No one is supposed to get issued or preserve any bills / C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 19 of 75 vouchers etc, for the household / kitchen expenditure nor same can be calculated minutely and therefore, only a fair estimation is to be made in this respect on the basis of Income of the person concerned. In the present case since as per case of prosecution the accused is found to have received total Salary of Rs. 4 lakh from his department during the check period and therefore, as per the well established practice of calculating the 33 % of the Salary amount as the Miscellaneous expenditure / kitchen expenditure, I am of the considered view that the amount of Rs.1,33,000/­ has been correctly determined as the Miscellaneous expenditure as per 33% of the Salary of the accused and therefore, said expenditure of Rs. 1,33,000/­ as per Item no. 7 under the head of Expenditure has been validly established by the prosecution.

21. The Item no. 8 under the Head of Expenditure state about expenditure of Rs.21,106/­ towards Bill paid for telephone no. 6962711 installed at 161 A, Sanik Farm, New Delhi. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel the accused is not the subscriber of the said telephone no. 6962711 nor had paid any bill in this respect, and therefore, said amount of expenditure of Rs.21,106/­ should be deleted from the Head of Expenditure. However, it is submitted by C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 20 of 75 the Ld. Addl. PP that accused has incurred expenditure of said amount of Rs. 21,106/­ towards payment said telephone number.

22. PW13 Shyam Sunder Sharma, the then Commercial Officer, South­I, MTNL Office, Green Park, New Delhi, in his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel has stated that "Phone no. 652711 was installed in the name of Sh. G.C.Jain at the address 106/5 Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. Later on this number was changed to 6962711 due to upgradation of telephone exchange concerned. It is correct that G.C.Jain subscriber of telephone no. 652711 has made an application for STD facility with Dynamic Locking System and said application was received in the office of GM South­II, Nehru Place on 16­7­1994". He also added that said telephone connection and the relevant record nowhere shows the name of accused Puran Singh Rawat. In view of the aforesaid material available in the record, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 8 relating to the expenditure of Rs.21,106/­ towards the telephone no. 6962711 could not be established by the prosecution.

23. Item no. 9 under the Head of Expenditure state about the expenditure of Rs. 71,440/­ towards Telephone no. 6864250 installed C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 21 of 75 at shop no. 1, Naib Sarai. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is not the subscriber of said telephone no. 6864250 nor he has paid any such amount for said telephone connection. Therefore, said amount of Rs.71,440/­ should be deleted from the Head of Expenditure.

24. PW22 Sh. Bal Kishan Jaidka, an employee from Telephone Exchange, Hauz Khan, has deposed that "As History sheet Register record Telephone no. 6864250 was open in Tatkal Scheme with STD facility OB no. 110668580 dated 11­2­1990 for Tomo Devi, Village Saidullajob, H. No. 1, near DDA flats M.B.Road". Said History sheet is Ex.PW22/1. No doubt on cross examination Ld. Defence counsel said PW22 has deposed that "there is no record in MTNL to show if payment had been made in respect of telephone no. 6864250 by Smt. Tomo Devi or her father in law Sh. Harni Ram Rawat". From the perusal of deposition of PW22 read with Ex.PW22/1 it is clearly established that said telephone no. 6864250 was in the name of Smt. Tomo Devi, who is the proprietor of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers and was installed at the Shop no. 1, near DDA flats M.B.Road at Village Saidullajob. From the perusal of the Income Tax Returns forming part of Ex. PW33/C(colly.), it is reflected that the telephone C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 22 of 75 expenses in this respect is found clearly shown as an item of expenditure in the "Statement of Profit and Loss Account" for determining the net Income of various Assessment Years i.e., from Assessment Year 1990­91 to 2000­01 of said Tomo Devi, Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers and total telephone expenses of Rs.2,301/­ are found shown in this respect. Therefore, the telephone expenses for said telephone installed at said Shop of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers cannot be calculated once again as an Item for Expenditure incurred by Tomo Devi and therefore, said amount of Rs.71,440/­ of telephone no. 6864250 installed at shop no. 1 Naib Sarai deserve to be deleted from the Head of Expenditure.

25. Item no. 10 under the Head of Expenditure state about the expenditure of Rs. 6,33,908/­ on purchase of Maruti Zen Car DL3CH 2164, Tempo no. DL1L A 0380, five LIC polices, Shuttering materials, furniture & Income Tax etc, paid by Smt. Tomo Devi. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to establish the evidence in this respect. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that even otherwise Tomo Devi was having independent source of Income, as she was running business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers and M/s G.P.Traders and C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 23 of 75 she had been paying the Income Tax and filing Income Tax Returns since Assessment Year 1990­91. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that said expenditure of Rs. 6,33,908/­ should be deleted from the head of Expenditure. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that as there are sufficient evidence in support of the said expenditure of Rs. 6,33,908/­ as incurred by Smt. Tomo Devi, it has been rightly calculated as an item of Expenditure by the IO.

26. From the perusal of the deposition of PW33 J.S.Choudhary, the then Dy. Commissioner Income Tax NAC­20, New Delhi, it is reflected that in response to the letter copy of which Ex.PW33/B as sent by the IO whereby raising query about the filing of Income Tax Return by Smt. Tomo Devi, the said PW33 has sent the reply dated 19­7­2001 Ex.PW33/A to the IO and he had also handed over 66 copies of papers relating to the Income Tax Returns as filed by Smt. Tomo Devi and the said documents are collectively Ex.PW33/C(Colly.). From the perusal of the said documents forming part of Ex.PW33/C (Colly.), it is clearly reflected that said Smt. Tomo Devi, proprietor of M/s Rawat Timer Suppliers had been filing Income Tax Returns since the Assessment Year 1990­91 to Assessment Year 2000­01 and the said documents clearly state about C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 24 of 75 the various Expenditure incurred by Smt. Tomo Devi, for having a Car , a Tempo, 5 LIC policies, Furnitures, Income Tax paid in various Assessment Year as given below:­ ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990­91 Furniture & Fixture Rs. 7,373.00 Income Tax Paid Rs. 1,500.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 TOTAL Rs. 21,446.80 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991­92 Income Tax Paid Rs. 5000.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 TOTAL Rs. 17,573.80 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992­93 Income Tax Paid Rs. 7,600.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 TOTAL Rs. 20,173.80 C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 25 of 75 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993­94 Maruti Car Rs. 1,74,550.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 Income Tax Paid Rs. 13,400.00 TOTAL RS. 2,00,523. 80 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994­95 Income Tax Paid Rs. 10,000.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 + Rs. 47.10 (Interest) Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 + Rs. 47.20 (Interest) Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774524 Rs. 2,766.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774512 Rs. 6,392.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774204 Rs. 5,936.00 Amount paid to M/s Hindustan Leasing Ltd, Rs. 50,000.00 towards finance of Tempo TOTAL Rs. 87,762.10 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995­96 Income Tax Paid Rs. 12,500.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774524 Rs. 2,766.00 C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 26 of 75 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774512 Rs. 6,391.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774204 Rs. 5,935.00 TOTAL Rs. 40,165.80 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996­97 Income Tax Paid Rs. 3,000.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004594 Rs. 6,286.30 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111004617 Rs. 6,287.50 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774524 Rs. 2,766.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774512 Rs. 6,391.00 Premium of LIC Policy no. 111774204 Rs. 5,935.00 TOTAL Rs. 30,665.80 * As per LIC Notice Ex.PW9/D1, LIC Policy No.111004594 is in the name of Puran Singh Rawat * As per LIC Notice Ex.PW9/D2, LIC Policy No.111004617 is in the name of Smt.Tomo Devi.

* As per History of LIC Policy No.111774524 Ex.PW32/G, said Policy is in the name of Yogesh who is Son of the accused. * As per History of LIC Policy No.111774512 Ex.PW32/F, said Policy is in the name of Nitin who is Son of the accused. C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 27 of 75 * As per History of LIC Policy No.111774204 Ex.PW32/E, said Policy is in the name of Girvar who is Son of the accused.

ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997­98 NO INCOME TAX RETURNS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998­99 NO INCOME TAX RETURNS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999­2000 Income Tax Paid Rs. 5,258.00 TOTAL Rs. 5,258.00 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000­01 Income Tax Paid Rs. 10,215.00 TOTAL Rs. 10,215.00 TOTAL OF THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990­91 TO 2000­01 IS Rs. 4,33,784.90

27. From the perusal of the aforesaid Income Tax Returns forming part of Ex. PW33/C (colly) as filed by Smt. Tomo Devi, it is reflected that she was running business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 28 of 75 Timber Suppliers and M/s G.P.Traders and had been purchasing Shuttering materials from time to time as part of her business investment and therefore, the amount relating to the purchase of the Shuttering material cannot be included under the Head of Expenditure but the IO by including the amount of the purchase of the shuttering material has reached to a higher figure of Rs. 6,33,908/­ as per Item no. 10 under the Head of Expenditure whereas as per the aforesaid discussion the correct amount of Expenditure in this aspect is Rs. 4,33,784.90.

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total of expenditure of the accused, his wife Smt.Tomo Devi and his father Harni Ram, during Check Period which could be established by the prosecution are as under:­

1. School Fee of Children/Sons of accused Rs.1,18,350.00

2. Rent paid to Sh.Hari Chand Owner of Flat No. Rs.0,43,200.00 106/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi by the accused

3. Misc. Expenditure 33% of Income of accused Rs.1,33,000.00

4. Expenditure on purchase of Maruti Car, Rs.4,33,784.90 Tempo, 5 LIC Policies, Furnitures and Income Tax etc. by Smt. Tomo Devi TOTAL PROVED EXPENDITURE Rs.7,28,334.90 C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 29 of 75

29. Now let us discuss about the Assets aspect. As per the case of the prosecution the details of the Assets and their value in the name of the accused, his father Harni Ram, his wife Tomo Devi and minor sons Yogesh, Nitin and Girwar have been shown as under:­

1. Flat No. L 72, Janta DDA, Saket New Delhi not proved so far purchased from the allotee Smt. Thuli Maya benami flat of Shri P.S. Rawat

2. Agricultural land 13 Bigha, 11 Biswa (Value of Sale Deed) Rs.1,17,500/­ purchased in July 1988 in Village (Value of stamp and Rs.0,15,530/­ Sachod Distt.Alwar,2/3 Share in the (Registration fee) Rs.0,00,566/­ name of Shri P.S.Rawat and 1/3 share in the name of his father Harni Ram

3. Agricultural Land 8 Bigha, 17 Biswa Rs. 12,00,000/­ purchased in the name of his minor Sons Girvar, Nitin, Yogesh in the Year of 2000 in Village Basoni, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan

4. Revolver purchased by Shri P.S.Rawat in the year 1988 Rs.0,17,413/­

5. Balance in Bank A/c No SB/AC No. 12229 in the Name of Rs.0,01,575 Shri P.S.Rawat and his wife Tomo Devi balance as on 07.04.2001

6. Value of the household items noticed during house search Rs. 0,90,280/­ in Flat No.79/5, Pushp Vihar resident of Shri P.S.Rawat vide Inventory memo dated 01.03.2001

7. Plot No. 161A, Kariappa Marg, Sanik Farm purchased Rs.0,50,000/­ in the year 1991 vide GPA as Benami property in the name of his father Harni Ram.(Cost of Land 500 Sq yards)

8. Value of the construction on the above Plot No 161 A Rs.15,49,700/­ in the year of 1992 as per valuation report of PWD C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 30 of 75

9. Value of the household items noticed during house Rs.1,16,580/­ search in 161A, Kariappa Marg, Sanik Farm vide Inventory memo dated 02.03.2001

10. Plot/Shop No. 1 (300 Sq yards) on main IGNOU road, Rs.0,30,000/­ Naib Saria, New Delhi. (Cost of the Land) purchased in the year 1988

11. Cost of construction on the above plot at serial No.10 Rs.4,77,000/­ as per valuation report of PWD

12. Cost of Items noticed during search of the above Rs.1,05,000/­ shop at serial No. 10 as per Inventory memo of search dated 1.03.2001

13. Total surplus amount in cash, sale of Maruti Zen Car Rs.7,59,226/­ and sale of Tempo, as per record of Income tax returns

30. Item no. 1 under the Head of Assets state about the Janta Flat no. L­72, DDA, Saket New Delhi, alleged to be purchased from allottee Smt. Thuli Maya by the accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has got no concern with the said Janta Flat nor he had ever purchased the same nor the prosecution could establish any evidence in this aspect. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that since no evidence has been brought on record regarding the Asset no. 1, no valuation of the same has also been made by the IO in this respect.

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 31 of 75

31. PW2 Sh. R.K.Sehrawat, UDC, House Tax Department, Delhi, has stated that the IO inquired from him about the property L­72, Janta Flat, Saket and on checking the Record he found that Smt. Thuli Maya was the owner of the said flat and he had handed over nine papers from the concerned file to the IO which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW2/A and said documents are Ex. PW2/B1 to B9. In the cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW2 added that as per the Record, Smt. Thuli Maya is the exclusive owner of said flat no. L­72 C, Janta Flat, Saket, New Delhi and the name of the accused does not exist in the record in respect of said flat. Similarly PW15 Sh. S.C.Sharma, the then Accounts Officer, (Housing General) DDA has deposed that he had sent a Report showing the details of the payment for the flat no. L­72 C, Janta Flat, Saket, as made by the allottee and said Report is Ex. PW15/A which bears his signature at point A. In the cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel said PW15 further added that flat no. L­72 C, Janta Flat, Saket, belongs to Thuli Maya and not to accused Puran Singh and all payment in respect to the above said flat was received from Thuli Maya and Puran Singh is noway concerned with the said Flat. The prosecution had failed to adduce any evidence on record to establish that said Janta Flat no. L­72 C Saket was ever purchased by the C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 32 of 75 accused from its allottee Smt. Thuli Maya and therefore, the Asset relating to Item no. 1 as against the accused could not be established by the prosecution.

32. The Item no. 2 under the Head of Assets state as under:­ Agricultural land 13 Bigha, 11 Biswa (Value of Sale Deed) Rs.1,17,500/­ purchased in July 1988 in Village (Value of stamp and Rs.0,15,530/­ Sachod Distt.Alwar,2/3 Share in the (Registration fee) Rs.0,00,566/­ name of Shri P.S.Rawat and 1/3 share in the name of his father Harni Ram It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that said Land measuring 13 Bigha 11 Biswa in Village Sachod, Distt. Alwar was jointly purchased by accused Puran Singh Rawat having 2/3rd share and his father having 1/3rd share for total sale consideration of Rs.1,17,500/­ and copy of the Sale Deed in this respect is Ex.PW45/22.

33. PW45 the then Insp. Niranjan Singh/ IO has deposed that the accused has produced the certified copy of the Sale Deeds pertaining to the purchase of Agricultural Land 13 Bigha 11 Biswa in village Sachod, Distt. Alwar in the year 1988 and certified copy of the said Sale Deed is Ex.PW45/22. From the perusal of the certified C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 33 of 75 copy of the said Sale Deed dated 18­7­1988 Ex.PW45/22, it is clearly reflected that land measuring 13 Bigha 11 Biswa in village Sachod, Distt. Alwar, has been jointly purchased by the accused Puran Singh Rawat having 2/3 share and his father Harni Ram having 1/3 share for total sale consideration of Rs.1,17,500/­. It is further revealed from the perusal of copy of said Sale Deed dated 18­7­1988 that Stamp of Rs.15,530/­ and registration fee of Rs.566/­ have also been paid by them on registration of the said Sale Deed. In view of the aforesaid material available on record, I am of the considered view the prosecution has clearly established regarding the valuation Rs.1,33,596/­ of the said Asset as per Item no. 2 under the Head of the Assets.

34. As regards the Item no. 3, under the Head of Assets it state as under :­ Agricultural Land 8 Bigha, 17 Biswa Rs. 12,00,000/­ purchased in the name of his minor Sons Girvar, Nitin, Yogesh in the Year of 2000 in Village Basoni, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that said land measuring 8 Bigha 17 Biswas on Village Basoni was purchased in the year 2000 by Sh. Harni Ram, father of accused in the name of his C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 34 of 75 grandsons namely Girwar, Nitin and Yogesh for sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000/­ and money was paid by Sh. Harni Ram in this respect and copy of the said Sale Deed is Ex. PW45/23. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has no concern with the purchase of said property and was not even present at the time of registration of the said Sale Deed. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that said property was purchased by the accused in the name of his sons for sale consideration of Rs.12 lakh.

35. PW45 the then Insp. Niranjan Singh/IO has deposed that the accused has produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed relating to Agricultural Land measuring 8 Bigha 17 Biswa in the name of his sons and certified copy of the said Sale Deed is Ex.PW45/23 which has been received by the IO vide Ex. PW45/21. On the perusal of copy of said Sale Deed dated 31­5­2000 Ex.PW45/23, it is clearly reflected that by virtue of said Sale Deed Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Satya Pal and others have sold total Land measuring 8 Bigha 17 Biswa in village Basoni, Distt. Alwar in the name of Girwar Rawat, Nitin Rawat and Yogesh Rawat, all sons of Puran Singh Rawat for total Sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000/­. From the perusal of copy of said Sale Deed Ex.PW45/23 it is further reflected that Stamp duty of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 35 of 75 Rs.48,000/­ has been paid for the registration of said Sale Deed. PW35 Raj Kumar who is one of the vendor of the said Land and Executor of the aforesaid Sale Deed has deposed that they have sold their Land of 8 Bigha 17 Biswa to Sh. Harni Ram for Rs.4,80,000/­. He further deposed that the documents were executed in the name of grand sons of Harni Ram. He further added that they have sold land to Sh. Harni Ram and do not know the accused. The said PW35 is found to have been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but it is of no help to the prosecution. Said PW35 has denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that Puran Singh Rawat Son of Harni Ram had purchased said land measuring 8 Bigha 17 Biswa in the name of his sons Girwar, Nitin & Yogesh for Rs.12,00,000/­ as said PW35 in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has deposed in this respect as under:­ "My statement was not recorded by the police, I did not state to the police official that Puran Singh Rawat son of Harni Ram resident of village Abrahim pur, Tahsil Bawla, Rewari had purchased land from me and my brother in the year 2000 and the Sale Deed was executed in the name of his sons Girwar, Nitin and Yogesh and he had paid Rs. 12,00,000/­ to me and my brothers for our land measuring 8 Bigha and 17 Biswa".

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 36 of 75 In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW35 has reiterated in this respect as under :­ "It is correct that accused Puran Singh had never met us at any stage nor he had given any money to me or to my brother at any stage for the purchase of the aforesaid land. He was not present at the time of execution of the Sale Deed in the registry. The deal was finalized by Harni Ram and all the payment was made by Harni Ram to us".

Furthermore, DW2 Mamman Singh who is an attesting witness to the said Sale Deed Ex.PW45/23 had reiterated that the Sale consideration was paid by Sh. Harni Ram father of Puran Singh Rawat as he has deposed in this respect as under:­ "I have seen Ex.PW45/23 which is a attested copy of Sale Deed dt. 31.5.2000 executed by Sh. Raj Kumar and his other brothers in favour of Girvar Rawat, Yogesh Rawat and Nitin Rawat. The sale price for this land was given by Sh. Harni Ram father of Puran Singh Rawat at the time of registration. At the time of execution of Sale Deed Puran Singh Rawat was not present there. Said money was paid in my presence".

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 37 of 75 Said DW2 categorically denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that the payment was made by the accused Puran Singh Rawat for the purchase of said Land or that Harni Ram was not having financial position to purchase the said Land.

36. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW35 Raj Kumar, and DW2 Mamman Singh coupled with the copy of the Sale Deed dated 31­5­2000 Ex.PW45/23, I am of the considered view that the valuation of said land measuring 8 Bigha 17 Biswa in Village Basoni, as purchased in the name of three sons of the accused has been determined to be Rs. 4,80,000/­ (Sale Amount) + Rs. 48,000/­ (Stamp duty) = Rs. 5,28,000/­ and said land was purchased by Sh. Harni Ram in the name of his grand sons Girwar, Nitin and Yogesh from PW35 Raj Kumar and his brothers vide copy of Sale Deed dated 31­5­2000 Ex.PW45/23.

37. As regards the Item no. 4 under the Head of Assets state as under :­ Revolver purchased by Shri P.S.Rawat in the year 1988 Rs.0,17,413/­ It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was having the Arms License and has delivered the copy of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 38 of 75 the same to the IO. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the accused had purchased the Revolver in the year 1988 for Rs. 17,413/­ and money in this respect was paid to him by the father of the accused. It is also added by the Ld. Counsel that the accused had duly intimated regarding purchase of the revolver to his department which is found supported from the deposition of DW5 Ashok Kumar an employee from MCD South Zone, New Delhi.

38. PW45 the then Inspector Niranjan Singh/IO has deposed in this respect as under :­ "I collected the Receipt regarding the purchase of the revolver by Sh.Puran Singh from the Arms Dealer Sh. S.R.Chugh from Singh House and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW45/9 which bears my signatures at point A and the same is also bears the signatures of Sh. S.R.Chugh at point B. As per receipt the cost of revolver was Rs.

17,413/­ and copy receipt was signed by Sh.

S.R.Chugh on Ex. PW45/10 which bears the signature of Sh. S.R.Chugh at point A".

39. From the perusal of copy of the Receipt dated 17­6­1988 of revolver which is Ex. PW45/10, it is clearly reflected that the price of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 39 of 75 the revolver is Rs.17,413/­ being purchased by the accused and copy of the Receipt of revolver was received by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW45/9. Copy of the said Receipt also reflect about the Arms License number of the accused as mentioned therein. From the perusal of deposition of DW5 Ashok Kumar, LDC, (Building department) MCD, South Zone, Delhi coupled with the relevant diary entry no. 1588 dated 23­6­1988, the copy of which is Ex. DW5/A reflect about the intimation given by the accused regarding purchase of revolver to his department. In view of the abovesaid material available on the Record, I am of the considered view that the valuation of the said revolver as per Item no. 4, has been rightly determined by the prosecution as Rs. 17,413/­ accordingly.

40. The Item no. 5 under the Head of Assets state is under :­ Balance in Bank A/c No SB/AC No. 12229 in the Name of Rs.1,575/­ Shri P.S.Rawat and his wife Tomo Devi balance as on 07.04.2001 PW25 Sh. S.C.Gupta, Ex. Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Saket Branch, New Delhi, has deposed that on the asking of the IO he had handed over the copy of the document of Accounts in respect of P.S.Rawat, S.S.Rawat, M/s G.P.Traders and M/s Rawat Timber C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 40 of 75 Suppliers to the IO vide letter dated 9­4­2001 and said letter is Ex.PW25/1 which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that attested copy of Statement of Account of Saving Bank Account no. 12229 running into 2 sheets is Ex.PW25/2 which bear his signatures at point A. From the perusal of said letter Ex. PW25/1 coupled with copy of Statement of Accounts bearing Saving Bank Account no. 12229 in the name of Puran Singh Rawat and Smt. Tomo Devi reflect the balance amount as on dated 7­4­2001 as Rs.1575/­ and therefore, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 5 under the head of Assets for Rs.1575/­ has been duly established by the prosecution.

41. The Item no. 6 under the Head of Assets state as under :­ Value of the household items noticed during house search Rs. 0,90,280/­ in Flat No.79/5, Pushp Vihar residence of Shri P.S.Rawat vide Inventory memo dated 01.03.2001 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the valuation of the Household articles as per Inventory Ex.PW9/A has been made by the IO on very higher side as per his own sweet will even without the consultation of the punch witness. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel even several Household articles were C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 41 of 75 available before the check period but without giving any credit for the articles of pre check period, the IO has calculated the entire articles found in the House of the accused and estimated them on higher side. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the IO has properly calculated the value of the articles found in the House search of the accused as per the Inventory Ex. PW9/A.

42. From the perusal of the deposition of PW9 Sh. K.R.Goel, Punch witness as well as deposition of PW45 Insp. Niranjan Singh/IO it is reflected that the IO has conducted the House search of the accused at Flat no. 79/5 Pushp Vihar, Saket, on dated 1­3­2001 and has prepared the Inventory of entire articles found during House search vide Inventory Memo Ex.PW9/A which bears the signature of said PW9 at point A, B & C. No doubt from the perusal of said Inventory Memo Ex.PW9/A it is reflected that the valuation by estimation of each articles have been found mentioned therein but it appears that the same has been done by the IO by over estimation of the valuation of the articles and without any consultation with the said punch witness PW9 as said PW9 in cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel has deposed as under :­ "I had put my signatures after inventory items were mentioned alongwith its valuation. I myself had not C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 42 of 75 given any valuation of any articles mentioned in the inventory Ex.PW9/A. I did not give any opinion regarding the age of the articles and year of acquisition of the articles mentioned in the inventory Ex.PW9/A".

43. In view of the aforesaid submission of said PW9 who is a punch witness to House search of accused and considering the fact that the IO has made over estimation in the valuation of articles found during House search of the accused as per Inventory Ex.PW9/A and keeping in mind that no credit has been given for the Household articles available with the accused before the check period, I am of the considered view that after giving credit with regard to certain articles available with the accused prior to check period, the valuation of the articles found during the House search of the accused can be fairly estimated as Rs. 50,000/­. Therefore, the valuation as regards the Item no. 6 under the Head of Assets is held to be determined as Rs.50,000/­.

44. The Item no. 7 under the Head of Assets state as under:­ Plot No. 161A, Kariappa Marg, Sanik Farm Rs.0,50,000/­ purchased in the year 1991 vide GPA as Benami property in the name of his father Harni Ram.

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 43 of 75

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the accused has got no concern with the purchase of said property as the same was purchased by Sh. Harni Ram father of the accused in the year 1991 for Rs. 50,000/­ and the amount was paid by his father from his own funds as he was having independent source of income. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that said fact is also found supported from the deposition of PW30 Atul Dev, PW44 Ashok Kumar and DW1 Sher Singh Rawat.

45. PW45 the then Insp. Niranjan Singh/IO has deposed that he had collected the original documents relating to the property of Sanik Farm from the accused in presence of a witness Veerpal Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/1. The details of the document are mentioned in said seizure memo. He further deposed that original GPA executed by Atul Dev in favour of Harni Ram is Ex.PW45/6, original Agreement to Sale in favour of Harni Ram is Ex.PW45/7 and original Possession Letter is Ex.PW45/8. PW30 Atul Dev who is the executant of the said documents has also deposed that he was the Power of Attorney holder of Sh. Bhupender Patel and his two sons who owned a plot in Sanik Farm and under their instruction he had executed the said documents regarding sale of said plot on their C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 44 of 75 behalf. He further deposed that the copy of GPA, Agreement to Sale and Possession Letter in respect of said land measuring 550 sq. yards bears his signatures at point A and the same are Ex.PW30/1, PW30/2 and PW30/3 respectively. PW44 Ashok Kumar through whom said plot was purchased by Harni Ram has also deposed that one plot measuring 550 sq. yards situated in Sanik Farm, Kariyappa Marg, was purchased by Harni Ram through him and copy of the Power of Attorney as Ex.PW30/1, copy of Agreement to Sale as Ex.PW30/2 and copy of Possession Letter as Ex.PW30/3 which bear his signatures at point B. Said PW44 in the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP had denied the suggestion that the money for the purchase of said plot was paid by Puran Singh Rawat. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that at the time of the preparation of the above documents, Puran Singh Rawat was personally present there and he has got the documents in the name of his father Harni Ram Rawat. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that later on Puran Singh Rawat had constructed the House on the said plot i.e. 161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farm. Furthermore, DW1 Sher Singh Rawat who is the elder brother of the accused has also deposed to the effect that the plot 161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farm was purchased by his father and amount was paid by his father and C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 45 of 75 construction was raised on the same by his father as said DW1 has deposed in this respect as under:­ "We are three brothers. The Accused Puran Singh Rawat is younger to me. I have one elder brother. House No. 161 A, is situated in Sainik Farms was purchased by my father and the amount was paid by my father. He had purchased the plot and constructed over the said plot. I do not remember the year when he purchased the same. My father has already expired. The said property has not been mutated in favour of the brothers but I am the one­third share holder of the said property and similarly my brother Puran Singh Rawat is also having one­third share in the said property after the death of my father".

46. From the perusal of the aforesaid deposition of PW30 Atul Dev, PW44 Ashok Kumar, PW45 the then Insp. Niranjan Singh/IO and DW1 Sher Singh Rawat coupled with original GPA dated 28­1­1991 Ex. PW45/6 (copy of GPA Ex. PW30/1), Original Agreement to Sale dated 28­1­1991 Ex. PW45/7, (Copy of Agreement to Sale Ex. PW30/2), Original Possession Letter Ex.PW45/8, (Copy C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 46 of 75 of Possession Letter Ex. PW30/3), it is established that said plot measuring 550 sq. yards at 161­A, Sainik Farms was purchased by Sh. Harni Ram, father of the accused on dated 28­1­1991 for sale consideration of Rs.50,000/­ and thereafter raised construction on the said plot and therefore, I am of the considered view that the Item no. 7 under the Head of Assets has been correctly determined as valuation of Rs. 50,000/­.

47. The Item No.8 under the Head of Assets state as under:­ Value of the construction on the above Plot No 161 A Rs.15,49,700/­ in the year of 1992 as per valuation report of PWD It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the construction on the said plot was raised by Sh.Harni Ram, father of the accused from his own funds and the accused had not made any payment for raising the construction on the said plot. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise, the IO has got prepared the said Valuation Report on very higher side for Rs.15,49,716/­. It is also added by him that the Valuation Report of said property has been made as the cost of the Building on the date of the Inspection i.e. 14.2.2001 and not of the cost of the period of construction. It is also added by him that the total valuation of the construction of said C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 47 of 75 property has been determined to be Rs.7,68,405/­ as per the copy of the Valuation Report Mark PW45/12 which was delivered by the accused to the IO but the IO has not taken into account the same. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the Valuation of the construction of said property has been correctly determined as per Valuation Report Ex.PW3/1 to 8 for Rs.15,49,716/­.

48. From the perusal of deposition of PW3 A.P.Jugran, the then Executive Engineer, Planning III, it is reflected that the said property Valuation Report Ex.PW3/1 to 8 (running into 8 sheets) bears his signature at point A and signature of A.K.Govil, JE at point X. Said PW3 has forwarded said Report vide his Letter Ex.PW3/A which bears his signature at point A. No doubt, the accused has submitted a copy of the Valuation Report of said property which is Mark PW45/12 showing the total valuation of construction as Rs.7,68,405/­ but since the said Report as provided by the accused has not been proved, the same cannot be looked into. However, from the perusal of the property Valuation Report Ex.PW3/1 to 8, it is reflected that said Report show the cost of the construction as on 14.2.2001 i.e. the date of Inspection but the construction is stated to have been made in the year 1992 and therefore, I am of the considered view that the cost of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 48 of 75 construction of said property during the period of construction can be safely estimated as Rs. 14,00,000/­ and therefore, the Valuation of Item No.8 under the Head of Assets regarding the cost of construction on plot no.161 A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farm is determined to be for Rs.14,00,000/­.

49. As regards the Item No.9 under the Head of Assets, it state as under:­ Value of the household items noticed during house Rs.1,16,580/­ search in 161A, Kariappa Marg, Sanik Farm vide Inventory memo dated 02.03.2001 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the Valuation of the said Household articles as per Inventory Ex.PW10/D as found in the House of the father of the accused has been made by the IO on very higher side as per his sweet will. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that even several Household articles were available even before the Check Period but without giving any credit for the same, the IO has calculated the entire articles found in the House of the father of the accused and estimated on higher side. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that IO has properly calculated the value of the articles as found during the House search as per Inventory Ex.PW10/D. C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 49 of 75

50. From the perusal of the deposition of PW10 Sh.Ram Kumar who is a witness to said House search, it is reflected that the IO has not taken his consultation in estimating the Valuation of the articles found in House search as per Ex.PW10/D as said PW10 Ram Kumar has deposed in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel in this respect as under:­ "I cannot tell who has prepared Ex.PW10/D. I can only identify my signature thereon. I was only made to sign the memo Ex.PW10/D."

51. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW10 who is a witness to said House search and considering the facts that the IO has made over­estimation in the Valuation of the articles found during House search as per Inventory Ex.PW10/D and keeping in mind that no credit has been given for the Household articles available prior to the Check Period, I am of the considered view that after giving the credit with regard to certain articles available prior to the Check Period, the valuation of the articles found during the said House search can be fairly estimated as Rs.70,000/­. Therefore the valuation as regards the Item No.9 under the Head of Assets is held to be determined as Rs.70,000/­.

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 50 of 75

52. The Item No.10 under the Head of Assets state as under:­ Plot/Shop No. 1 (300 Sq yards) on main IGNOU road, Rs.0,30,000/­ Naib Saria, New Delhi. (Cost of the Land) purchased in the year 1988 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that said plot was purchased by Smt.Tomo Devi wife of the accused from her own funds as she was having independent source of income and had been filing Income Tax Returns since 1990­91. It is also added by him that the accused has no concern with the said property nor has made any payment in this respect.

53. PW41 Sh.S.S.Jaspal has deposed that on 6.12.1995 he had sold plot measuring 300 sq.yds. situated in Khasra No.69, Village Saidulagib to Smt. Tomo Devi through Agreement to Sell, Will and Possession Letter. Agreement to Sell is Ex.PW41/A, Possession Letter is Ex.PW41/B and Will is Ex.PW41/C and same bear his signatures at point A. In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW41 has added that the Sale amount was Rs.30,000/­ and the entire amount was received by him. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that Puran Singh Rawat had purchased this plot through his wife. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that Puran Singh Rawat had constructed Shop and 3­4 Rooms in the said plot. In the cross C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 51 of 75 examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW41 further added that Smt.Tomo Devi had visited along with her father and it was her father who had settled the deal and he wanted to purchase the property for her daughter Tomo Devi. He further deposed that Puran Singh Rawat had never visited him in regard to the purchase of said property and he had never made any payment to him. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW41 S.S.Jaspal coupled with Agreement to Sale dated 6.12.1995 Ex.PW41/A, Possession Letter Ex.PW41/B and Will dated 6.12.1995 Ex.PW41/C, it is clearly established that the aforesaid plot measuring 300 sq. yds. at Village Saidulagib was purchased by Smt.Tomo Devi and subsequently construction was raised by her on the said plot. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Item No. 10 under the Head of Assets has been determined for value of Rs.30,000/­.

54. The Item No.11 under the Head of Assets state as under:­ Cost of construction on the above plot at serial No.10 Rs.4,77,000/­ as per valuation report of PWD It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Tomo Devi has purchased the said plot and raised some construction and was running the Shop as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers. It is added by Ld. Counsel that the Valuation C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 52 of 75 Report of said construction Ex.PW6/A has been made on very higher side. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the cost of construction has been taken as on 26.2.2001 i.e. the date of Inspection and not at the cost at the time of the construction in the year 1996. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the accused has got no concern with raising of said construction as the accused has not made any payment for said construction and the payment for the construction was made by Smt. Tomo Devi who was having independent source of Income from her business.

55. PW6 A.K.Govil, the then JE, PWD who is a signatory to said Valuation Report Ex.PW6/A, has proved said Valuation Report as Ex.PW6/A which bears his signatures at point A and said Report reflects the cost of the construction as Rs.4,77,000/­. However, as per said Report Ex.PW6/A, the cost of construction has been determined as on 26.2.2001 i.e., the date of Inspection of said property and appears to be on higher side and not of the period of construction. I am of the considered view that the cost of said construction can be fairly estimated as Rs.4,00,000/­. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Item No.11 under the Head of Assets has been determined for value of Rs.4,00,000/­.

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 53 of 75

56. As regards Item No.12 under the Head of Assets, it state as under:­ Cost of Items noticed during search of the above Rs.1,05,000/­ shop at serial No. 10 as per Inventory memo of search dated 1.03.2001 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the Inventory Memo Ex.PW21/A as prepared by the IO on the search of Shop of Tomo Devi M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers does not found mention regarding any valuation of the articles and there is nothing on Record as to how the IO has calculated the valuation of the same as Rs.1,05,000/­ which is even otherwise on much higher side.

57. PW21 Vinod Kumar Aneja has deposed that on 1.3.2001 he had accompanied the team of ACB and visited the Shop M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers, Main IGNOU Road, Naib Sarai and the IO prepared the Inventory of the articles vide Inventory Memo Ex.PW21/A (running into 3 pages) which bears his signatures at point A. From the perusal of the said Inventory Ex.PW21/A, it is clearly found that no valuation of any article has been mentioned in said Inventory Ex.PW21/A. There is nothing on record as to how the articles found therein has been estimated by the IO to be Rs.1,05,000/­ and even otherwise, said amount is found to be on much higher side C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 54 of 75 and therefore, I am of the considered view that the valuation of the articles as per Inventory Memo Ex.PW21/A can be fairly estimated as Rs.55,000/­.

58. As regards Item No.13 under the Head of Assets, it state as under:­ Total surplus amount in cash, sale of Maruti Zen Car Rs.7,59,226/­ and sale of Tempo, as per record of Income tax returns It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the IO has calculated the surplus cash amount as Rs.7,59,226/­. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that since the entire House search was conducted by the IO and detailed Inventory has been prepared, there is no justification for adding any cash amount specifically when the same was not recovered during House search.

59. From the perusal of the entire evidence available on the Record, it is clearly reflected that no such amount in cash has been found from the House search of the accused nor any such balance amount is found available as per the Income Tax Returns of Assessment Years 1990­1991 to 2000­2001 (forming part of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 55 of 75 Ex.PW33/C (colly.)) as filed by Smt.Tomo Devi who was running business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers and M/s G.P.Traders. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the IO had taken wrong figure of Rs.13,93,134/­ as Income of Smt.Tomo Devi from business and cash balance amount of Rs.7,59,226/­ as per Valuation of Item No.13 from certain document which is neither authenticated nor proved on Record and therefore, the same cannot be looked into. However, as per the deposition of PW25 coupled with Letter Ex.PW25/1, it is reflected that amount of Rs.20234.20 was found lying balance as on 7.4.2001 in the Current Account No.50137 of M/s G.P.Traders and Rs.22918.70 was found lying balance on 7.4.2001 in the Current Account No.50313 (Old Account No. 583) of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers. Thus total amount of Rs.43,152.90 was found lying balance amount in the Account of M/s G.P.Traders and M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers being run by Smt.Tomo Devi. Therefore, the valuation of Item No.13 under the Head of Assets is determined as Rs.43,152.90/­.

60. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total Valuation of the Assets in the name of Puran Singh Rawat, his father Harni Ram and his wife Tomo Devi and minor sons Girvar, Nitin and Yogesh C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 56 of 75 which have been proved by the prosecution are as under:­ 1 Agricultural Land 13 bigha 11 biswa in Rs.1,33,596.00 Village Sachod purchased in 1988 in the name of accused and his father 2 Agricultural Land 8 bigha 17 biswa in Rs.5,28,000.00 Village Basoni purchased in 2000 by Harni Ram in the name of his grandsons i.e. Girvar, Nitin and Yogesh 3 Revolver purchased by the accused in Rs.0,17,413.00 1988 4 Balance in Bank Account S.B.A/C No. Rs.0,0,1575.00 12229 in the name of accused and his wife Smt.Tomo Devi, Balance as on 07.04.2001 5 Value of the Household Items found Rs.0,50,000.00 during House search of the accused at Flat No.79/5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi 6 Plot No.161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Rs.0,50,000.00 Farms purchased by Sh.Harni Ram, father of the accused in the year 1991 7 Value of the construction on the aforesaid Rs.14,00,000.00 Plot No. 161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farms, in the year 1992 8 Value of the Household Items found Rs.00,70,000.00 during House search of father of accused at Plot No. 161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farms C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 57 of 75 9 Plot of Shop No.1 in Village Saidulgaib, Rs.00,30,000.00 Naib Sarai, New Delhi purchased by Smt.Tomo Devi in the year 1988 10 Cost of construction on the aforesaid Plot Rs.04,00,000.00 as per Serial No.9 11 Cost of the Items found during search of Rs.00,55,000.00 aforesaid Shop No.1 as per Serial No.9 12 Amount found lying deposited in the Bank Rs.0043,152.90 Account of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers and M/s G.P. Traders TOTAL VALUATION OF AFORESAID Rs.27,78,736.90 ASSETS

61. Now let us discuss about the Income aspect. The prosecution has taken the Income of accused, his wife Smt.Tomo Devi and father Sh.Harni Ram during the Check Period as under:­ Income of Puran Singh Rawat Beldar, his wife Smt.Tomo Devi and father Sh. Harni Ram during check period w.e.f. 01.04.1988 to 12.02.2001

1. Income of Shri P.S. Rawat from Salary Rs.4,00,000

2. Income of Shri P.S.Rawat from Rs. 0,68,000/­ Agricultural land 4 canal 14 Marla in Village Ibrahim pur, Distt. Rewari, Haryana

3. Income of Harni Ram from Rs.7,45,000/­ Agricultural land 5 Acre 3 canal 17 Marla in Village Ibrahim pur, Distt. Rewari, Haryana C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 58 of 75

4. Income of Shri P.S.Rawat and Harni Ram Rs.9,20,000/­ from agricultural land of Village Sachod Distt Alwar 13 Bigha 11 Biswa pakka

5. Income of Smt.Tomo Devi from business Rs.13,93,134/­ M/s Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders TOTAL INCOME Rs. 35,26,134/­

62. The Item No.1 under the Head of Income state as under:­ Income of Shri P.S. Rawat from Salary Rs.4,00,000 It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the total Salary of the accused during the Check Period has been found to be Rs.4,00,000/­ and since said amount of Income of Rs.4,00,000/­ from the Head of the Salary of the accused has not been disputed on behalf of the accused and as PW45 IO has deposed regarding the Salary of the accused as under:­ " During Check Period Accused Puran Singh Rawat had drawn the total emoluments Salary of Rs.4 Lacs which is mentioned in Ex.PW45/3".

Considering the aforesaid material available on Record regarding the total Salary of the accused during a Check period as Rs. 4 Lacs which is not even disputed on behalf of the accused. The Item C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 59 of 75 No. 1 under the Head of Income relating to the Income from the Salary of the accused has been determined as Rs.4,00,000/­.

63. The Item No.2 under the Head of Income state as under:­ Income of Shri P.S.Rawat from Rs. 0,68,000/­ Agricultural land 4 canal 14 Marla in Village Ibrahim pur, Distt. Rewari, Haryana It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the IO has calculated the Income of the accused from Agricultural Land, 4 canals 14 Marla in Village Ibrahimpur on very lower side as accused was earning about Rs.40,000-45,000 from the said land after deducting the expenses per year and same also found corroborated from deposition of PW42 Meer Singh and PW40 Goverdhan. However, Ld. Addl. PP added that the Income in the said Head has been properly calculated.

64. PW42 Meer Singh, Surplus Kanoongo has deposed that he has delivered the Nakaljamabandi Ex.PW42/A to the IO on verifying the record. As per said record, 4 Canal 16 Marla of land was in the name of Puran Singh and his earning might be around Rs.40,000 ­ 45,000 from the said land after deducting the expenses per year. Said PW42 on seeing the case file has proved Report Ex.PW42/B, Report C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 60 of 75 Ex.PW42/C and Report Ex.PW42/D. No doubt said PW42 Meer Singh has deposed that the earning of Puran Singh Rawat from said land of 4 Canals 16 Marlas might be around Rs.40,000 ­ 45,000 after deducting expenses per year. PW36 Chandan Singh who is also an Agriculturalist from same village Ibrahimpur, District Rewari has also deposed that he was earning Rs.80,000 ­ 90,000 per acre per year from his Agricultural Land by raising crops after deducting expenses. Similarly, PW40 Goverdhan who is also an Agriculturalist from same village Ibrahimpur has deposed that he was saving Rs.90,000 ­ 95,000 per acre per year by raising crops, but the aforesaid deposition of PW36, PW40, PW42 regarding the Income per acre by raising crops appears to be on much higher side. However, from the perusal of the Report Ex.PW42/D, it is reflected that the accused Puran Singh Rawat was having Agricultural Land measuring 4 Canals 16 Marlas in village Ibrahimpur and was raising both crops i.e. Kharif and Rabi and could earn Rs.15,000/­ per acre after deduction of the expenses and the same appears to be reasonable. Considering the said rate of Income per year, the accused could have earned from his said land of 4 Canals 16 Marlas, Income of Rs.8,750/­ per year. Therefore, the Income of the accused at the said rate of Rs.8,750/­ per year for period of 13 years i.e., from 1988 to 2001 = Rs.8,750/­ x 13 = C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 61 of 75 Rs.1,13,750/­. Therefore, the Income of the accused from the Agricultural Land measuring 4 Canals 16 Marlas, as per Item No. 2 under the Head of Income has been determined as Rs.1,13,750/­.

65. The Item No.3 under the Head of Income state as under:­ Income of Harni Ram from Rs.7,45,000/­ Agricultural land 5 Acre 3 canal 17 Marla in Village Ibrahimpur, Distt. Rewari, Haryana It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the IO has calculated the Income of the father of the accused from Agricultural Land, 5 Acre 3 Canals 17 Marla in Village Ibrahimpur on very lower side and same also found corroborated from deposition of PW42 Meer Singh and PW40 Goverdhan. However, Ld. Addl. PP added that the Income in the said Head has been properly calculated.

66. No doubt, PW36 Chandan Singh who is also an Agriculturalist from same village Ibrahim Pur, District Rewari has also deposed that he was earning Rs.80,000 ­ 90,000 per acre per year from his Agricultural Land by raising crops after deducting expenses. Similarly, PW40 Goverdhan who is also an Agriculturalist from same village Ibrahimpur has deposed that he was saving Rs.90,000 ­ 95,000 per acre per year by raising crops, but the aforesaid deposition of C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 62 of 75 PW36, PW40, regarding the Income per acre by raising crops appears to be on much higher side. However, PW42 Meer Singh, Surplus Kanoongo has proved the Report Ex.PW42/C which bears his signatures at point A. As per said Report, Sh.Harni Ram had been raising both crops i.e., Kharif and Rabi from his Agricultural Land measuring 5 Acres 3 Canals 17 Marlas and was earning Rs.15,000/­ per acre per year after deducting the expenses. Considering the said Income per acre, said Sh. Harni Ram could have earned from his said Agricultural Land of 5 Acre 3 Canals 17 Marlas, Rs.82,000/­ per year and therefore, the Income of Harni Ram, father of the accused at the said rate per year for 13 year (1988 to 2001) = Rs.82,000/­ X 13 = Rs. 10,66,000/­. Therefore, the Income of Harni Ram, father of the accused from Agricultural Land measuring 5 Acres 3 Canals 17 Marlas in village Ibrahimpur as per Item No.3 under the Head of Income has been determined as Rs.10,66,000/­.

67. The Item No.4 under the Head of Income state as under:­ Income of Shri P.S.Rawat and Harni Ram Rs.9,20,000/­ from agricultural land of Village Sachod Distt Alwar 13 Bigha 11 Biswa pakka It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the IO has got obtained the Income Report from the said Agricultural Land C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 63 of 75 on lower side. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that correct Report has been obtained in this respect.

68. PW47 Mohan Lal, Patwari has deposed that in pursuance of Letter Ex.PW47/A and on the instructions of Tehsildar Banwari Lal, he has prepared the Report relating to Khasra No.21, Land measuring 13 Bigha 11 Biswa in the name of Puran Singh Rawat having 2/3 rd share and Harni Ram having 1/3rd share and said Income Report is Ex.PW47/B which is in his handwriting and he submitted said Report to the Tehsildar and Report of Tehsildar in this respect is Ex.PW47/C which bears signatures of Tehsildar Banwari Lal at point A. As per said Report, Agricultural Income from said Land during the Year 1988 to 2001 has been determined as Rs.9,20,000/­ after deducting the expenses in this respect. Therefore, the Income of accused Puran Singh Rawat and his father Harni Ram from Agricultural Land measuring 13 Bighas 11 Biswas in village Sachod, District Alwar, as per Item No.4 under the Head of Income has been determined as Rs.9,20,000/­.

69. The Item No.5 under the Head of Income state as under:­ Income of Smt.Tomo Devi from business Rs.13,93,134/­ M/s Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 64 of 75 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Smt.Tomo Devi was running business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders and she had been filing Income Tax Returns since 1990­91 and the accused has got no concern with the said business. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the Income of Smt.Tomo Devi from her business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders during the Check Period has been determined to be Rs.13,93,134/­.

70. From the perusal of the Record, it is clearly reflected that Smt.Tomo Devi was running business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders and had been filing Income Tax Returns from the Assessment Year 1990­1991 to the Assessment Year 2000­2001 (except the Assessment Year 1997­1998 and 1998­1999) as found reflected from the Income Tax Returns Ex.PW33/C (colly.) running into 66 pages which were delivered to the IO by PW33 Sh. J.S. Chowdhary, the then Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax from the concerned Income Tax file of Smt. Tomo Devi as said PW33 has deposed in this respect as under:

"Copies of returns were also handed over to the Inspector, Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi. My reply in this regard to the C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 65 of 75 application is Ex.PW33/A and application of IO which was sent to my circle is Ex.PW33/B (carbon copy). I had also handed over 66 papers (photocopies) relating to Smt. Tomo Devi to the IO. Same are collectively Ex.PW33/C (colly.). I had collected this record from the record which was maintained as per rules by our subordinates. These documents are true and correct documents which I handed over to the IO from the record".

As per said Income Tax Returns Ex.PW33/C (colly.), the Income of Smt.Tomo Devi are found as under:­ Assessment Year 1990­91 Income Rs. 32,740/­ Assessment Year 1991­92 Income Rs. 49,140/­ Assessment Year 1992­93 Income Rs. 55,920/­ Assessment Year 1993­94 Income Rs. 86,830/­ Assessment Year 1994­95 Income Rs. 86,432/­ Assessment Year 1995­96 Income Rs. 99,915/­ Assessment Year 1996­97 Income Rs. 73,787/­ Assessment Year 1997­98 No Income Tax Return available on record.

Assessment Year 1998­99 No Income Tax Return available on record.

Assessment Year 1999­2000 Income Rs.77,000/­ C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 66 of 75 Assessment Year 2000­2001 Income Rs.94,000/­ Amount received from Sale of Gold Rs.64,975/­ Jewellery by Smt.Tomo Devi on dated 26.03.1990 TOTAL INCOME AMOUNT Rs.7,20,739/­

71. I am of the considered view that aforesaid income of Smt. Tomo Devi from the copy of the Income Tax Return of Smt. Tomo Devi as available in the official Record i.e., in the Income Tax File of Smt. Tomo Devi available with Income Tax Department and handed over by PW33 to the IO being authenticated document and duly proved through PW33 as Ex.PW33/C (colly.) and in view of aforesaid deposition of PW33, the said documents i.e., Ex.PW33/C (colly.) showing the Income of Smt. Tomo Devi as per various Assessment Years deserve to be treated as proper and correct and is held accordingly. From the perusal of the Record, it appears that the IO had taken Rs.13,93,134 /­ as Income of Smt. Tomo Devi (which is on very higher side and even goes against the prosecution) from certain document which is neither authenticated nor proved on Record and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, Total Income of Smt. Tomo Devi as per Item No. 5 under the Head of Assets is determined as Rs.7,20,739/­.

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 67 of 75

72. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total Income of the accused, his wife Smt.Tomo Devi and his father Harni Ram during the Check Period which could be established by the prosecution are as under:­

1. Income of accused from Salary Rs.4,00,000.00

2. Income of accused from Agricultural Land 4 Rs.1,13,750.00 Canal 16 Marla in Village Ibrahimpur

3. Income of Harni Ram from Agricultural Land Rs.10,66,000.00 5 Acre 3 Canal 17 Marla in Village Ibrahimpur

4. Income of accused and his father Harni Ram Rs.9,20,000.00 from Agricultural Land 13 bigha 11 biswa in Village Sachod

5. Income of Smt.Tomo Devi from business M/s Rs.7,20,739.00 Rawat Timbers and M/s G.P.Traders TOTAL INCOME Rs.32,20,489.00

73. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused as well as his wife Smt.Tomo Devi and his father Harni Ram were having independent source of Income. As Smt.Tomo Devi was separately earning from her business as Proprietor of M/s Rawat Timber Suppliers and M/s G.P.Traders and out of her independent source of Income, she had C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 68 of 75 purchased Plot measuring 300 sq.yds.at Village Saidulgaib, Naib Sarai, New Delhi from PW41/S.S.Jaspal vide Agreement to Sell dated 6.12.1995 Ex.PW41/A, Possession Letter Ex.PW42/B and Will Ex.PW41/C and thereafter, certain construction was raised by her for running Shop from there and accused has not made any payment for purchase of said Plot or raising construction over said Plot by Smt.Tomo Devi and the prosecution has failed to establish the said property as 'Benami Property' of the accused. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that similarly, Sh.Harni Ram, father of the accused was having Agricultural Land in Village Ibrahimpur as well as in Village Sachod and was having independent source of Income from said Agricultural Land and he had purchased Plot No. 161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi in the year 1991 vide General Power of Attorney Ex.PW45/6, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW45/7, Possession Letter Ex.PW45/8 which were executed by PW30 Atul Dev and thereafter, the father of the accused raised construction on the said land out of his own funds and his family had been residing at the said House. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the father of the accused had also purchased land measuring 8 bigha 17 biswa in Village Basoni in the year 2000 from Sh.Raj Kumar and Others for Rs.4,80,000/­ in the name of his grandsons Girvar, Nitin C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 69 of 75 and Yogesh vide copy of Sale Deed Ex.PW45/23. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused has not made any payment for the purchase or construction of said Properties nor the prosecution has led any evidence that the said Properties were acquired Benami by the accused and therefore, the properties as acquired by the wife and father of the accused cannot be clubbed with that of the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in case the properties as acquired by Smt.Tomo Devi, wife of the accused and Sh.Harni Ram, father of the accused are excluded from the assets of the accused then there is no case of Disproportionate Assets made out as against this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise in case of calculation of Disproportionate Assets, the accused is entitled for benefit of 10% margin of the total Income which has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Ld. Counsel in support of his contention that no case of Disproportionate Assets is made out as against the accused has referred and relied upon following Judgments:­ (1) (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 "M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad". (2) AIR 1977 Supreme Court 700 "Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P."

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 70 of 75 (3) (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 420 "DSP, Chennai Vs. K.Inbasagaran".

(4) (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172 "State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri". (5) AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1363 "Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim."

74. In the case reported as AIR 1977 Supreme Court 700 "Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P., while dealing with the aspect of 'Benami Transaction', it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in middle part of Para 26 as under:­ "It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an interference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 71 of 75 pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof."

75. By taking the cue regarding the requirement for establishing a Benami Transaction from the aforesaid Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case and specifically keeping in mind the deposition of PW30 Atul Dev, PW44 Ashok Kumar, PW45/IO, DW1 Sher Singh Rawat coupled with Original GPA Ex.PW45/6 (copy of GPA Ex.PW30/1), Original Agreement to Sell Ex.PW45/7 (copy of Agreement to Sell Ex.PW30/2), Original Possession Letter Ex.PW45/8 (copy of Possession Letter Ex.PW30/3) relating to Property 161­A, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi as purchased by Sh.Harni Ram, father of the accused and raising construction by him and considering the deposition of PW35 Raj Kumar, DW2 Mamman Singh coupled with the copy of the Sale Deed dated 31.05.2000 Ex.PW45/23 relating to Agricultural Land measuring 8 bigha 17 biswa in Village Basoni as purchased by Sh.Harni Ram in the name of his grandsons i.e. Girvar, Nitin and Yogesh and considering the deposition of PW41 S.S.Jaspal and DW3 C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 72 of 75 Chandu Ram coupled with the Agreement to Sell dated 06.12.1995 Ex.PW41/A, Possession Letter Ex.PW41/B and Will Ex.PW41/C regarding the purchase of Plot measuring 300 sq.yds. in Village Saidulgaib by Smt.Tomo Devi and thereafter, raising certain construction over said Plot could not be established by the prosecution as 'Benami Transaction' of said Properties at the hands of the accused.

76. Furthermore by taking the cue from the Judgments as reported as (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 "M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad" and AIR 1977 Supreme Court 700 "Krishnand Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P", I am of the considered view that for the calculation of the Disproportionate Assets, the accused should be granted the benefit of 10% margin on the total Income. Since in the present case, the total Income of the accused, his wife and his father has been determined to be Rs. 32,20,489/­ (as concluded in Para (72), by granting the benefit of 10% of said Income i.e. Rs.3,22,048/­, the total Income of the accused, his wife and his father comes to Rs.32,20,489/­ + Rs.3,22,048/­ = Rs. 35,42,537/­.

C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 73 of 75

77. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the total Expenditure of accused and his family has been concluded to be Rs.7,28,334.90 as shown in Para (28), the total Valuation of the Assets in the name of the accused, his father Harni Ram, his wife Tomo Devi and minor sons have been concluded to be Rs.27,78,736.90 as shown in Para (60) and the total Income of the accused, his wife and his father has been concluded as Rs.35,42,537/­ as shown in Para (76). For calculation of Disproportionate Assets, the formula is as under:­ Total Expenditure + Total Assets - Total Income = Disproportionate Assets

78. In the present case, Total Expenditure Rs.7,28,334.90 Total Assets Rs.27,78,736.90 Total (Assets + Expenditure) = Rs.35,07,071.80 ____________________________________________________ Total Income is Rs.35,42,537.00

79. In view of aforesaid calculation, it is clearly reflected that since the total Income is Rs.35,42,537.00, which is higher than the C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 74 of 75 Total (Assets + Expenditure) which is Rs.35,07,071.80, and therefore, despite treating the Income, Expenditure, Assets of the accused, his wife Smt. Tomo Devi, his father Sh. Harni Ram as one unit by clubbing together also, no case of 'Disproportionate Assets' has been made out as against the accused in this case.

80. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that as the prosecution has failed to establish any 'Disproportionate Assets' case as per offence U/S 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused and therefore, the accused Puran Singh Rawat stands acquitted of the charged offence accordingly.

Announced in the open court on this 11th day of March, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge­07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 80/11 Page No. 75 of 75