Cc No. 532218/16 Cbi vs . Pradeep Kumar Sharma Page 1 Of 144 on 19 December, 2016

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cc No. 532218/16 Cbi vs . Pradeep Kumar Sharma Page 1 Of 144 on 19 December, 2016

                                    1


     IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT, SPECIAL
     JUDGE (PC ACT)-02, (CBI) CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
                   COURTS, DELHI

CC NO. 532218/2016 (OLD CC NO. 02/14)
RC NO. 3(A)/2001
CBI/ACB/NEW DELHI

                        Vs

                                    PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA
                                    S/O SH. TULA RAM SHARMA
                                    R/O 9288, GALI NO.2A,
                                    PRATAP PURA, WEST
                                    ROHTAS NAGAR,
                                    SHAHADARA, DELHI.


Date of institution                              : 29.04.2014
Date of decision reserved on                     : 14.12.2016
Date of decision                                 : 19.12.2016



                             JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case RC-

DAI-2001-A-0003-CBI/ACB/ND dated 12.01.2001, registered against accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 1 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of source information. The brief facts necessitated for registration of the present case as per the prosecution are given as under:-

2. The prosecution has alleged that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, the then Sales Tax Officer, was in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.50 lacs against his likely saving of Rs. 5 lacs which is disproportionate to his known sources of income.

3. The prosecution has further alleged that after registration of FIR against accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, search was conducted at his premises on 12.01.2001. During the said search, several incriminating documents and cash amount of Rs.14.39 lacs was recovered from the house of accused. It was revealed during investigation that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had acquired most of the assets during the period 01.01.1990 to 12.01.2001. Therefore, this period has been taken as check period for the purpose of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 2 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

calculation of income, expenditure and assets of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

4. The prosecution has alleged that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had earned total salary of Rs.2,47,089/- during November 1974 to 31.12.1999. The non-verifiable expenditure (1/3rd of income) of accused during this period was of Rs.82,363/-. Thus accused was having probable saving / asset of Rs.1,64,726/- (Rs.2,47,089/- - Rs.82,363/- = Rs.1,64,726/-) at the beginning of check period i.e. on 01.01.1990.

5. The prosecution has further alleged that during the check period (01.01.1990 to 12.01.2001) accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had earned net salary of Rs.8,50,873/- while working in various departments. He also earned interest of Rs.39,713/- in his bank accounts. Thus his total income during the check period from all known sources of his income was of Rs.8,90,586/-.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 3  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     4

6. The prosecution has further alleged that accused had incurred total verifiable expenses of Rs.76,819.20 during check period, he also incurred non-verifiable / household expenditure during check period, which is taken as 1/3rd of his net salary, which comes to Rs.2,83,624/-. The total expenditure incurred by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during check period was of Rs.3,60,443/-. The likely saving of accused was (Total Income - Expenditure) of Rs. 5,50,143/- during check period.

7. The prosecution has also alleged that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was found in possession of assets worth Rs.20,66,779/- including cash amount recovered during his house search. Accused was having assets worth Rs.1,64,726/- prior to the check period. Thus after deduction the said amount, the assets acquired by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during check period was of Rs.19,02,053/- against his likely CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 4 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

saving of Rs.5,30,143/- which is disproportionate to the tune of Rs.13,71,910/- from his known sources of income, qua which accused could not give any satisfactory explanation.

8. The prosecution had initially filed charge-sheet on 25.02.2005. But the then Ld. Special Judge discharged the accused vide order dated 21.10.2005 on the ground that earning of accused during pre-check period was not considered. The CBI therefore considered the pre-check period income of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma and after completion of the investigation and after taking sanction from the Competent Authority as required u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has filed charge-sheet against accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the offence punishable u/s 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

9. This Court, after completing all preliminary proceedings, heard the arguments on charge and vide CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 5 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

order dated 19.12.2015 charges have been framed against accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma u/s 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

10. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 25 prosecution witnesses :-

❏ PW-1 is N.K. Sharma one of the independent witnesses in whose presence search of the premises of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was conducted on 12.01.2001. He exhibited Search cum Seizure Memo as Ex. PW-1/1 (D-2) and Search cum Observation Memo as Ex. PW-1/2 (D-3).




            ❏   PW-2 is Sh. Ranjeet Singh. He

            exhibited        Seizure       Memo          dated


CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 6  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     7

24.09.2001 as Ex. PW-2/1 (D-17) and letter dated 22.09.2001 as Ex. PW-2/2 (D-18).

❏ PW-3 is Sh. Dalbir Singh. He exhibited Seizure Memo dated 27.01.2003 as Ex.

PW-3/1 (D-19) and certified copies of sale deeds as Ex. PW-3/2 (D-20), Ex. PW-3/3 (D-21) and Ex. PW-3/4 (D-22).

❏ PW-4 is Sh. Harjinder Singh. He exhibited letter dated 24.09.2001 as Ex. PW-4/1 (D-38), certified copy of account opening form pertaining to account no. 1348 in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-4/2 (D-39), certified copy of specimen signature card of SB account no. 1348 as Ex. PW-4/3 (D-



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 7  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                        8

40), certified copy of statement of account pertaining to account no. 1348 as Ex. PW- 4/4 (D-41), letter dated 22.11.2001 as Ex. PW-4/5 (D-42) and certified copy of statement of account pertaining to SB account no. 1348 as Ex. PW-4/4 (D-41). ❏ PW-5 is Sh. A.K. Gupta. He exhibited letter dated 27.8.2001 as Ex. PW-5/1 (D-

44), certified copy of account opening form and specimen signature card as Ex. PW-5/2 (colly.) (D-45), letter dated 21.05.2001 as Ex. PW-5/3 (D-46), certified copy of account opening form, specimen signature card and statement of account pertaining to SB account no.

2442 for the period 17.05.2000 to 30.04.2001, 01.05.2001 to 15.05.2001, CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 8 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

10.03.1989 to 23.02.2001, 21.05.1993 to 26.09.1994, 01.08.1994 to 31.03.2000 as Ex. PW-5/4 (colly.).

❏ PW-6 is Kailash Chander who conveyed the sanction approved by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi to prosecute accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma vide Sanction Order dated 16.07.2012 Ex. PW- 6/1 (D-52).

❏ PW-7 is Suresh Gupta. He exhibited letter dated 20.07.2001 as Ex. PW-7/1 (colly.), letter dated 28.08.2001 as Ex.

            PW-7/2        (colly.)   and      letter     dated

            23.05.2001 as Ex. PW-7/3.




CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 9  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     10

            ❏   PW-8 is Sh. Govind Dubey. He

exhibited 5 NSCs for Rs.1,000/- each and one NSC for Rs.10,000/- in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex.

PW-8/1 to Ex. PW-8/6 (D-8 to D-13) and certified copy of application form for purchase of these NSCs as Ex. PW-8/7.

❏ PW-9 is Devendra Kumar Jain. He exhibited attested copies of relevant pages of pay bill register of Government Boys Senior Secondary School, G.T. Road, Shahadara for the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 as Ex. PW-9/1 and Ex. PW-

9/2 and statement of salary detail dated 11.05.2001 as Ex. PW-9/3.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 10  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                      11

            ❏ PW-10      is   Smt.        Leela   Bhatt.   She

exhibited letter dated 08.08.2007 as Ex. PW-10/1.

❏ PW-11 is Sh. Jayan PT. He exhibited salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-11/1 and salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the month of March 1998 to February 1999 as Ex. PW-11/2.

❏ PW-12 is Sh. M.P. Sharma. He exhibited letter dated 03.10.2008 as Ex. PW-12/1 (D-49) and salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the period w.e.f. 17.08.1982 to 20.04.1988 as Ex. PW-12/2.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 11  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     12

            ❏ PW-13       is    Inspector      S.P.     Singh,

            CBI/ACB, New Delhi.



            ❏ PW-14     is Sh. M.M. Dixit. He exhibited

letter dated 16.05.2001 as Ex. PW14/1 (D-36) and Seizure Memo dated 21.05.2006 as Ex. PW-13/2 (D-35).

❏ PW-15 is Ajay Vatan. He exhibited letter dated 11.05.2001 as Ex. PW-15/1 (D-4) and due and drawn statement of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-15/2.

❏ PW-16 is Naresh Kumar. He exhibited PNB Mutual Fund Unit Certificate in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-16/1 (D-15) and authority letter as Ex. PW-16/2.




CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 12  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     13



            ❏ PW-17     is Rajinder Dutt Sharma. He

            exhibited     NSC      no.   21EE971874         for

Rs.10,000/-, issued from Rohtash Nagar Post Office, Delhi on 05.04.99 in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-17/1 (D-7) and application form for purchase of NSC as Ex. Pw-17/2 (D-

29).

❏ PW-18 is R.K. Sharma. He exhibited letter dated 24.05.2001 as Ex. PW-18/1 and certified copy of statement of account of PPF account no. 754 in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex.

PW-18/2.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 13  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     14

            ❏ PW-19     is R.K. Singh. He exhibited

Seizure Memo dated 22.09.2001 as Ex.

PW-19/1.

❏ PW-20 is Sh. Oliver Minj. He exhibited UTI Certificate no. 400-95-1090135454 for 500 units of Rs.10 each in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex.

PW-20/1 (D-14).

❏ PW-21 is Sh. Sunil Kumar. He exhibited relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1974-75 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/1, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1975-76 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/2, CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 14 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1977-78 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/3, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1978-79 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/4, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1979-80 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/5, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1980-81 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/6, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1981-82 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/7, relevant entry of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 15 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

the pay bill register for the year 1982-83 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/8, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1996-97 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/9, relevant entry of the pay bill register for the year 1997-98 pertaining to salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex. PW-21/10 and letter dated 02.06.2016 of Ms. Paramjeet Kaur as Ex. PW-21/11.

❏ PW-22 is A.K. Malik. He exhibited FIR as Ex. PW-22/1.

❏ PW-23 is Ajay Kumar, Additional SP, CBI/AC-II, New Delhi, Investigating Officer CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 16 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

of this case whom the case was entrusted by way of transfer from previous IO Inspector S.K. Lal on his death.

❏ PW-24 is Nathu Ram Aggarwal. He exhibited notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW- 24/1 and reply thereto as Ex. PW-24/2. ❏ PW-25 is Inspector H. Suresh Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case whom the investigation of this case was entrusted by way of transfer from previous IO Inspector S.P. Singh.

11. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under section 313 Cr. P. C has been recorded. Accused has denied his involvement in the commission of offence and stated that he has been CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 17 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

falsely implicated in this case. The accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has led defence evidence and examined 26 witnesses in his defence:-

            ❏    DW-1 is Deepak Singhal.



            ❏    DW-2 is Ms. Madhu Juneja. She

exhibited file pertaining to M/s. Anju Candle works as Ex. DW-2/1 and file pertaining to M/s. Puneet Candle Works as Ex. DW-2/2.

❏ DW-3 is Anil Kumar Jindal.




            ❏   DW-4 is Hanit Malik



            ❏   DW-5 is Deepak Goyal




CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 18  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     19

            ❏   DW-6 is Ms. Rama



            ❏   DW-7 is Sh. Yashbir. He exhibited

certificate dated 26.09.2016 as Ex. DW- 7/1.

❏ DW-8 is Sh. Gurmeet Ram Naafri. He exhibited quota card in the name of M/s. Anju Candle Works dated 13.10.1986, 09.03.1987, 22.02.1988, 13.01.1989, 11.01.1990, 01.01.1991, 01.01.1995, 01.01.1996 and 01.01.1998 as Ex. DW-

8/1 (colly.).

❏ DW-9 is Rajender Kumar Aggarwal. He exhibited statement of account at page no. 87, 85 and 84 as EX. DW-9/1 (colly.).





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 19  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     20

❏ DW-10 is Sh. Roshan Lal. He exhibited letter issued by Sh. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary, State Election Commission as Ex. DW-10/1.

❏ DW-11 is Sh. Manoj Kumar Ambasta.

He exhibited letter issued by Sh. Sandeep Dutta, Election Officer (Admn.) as Ex. DW-11/1.

❏ DW-12 is Sh. Peeyush Sharma.

❏ DW-13 is Ms. Yashsasweni Bose.

❏ DW-14 is Sh. Murari Lal. He exhibited statement of account of current account no. 715 in the name of M/s. Anju Candle Works w.e.f. 31.03.2003 till 25.09.2005 CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 20 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

along with certified copy of the specimen signature of proprietor of M/s. Anju Candle Works as Ex. DW-14/1.

❏ DW-15 is Sh. Jai Prakash. He exhibited requisite entry of the ledger book pertaining to cheque no.628829 of Rs.75,750/- as Ex. DW-15/1.

            ❏ DW-16     is Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma.



            ❏ DW-17     is Sh. Pyare Lal. He exhibited

letters dated 29.6.2000 and 28.09.2000 as Ex. DW-17/1 and Ex. DW-17/2 respectively.

❏ DW-18 is Sh. Girish Kumar Sawhney.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 21  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     22

            ❏ DW-19     is Sh. Sanjay Kapoor.



            ❏ DW-20     is Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta.



            ❏ DW-21     is Sh. S.K. Gupta.



            ❏ DW-22      is Ms. Archana Kapoor. She

exhibited register of stationary as Ex. DW- 22/1, bill of TV purchased by her as Ex. DW-22/2.

            ❏ DW-23     is Dr. R.P. Kapoor.



            ❏ DW-24     is Sh. Madan Mohan Verma. He

            exhibited     certificate     issued     by    Sh.

Dharmender Syal, Chief Manager as Ex. DW-24/1.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 22  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     23

            ❏ DW-25     is Smt. Neeru Sharma. She

exhibited her passbook pertaining to SB account no. 3635 with Bank of Baroda, Pusa Road Branch as Ex. DW-25/1, registration certificate of M/s. Puneet Candle Works as Ex. DW-25/2, license of MCD as Ex. DW-25/3, Demand Note number SHE/786642/2869 pertaining to telephone number 2201239 as Ex. DW-

25/4, receipt with regard to purchase of two machines from M/s. Janta Engineering Works as Ex. DW-25/5, receipt with regard to purchase of one Vikram brand portable platform scale from P.G. Engineering Enterprises as Ex. DW- 25/6, letter dated 05.10.1988 of Director of Industries regarding supply of wax as Ex. DW-25/7, letters dated 04.11.1988.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 23  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     24

03.10.1989 and 26.09.1990 as Ex. DW-

25/8 (colly.), letters dated 27.10.1988, 29.09.1989, 20.10.1989, 19.10.1988, 26.09.1990, 04.10.1990, 25.10.1991, 29.10.1993, 04.11.1993, 28.10.1994, 16.10.1995 and 17.10.1995 as Ex. DW-

25/9 (colly.), Sales tax receipts dated 12.07.1988, 23.08.1989, 15.11.1989, 14.08.1989, 08.11.1990, 10.08.1990, 14.02.1990, 04.02.1991, 15.05.1990, 13.08.1991, 14.05, 1991, 13.04.1991, 13.02.1992, 15.05.1992, 14.08.1992, 16.11.1992, 12.12.1993, 13.08.1993, 14.05.1993, 08.11.1995, 12.11.1993, 16.05.1994, 12.08.1994, 14.11.1994, 15.05.1995, 13.11.1995, 14.02.1994, 12.02.1998, 14.05.1997, 14.08.1998, 31.12.1998 and 31.03.1999 as Ex. DW-



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 24  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                      25

25/10 (colly.), receipt dated 29.09.2000 as Ex. DW-25/11, receipt dated 31.01.1994 as Ex. DW-25/12, receipt dated 17.07.1996 as Ex. DW-25/13, receipts dated 22.08.1988, 23.03.1987, 05.10.1988, 15.10.1988, 24.10.1988, 03.11.1988, 05.11.1988, 02.12.1986 as Ex. DW-25/14 (colly.), Assessment letter dated 09.02.2001 as Ex. DW-25/15.

❏ DW-26 is Ms. Anju Kapoor, sister in law of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

12. Sh. V.K. Pathak, Ld. Public Prosecutor has contended that the accused had amassed disproportionate assets beyond his known source of income. He further contended that a search was conducted at the residential premises of accused on CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 25 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

12.1.2001 and during the said search, besides other movable properties, cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- was recovered. He further contended that total assets of accused during pre-check period i.e., November 1974 to 31.12.1989 was to the tune of Rs.1,64,726/-, and his total income during the check period was to the tune of Rs.8,90,586/-, whereas his expenditure during the check period was to the tune of Rs.3,60,443/-. He further contended that the movable assets including cash amount found in the possession of accused was to the tune of Rs.20,66,779/-. He further contended that accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs. 13,71,910/- after deducting all the probable saving, and assets acquired by him during pre-check period, for which accused could not furnish any logical explanation. He further contended that accused has taken a flimsy defence that the money recovered during the search was belonging to his wife and his sister-in-law, CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 26 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

but the material produced by the accused itself shows that the defence is not tenable. Ld. Prosecutor has prayed that the accused may be convicted.

13. Per contra, Sh. Umesh Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that prosecution has with-held the material documents from the court and has not carried out any investigation with regard to those material documents. He further contended that the prosecution itself collected the documents from sales tax and income tax departments, which unambiguously shows that M/s Anju Candle Works and M/s Puneet Candle Works were functioning at the premises of the accused which were run by the wife and sister-in-law of the accused. He further contended that the wife and sister-in-law of the accused were having their independent income from their candle business as well as from tuition business. He further contended that most of the articles attributed in the search cum seizure memo to the accused, were CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 27 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

belonging to his family members. Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon Judgment D.S.P., Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran reported as 2006 AIR (SC) 552 and Janaki Ballav Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa reported as 1995 Cri. L. J. 1110.

14. I have heard Sh. V.K. Pathak, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. Umesh Sinha, Ld. counsel for accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, I have also perused the charge sheet, statement of witnesses recorded in the Court, documents and other material placed on record.

15. The first point for consideration is as to whether appropriate sanction as required u/s 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 to prosecute accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has been obtained or not?

16. In the present case, after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused had filed an application for seeking discharge on the ground of want of proper sanction under section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 28  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     29

17. The said application was dismissed by this court vide order dt. 20.08.2016 after examining the material placed on record. While passing the said order, this court has observed that "The Hon'ble Lt. Governor being the competent authority to remove accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, had approved grant of sanction as per section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to prosecute him." This court has thus not found any infirmity in the sanction order Ex.PW6/1.

18. Now coming to the merit of the case, the prosecution has filed charge sheet u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma on the allegation that he had acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.13,71,910/- during the check period.

19. Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:-

CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 29 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct -

(a) ........................................................ .............................

(b) ........................................................ ............................

(c) ........................................................ ............................

(d) ........................................................ .............................

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Explanation - For the purposes of this Section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

(2) Any public servant who CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 30 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

20. Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with various situations when public servant can be said to have committed criminal mis-conduct. Clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 is pressed into service against the accused and same is applicable when a public servant or any person on his behalf is found in possession of assets, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income for which public servant could not satisfactorily account.

21. The prosecution has alleged in the charge-sheet that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.13,71,910/- from his known sources of income.




CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 31  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     32

ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED PRIOR TO CHECK PERIOD.

22. The prosecution has claimed that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was having assets worth Rs.1,64,726/- prior to check period. The plea of the prosecution is that total earning of accused from his salary prior to check period was to the tune of Rs.2,47,089.25 out of which 1/3 of the said income was deducted towards non-verifiable living expenses, which comes to Rs.82,363/-. Thus, total assets of the accused during pre-check period after deducting non-verifiable / living expenses was to the tune of Rs.1,64,726/- as on 1.1.1990.

23. To substantiate the said plea, prosecution has examined PW24 Sh. Nathu Ram Aggarwal, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Naveen Shahadra, who has proved his letter Ex.PW24/2 vide which he CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 32 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

informed that the pay particulars of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma/LDC for the period 1973-1974 were not available but he informed that during 1973-1974, basic pay of clerical cadre in Union Bank of India was Rs.190/- per month. During cross-examination, PW24 stated that he had not seen any document to ascertain the basic pay of clerical staff prevailing in the year 1973-1974 but has inquired from regional office telephonically.

24. The prosecution has also examined PW10 Smt. Leela Bhatt who though was declared hostile but during her cross-examination, admitted that she forwarded the salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the period from 31.12.1974 to 16.08.1982 prepared by DDO which is Ex.PW10/P1. PW10 has been cross-examined, however, no suggestion has been given in her cross-examination regarding the correctness of the salary details CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 33 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Ex.PW10/P1.

25. The prosecution has also examined PW12 Sh. M.K. Sharma who proved the salary details of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma w.e.f 17.08.1982 to 20.04.1988 Ex.PW12/2 which has not been disputed by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The calculation of the net salary received by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma from 17.08.1982 to 20.04.1988 shows that the accused had received total sum of Rs. 1,14,131.05 as net salary during the said period.

26. The prosecution has also examined PW15 Sh. Ajay Vatan who produced on record the due and drawn statement of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the period 21.04.1988 to January 1990 as Ex.PW15/2 (D4). The said witness has not been cross- examined. The calculation of the net salary received by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during the period 21.08.1980 to January 1990 shows that accused had CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 34 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

received the total salary of Rs.57,025/- during the said period.

27. The accused was working as clerk in Union Bank of India from November 1973 to December 1974 and after incorporating the HRA and other allowances in the basic pay of Rs.190/-, he was drawing net salary of Rs.600/- per month. The accused had worked in the said bank from November 1973 to December 1974. Thus, the net salary earned by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for 14 months for which he worked in the said bank comes out to Rs.8,400/-.

28. Ld. counsel for accused has contended that prosecution has not furnished the correct salary details of the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma and he was also receiving other perks. As per the accused, the total amount received by the accused during that period including allowances and various other remunerations was Rs.900/- per month.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 35  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     36

29. The accused though claimed that besides the perks calculated by the prosecution, the accused was also receiving various other remunerations but he has not given the details of those perks and remunerations. The accused has simply mentioned that he was receiving Rs.900/- per month without any proof. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused was drawing salary at the rate of Rs.900/- per month during 1973 to December 1974 cannot be accepted as same is not supported with any evidence.

30. The calculation of the net salary received by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during the period w.e.f 31.12.1974 to 16.08.1982 is reflected in the salary receipt Ex.PW10/P1 which comes out to Rs.67,533.20. Thus the accused had received the net salary worth Rs.67,533.20 during the period commencing from 31.12.1974 to 16.08.1982. Perusal of salary details for the period 17.08.1982 to 20.04.1988 Ex. PW-12/2 and for the period CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 36 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

21.04.1988 to January 1990 Ex. PW-15/2 shows that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had earned total salary of Rs.1,14,131.05 during 17.08.1982 to 20.04.1988 and Rs.57,025/- during 21.04.1988to January 1990.

31. The accused has thus received total sum of Rs.2,47,089.25 as net salary prior to the check period commencing from November 1973 till 31.01.1989, from which non-verifiable / living expenses to the tune of 1/3 of net salary are required to be deducted. After deducting the said amount, the total assets held by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during pre-check period comes to Rs.1,64,726/-.

32. Ld. counsel for the accused has contended that Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused was working and was earning profit from her candle business but her income has not been taken into consideration by the prosecution while determining the assets of the family during pre-check period.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 37  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     38

33. Ld. Prosecutor has contended that the wife of the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was not earning anything and even her income cannot be taken as an asset acquired by accused during pre-check period.

34. The prosecution has also collected documents from Sales Tax Department pertaining to M/s Puneet Candle Works Ex.PW23/D2 and Ex.PW23/D4 during investigation as admitted by PW-23 Ajay Kumar, the IO during his cross-examination. A perusal of the file Ex.PW23/D2 shows that M/s Puneet Candle Works was carrying on business of candles during year 1988 and was having total sale of Rs.1,72,144.70, which has been mentioned in the Assessment Order dated 01.03.1993. M/s Puneet Candle Works also shown total sale during quarter ending on 30.06.1989 of Rs. 27,696/-, quarter ending on 30.09.1989 of Rs. 35,104/- and quarter ending on 31.12.1989 of Rs. 77,242/-. Thus total sale during 01.04.1989 to 31.12.1989 was of Rs. 1,40,042/-.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 38  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     39

35. The total sale of M/s. Puneet Candle Works during the year 1988 - 1989 and 1989 - 1990 i.e. upto 31.12.1989 was of Rs.3,12,186/- which has been shown in the file seized by the CBI during investigation.

36. The accused has examined DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma who deposed during her cross-examination that:-

She was earning 15% to 20 % of profit after deducting expenses from candle business.

37. The above statement of DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma has not been disputed by the prosecution during her cross-examination.

38. M/s. Puneet Candle Works was having total sale of Rs.3,12,186/- during the year 1988-89 and 1989-90 i.e. upto 31.12.1989 as per the document produced by the prosecution itself. The profit which would have earned by M/s. Puneet Candle Works @ 15% of the total sale comes out to Rs.46,827/-. Thus in all probabilities, M/s.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 39  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     40

Puneet Candle Works would have earned profit at least of Rs.46,827/- during the year 1988-1989 and 1989 to 1990 i.e. uptill 31.12.1989.

39. The accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has also examined DW2 Ms. Madhu Juneja, VAT Inspector who has provided the original record pertaining to M/s Puneet Candle Works as Ex.DW2/1. A Perusal of Ex. DW-2/1 shows that M/s Puneet Candle Works was trading in candles during the year 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 as well. The gross profit of M/s Puneet Candle Works during the year 1986-1987 was Rs.3824/- and during 1987-1988 was Rs.5121/-. Thus as per Ex.DW2/1 M/s Puneet Candle Works had earned gross profit of Rs.8,945/- during the year 1986-1987 and 1987-1988.

40. M/s Puneet Candle Works was being run by the wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, she had earned profit of Rs.8945/- during 1986-87 and 1987-88 and gross profit of Rs.46,827/- during 1988-1989 and 1989 to CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 40 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

31.12.1989. Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, had earned at least Rs.55,772/- prior to check period.

41. Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has been living with accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Her separate income from business should have been taken into consideration by the CBI while assessing the assets acquired by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma prior to the check period which has not been done.

42. As per prosecution, accused was having assets worth Rs.1,64,726/- during pre-check period i.e. prior to 1.1.1990. The wife of the accused was having income of Rs.55,772/- during pre-check period which is required to be added into the assets of the accused, acquired by him during pre-check period. The accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was thus having total assets of Rs.2,20,498/- prior to the check period and not of Rs.1,64,726/- as CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 41 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

claimed by the prosecution.

TOTAL INCOME DURING CHECK PERIOD.

43. The prosecution has claimed that total income of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during check period i.e. from 01.01.90 to 12.01.2001 was of Rs.8,90,586/- out of which Rs.8,50,873 was his salary income, whereas Rs.39,713/- was earned by him as interest from his bank accounts.

44. To prove the said plea, prosecution has examined PW9 Devendra Kumar Jain who was working as Vice Principal in Government Boys Senior Secondary School, G.T. Road, Shahadara. PW-9 has brought detail of net salary of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma w.e.f February 1990 to June 1990 as Ex.PW9/1 and Ex.PW9/2. During cross-examination PW9 has briefly deposed that he was not posted there for the period February 1990 to June CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 42 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

1990.

45. The prosecution has also examined PW7 Sh. Suresh Gupta, who has furnished detail of payment made to the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma from February 1990 to June 1990 and from 1.7.1992 to 31.08.1996 as Ex.PW7/1(colly.). The said witness has been cross- examined however particulars mentioned in statement Ex.PW7/1 has not been controverted.

46. The prosecution has also examined PW-10 Smt. Leela Bhatt, who has proved letter Ex.PW10/1 vide which she forwarded the salary of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during August 1996 to 08.04.1997 Ex.PW10/P1(colly.). During cross-examination PW-10 admitted that salary detail Ex.PW10/P1 was not prepared in her presence. She stated that she was not aware about the particulars which were required to be mentioned in the salary slip as the same were prepared in the accounts department. She cannot tell if the particulars mentioned in CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 43 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

the salary slip Ex.PW10/1 are incorrect or there are discrepancies.

47. The prosecution has also examined PW-11 Sh. Jayan PT who was working as Accounts officer cum DDO, he has proved salary detail of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during April 1997 to January 2001 as Ex.PW11/1. He also produced the attested copy of the pay bill register for for the month of March 1998 to February 1999 as Ex. PW-11/2. During cross- examination, PW-11 also produced the attested copy of salary detail of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the financial year 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000 - 2001 as Ex.PW11/D1.

48. An examination of the testimony of above witnesses as well as the material produced by the prosecution with regard to the income of accused from his salary shows that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma while working in various departments under various CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 44 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

capacities had received net salary of Rs.8,50,873/- which is reflected in document Ex.PW9/3(D-5), Ex.PW7/1(colly.) (D-5), Ex.PW10/P1(D6), Ex.PW11/1 and Ex.PW11/D1. The accused though carried out cross-examination of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, but has not disputed the fact that accused had received the salary which is reflected in the documents produced and proved by these witnesses.

49. The prosecution has thus proved on record that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had received a net salary of Rs.8,50,873/- during the check period i.e., 01.01.1990 to 12.01.2001.

50. The prosecution has further claimed that accused had earned income of Rs.39,713/- as interest in his bank accounts during check period. To substantiate the said plea, prosecution has examined PW4 Harjinder Singh, who was working as Assistant General manager Punjab & Sind Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi, he proved the CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 45 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

certified copies of account opening form, specimen signature card and statement of accounts for the period 1.4.2001 to 12.01.2001 of SB Account No. 1348 in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as Ex.PW4/2(D-39), Ex.PW4/3(D-40) and Ex.PW4/4(D-41). During cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that statement of account Ex.PW4/6 does not contain the statement between the period from January 1995 to 11.03.1999.

51. The prosecution has also examined PW5 Sh. A.K. Gupta who was working as Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Shahadara, Delhi during the period 2000 to 2003. He proved the certified copy of statement of account pertaining to SB Account No. 2442 in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the period 01.08.2001 to 25.08.2001 and 01.08.2000 to 31.07.2001 as Ex.PW5/2(colly.)(D45). PW-5 has also proved certified copy of statement of account for the period 17.05.2000 to 30.04.2001, 1.05.2001 to 15.05.2001, 10.03.1989 to CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 46 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

23.02.2001, 21.05.1993 to 26.09.1994, 01.08.94 to 31.03.2000 as Ex.PW5/4 (colly.). During cross- examination, PW5 deposed that said account was opened in the year 1974. He admitted that the certified copy of statement of account at page no. 3 contain last entry dt. 23.02.1991 showing balance of Rs.35,652.23. He admitted that on the next page the carried forward amount has been shown on 26.09.1994 as Rs.34,730.17. He volunteered that there may be some entries which are not reflected due to which the said difference has incurring. He further stated that he had given the statement of account to the CBI as demanded by them.

52. An examination of the testimony of PW4 Harjinder Singh and PW5 A.K. Gupta and the documents pertaining to SB Account No. 1348 Punjab and Sind Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi and SB Account No. 2442 Union Bank of India Shahadara Branch, Delhi shows that accused was maintaining two saving bank accounts.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 47  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     48

Statement of these accounts shows that accused had earned interest on deposit, which is reflected in these statements. Calculation of the interest earned by accused during the check period shows that the accused had earned total interest of Rs.39,713/- in these two accounts.

53. The accused has not disputed the correctness of the statement of accounts furnished on record by these witnesses. He has also not placed any other material to show that he had earned more interest than shown in the statement of account.

54. The prosecution has thus proved on record that, the accused was having total income of Rs. 8,50,873/- from his salary and was also having interest income of RS.39713/- from his both saving accounts during the check period. The prosecution has thus proved that accused was having total income of Rs.8,90,586/- during the check period.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 48  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     49

EXPENSES INCURRED BY ACCUSED DURING CHECK PERIOD.

55. The prosecution has claimed that accused had incurred verifiable expenses to the tune of Rs.76,819.20 and non verifiable expenses to the tune of Rs.2,86,624/- i.e., one - third of his net salary during the check period. As per the prosecution, the accused had incurred total expenditure of Rs.3,16,443/- during the check period.

56. To substantiate the said plea, prosecution has examined PW-2 Sh. Ranjeet Singh, who has proved the Letter dated 22.09.2001 Ex. PW-2/2 along with its enclosures signed by Professor B. Kumar, Director of College. During cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he cannot tell after seeing the seizure memo Ex.PW2/1, letter Ex.PW2/2 and receipt Ex.PW2/D1 (D18) as to who had deposited the fees of Rs.65,000/- for Puneet Sharma CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 49 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

son of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

57. The prosecution has also examined PW14 Sh. M.M. Dixit who was posted as Manager at LIC, Najafgarh during the year 2001. He has proved letter dt. 16.05.2001 Ex.PW14/1 (wrongly typed as PW-13/1) vide which he had provided information regarding premium paid by accused qua his policy no. 110704129. During cross- examination, PW14 briefly deposed that he might have provided computerized print out of record of policy to the IO. The original policy bearing no. 110704129 Ex. PW- 14/D1 (wrongly typed as PW-13/D1) is in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. He cannot tell the mode by which the premium of insurance policy was paid by the holder of the policy. He also cannot tell as to whether the payment of premium was paid by the holder of the policy himself or by some other person on his behalf.

58. A perusal of the testimony of PW2 Ranjeet Singh CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 50 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

and the documents produced on record shows that son of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was studying in Guru Prem Sukh Memorial College of Engineering and towards his tuition fees for the year 2000-2001 total fees of Rs.65,500/- was paid vide receipt no. 821857 dt. 13.11.2000 Ex.PW2/D1.

59. The accused has not disputed that his son Puneet Sharma was studying in Guru Prem Sukh Memorial College and fees of Rs. 65,500/- was paid vide receipt dt.13.11.2000 Ex.PW2/D1. The plea taken by the accused is that the said fees was not paid by him but was paid by some other person on his behalf. The accused however, accused has not placed any material whatsoever on record to substantiate his above plea. Thus same remained unsubstantiated.

60. PW14 M.M. Dixit has proved on record LIC premium paid by accused during the check period. Perusal of the detail of premium shows that accused had CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 51 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

paid 8 annual premiums @ Rs.1414.90 during the check period for his insurance policy. The total amount of eight premium paid by the accused towards his policy comes out to Rs.11,319.20. The accused has neither disputed the insurance policy nor disputed the payment of premium of the policy.

61. The prosecution has thus proved on record that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma had incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.65,500/- towards college fees of his son Puneet Sharma which was paid by him vide receipt Ex.PW2/D1. The prosecution has also proved that accused had paid LIC premium to the tune of Rs.11,319.20 during the check period. The prosecution has thus proved on record that accused had incurred verifiable expenses to the tune of Rs.76,819.20 during the check period.

62. The prosecution has further taken the plea that accused had also incurred non verifiable expenses of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 52 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Rs.3,60,443/- i.e. 1/3rd of his net salary of Rs.8,50,873/- during the check period.

63. Ld. Defence counsel on behalf of accused has contended that the prosecution has wrongly taken 1/3 of the net salary of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma towards non-verifiable expenses, because wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was also having income from her candle business as well as from tuition and she was also contributing towards the living expenses. He also contended that sister in law of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma Ms. Anju Kapoor, who was living in the house of accused was also having independent income and was contributing towards living expenses.

64. The non-verifiable expenses / living expenses are expenses which are necessary for human survival. The living expenses are not only incurred towards wheat, pulses used in the kitchen but also on gas oil, ghee, CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 53 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

toiletries, transport expenses, drinking etc. Clause 2 (A) of circular no. 21/40/99/PD (Pt) dated 29.11.2001 issued by CBI talks about unverifiable expenses, which reads as follows:-

"Unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, house-hold, clothing etc. should be taken at 1/3 of the gross salary as a last restart after attempting to quantify the expenses broadly under each of these heads by verifying"

65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported as AIR 1964, Supreme Court 464 has observed that:-

"It was not possible for any reasonable man to say that the assets to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- was anything but disproportionate to a net income of Rs.1,03,000/- out of which at least Rs.36,000/- must have been spent in living expenses."

CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 54 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has thus held that a person is supposed to spend at least one third of his net income in living expenses. CBI manual also talks about living expenses as one third of the net income of the accused. Thus, it can safely be assumed that accused must be spending some part of his salary towards day to day expenses, which is called living expenses. The exact calculation of such expense is not possible as prosecution cannot be expected to prove these expenses by placing cogent material because of the inherent nature of such expenses. Thus living expenses are to be calculated on the basis of approximation.

67. The question arises, when, besides the accused, his other family members are also having independent income and are contributing in the family, in such circumstances, what portion of the accused income should be taken towards the living expenses?




CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 55  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     56

68. The prosecution has collected documents from Sales Tax Department Ex.PW23/D2 & D3 pertaining to M/s Puneet Candle Works, which was being run at 1/9288, Gali No.2A, Pratap Pura, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahadara, Delhi i.e. in the house of the accused. As per the record, the proprietor of M/s Puneet Candle Works was Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

69. A perusal of file Ex.PW23/D2 and Ex.PW23/D3 collected by the prosecution clearly shows that the wife of accused was doing business of candle making since the year 1988 onwards and was having income from her said business which is reflected in the various sales tax returns filed by her. The accused has examined his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma as DW25 who has categorically deposed in her examination in chief that:-

She started candle industry in the year 1986 and got herself registered with sale CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 56 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

tax department vide registration no. 153353 Ex.DW25/2. She also deposed that she was also having income from Puneet Coaching Centre which was started by her sister Ms. Anju Kapoor and was getting the salary for the said work.

70. DW25 Smt. Neeru Sharma has been throughly cross-examined by Ld. Prosecutor, but her testimony to the effect that she was running candle industry by the name of M/s Puneet Candle Works since the year 1986 onwards has not been disputed.

71. The documents collected by the prosecution itself during investigation and the evidence led by the accused proves on record that Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused was having income from her candle business. When wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was having her separate income from her business, which is evident from the material produced by the prosecution, then, she must be contributing at least some part of her CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 57 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

income towards living expenses of the family along with accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

72. The accused has also claimed that Ms. Anju Kapoor, his sister in law, was living in the same house and was having income from candle business as well as from her tuition centre and she was also contributing towards living expenses. The prosecution has also collected file from the sales tax department regarding M/s Anju Candle works Ex.PW-23/D1 and Ex.PW23/D4 which shows that M/s Anju Candle Works was also doing business.

73. No doubt that Ms. Anju Kapoor was also having her independent income but her income cannot be taken into consideration while assessing the living expenses of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, because Ms. Anju is not the part of the family of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The accused has not brought any material on record which may show that ms. Anju Kapoor was CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 58 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

contributing towards kitchen expenses from her income.

74. The prosecution has taken kitchen expenses as 1/3 of the net salary of the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma on the assumption that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was the only earning member. The accused however has proved on record that his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma was also having independent income thus she must be contributing some part of her income towards the kitchen expenses, therefore 1/3 of the net salary of accused as taken by the prosecution towards non verifiable expenses appears to be not correct.

75. Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused was having separate income. She was living with the accused, therefore, in all probabilities, she must be contributing at least some part of her income towards living expenses of the family.

76. Taking into consideration the above facts, the non- verifiable expense / living expense of the accused during CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 59 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

check period should be taken as ¼ of his net salary, instead of 1/3 as taken by the prosecution which comes to Rs.2,12,710.75. The non-verifiable expenses incurred by the accused during the check period is thus reduced from Rs.2,87,624/- as taken by the prosecution (i.e., 1/3 of his net salary) to Rs.2,12,710.75 i.e. ¼ of the net salary of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. ASSETS ACQUIRED BY ACCUSED

77. The prosecution has claimed that the accused has not acquired any immovable property either before the check period or during the check period. But he has acquired movable property in the form of NSCs and shares certificates to the tune of Rs.34,000/-. The accused was having Rs.1,99,689/- in his bank account and Rs.14,39,135/- were found in cash from his house CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 60 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

during the search.

78. Prosecution has examined PW17 Rajinder Dutt Sharma Post Master of Rohtash Nagar, Shahadra, Delhi, who deposed that:-

NSC No.21EE971874 for Rs.10,000/- was issued from post office on 5.4.99 in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma Ex.PW17/1. During cross-examination PW17 deposed that NSC in question was purchased by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma through his agent. The payment of the said NSC was made in cash. He admitted that only agent can tell as to whether the payment for purchasing the said NSC was made by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma or his wife or by some other person.

79. The prosecution has also examined PW8 Govind Dubey Sub Post Master, Shivaji Park Post Office, Shahadara, Delhi, who deposed that:-

CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 61 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

5 NSCs of Rs.1000/- each and one NSC for Rs.10,000/-, all dated 18.02.1997 Ex.

PW-8/1 to Ex. PW-8/6 were purchased in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. During cross-examination, PW8 admitted that he cannot tell under whose signatures NSCs Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/6 were issued.

80. The prosecution has also examined PW16 Naresh Kumar who was working as Customer Executive in M/s Principal PNB, Asset Management company Unit No.

001. He deposed that:-

PNB Mutual Fund certificate Ex.PW16/1 is in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. As per record of the company, 40 units of Rs.100/- each, total of Rs.4000/- were issued in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma vide certificate Ex.PW16/1 on 31.3.1992.

During cross-examination PW16 deposed that he does not know if money for CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 62 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

purchase of mutual unit certificate Ex.PW16/1 was paid through cheque or in cash. He admitted that the accused had received dividend against mutual fund certificate Ex.PW16/1 which is mentioned in the counter foils Ex.PW16/D1 to Ex.PW16/D3. He further deposed that bank maintains the statement qua the mutual fund which can show how much dividend has been paid to the customer and how much have been got encashed.

81. The prosecution has also examined PW-20 Sh. Oliver Minj who was working as UTI Assets Management Company Ltd. PW-20 deposed that:-

UTI Certificate No.400-95-1090135454 for 500 units of Rs.10 each in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. This certificate was issued by the Unit Trust of India on 31.03.1995 which is Ex.PW20/1.

He further deposed that accused Pradeep Sharma has invested an amount of Rs.5,000/- for purchase of this certificate.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 63  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     64

During cross-examination, PW20 deposed that M/s Karvy Computer Shares Pvt. Ltd.

Is making payment regarding unit certificate regarding MEP 1995 as well. Application form mark PW20/PX was received in one collection centres of UTI but it is not ascertainable from the said form as to in which collection centre same was filed. As per the application for Mark PW20/PX, the payment for units were made through cheque.

82. A perusal of testimony of PW-8, PW-16, PW-17 and PW-20 clearly shows that the accused had invested a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by purchasing National Savings Certificate Ex. PW-8/1 to Ex. PW-8/6 and Ex. PW-17/1. The accused had also invested Rs.4,000/- in Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund and Rs.5000/- in Unit Trust of India, certificates of which are Ex.PW16/1 and Ex.PW20/1.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 64  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     65

83. The accused has taken a plea that the money for purchasing NSCs was either paid by his wife or by his relatives. The accused however has failed to substantiate the said plea. NSCs Ex. PW-8/1 to Ex. PW-8/6 and Ex. PW-17/1 are in the name of accused. Thus the value of these NSCs have been correctly attributed as an asset acquired by accused during the check period.

84. The prosecution has further taken the plea that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was having an amount of Rs.1,99,689/- in his two bank accounts as well as PPF account at the end of the check period.

85. To prove the said fact, prosecution has examined PW4 Harjinder Singh, Assistant General Manager Punjab & Sind Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi. He briefly stated in his examination in chief that :-

Saving bank account no. 1348 was in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Certified copy of statement of account pertaining to saving bank account CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 65 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

is Ex.PW4/4. During cross-examination, PW4 admitted that statement of account Ex.PW4/6 does not contain the statement between the period from January 1995 to 11.03.1999.

86. Prosecution has also examined PW5 Sh. A.K. Gupta who has produced Statement of Account pertaining to account no. 2442 of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma with Union Bank of India exhibited as Ex. PW-5/2 and Ex. PW-5/4 (colly.)

87. The prosecution has claimed that accused was having one PPF account in which a sum of Rs.67,561/- was found closing balance during the check period. To prove the said fact, prosecution has examined PW18 R.K. Sharma who was posted as of branch manager of Punjab National Bank, Krishna Nagar branch, Delhi in the year 2001. He has proved the certified copy of statement of PPF account no. 754 in the name of accused Pradeep CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 66 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Kumar Sharma Ex.PW18/2.

88. The prosecution has examined PW4 and PW5 to prove the bank account of accused and the available amount in those bank accounts. The accused has not disputed that he was having bank account in Punjab and Sind Bank, certified copy of statement of which is Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/6 as well as in OBC certified copy of statement of accounts Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/4. A perusal of the statement of account Ex.PW4/6 shows that the balance in the said account as on 1.1.90 was Rs.3,077.46 and the balance as on 12.01.2001 was Rs.5,129.59. Thus after deducting the opening balance as on 1.1.1990 from the closing balance as on 12.01.2001, a sum of Rs.2052.13 was found in the said account.

89. A perusal of statement of account pertaining to OBC Ex.PW5/2 shows that opening balance in the said account as on 1.1.90 was Rs.28,077.89 whereas closing CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 67 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

balance balance as on 12.01.2001 was to the tune of Rs.1,58,153.67. Thus after deducting the opening balance as on 1.1.90 from the closing balance as on 12.01.2001, a sum of Rs.1,30,075.78 was found in the said bank account of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Thus total sum of Rs.1,32,127.91 was found available in the above two saving accounts of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during the check period.

90. The accused was also having PPF account, statement of which is Ex. PW-18/2. A perusal of the said statement shows that accused was having a sum of Rs. 67,193/- in the said PPF account as on 25.3.2000 and on the said amount interest of Rs. 368 had accrued for the said period. The total amount of Rs.67,561/- was found in the PPF Account no. 754 of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as on 12.1.2001.

91. The prosecution has thus proved on record that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was having total CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 68 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

movable asset in the form of bank balance in both of his saving bank account as well as in PPF account to the tune of Rs.1,99,689/- as on 12.01.2001.

92. The prosecution has further taken a plea that cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- was recovered during the house search of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

93. To substantiate the said plea, prosecution has examined PW1 N.K. Sharma, who was the independent witness of the search proceedings. In his examination in chief PW1 briefly deposed that:-

On 12.1.2001, he along with CBI team went to Shahadra Area at the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma along with one Sh. Gajender, Vigilance Assistant of vigilance department Indian Oil Corporation. In their presence, search was conducted and search cum seizure memo and search cum observation memo were prepared and signed by him. He further stated that cash amount CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 69 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

approximately of Rs.14 lakhs were recovered, out of which some amount was given to his family members and rest was seized. The said witness has been throughly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel but the testimony of PW1 regarding recovery of cash amount from the house of accused during the said search has not been controverted.

94. The prosecution has also examined Sh. A.K. Malik, the officer of CBI who had conducted the search. The said witness has also proved the search cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/1 and Search cum Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2.

95. A perusal of the search cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/1 shows that during the house search of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, a sum of Rs.14,39,135/- was found from his premises, out of which Rs.14,20,000/- was seized and remaining amount of Rs.19135/- was given to CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 70 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Smt. Neeru Sharma under proper receipt. The accused has not disputed recovery of cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- during the search conducted at his house.

96. The defence of the accused is that the said amount was not belonging to him, but same was the business income of his wife and sister in law. I shall consider the defence of the accused later on. But the fact remains that in the house search of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- was recovered, which has not been disputed even by the accused. The prosecution has thus proved on record that cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- was found during the house search conducted at the premises of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

97. The prosecution has further claimed that house search of the accused was conducted on 12.01.2001 and during search, house hold items worth Rs.5,54,000/- were found in the premises of the accused Pradeep CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 71 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Kumar Sharma. Besides house-hold articles, gold and silver jewelery worth Rs.1,05,000/- were also found, but jewelery has not been attributed to accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

98. To prove the above plea, prosecution has relied upon search cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/1 and search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2. Search cum observation memo contains the details of the household articles found during house search, its year of acquisition and their approximate cost.

99. The prosecution has examined PW-1 N.K. Sharma who deposed in his examination in chief that:-

On 12.01.2001 search was conducted at the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma and whatever articles and documents found in the said house, detail of the same was prepared in his presence which is Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2. PW- 1 has been thoroughly cross-examined, but his testimony qua detail of articles and CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 72 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

their costs as mentioned in Search cum Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2 has not been disputed by the accused.

100. A perusal of search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2 shows that various items have been mentioned in the said memo which were acquired prior to the check period particularly items mentioned at sl. no. 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24 at page no. 2, Item no. 3, found in room no. I at page no. 3, item no. 7 found in drawing cum common room at page no. 4, item no. 2 in verandah at page no. 5, item no. 1 & 2 found in kitchen on the same page, item no. 2 in the study room at page no. 6, item no. 1, 3, and 4 found in the first floor shed room at page no. 6, and item no. 14 found in the first floor shed room at page no. 7.

101. All these articles as per the Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2 were acquired prior to the check period. The total cost of these articles as per Memo Ex. PW-1/2 is Rs.61,700/-. The value of these articles cannot be taken CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 73 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

into consideration while assessing the assets of the accused during the check period as these articles were acquired prior to the check period. Thus, cost of these articles are required to be deducted from the total value of the house-hold items found in the premises.

102. Perusal of the search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2 also shows that said list also contain details of clothes of accused and his family members, which were found during the search. The details of which are reproduced herein below:-

STORE SERIAL NAME OF THE ITEMS YEAR OF APPROXIMATE NO. ACQUISITION COST

2. 15 SYNTHETIC / SILK 1990 ONWARDS 6000 SAREES

3. MISC. WEARING 1995 ONWARDS 8000 CLOTH

4. 20 NEW SAREES 1999 14000 5 A BAG CONTAINING 1990 ONWARDS 3000 USED 15 SAREES

8. 42 GENTS SHIRTS 1990 ONWARD 4000

9. 50 PANTS 1995 ONWARD 10000 CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 74 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

75 PAGE NO. 2

17. 4 WOOLEN SUITS 1990 ONWARD 10000 19 . 20 SYNTHETIC SAREE 1990 ONWARD 6000

20. 20 SYNTHETIC SAREE 1990 ONWARD 6000

21. WEARING CLOTHES 1990 ONWARD 7000 MISC.

30. 10 PANTS 1995 ONWARDS 2000 PAGE NO. 4 DRAWING / COMMON ROOM

6. WEARING CLOTHES 1990 ONWARD 5000

103. The non-verifiable expense incurred by the accused during the entire check period have been taken as Rs.2,12,710.75 i.e. ¼ of his net salary. The non verifiable expenses / living expenses includes kitchen expenses as well as expenses made towards clothing etc. which were necessary for human survival. Thus, expenses towards clothing of accused and his family CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 75 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

members are already included in the non verifiable expenses / living expenses.

104. The prosecution has thus made a double entry regarding the expenses towards clothing. The expenses towards clothing is included in the non verifiable expenses which has been taken as 1/4th of the net income of the accused and the items of clothes have also included separately in the search cum Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2. The expenses towards clothes can not be taken twice.

105. Thus the cost of the clothes mentioned in the search list Ex. PW-1/2 are not required to be taken into consideration. The total value of the clothing found during house search was of Rs.76,000/- which is required to be deducted from the total value of the household items attributed against the accused.

106. A perusal of search cum observation memo Ex. PW-1/2 also shows that, though the prosecution has CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 76 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

calculated kitchen expenses separately as non verifiable expenses but there is an entry of grocery food provision, Serial no.10 at page no. 7 of Ex. PW-1/2. The said expenses of Rs.5000/- towards grocery food provision attributed to the accused in the house-hold items is also required to be deducted.

107. Ld. counsel for the accused has contended that the prosecution has attributed various articles in the search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2 to the accused, which were actually belonging to his other family members.

108. The accused has examined DW-22 Archna Kapoor who deposed that:-

She had purchased TV in her name vide bill Ex. DW-22/2. The said TV was kept in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma because her uncle had expired and due to paucity of the space, the TV along with deck and other articles were kept in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma on 4.1.2001. DW22 has CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 77 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

been throughly cross-examined by Ld. Prosecutor but her above statement has not been contradicted.

109. A perusal of original bill Ex.DW22/2 clearly shows that bill Ex. DW-2/2 pertains to purchase of Samsung Colour TV 29 inches with remote which has been mentioned in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2 at serial no. 3 of Drawing / common room at page no. 4. Smt. Archna Kapoor has produced the original bill of the said TV which is in her name. The cost of said TV i.e. Rs.24,000/-, which cannot be attributed to the accused. The value of the TV is thus required to be deducted from the cost of household items found during the house search.

110. The accused has also examined DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma. DW-25 has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

She had purchased Aqua-guard from M/s CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 78 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

Eureka Forbes on 31.1.94, certified copy of the receipt is Ex.DW25/12 (The original of this bill has also been placed on record). She also purchased Fridge make Godrej frost-free from M/s Kaushik Enterprises, receipt of which is dt. 17.7.96 Ex.DW25/13. DW25 has also been throughly cross-examined but her statement regarding purchase of Aqua Guard and Fridge has not been controverted.

111. The testimony of Smt. Neeru Sharma makes it clear that she had purchased Aqua-guard vide receipt Ex.DW25/12. The Aqua-guard has been mentioned at Sl. No. 3 under the heading Kitchen at page no. 5 of search list Ex.PW1/2, cost of which has been mentioned as Rs.4000/-. She has also produced original bill of Godrej Frost free fridge 260 liters which has been mentioned at sl. no. 1 under the heading verandah at page no. 5 of the search list Ex.PW1/2, cost of which has been mentioned CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 79 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

as Rs.16,000/-.

112. The accused has proved on record that Aqua- guard and fridge were purchased by his wife in her name. The prosecution itself has placed material on record which shows that Smt. Neeru Sharma was having her independent source of income. Therefore, the cost of articles i.e. Aqua Guard and Fridge, purchased by Smt. Neeru Sharma in her name, cannot be attributed to the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The total cost of these articles are Rs. 20,000/- which is required to be deducted from the household items attributed to the accused.

113. The accused has also examined DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor who has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

She has seen search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2. At page no. 1 item no. 1 to 6 are belonging to her, at page no. 2 item no. 14, 19, 25, 26, 27, 31 to 35 are belonging to her, at page no. 3 items no.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 80  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     81

            41, 45 and 47 and in room no. 1 at page

no. 3 items mentioned against serial no. 3, 14 and 15 are belonging to her, at page no.4 articles mentioned against sl. no. 16 and 17, the articles mentioned at Drawing room at sl. no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 18 are belonging to her, at page no. 5 articles mentioned against sl. no. 5, 7 and 16 are belonging to her, at page no. 6 all the articles from s. no. 1 to 13 mentioned at study room are belonging to her and at page no. 7 item no. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are belonging to her.

114. DW-26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has been throughly cross- examined, but, her testimony with regard to ownership of these articles has not been controverted. DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor was given a suggestion that she has deposed falsely being relative of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, which she denied.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 81  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     82

115. DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has claimed her ownership qua various items mentioned in Search cum observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2, but she has not placed any document with regard to these articles on record on the basis of which it can be assumed that the articles mentioned in the search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2 were actually belonging to her and not to the accused. In the absence of any cogent proof on record, the ownership claimed by DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor with respect to above articles remained unsubstantiated.

116. DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has claimed ownership with respect to item no. 2 Sony VCD 1200, which has been mentioned under the heading Drawing / Common room at page no. 4. She has placed on record the original bill in the name of Sh. S.P Kapoor I.e, her father issued by City Place.

117. A perusal of the bill Ex. DW-26/13 clearly shows that Sony VCD was purchased by Sh. S.P. Kapoor, and CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 82 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

not by accused, therefore, same cannot be attributed to the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The cost of VCD is Rs.15,000/- which is required to be deducted from the total cost of house-hold articles attributed to the accused.

118. DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has also claimed that she had purchased washing machine from M/s Walia Electronics in her name and has produced original bill Ex.DW26/14. The washing machine has been mentioned at serial no. 5 under the heading Veranda at page no. 5 of search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2.

119. The washing machine was purchased in the year 1993. The bill Ex.DW26/14 clearly shows that said washing machine was purchased by Ms. Anju Kapoor in her name. Therefore, same cannot be attributed to the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The cost of washing machine is Rs.10,000/- which is also required to be deducted from the total cost of the house-hold articles attributed to accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 83  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     84

120. DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has also claimed that she had purchased Birla Yamaha Generator from City Automobiles in her name vide bill dt. 30.9.88 Ex.DW26/10. A perusal of the bill Ex.DW26/10 clearly shows that name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has been cut by pen and in his place name of Ms. Anju has been written below the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Bill Ex. DW-26/10 shows apparently that the genset was purchased by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma in whose name the said bill was prepared, but the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has been scored out and in his place name of Ms. Anju has been written. The said fact raises doubt regarding the claim of DW26 Ms. Anju Kapoor that she purchased the said genset.

121. The bill Ex.DW26/10 could be proved by producing the owner of City Automobiles who could have brought the cash memo to show whether said bill was prepared in CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 84 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma or in the name of Ms. Anju. But accused has not examined the owner of City Automobiles. In the absence of that evidence, no reliance can be placed on bill Ex.DW26/10.

122. A perusal of search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2 also shows that at sl. no. 8 at page no. 5, one LML scooter bearing registration no. DL 5S J 1994 has also been attributed to accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The said scooter was purchased in the year 1996, the cost of which was Rs.28,000/-.

123. Ld. Counsel for the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has produced information sought by him from transport department at the time of framing of the charge, which clearly shows that the said scooter was registered in the name of one Rajender Aggarwal and not in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Therefore, same cannot be attributed to the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The cost of scooter i.e., Rs.28,000/- is CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 85 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

thus required to be deducted from the total cost of the house-hold articles attributed to accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

124. The above facts clearly shows that prosecution has mentioned articles worth Rs.61,700/- in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2 which were acquired prior to the check period. The prosecution has also included cost of clothes and grocery of Rs. 76,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- which are already part of non-verifiable expenses. The prosecution also included the cost of TV of Rs. 24,000/-, Aqua Guard of Rs. 4,000/-, Fridge of Rs.16,000/-, Sony VCD of Rs. 15,000/-, Washing Machine of Rs.10,000/- and LML Scooter of Rs.28,000/- which are not belonging to accused but are in the name of his other family members and his friends.

125. The total cost of these articles is Rs.2,73,700/- which is required to be deducted from the total value of house-hold items of Rs.5,54,000/- attributed against the CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 86 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma as per search cum observation memo Ex.PW1/2. After excluding the cost of these items, the accused was found in possession of house hold articles worth Rs.2,70,475/- during the check period.

126. An examination of the material produced by the prosecution clearly shows that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was having asset worth Rs.2,20,498/- prior to the check period i.e. on 1.1.1990. The prosecution has also proved on record that accused has total income including income from his salary as well as income from interest from his bank account of Rs.8,90,586/-. The accused was thus having total income (i.e., pre-check period assets + income during the check period of RS.11,11,084/-.

127. The prosecution has also proved that the accused had incurred non-verifiable expenses of Rs.2,.12,710.75 CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 87 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

i.e. ¼ of his net income from salary during the check period. The accused has also incurred verifiable expenses to the tune of Rs.76819.20 Thus after deducting the verifiable and non-verifiable expenses from the total income + asset of pre-check period, the accused was having probable saving of Rs.8,21,554.05 during the check period including the assets acquired by him prior to the check period.

128. The prosecution has further proved on record that accused had acquired movable assets during the check period to the tune of Rs.39,000/- and was having bank balance of Rs.1,99,689/- in his bank account including PPF account. The cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- was also recovered from the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was also found in possession of house-hold articles during the house search worth Rs.2,70,475/-. The total asset acquired by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 88 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

during the check period (movable asset + cash in bank account + cash found in search + price of house-hold articles found in the search) was of Rs.19,48,299/-.

129. The prosecution has thus proved on record that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was found in possession of total assets of Rs.19,48,299 against his probable saving i.e. Rs.8,21,554.05. The accused has thus acquired disproportionate assets worth Rs.11,23,744.95, which is beyond his known sources of income.

130. The prosecution has thus established on record that the accused / public servant was found in possession of properties dis-proportionate to his known source of income. The prosecution has thus discharged its burden of proof, and the burden is now shifted from the shoulder of the prosecution to the shoulder of accused to satisfactorily account for the possession of such properties and its pecuniary resources. The accused is CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 89 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

now required to prove those circumstances which supports his innocence. The accused, however, is not required to prove those facts beyond reasonable doubt but on preponderance of probabilities.

131. The accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has claimed that cash amount of Rs.14,39,135/- recovered from his house during the search was not belonging to him but same was the business income of his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma as well as his Sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor.

132. The plea of the accused is that Ms. Anju Kapoor his Sister in law, was residing in the same premises, and was running a coaching centre by the name of "Puneet Coaching Centre" and was having earnings from the said coaching centre. In the said coaching centre his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma was also imparting tuitions and was getting salary from Anju Kapoor.

133. To substantiate the plea that his sister in law and wife were having income from tuition centre, the accused CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 90 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

has examined DW-3 Anil Kumar Jindal who briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

His two children namely Sarika and Kannu were taking tuition from the sister in law of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma namely Ms. Anju. His children had taken tuition for 8-9 years from 1986-87. DW-3 has further deposed that initially he was paying tuition fee @ Rs.150/- per student and finally he paid Rs.1200/- for all his children.

134. During cross-examination DW-3 briefly deposed that:-

His children Sarika and Kannu started taking tuition in the year 1986-87 and his brother's children started taking tuition 3-4 years thereafter. No fee receipts were taken by him from Anju Kapoor. He denied that he deposed falsely regarding payment of tuition fee as he know accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 91  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     92

135. Accused has also examined DW-4 Hanit Malik who briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

He had taken tuitions from Ms. Anju during the year 1987, 1988 and 1989. At that time around 8-9 students were there in a batch. There were various batches of students but he was aware only about two batches. He has further stated that in the year 1989 he was paying Rs.200/- per month.

136. During cross-examination, DW-4 briefly deposed that:-

He used to taken tuitions of English and Maths. He further deposed that Ms. Anju used to teach Maths and English both to him. Ms. Neeru also used to teach him English and Maths in the absence of Ms. Anju. He does not remember the name of the third teacher who was working in the coaching centre. He further deposed that there were around one table and around 6 CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 92 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

benches in the hall where he used to take tuition. He does not know when his father used to make the payment of his tuition fee. He further stated that there were around 26-30 children taking tuition in all the three batches. He denied that he deposed falsely as he know accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

137. Accused has also examined DW-5 Deepak Goyal who was also taking tuitions from Ms. Anju Kapoor during the year 1984-1988.

138. Accused has also examined DW-6 Ms. Rama who has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

She had worked as a teacher in Puneet Coaching Centre during July 1984 to May 1985. There were three batches in the said coaching centre in the morning and 3 during evening. There were around 8-10 students in every batch. The fee of the students was around Rs.40/- - Rs. 50/- per student per month during that time.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 93  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     94

She further stated that she and Ms. Anju were imparting tuitions in the said coaching centre. Ms. Neeru, sister of Ms. Anju was also assisting in the said coaching centre.

139. During cross-examination, DW-6 briefly deposed that :-

Ms. Anju was the owner of the said coaching centre as far as she remember. She was getting salary of Rs.200/- from July to October 1984 and thereafter Rs.300/- till she left the said coaching centre.

140. Accused has also examined DW-9 Rajender Kumar Aggarwal, DW-12 Peeyush Sharma, DW-13 Yashsasweni Bose and DW-20 Satish Kumar Gupta who have also deposed regarding functioning of Puneet Coaching Centre at the premises of accused which was being run by Anju Kapoor, sister in law of accused.

CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 94 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

141. Accused has also examined DW-22 Archana Kapoor who has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

On 12.01.2001 she was teaching in Puneet Coaching Centre from 3 PM onwards. Along with her Ms. Anju was also teaching around 8-10 students. She further deposed that coaching centre was having 3 batches in the morning and 4 during evening during the period 1995 to 2001.

142. During cross-examination DW-22 briefly deposed that :-

She was teaching in Puneet Coaching Centre to meet her personal expenses. Ms. Anju Kapoor was running tuition centre for her personal expenses. She was getting around Rs.3500/- salary during the year 2001. She cannot tell how much amount Ms. Anju Kapoor was getting from the coaching centre.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 95  OF 144 
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                     96

143. Accused has also examined DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma, who has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

Puneet Coaching Centre was started by her sister Ms. Anju Kapoor in the year 1982. There were around 4 groups in the said coaching centre i.e. two groups during morning and two groups during evening. Each group was consisting of 6 students. The four groups remained in the said tuition centre uptill September 2000 . There were 5 groups after September 2000 i.e. two in the morning and three in the evening. Anju Kapoor used to give salary to her Rs.500/- in the year 1982, Rs. 1000/- in the year 1992, Rs. 3500/- in November 1992 and Rs. 4,000/- from year 1993. During cross-examination DW-25 briefly deposed that she had not received any salary slip or receipt from Ms. Anju CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 96 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

who used to pay salary to her.

144. Accused has also examined DW-26 Anju Kapoor who has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

She started Puneet Coaching Centre at the house of her sister Neeru Sharma in the year 1982. She was earning a sum of Rs. 800/- from the said coaching centre in the year 1982 and during the year 1999- 2000 she was earning a total sum of Rs.17,500/- per month. After deducting the expenses and salary given to other teachers she was having net income of Rs.7500/-. She further deposed that in the year 1999-2000 her coaching centre was having three teachers including her. The name of other teachers are her sister Archana Kapoor and Neeru Sharma. She further deposed that during the year 1999- 2000 her coaching centre was having three batches of students in the morning and four batches of students in the evening. Each batch was having students CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 97 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

around 9 to 10. She further deposed that she has got her tuition centre registered with the Chief Inspector, Shop and Establishment, certificate in that regard is Ex. DW-26/1.

145. DW-26 has been cross-examined but her said deposition has not been challenged during her cross-

examination.

146. An examination of the evidence produced by the accused in his defence shows that Anju Kapoor, Sister in Law of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, was running a coaching centre in the house of accused and was earning from the said coaching centre. Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was also teaching in the said coaching centre and was getting salary. DW-26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has produced on record the registration certificate of "Puneet Coaching Centre" with Delhi Shop and Establishment Act, 1954 Ex. DW-26/1 which shows CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 98 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

that said coaching centre was registered on 08.01.1986. Accused has also examined various students and parents of students to show that Puneet Coaching Centre was being run by Anju Kapoor at the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

147. Even PW-1 N.K. Sharma, who was one of the independent witness of the house search of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma has deposed during his cross- examination that house of accused was closed from inside and some lady opened the gate who was teaching 2-3 students. The testimony of PW-1 also supports the plea taken by accused that Smt. Anju Kapoor was running a coaching centre in the house of accused.

148. CBI itself has collected file from Income Tax Department Ex. PW-23/D-5 containing copies of income tax returns filed by Smt. Neeru Sharma and Ms. Anju Kapoor. Perusal of income tax return for the assessment year 1999-2000 of Ms. Anju Kapoor shows that she had CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 99 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

100

earned profit of Rs.69,072/- from her tuition centre which is reflected in the income tax return for the said assessment year. The income tax return for the year 2000-2001 also shows that she had earned profit of Rs.57,764/- during the said assessment year.

149. The file Ex. PW-23/D5 is also containing the income tax return of Smt. Neeru Sharma for the assessment year 1999-2000 which shows that Neeru Sharma had received gross salary of Rs.48,000/- during that period, after standard deduction of Rs.16,000/- u/s 16 (1), income from her salary was Rs.32,000/-. During the year 2000-2001 Neeru Sharma had received gross salary of Rs.48,000/- and after standard deduction of Rs.16,000/- u/s 16 (1), her income from salary was of Rs.32,000/-.

150. The file Ex. PW-23/D5 was collected by the CBI from the income tax department during investigation. Though the said file was collected by the CBI during CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 100 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

101

investigation but no investigation has been carried out in this regard for the reason best known to the CBI. The file Ex. PW-23/D5 clearly shows that Ms. Anju Kapoor was running Puneet Coaching Centre and had also filed her income tax returns showing her income during the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Similarly Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was also getting salary which is reflected in her income tax return filed for the assessment year 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001.

151. The aforesaid facts clearly proves on record that Ms. Anju Kapoor, sister in law of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was running a coaching centre in the name of "Puneet Coaching Centre" which was duly registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1982 vide certificate Ex. DW-26/1. Ms. Anju Kapoor was the proprietor of the said coaching centre in which Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 101 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

102

was also imparting tuition and earning salary.

152. The accused has further taken a plea that Ms. Anju Kapoor had received Rs.1,50,000/- from her uncle Dr. R.P. Kapoor. To substantiate the said plea accused has examined DW-23 Dr. R.P. Kapoor who has briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

He is the real uncle of Anju Kapoor. He was teaching in Khalsa College, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. He had given Rs.

1,50,000/- to Ms. Anju Kapoor in September 2000 for finding out some suitable place in Delhi on rent for starting a coaching centre. He had given the said amount in cash. He further deposed that he withdrew Rs.80,000/- cash in May 2000 and Rs. 70,000/- in August 2000.

153. During cross-examination DW-23 briefly deposed that:-

He does not remember the date when he had given Rs.1,50,000/- to Anju Kapoor.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 102  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    103

He had not taken any receipt from Ms. Anju Kapoor while giving her the money.

He had received Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- only form Ms. Anju Kapoor that to in installments. He does not remember since when Ms. Anju Kapoor started paying installments. He had not given any receipt while accepting installment from Ms. Anju Kapoor. He is further thoroughly cross-examined.

154. The testimony of DW-23 does not inspire confidence. DW-23 is the real uncle of Ms. Anju Kapoor. He has not placed any cogent material on record to substantiate his plea that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to Ms. Anju Kapoor. No material whatsoever has been placed on record which may point out that amount which DW-23 withdrew from his bank account was infact given to Anju Kapoor as claimed by him.

155. The above fact thus clearly shows that plea of accused that Anju Kapoor had received Rs.1,50,000/- in CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 103 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

104

cash from Dr. R.P. Kapoor has not been substantiated by placing cogent evidence on record.

156. The accused has also taken a plea that his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma and his sister in law were running business of candle in his house and cash amount of Rs.14,39,000/- which was recovered during house search was the business income of his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma and his sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor from their business.

157. To substantiate the above plea, accused has relied upon cross-examination of PW-1 N.K. Sharma who has deposed that:-

Cash amount was recovered from different almirah, purses and bags. The wife had stated that the money belongs to them. PW-1 has further stated that cash amount recovered during search were prominently consisting of denomination of Rs.500/- but there were 2-3 packets of currency notes of Rs.10/- and around 100 note of Rs.5/-, there were packets of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 104 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

105

Rs.50/- and Rs.100/- also. There may be coins of Re.1/- & Rs.2/- but those were not counted in the cash amount recovered in the house.

158. The accused has also relied upon the testimony of PW-22 Sh. A.K. Malik who conducted the raid in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma on 12.01.2001. During cross-examination, PW-22 deposed that:-

Total cash amount was recovered from different rooms. He further deposed that no wax was found at the first floor during the search. He further deposed that Smt. Neeru Sharma and Anju Kapoor had not conveyed him that they were running industry and the money recovered belongs to their industry. He further deposed that he seized only incriminating documents which were material for the purpose of DA case and not all the documents found during search. He further deposed that during search, CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 105 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

106

documents pertaining to Anju Candles and Puneet Candles were recovered.

159. Accused has also relied upon testimony of PW-23 Sh. Ajay Kumar, the IO of the case. PW-23 during cross-

examination has deposed that:-

He had examined the person who used to supply packing material whose name was given by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. He also admitted that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma informed him during investigation as to what raw material were to be purchased by M/s. Puneet Candles and M/s. Anju Candles. He further deposed that he came to know during investigation that M/s. Puneet Candles was being run by Smt. Neeru Sharma and M/s. Anju Candles was being run by Ms. Anju Kapoor earlier. He had examined Sales Tax Officer during CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 106 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

107

investigation regarding assessment made by them. He admitted that as per file Ex. PW-23/D2, M/s. Puneet Candle Works had filed sales tax returns from 1988-89 to 2000-01 and was assessed by the Sales Tax Department. He admitted that as per file Ex. PW-23/D1, M/s. Anju Candle Works had filed sales tax returns from 1989-90 to 2000-01 and was assessed by the Sales Tax Department. He admitted that Sales Tax Officer informed him that they did not find any infirmity in the sales tax returns and assessment order was correctly passed. He further stated that he was satisfied with the answer given by Sales Tax Officer who was examined by him. He further deposed that vide Seizure Memo dated 25.08.2003 Ex. PW-23/D-15 (Colly.), he seized the detail of wax sold to M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works for the period from 19.01.1992 to 27.03.1998 by M/s.

Gurmeet Oil Company. He further deposed that he has not examined any CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 107 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

108

Income Tax Officer during investigation in respect of income tax return filed by Smt. Neeru Sharma and Ms. Anju Kapoor. He further deposed that he had examined the record pertaining to M/s. Anju Candles and M/s. Puneet Candles based on Sales Tax Returns upto 2001 and prepared a chart showing stock, profit of these firms. The chart prepared by him is Ex. PW-

23/D-16. He further deposed that he had not verified the bills of the articles mentioned in the observation memo nor he collected any bills from the accused or his family members. He further deposed that he had not considered the income of M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works while assessing the income of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

160. The cross-examination of PW-1 N.K. Sharma, PW- 22 A.K. Malik and PW-23 Ajay Kumar clearly shows that two firms by the name of M/s. Anju Candle Works and CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 108 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

109

M/s. Puneet Candle Works were running in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. PW-23 Ajay Kumar had seized relevant documents pertaining to these firms from Sales Tax Department and Income Tax Department and from other places who sold raw materials to these firms. But he had not carried out any investigation in this regard nor the income of these two firms were taken into consideration as deposed by PW-23 himself.

161. PW-1 N.K. Sharma has deposed in his cross- examination that wife of accused had claimed that cash recovered during search belongs to her and denomination of the amount recovered during search was prominently of Rs. 500/- and Rs.100/- but there were currency notes of denomination of Rs.5/-, Rs.10/-, Rs.50/- and coins were also recovered.

162. PW-22 A.K. Malik who had conducted search at the house of accused has accepted that he only seized incriminating documents, which were material for the CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 109 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

110

purpose of case and not all the documents found during search. The testimony of these prosecution witnesses thus makes it absolutely clear that two firms i.e. M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works were there at the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, but the CBI has not considered income of these firms.

163. The accused has examined DW-8 Gurmeet Ram Naafri who was authorized dealer of wax of Indian Oil Corporation. He briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works were having license for purchasing wax of 20 bags each per month from Indian Oil Corporation and they were attached with Gurmeet Oil Company of which he was the proprietor. He proved the Quota Card in the name of M/s. Anju Candle Works dated 13.10.1986, 09.03.1987, 22.08.1988, 13.01.1989, 1.01.1990, 01.01.1991, CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 110 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

111

01.01.1995, 01.01.1996 and 01.01.1998 as Ex. DW-8/1 (Colly.). He has also proved Quota Cards issued in the name of M/s Puneet Candle Works dated 09.03.1987, 22.02.1988, 13.01.1989, 11.01.1990, 01.01.1991, 01.01.1995 and 01.01.1998 and 54 bills for sale of wax to M/s. Puneet Candle Works as Ex. DW-

8/4. He has also deposed that he used to visit the place where Anju Candle Works and Puneet Candle Works were being run once in a year when quota was operative for collecting ST-1 Form.

164. During cross-examination DW-8 deposed that:-

They received money for selling wax against bills Ex. DW-8/2 (colly) and Ex. DW-8/4 (colly.). He had never purchased candles from M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works. M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works used to make candles from the wax they used to purchase from him but CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 111 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

112

he does not remember what they were doing with those candles.

165. Accused has also examined DW-9 Rajender Kumar Aggarwal who briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

He Knows Neeru Sharma for the last 45 years. She was manufacturing candles during mid 80s by the name of M/s. Puneet Candle Works which he got registered with the Sales Tax Department. He filed sales tax returns from 1987-88 to 2000-01. He further deposed that the Trading Account at page no.89 of the said file is in his handwriting whereas quarterly statement of account at page no. 88 is in the handwriting of Satish who was working with him. Statement at page no. 87, 85 and 84 are in his handwriting which are Ex. DW-9/1 (Colly.). He further deposed that duplicate returns are filed by the assessee in case the original return filed by them is misplaced from the record CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 112 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

113

of sale tax office.

166. During cross-examination DW-9 briefly deposed that:-

He had taken figures mentioned in Statement Ex. DW-9/1 (colly) from the ledger and other books of account maintained by Puneet Candles. He did not use to maintain ledger and other books of account of Puneet Candles. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the figure of sale and purchase of Puneet Candles mentioned in ledger and other book of accounts and documents and his knowledge is based on those documents only.

167. Accused has also examined DW-18 Girish Kumar Sawhney who briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

During year 1992-2000, he was supplying materials during festivals to the hawkers.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 113  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    114

He used to purchase candles from M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works. He may have purchased candles for an amount of around Rs. 30,000/- - Rs.35,000/- from them during Diwali in the year 2000. He used to make payment in cash. M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s Puneet Candle Works used to issue receipt by writing cash to him when he used to purchase candles from them. The receipts used to be like Ex. PW-23/D- 27 and Ex. PW-23/D-28.

168. During cross-examination DW-18 briefly deposed that:-

He does not have any receipt in his possession to show that he had purchased candles from M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works. He volunteered that he was having one receipt which he handed over to the CBI when his statement was recorded. He further deposed that he was called at CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 114 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

115

Lodhi Colony for recording of his statement but he did not receive any notice. He also deposed that he does not have any record regarding payment made by him to M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works nor he has any record regarding money received by him for sale of candles to the hawkers.

169. Accused has also examined DW-19 Sanjay Kapoor who was one of the cited witness of the prosecution but prosecution had not examined him. Said witness briefly deposed in his examination in chief that:-

Ms. Anju Kapoor got married in the year 1984 but she got divorce in the year 1985 and after her divorce, she resided in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. He further deposed that Smt. Neeru Sharma and Ms. Anju Kapoor started candle business with the help of his father in the year 1986 and got themselves registered with DSIDC as CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 115 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

116

small-scale industries. They were running their business by the name M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works. M/s. Puneet Candle Works was run by Ms. Neeru Sharma and M/s. Anju Candle Works was being run by Ms. Anju Kapoor. He started working in M/s. Anju Candle Works in the year 1987 and started doing marketing work. He left his job in beginning of the year 1989. He had not worked with them thereafter. He further deposed that in the year 1998, he opened his shop in Gopalpur, Mukherjee Nagar and started purchasing candles from them. Girish, Deepak, Chawla General Store, Dharampal General Store were also purchasing candles from them. He had purchased candles worth more than Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- from them during Diwali in the year 2000. He used to purchase candles in cash and also used to get receipt of cash. He further deposed that Neeru Sharma and Anju Kapoor stated to the CBI officials CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 116 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

117

that cash amount was of their business income. Ms. Archana Kapoor also stated that her money was also lying there which was mentioned in her diary which she showed.

170. During cross-examination DW-19 admitted that:-

CBI officials had given a copy of Search cum Observation Memo Ex. PW-1/2 and Search cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-1/1 to Neeru Sharma. He also deposed that the articles mentioned in search cum observation memo Ex. PW-1/2 are the same articles which were lying in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma during the search. He denied that he had deposed falsely being the brother in law of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

171. Accused has also examined DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma who briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 117 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

118

She started business of candles in the year 1986. Because her selling was less than 30,000/-, she was not paying any sales tax and in the year 1988, she got registered her proprietorship firm i.e. M/s. Puneet Candle Works with the Sales Tax Department vide certificate Ex. DW-25/2. Her firm had also obtained license from Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is Ex. DW-25/3. She further deposed that she had received orders from Delhi State Civil Suppl Corporation during the year 1988 to 1995 Ex. DW-25/9 (colly.). She has also paid sales tax vide various receipts from the year 1988 till 31.03.1999 which are Ex. DW-25/10 (colly.). She further deposed that she used to purchase thread from M/s. Daulat Trading Company, Arandi Oil from Khari Baoli and cardboards form M/s. Chander Printing Press, Pahadi Dheeraj, Sadar from M/s. Amit Trading, from M/s Kalpana Arts. She further deposed that she used to supply candles in the open market through sales CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 118 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

119

agents namely Girish, Ajay, Deepak Goel, Sanjay etc. She used to sell candles in open market in cash. She further deposed that money which was recovered from her house partly belonged to her. Sum of Rs.5,40,800/- recovered by the CBI officials were sale proceeds of stock of candles amounting to Rs.2,95,000/-. She had also sold her machinery for Rs.32,000/- which was also there. The money was lying in 4 big handbags which were lying in the iron almirah in the store room. The denomination of the currency was Rs.5/-, Rs. 10/-, Rs. 20/-, Rs.50/-, Rs. 100 and Rs.500/-.

172. During cross-examination DW-25 briefly deposed that:-

She was earning 15-20% of profit from candle business after deducting expenses. She was having 50% profit in the year 2000 after deducting expenses. She further deposed that she sold candles CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 119 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

120

worth Rs.5,40,800/- during the year 2000. The stock which she sold in the year 2000 was lying with her for 14 years. She sold the candles of Rs.5,40,800/- through agents. She had issued cash receipts for the above amount in the year 2000. Those receipts were taken by the CBI officials during search. She denied that she had not sold stock worth Rs.5,40,800/- during the year 2000.

173. Accused has also examined DW-26 Ms. Anju Kapoor who has briefly deposed in her examination in chief that:-

She started living with her sister in her matrimonial house since the year 1985 after her divorce. She started candle business in the year 1986 by the name of M/s. Anju Candle Works. The registration certificate of her firm with Sales Tax Department is Ex. DW-26/2 and Ex. DW- 26/2A. She also got registered her firm with the Labour Department, certificate of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 120 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

121

the same is Ex. DW-26/3. She used to purchase thread from M/s. Daulat Ram & Co. for the purpose of making candles.

The work pertaining to Sales Tax Department of M/s. Anju Candle Works were being looked after by Sh. Rajender Aggarwal, Advocate. She further deposed that in the year 2000, M/s. Anju Candle Works was having total sale of Rs.6,53,120/- . The said sale was made by selling the candles with respect to stock wax worth Rs.3,57,100/- which was available with her from previous years. She used to sell candles in the open market through sales men namely Sanjay Sharma, Jitender Sharma, Vicky, Deepak, Sanjay Chawla, Vijay Manchanda, Khajan etc. She has also deposed that after selling the candles from all her stock, she had sold 3 machines of candle making in Rs.24,000/- in December 2000. She further deposed that she used to purchase packing material for candles from M/s. Amit Traders, Shahadara, M/s.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 121  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    122

Chandan Printing Press, Pahadi Dhiraj, M/s. Pawan Printers and M/s. Kalpana Arts at Shahadara. She used to purchase cartons from M/s. Goel General Stores, Babarpur Road, Shahadara. She further deposed that she used to sell candles in cash. She further deposed that on 12.01.2001 she was at the premises of her sister Neeru Sharma when raid was conducted. She has further deposed that CBI officials took out the cash amount from the almirahs which were lying in the store room. She informed the CBI officials that around Rs.8 lacs in cash found from the premises of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was hers but they did not paid any heed to the same. She further deposed that the cash amount recovered from the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was of denomination of Re.1/-, Rs.2/-, Rs.5/-, Rs.10/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- and there were coins also. She further deposed that she had gone to CBI office to meet Mr. Lal CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 122 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

123

and apprised him about her cash amount being seized by the CBI officials. She also met Inspector Ajay Kumar and informed him about her cash amount. She also wrote a letter to the Director, CBI about her cash amount but she did not get any reply from him.

174. During cross-examination DW-26 deposed that:-

She has been paying income tax in the year 1997-98 till date. She further deposed that Sales Tax for the third quarter of year 2000 was deposited by her in March 2001. Sales Tax Returns are filed in four quarters in a year . The return of third quarter of the year 2000 was filed in March 2001 when sales tax were deposited. She further deposed that she had purchased wax for candle work from 1988 to 1998 from M/s. Gurmeet Oil Company. She admitted that she was allowed to purchase wax from M/s. Gurmeet Oil Company as per her quota CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 123 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

124

from Indian Oil Corporation. She volunteered that during Diwali, she used to get extra wax from M/s. Gurmeet Oil Company for the orders of supplying candles to Delhi Civil Supplies. She further deposed that she does not have any invoice or cash memo for sale of candles from the year 1991 to 1998. She volunteered that all the documents were taken by the CBI officials. She further deposed that she had sold the candle making machine in the year 2000 but she does not remember the name of the person whom she sold those machines. She further deposed that she had not done candle business after year 2000. She volunteered that they had stopped the candle business because of the damage at the roof of the house. She further deposed that in the year 2000, five workers were working in her candle business. She used to manufacture candles throughout the year but bulk manufacturing used to take place during CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 124 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

125

Diwali. She further deposed that in the year 2000, she was having 350kg stock of wax available in her industry. Small packets of candles having 12 candles was of the price of Rs.8/- and large packets of candles having 6 candles was of the price of Rs.10/-. One packet of candles was of 200 grams. She denied that she had not manufactured any candle during the year 2000. She denied that she had filed false sales tax returns for the year 2000. She denied that no money belonging to her was seized by the CBI during search conducted at the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. She denied that she had deposed falsely being relative of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

175. An examination of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, documents produced on record as well as evidence produced by the accused in his defence clearly shows that two firms by the name of M/s. Puneet Candle CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 125 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

126

Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works were functioning in the house of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The proprietor of M/s. Puneet Candle Work was Smt. Neeru Sharma w/o accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma whereas proprietor of M/s. Anju Candle Works was Anju Kapoor, sister in law of accused.

176. The prosecution itself has collected the documents during investigation i.e. Quota Cards issued in the name of Puneet Candle Works by Indian Oil Corporation Ex. PW-23/D-11 and detail of wax sold by Gurmeet Ram Nafri, proprietor of M/s. Gurmeet Oil Company from 19.01.1990 to 27.01.1998 to Puneet Candle Works and Anju Candle Works Ex. PW-23/D-15 which clearly shows that both these firms were purchasing wax from M/s. Gurmeet Oil Corporation during the check period uptill 27.03.1998.

177. The plea of accused is that the cash amount recovered during the house search was belonging to the CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 126 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

127

candle business of both these firms. DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Puneet Candle Works has deposed in her examination that a sum of Rs.5,40,800/- out of the amount seized by the CBI during house search was belonging to her. Similarly, DW-26 Anju Kapoor, proprietor of M/s. Anju Candle Works has deposed that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was belonging to her out of the total amount seized by the CBI.

178. Ld. Prosecutor has contended that the plea of the accused that cash amount seized during house search belongs to these two firms is not sustainable for the simple reason that both these firms had not purchased any wax after March 1998 and they were not carrying any business ever since and had filed sales tax returns after raid was conducted in order to create evidence to support accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

179. The prosecution has seized original file pertaining to M/s. Puneet Candle Works from the Sales Tax CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 127 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

128

Department Ex. PW-23/D-2, along with another file of M/s. Puneet Candle Works Ex. PW-23/D-4. A perusal of file Ex.PW-23/D-2 and Ex. PW-23/D-4 shows that M/s. Puneet Candle Works has been filing sales tax returns regularly since year 1988-89 till 1996-97.

180. The sales tax return for the year 1996-97 was filed on 27.04.1998. The assessment order of which was passed on 29.09.1998. As per sales tax return filed for the year 1996-97, the total sales of M/s. Puneet Candle Works during the said year was of Rs.2,07,095 and M/s. Puneet Candle Works was having closing stock worth Rs. 2,61,600/-.

181. The prosecution has also collected detail of wax purchased by M/s. Puneet Candle Works from M/s. Gurmeet Oil Company Ex. PW-23/D-5, which shows that after March 1997 uptill 27.03.1998, M/s. Puneet Candle Works had purchased wax for a sum of Rs.1,30,239. Thus at least M/s. Puneet Candle Works was having CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 128 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

129

stock worth Rs.3,91,839/-. M/s. Puneet Candle Works had sold candles worth Rs.60,000/- during the year 1998 and they had no sale of candles in the year 1999 as return of nil has been filed for the year 1999.

182. The record seized by the CBI itself shows that M/s. Puneet Candle Works was having stock in hand worth Rs.2,95,000/- which has been reiterated by DW-25 Smt. Neeru Sharma during her examination. The prosecution has also seized a cash memo of M/s. Puneet Candle Works Ex. Pw-23/D-28 during investigation from the accused, which shows sales of candles in cash during the year 2000.

183. The CBI had also collected file pertaining to M/s. Anju Candle Works from sales tax department Ex. PW- 23/D-1 and Ex. PW-23/D-3. Perusal of these file shows unambiguously that M/s. Anju Candle Works had been carrying on business of candles since 1988-89 and has been filing sales tax returns of sale of candles regularly.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 129  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    130

The Sales Tax Return for the year 1996-97 which was filed on 27.04.1998 shows that total sale made by M/s. Anju Candle Works was of Rs. 2,05,795/- and said firm was having closing stock of Rs.3,07,200/-.

184. M/s. Anju Candle Works after assessment year 1996-97 had purchased wax worth Rs. 1,30, 239/- detail of which Ex. PW-23/D-23 has been placed by the prosecution itself.

185. The document collected by the prosecution itself shows that both M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works were having substantial stock in their hand in the year 1998 and they did not make any sale during the year 1999. The prosecution witnesses have deposed during their examination that wax was not there when they conducted the raid, meaning thereby that the stock, which was there with these firms, were already utilized by the time raid was conducted.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 130  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    131

186. The prosecution has also seized file Ex. PW-23/D5 from income tax department pertaining to returns filed by Ms. Anju Kapoor and Smt. Neeru Sharma. Perusal of the income tax returns contained in the said file shows that M/s. Anju Candle Works had sold candle worth Rs. 60,000/- during the year which ended on 31.03.1999 and was having closing stock worth Rs.3,57,100/-. Trade and Profit and Loss Account for the year ended on 31.03.2001 filed alongwith the income tax return for the year 2001- 2002 contained in file Ex. PW-23/D-5 shows that M/s. Anju Candle Works had sold goods worth Rs.6,28,000/- and had earned net income of Rs. 1,03,530/- after deducting all the expenses.

187. The income tax returns filed by Smt. Neeru Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Puneet Candle Works for the assessment year 1999-2000 contained in file Ex. PW- 23/D5 shows that M/s. Puneet Candle Works had sold the material in the year ended on 31.03.1999 of Rs. 90,000/-



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 131  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    132

and was having closing stock worth Rs.2,95,500/-. Profit and Loss Account for the year 2001-02 ended on 31.03.2001, which was filed along with income tax return for the year 2001-02 shows that total sales of M/s. Puneet Candle Works during the said period was of Rs. 5,20,000/- and net income was of Rs.1,02,748/- after deducting all the expenses on which income tax has been paid.

188. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "D.S.P. Chennai VS. K. Inbasagaran" reported as 2005 Legal Eagles (SC) 1037 has held that :-

"It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it can not be fastened CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 132 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

133

on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and entire wealth earned by her by not showing in the income tax returns and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 133 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

134

being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Income Tax Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which had been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife. Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the un-accounted money. Since the crucial question in this case CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 134 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

135

            was     of    the       possession     and     the
            premises          in    question    was    jointly
            shared by the wife and the husband

and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

189. The proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. This is not the case of the prosecution that the money was recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Even the raid was conducted in the house of the accused in his absence.



CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 135  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    136

The house in question was in the joint possession of accused, his wife, his sister in law and other family members.

190. The prosecution came to know during investigation that, wife of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma namely Smt. Neeru Sharma and his sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor were running candle business by the name of M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works in the house of accused.

191. The prosecution had collected documents from Sales Tax and Income Tax Department and other persons which unambiguously shows that M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works were being run in the premises of accused. The CBI had also seized cash memos Ex. PW-23/D28 and Ex. PW-23/D-29 during investigation, containing sale details of both thse firms during the year 2000, along with all other requisite documents i.e. Ledger, cash book etc. CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 136 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

137

192. Despite the same, CBI has not carried out any investigation in this regard. When CBI had seized documents from sales tax department and income tax department as well as from the accused during investigation then it was incumbent upon them to verify the correctness of these documents. But surprisingly, no investigation at all on this aspect has been carried out. Nor the income of these two firms were taken into consideration as deposed by PW-23 Ajay Kumar.

193. Smt. Neeru Sharma, wife of accused has examined herself as DW-25 and has claimed that a sum of Rs.5,40,800/- out of the total amount recovered during house search, was belonging to her which was sale proceeds of candles sold by M/s. Puneet Candle Works and same was her earnings. DW-26 Ms. Anju Kapoor has also claimed that out of total amount recovered during house search, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was belonging to her, out of which Rs.6,53, 120/- was sale proceeds of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 137 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

138

candles sold during the year 2000.

194. The candles were prepared by both these firms from the stock available with them, which is duly reflected in the sales tax return for the year 1996-97 contained in the sales tax record, these returns were filed much prior to the raid at the premises of the accused. These files were seized by the CBIfrom Sales Tax Department during investigation. Both these firms also purchased wax from M/s. Gurmeet Oil Corporation, details of which was also seized by the prosecution during investigation.

195. Both Smt. Neeru Sharma and Ms. Anju Kapoor have also filed income tax returns in which they have shown their sales proceeds as well as their net income from candle business. The file containing income tax return Ex. PW-23/D5 and Sales Tax files of both firms Ex. PW-23/D1 to Ex. PW-23/D4 were seized by the CBI, but no investigation has been carried out in this respect.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 138  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .
                                    139

196. Ld. Prosecutor contended that cash memo of sales had been manipulated by the accused after the search. He further contended that even sales tax return were filed after the search just to create evidence to support accused. The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that CBI had seized documents from sales tax department as well as from the accused during investigation. PW-22 A.K. Malik who conducted the search himself has deposed in his cross-examination that he had not seized all the documents lying in the premises of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma and had seized only incriminating documents which were material for disproportionate assets case.

197. When officer who conducted the search had not seized the documents lying in the premises of the accused and had only collected documents which were relevant for disproportionate assets case, then what option was available to the accused except producing the CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 139 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

140

documents subsequently. The IO had seized the cash memos Ex. PW-23/D-28 and Ex. PW-23/D-29 during investigation along with other material both from the accused as well as from the departments.

198. When IO got these documents, even if manipulated as claimed by Ld. PP, during the investigation then it was incumbent for the CBI to investigate as to whether the documents produced by the accused were genuine or not. The CBI, however, has not carried out any investigation in this regard rather PW-23 the IO had admitted during cross-examination that he came to know about functioning of M/s. Anju Candle Works and M/s. Puneet Candle Works but he had not considered their income while filing the charge sheet.

199. No investigation whatsoever has been conducted by the CBI with regard to functioning of M/s. Puneet Candle Works and M/s. Anju Candle Works and their sale proceeds during the year 2000. Both DW-25 Neeru CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 140 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

141

Sharma and DW-26 Anju Kapoor have deposed before the Court that they conveyed to the officials who conducted the search that part of the amount recovered during raid belonged to them but they did not pay any heed. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that amount seized by the CBI during house search belongs to them. Their testimony is supported by the sales tax returns filed by them with the sales tax department, assessment of which was undoubtedly done after search. The sales tax officer also did not find any fault in the sales tax returns filed by them. Even the IO was satisfied by the returns filed before sales tax officer. Both Anju Kapoor and Neeru Sharma have shown sales proceedings in their income tax returns as well.

200. A cumulative examination of all the above facts clearly shows that though prosecution has proved on record that a cash amount of Rs.14,39,000/- was recovered during the house search of accused Pradeep CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 141 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

142

Kumar Sharma. But prosecution could not prove the said recovery from the exclusive possession of the accused. The house from where cash amount recovered was in the joint possession of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma, his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma, his sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor and other family members.

201. The premises from where the cash amount was recovered was not in the exclusive possession of accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma but same was in the joint possession with other family members including his sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor. The wife of the accused Smt. Neeru Sharma and his sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor have not been prosecuted. The explanation of the accused was that cash amount recovered during house search was the business income of his wife and sister in law. The wife and sister in law of accused have owned the substantial portion of money i.e. Rs.5,40,800/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- out of the total amount recovered during CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 142 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

143

search. Both Smt. Neeru Sharma and Ms. Anju Kapoor have filed sales tax return and income tax return showing the said amount. In these circumstances, the explanation given by accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma appears to be plausible and justifiable one.

202. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained on the basis of documents seized by the CBI itself that the money, which had been recovered from his house which was in joint possession of accused and his other family members, does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife Smt. Neeru Sharma and his sister in law Ms. Anju Kapoor. The accused has thus satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money.

203. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma was found in possession of CC NO. 532218/16 CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA PAGE 143 OF 144 (OLD CC NO. 02/14) .

144

disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.11,69,806/- beyond his known sources of income for which he could not explain satisfactorily. Prosecution has thus not succeeded in proving commission of the offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Pradeep Kumar Sharma. Pradeep Kumar Sharma is accordingly acquitted for the charges levelled against him.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON 19th DECEMBER, 2016.

(PITAMBER DUTT) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI 19.12.2016.





CC NO. 532218/16        CBI VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA      PAGE 144  OF 144
(OLD CC NO. 02/14)          .

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cc No. 532218/16 Cbi vs . Pradeep Kumar Sharma Page 1 Of 144 on 19 December, 2016