Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ashutosh Vasant on 25 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI-20 (PC ACT): ROUSE AVENUE
COURT : NEW DELHI
CBI No.114/2024
RC AC-1 2019 A 0006
PS CBI/AC1/ND
CNR No. DLCT11-000926-2024
Date of Institution :30.09.2024
Final arguments concluded on : 15.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 25.09.2025
In the matter of:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
5B, 3rd Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Versus
Sh. Ashutosh Vasant
s/o late Sh. Vasant R. Sarvate
r/o D-104, Sangath Silver Apartments Motera,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat. .....Accused.
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Page no.
1. Factual Matrix 3-8
2. Cognizance/Charge 8-9
3. Prosecution Evidence 9-24
(i) Witnesses from RCIL/Railway Board 11-14
(ii) Witnesses from M/s. Travel World 14-19
(iii) Witnesses from Banks 19-20
(iv) Witness from Air India. 20-21
(v) Police Witnesses 21-24
4. Statement of Accused/Defence Evidence 24-27
5. Submissions on behalf of Prosecution 27-32
6. Submissions on behalf of Defence 32-41
7. Analysis of material by the Court 41-43
8. Points of determination 43-92
(i) Deception/Dishonest intention/mens 49-67
rea
Digitally signed
by SUNENA
SUNENA SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.25
15:22:56
+0530
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant
CBI-114/2024 Page 1 of 97
(ii) Pecuniary Advantage/Wrongful 67-73
Gain/wrongful loss
(iii) Validity of Sanction under Section 19 73-81
of PC Act
(iv) Lack of Prosecution Sanction of 81-84
Section 197 CrPC
(v) Lack of Prior Approval under Section 84-92
17-A PC Act, 1988
9. Summary of conclusions 92-93
10. Final conclusion 93-97
Judgment
1. This case CBI No.114/2024 is the outcome of the chargesheet filed by CBI in RC AC-1 2019 A 0006 PS CBI/AC1/ND 27.11.2019. The said RC, under Section U/s. 120-B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 11, 12 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (unamended Act as it existed prior to the amendment of year 2018) (hereinafter referred as 'PC Act') was registered against Sh. Ashutosh Vasant, the then GGM/ Project (Convener)/ Director, Railtel Corporation of India Ltd, M/s. United Telecom Limited (UTL) in consortium with M/s. Infinera and Others.
1.01 As per record, a complaint dated 23.09.2019 was lodged by Inspector Avnish Kumar, CBI, ACI, New Delhi, which led to registration of instant FIR/RC. As per the FIR, the Preliminary Enquiry no. AC1 2018 A0006 dated 17.04.2018 was registered on the basis of a source information containing following allegations:-
(1) That, Shri Ashutosh Vasant while posted as General Manager/P/CO, Railtel during the year 2012 has shown undue favour in awarding the contract of Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Technology to non-
compliant vendor i.e. consortium of M/s UTL and M/s Infinera USA.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 2 of 97 (2) That, Shri Ashutosh Vasant for inspection visit to USA for "Factory Acceptance Test" of the above mentioned equipment was entitled to travel in Business Class, but he travelled by Economy Class and raised a bill for Business Class adopting unethical means and used the excess amount to fund the Economy Class travel of his family members. Further, Mr. Ashutosh Vasant did not produce the journey documents in order to hide the cheating committed by him in purchase of tickets.
(3) That, M/s UTL had paid for the hotel bills of Mr. Ashutosh during his visit to USA and he tried to cover the favour by getting an affidavit from M/s UTL that he had paid the said amount back to M/s UTL in cash.
1.02 The aforementioned enquiry was undertaken after grant of approval under Section 17-A of PC Act (as it existed after the Amendment Act 16 of year 2018), which was received on 02.09.2019. As per the complaint, which is the part of FIR, preliminary enquiry prima facie established the role of Ashutosh Vasant, the then GGM/Project in committing criminal misconduct while holding the post as a public servant by claiming excess amount by using forged air ticket with intend to cheat Railtel Corporation of India Ltd and there arose a suspicion that he also entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri Rajesh Chutani of Infinera India Pvt. Ltd. and others in settling his hotel expenses at USA.
Factual Matrix
2. As per charge-sheet, there are two sets of allegation. In the 1st part, it is alleged that, Sh. Ashutosh Vasant, the then General Manager, Railtel Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter referred as RCIL), who was entitled to air travel by Business Class, booked a Business Class ticket for journey to USA on 01.12.2012 and submitted a note dated CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 3 of 97 03.12.2012 to RCIL. On the basis of said note, RCIL made the payment of Rs.2,96,500/- to M/s Travel World, the travel agent vide payment voucher dated 04.12.2012. However, the said business class ticket was cancelled by the travel agent upon the request of the accused and an economy class ticket of Rs. 90,000/- was booked for the said journey. It is alleged that the amount paid by RCIL for the business class ticket was partly used to fund the economic class travel of the family members of the accused to USA and accused concealed the journey documents from RCIL to cover-up the cheating committed by him in the purchase of tickets.
2.01 The chargesheet also contains the 2nd part of the allegations regarding alleged favours taken by Shri Ashutosh Vasant and Shri Arun Singh Rawat, the then Manager (Tech), from M/s United Telecom Limited (UTL) and its Consortium partner M/s. Infinera, USA for their stay in at Sunnyvale, USA. The said officers were nominated to visit at Sunnyvale, USA by RCIL to oversee the demonstration of Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) to be given by M/s Infinera, a US based entity with whom M/s United Telecom Limited (UTL) had entered into a consortium tie up for participating in a tender awarded to UTL by the RCIL. However, touching the details of 2nd part of allegations is not deemed necessary as no sanction of section 19 of PC Act was accorded either against accused Ashutosh Vasant or Arun Singh Rawat for their prosecution on said allegations relating to their stay in Hotel Hilton, for the aforementioned official visit to Santa Clara, USA.
2.02 As regard the 1st set of allegations, the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 4 of 97 investigation revealed that in the month of December, 2012, accused Sh. Ashutosh Vasant alongwith Sh. Arun Singh Rawat, the then Manager (Technology), had visited USA for "Factory Acceptance Test"). On 01.12.2012, Sh. Ashutosh Vasant booked a Business Class e-ticket no. 098-2630458749 for journey through M/s Travel World. M/s Travel World raised an invoice dated 01.12.2012 for Rs. 2,96,500/-, along with a Credit Note dated 01.12.2012 for the payment of the aforesaid amount on Sh. Ashutosh Vasant for booking the said ticket. Pursuant to that, Sh. Ashutosh Vasant submitted an office note dated 03.12.2012 with his department and provided account details of the said travel agent M/s Travel World to RCIL for the release of payment for the said ticket booked by him and on said request, RCIL released the payment of Rs. 2,96,500/- towards the booking of said ticket and same was credited to the account no. 00062560004099 of M/s Travel World maintained in HDFC Bank on 06.12.2012. But, Sh. Ashutosh Vasant did not travel on the aforesaid ticket of Business Class and instead got it cancelled through M/s Travel World.
2.03 Investigation revealed that accused Ashutosh Vasant had never intended to travel on the said business class ticket as he had already booked another e-ticket no. 098- 2631849636-37 on 30.11.2012 itself for travelling to USA in economy class. It was established during investigation that the business class ticket was got booked with dishonest intention of seeking release of the business class fare from Railtel and once the fare was released, the said business class ticket was got cancelled and the journey was performed by Sh. Ashutosh CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 5 of 97 Vasant with the economy class ticket purchased for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- only. Same is reflected in the client ledger of M/s Travel World for 29.11.2012. Besides that, the ledger account also showed 02 more debits of Rs. 90,000/- each on 30.11.2012, which are for the tickets issued to his wife Mrs. Sumegha Ashutosh and his son Mr. Aniket Sarvate. Ledger also reflects one another debit entry of Rs. 76,000/- for the ticket issued for Master Aryan Sarvate i.e. the other son of the accused Sh. Ashutosh Vasant for 30.11.2012. Furthermore, at the same time, the entry for the business class ticket purchased on 01.12.2012 for Rs. 2,96,500/- was reversed on the same day in the said ledger account of the travel agent.
2.04 Investigation further revealed that pursuant to cancellation of the business class ticket on 01.12.2012, M/s Travel World issued three cheques for Rs.55,500/-, Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- (Total amount of Rs. 2,05,500/-) from their account No.435501010030010 maintained with Union Bank of India, which were encashed and said cash amount was given to accused Ashutosh Vasant. The client ledger of accused Ashutosh Vasant maintained by M/s Travel World shows the said amounts as funds paid to Shri Ashutosh Vasant. M/s Travel World also issued a Credit Note in the sum of Rs. 2,05,500/-, after adjustment of Rs. 90,000/- for the economy class ticket of accused Sh. Ashutosh Vasant and Rs.1,000/- towards cancellation of the business class ticket for Rs. 2,96,500/- booked on 01.12.2012.
2.05 Further, the statement of account no.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 6 of 97 435501010030010 of M/s Travel World maintained with Union Bank of India also revealed that the following cash withdrawals were made from the said account and cash paid to "Ashutosh". During investigation, the three cheques through which cash withdrawals were made, could not be traced by the bank. However, Ms. Preeti Mehta, Proprietor, M/s. Travel World and Shri Bharat Shah, Cashier of said firm stated that the cash was withdrawn through the travel agency's office boy Shri Sandeep Patel and thereafter, Shri Bharat Shah handed over the cash amounting to Rs. 2,05,500/- to Shri Ashutosh Vasant. The chain of events shows that having received total cash amount of Rs. 2,05,500/- on 03.12.2012, 04.12.2012 & 05.12.2012 from M/s Travel World, accused Ashutosh Vasant paid Rs. 2,56,000/- to Travel World vide Cheque No. 098362 drawn on ICICI Bank on 04.12.2012 towards payment of three economy class tickets of Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 76,000/-, booked by him for his family.
2.06 Thus, as per chargesheet, the accused public servant Ashutosh Vasant, has malafidely and fraudulently furnished a false claim for his visit to Sunnyvale, USA and induced M/s RCIL to release an amount of Rs.2,96,500/- towards cost of a business class ticket for the said travel but actually he travelled in economy class and got the business class ticket cancelled from the travel agent and dishonestly pocketed the residual amount and thereby, cheated M/s Railtel Corporation of India Ltd and caused wrongful loss of Rs. 2,06,500/-, to the Government Exchequer and thereby, he committed offences under Section 420 IPC r/w Section 13(2) CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 7 of 97 r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2.07 As per chargesheet, the names of other two accused namely M/s United Telecom Ltd (UTL) and Arun Singh Rawat, Dy. General Manager (ITP) are kept in column no.12 of the chargesheet. M/s United Telecom Ltd (UTL) has not been chargesheeted for lack of evidence. While for accused Sh. Arun Singh, no sanction for his prosecution was accorded by the competent authority. So, in the instant case, only accused Sh. Ashutosh Vasant was chargesheeted, he was summoned and put to trial after framing of charges.
2.08 It is also pertinent to note that in the instant case, earlier a closure report dated 07.07.2021 was filed by the IO for want of any prosecutable evidence. But, vide order dated 17.12.2021, directions were given to CBI to make further investigation into both the set of allegations. Pursuant to said directions, IO made further investigation and forwarded the entire material to the competent authority for according sanction for prosecution against accused Ashutosh Vasant and Arun Singh Rawat. However, the competent authority accorded sanction only for the prosecution of accused Ashutosh Vasant and that too, only for 1st set of allegations pertaining to alleged claim of higher air fare. Sanction was however, declined for the prosecution of both the accused with regard to 2nd set of allegations pertaining to stay in hotel at USA.
Cognizance/Charge
3. After completing the investigation, IO again filed the chargesheet before this court on 30.09.2024, upon which the cognizance was taken on 23.10.2024 and accused Sh.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 8 of 97 Ashutosh Vasant was summoned. Vide order dated 01.07.2025, order on charge was passed and in accordance with said order, a formal charge for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC and criminal misconduct under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) clause (i) and/ or (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused Ashutosh Vasant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and their examination-in-chief is succinctly discussed herein below. All the witnesses were cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel but, as and when required, relevant part of the their cross- examination shall be referred in the later part of this judgment starting under the heading "Analysis of material by the Court". For the sake of convenience, witnesses have been categorized in following eight categories.
(i) Witnesses from RCIL/Railway Board (ii) Witnesses from M/s. Travel World (iii) Witnesses from Banks (iv) Witness(es) from Air India (v) Police Witnesses (i) Witnesses from RCIL/Railway Board
1. Sh. Manik Sinha, the then Additional GM (Personnel & Administration), RCIL (PW-1).
2. Sh. Sanjai Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. (PW-2) CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 9 of 97
3. Sh. Alok Vishnukant Agnihotri, General Manager (Business Development), RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. (PW-3)
4. Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary (Establishment), Railway Board, New Delhi (PW-7)
(ii) Witnesses from M/s. Travel World
5. Ms. Preeti Vinod Vhandra Mehta, Proprietor of M/s.
Travel World (PW-4)
6. Sh. Bharat Shah, Cashier/Accountant of M/s. Travel World (PW-5)
7. Sh. Sandip Jairam Bhai, Office Boy of M/s. Travel World (PW-6).
(iii) Witnesses from Banks
8. Sh. Anand Prakash Babbar, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Union Bank of India, Mumbai (PW-8)
9. PW-9 Sh. Pratik Shah, Assistant Vice-President, HDFC Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmadabad, Gujarat (PW-
9).
(iv) Witness(es) from Air India.
10. Ms. Sneh Sharma, Senior Manager (Commercial), Air India, Safdarjung Booking Office, New Delhi- 110003 (PW-10).
(iv) Police Witnesses
11. Sh. Avnish Kumar, Dy. SP, CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai (PW- 11).
12. IO/Inspector Ravinder Kumar, AC-I, CBI, New Delhi CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 10 of 97 (PW-12).
(i) Witnesses from RCIL/Railway Board
5. PW-1 Sh. Manik Sinha, is the witness from RCIL, who at the relevant time was Additional GM (Personnel & Administration), RCIL. As per his version, in case any employee of Railtel has to go for official tour, then he has to get his tour programme approved through competent authority. For such programme, the official can get his travel ticket booked himself and get it reimbursed from the department or he can also request for making payment to the travel agent directly. The official can also request the department to purchase ticket for such travel and in that eventuality, the department directly pays for the ticket to the Airlines.
5.01 During his examination, Office Order No.41 available in court record as Part of D-10, Page No.283, was shown to PW1 and he deposed that the said office order dated 23.08.2004, was issued under his signature and same was issued with the approval of the then MD, to streamline payment of allowances for tour abroad. He identified his signature on the copy of said office order Mark PW1/A (Part of D-10)]. He further deposed that as per last para of the said order, touring officer after return from the tour had to submit rendition of his account to his office within 30 days.
5.02 PW-1 further deposes that the Tour Programme of accused Ashutosh Vasant, the then GM (Project), Railtel Corporation of India Limited (RCIL) for conducting official tour CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 11 of 97 from 08.12.2012 to 19.12.2012 is available at Page 285 of D- 10, and same bears the signature of Ashutosh Vasant at Point A. PW1 deposed that said tour programme was recommended by Sh. Rajiv Sinha, Director (Project, Operations & Maintenance), RCIL whose signatures, he identified. PW1 proved said tour programme as Ex.PW1/1 (Page 285 of D-10).
5.03 He further deposed that vide Office Note dated 03.12.2012 (D-4, Page 2), accused Ashutosh Vasant had requested the office to make payment of his air-ticket for the aforementioned tour directly to travel agent through whom he had booked the ticket and original invoice of travel agent with printout of air ticket was also enclosed with said request. PW-1 identified the signature of accused on the said office note, as well as on the invoice as he had seen him signing and writing during the course of official duties.
5.04 PW-1 further deposed that after processing the request of accused, he (PW1) had put the endorsement "as per approved tour programme, may please see for payment". The Office Note dated 03.12.2012, Invoice No. IS/1564 dated 01.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.2,96,500/- and Printout of Air-ticket number ETKT 098 2630458749 have been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.) (Part of D-4, pages 2 to 5).
5.05 He further deposed that as per Office Note dated 04.02.2013 (Page 3 of D-6) Ex.PW1/3, accused Ashutosh Vasant after his return from the foreign tour, had submitted the break-up of his expenditure and claimed reimbursement. PW1 proved on record Office Order No.79 dated 24.11.2005 CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 12 of 97 (part of D-7) and Office Order No.41 dated 23.08.2004 as Ex.PW1/4 (D-7) (Colly.) and deposed that said office orders were with respect to the allowances payable for tour abroad.
6. PW-2 Sh. Sanjai Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RailTel Corporation of India Ltd., has been examined for proving the prosecution sanction of Section 19 of PC Act. He deposed that he was CMD of Railtel Corporation of India Ltd. (RCIL). RCIL is a CPSE (Central Public Sector Enterprise) and he was its administrative head and competent to take all decisions on behalf of RCIL as per the powers delegated to him by the Board of Directors of RCIL.
6.01 PW-2 further deposed that in this case, CBI had applied for prosecution sanction in respect of Sh. Ashutosh Vasant (accused), who at the relevant time was GM (Projects) in RCIL. Being CMD of RCIL, he (witness) was the competent authority to appoint and remove the employees at E-8 level. At the relevant time, accused Ashutosh Vasant was at E-8 level in RCIL. He further deposed that alongwith the application, CBI had provided all documents collected during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and CBI report. He had gone through all the said document and after duly applying his mind, he granted prosecution sanction under Section 19 of PC Act against accused Ashutosh Vasant. The prosecution sanction granted by him was forwarded to CBI vide letter of their CVO (Chief Vigilance Officer) Dr. Chandramani Sharma (D-26). PW-2 identified signature of Dr. Chandramni Sharma on D-26 and proved it on record as Ex.PW2/1 (D-26). PW-2 also proved the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 13 of 97 prosecution Sanction dated 13.08.2024 granted by him, available on record as Part of D-26 as Ex.PW2/2 (Part of D-
26).
7. PW-3 Sh. Alok Vishnukant Agnihotri, General Manager (Business Development), RailTel Corporation of India Ltd., deposed that in the year 2019, he was working as Joint GM (Vigilance), Railtel Corporation of India (RCIL) and during that time, IO of CBI had requisitioned some documents from his office, which he provided to the IO vide three Production- cum-Seizure Memos dated 27.12.2019 24.01.2020 and 28.01.2020 Ex.PW3/1 (D-3), Ex.PW3/2 (D-9) and Ex.PW3/3 (D-12) respectively, bearing his signatures at Point A. Vide said memos, he provided the documents mentioned therein to the IO.
8. PW-7 Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh is the Joint Secretary (Establishment), Railway Board, New Delhi, who deposed that on 02.09.2019, he was posted as Director Vigilance (Intelligence), Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001. During that time, vide letter dated 02.09.2019 [Ex.PW7/1 (D-
1)], he had conveyed the extract of order with respect to grant of approval to CBI under Section 17A PC Act to conduct investigation against accused Ashutosh Vasant, the then GGM (Project), RCIL, in a Preliminary Enquiry no. A006 of 2018, AC- I New Delhi. The said order was passed by the then Hon'ble Minister of Railway and he (PW7) simply conveyed Minister's approval vide said letter Ex PW7/1.
(ii) Witnesses from M/s. Travel World
9. PW-4, Ms. Preeti Vinod Vhandra Mehta is the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 14 of 97 Proprietor of M/s. Travel World through whom, the air tickets were booked by the accused. She deposes that she had been doing the business in the name and style of M/s. Travel World since 1992 and they provided all travel related services namely ticketing, hotel booking, help in VISA processing, etc. and her firm was an IATA certified travel agent.
9.01 PW-4 further deposed that during investigation of this case, IO of CBI had visited her office, examined her and recorded her statement. She had provided the IO certain documents pertaining to the booking of tickets, which were got booked through them by Sh. Ashutosh Vasant (accused herein) during the year 2012.
9.02 As deposed further by PW-4, vide letter dated Ex.PW4/1 (D-15), which bears her signature at Point A, she had provided the documents mentioned therein, to the IO. She further deposed that D-16 was an attested copy of printout of ticket of Ashutosh Vasant, having ticket no. ETKT 098 2630458749, booked through her firm on 01.12.2012. She had given said ticket to the IO by attesting under her signature and seal of her travel agency. She identified her signature on D-16 at Point A and exhibited it as Ex.PW4/2 (D-
16) (exhibited subject to objection of lack of certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act).
9.03 As deposes further by PW-4, D-17 Ex.PW4/3 (D-
17), is the attested computer generated copy of the Invoice No. IS/ 1564 dated 01.12.2012, which bears her signature at Point A. As per her version, the said invoice was raised by her firm in the name of accused Ashutosh Vasant in respect of the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 15 of 97 aforementioned ticket booked through them. The invoice was generated on the same day when the ticket was booked and the said ticket was for travel in business class.
9.04 PW-4 further deposes that D-18 [Ex.PW4/4 (D-
18)] is attested computer generated copy of Credit Note No. IV/27 dated 01.12.2012, bearing her signature at Point A and said credit note was issued in the name of accused Ashutosh Vasant as he had telephonically requested them to cancel the aforementioned business class ticket and consequently, the credit note was generated on the same day after the ticket was canceled.
9.05 As deposed further by PW-4, D-19 [Ex.PW4/5 (D-
19)] is the attested copy of Client Ledger for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and it bears her signature at Point A. The said ledger is pertaining to transactions of accused Ashutosh Vasant recorded in their firm in day-to-day business. The ledger was computer generated copy and runs into two pages. She further deposes that the said ledger contains all the entries, which were made with respect to credit and debit entries against booking of ticket and cancellation of ticket. She further says that D-20 is the attested copy of the account statement of her company's bank account no. 435501010030010 maintained at Union Bank of India.
9.06 She further deposed that D-21 [Ex.PW4/6 (D-21)], bearing her signature at Point A, was an attested copy of printout of ticket of Ashutosh Vasant, having ticket no. ETKT 098 2631849636-37, booked through them on 30.11.2012. As deposed further, after cancellation of ticket, credit note was CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 16 of 97 issued and difference amount in business and economy ticket was refunded to her client Ashutosh Vasant. Initially, her agency had drawn cheques in the name of accused Ashutosh for payment of difference amount and asked him to collect the cheques. However, on his (accused's) request, cheques were encashed by her staff and money was handed over to him and account was settled.
10. PW-5 Sh. Bharat Shah, is the Cashier/Accountant of M/s. Travel World. He deposed that he had been working in M/s. Travel World since 1995 as cashier. He identified the accused before the Court. He testified that D-17 Ex.PW4/3 was the invoice with respect to booking of ticket and particulars for said invoice were entered by him in the computer system of his firm and said printout Ex. PW4/3 was taken by him. He deposes futher that D-18 Ex.PW4/4 is the credit note with respect to cancellation of booking of ticket and particulars of said credit note were entered by him in the computer system of the firm and said printout was taken by him. D-19 Ex.PW4/5 is the printout of ledger of accused Ashutosh Vasant who was the client of his firm and used to book ticket and avail services from his office. Particulars, in the said ledger were entered by him (witness) in the computer system and said printout was also taken by him.
10.01 He further deposed that as per their record, cheque no. 447304 dated 03.12.2012 for amount of Rs.55,500; cheque no. 447307 dated 04.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.80,000 and cheque no. 447313 dated 05.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.70,000, were drawn in the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 17 of 97 name of accused Ashutosh. The entries relating to said cheques are reflected in ledger of accused Ashutosh Vasant and also account statement of Union Bank of India (D-20).
10.02 PW-5 further deposed that the aforementioned three cheques were encashed by their office peon Sandeep Patel, who handed over the withdrawn cash to him on the same date of cheque. After two/three days, said collected cash was handed over to accused Ashutosh Vasant by him (witness) and he had made the entries in the ledger account in respect of said cheques. However, no receipt was taken from accused Ashutosh Vasant against the payment of cash of Rs.2,05,500 made to him (Ashutosh Vasant).
11. PW-6 Sh. Sandip Jairam Bhai, is the Office Boy of M/s. Travel World, 104, Aakansha, 46 Shrimali Society, Near MT Carmel Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmadabad- 380009, Gujarat. He deposed that he had been working as Office Boy with M/s Travel World since last 20 years. He used to be sent to the bank for depositing and collecting cash. Whatever cash, he used to collect from bank, he used to hand over the same to Sh. Bharat Shah in account department. He further deposed that he did not remember the date, however, during his job in M/s. Travel World, he was given a cheque in the name of Ashutosh Vasant for encashment from the bank. He deposed further that he had seen accused Ashutosh Vasant coming to his office for the purpose of ticketing. Further he deposed that whenever, he used to go to collect payment against bearer cheque from the bank, he had no reason to see the name of the holder and he simply used to collect the cash CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 18 of 97 and hand over the same in his office.
(iii) Witnesses from Banks
12. PW-8 Sh. Anand Prakash Babbar, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Union Bank of India, Mumbai, deposes that while he was posted as Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, CG Road Branch, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, he vide his letter dated 26.11.2020, provided CBI with the requisitioned information in respect of an ongoing investigation and also supplied the IO with the certified copy of account statement (computer generated printout) with respect to the bank account no. 435501010030010 of M/s. Travel World for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2012 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and certificate under Section 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act. The said Covering letter dated 26.11.2020 alongwith account statement and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Bankers Book of Evidence were proved by him as Ex.PW8/1 (Colly.) 12.01 He further deposed that despite thorough search of the record of the branch, he could not trace out three cheques bearing no. 447304, 447307 and 44731. However, with respect to encashment of said cheques, there are entries at page 58 of said account statement. He deposes that said cheques were enchashed after the signatures of the drawer were found matching with the signature of the account holder and there was sufficient balance in the account of account holder to honour said cheque and that the name of the payee of said cheques is also reflected in the account statement Ex.PW8/1 (Colly.) (D-22).
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 19 of 97
13. PW-9 Sh. Pratik Shah, Assistant Vice-President, HDFC Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmadabad, Gujarat deposed that during his tenure as Sr. Manager, HDFC Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, the IO of CBI had requisitioned account statement of the bank account no. 00062560004099, which was in the name of M/s. Travel World for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2012 and accordingly, he supplied said statement alongwith his certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Bankers Book of Evidence Act duly signed by him. The printouts of account statement and certificates are Ex.PW9/1 (Colly.) (D-23).
(iv) Witness from Air India.
14. PW-10 Ms. Sneh Sharma is a Senior Manager (Commercial), Air India, Safdarjung Booking Office, New Delhi-110003. She deposed that she had been working as Senior Manager with Air India since 2023. She had worked with Sh. Tarun Kumar, who had worked there as Associate Manager (Commercial) from 2020 till he retired in August 2024.
14.01 On being shown D-24 & D-25, which are the letters dated 06.02.2020 and 24.02.2020 written by Sh. Tarun Kumar, Sr. AGM (Reservation), to Inspector Ravinder Kumar, she identified signature of Sh. Tarun Kumar on the aforementioned letters and proved them collectively as Ex.PW10/1 (Colly) (D-24 and D-25).
14.02 She further deposed that M/s. Accelya Kale Solutions was an agency, which used to maintain record of passengers' PNR and other data and M/s. Akbar Travels of CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 20 of 97 India Pvt. Ltd., which also used to book tickets, was one of agents of their firm. As per her deposition, a Void Ticket is a ticket which gets cancelled on the very same date of its booking before 12.00 midnight and in that eventuality, the booking details of the ticket that is, its PNR, name of the passenger etc. do not get reflected in the system.
14.03 As has come further in the testimony of PW-10, no payment is made to Air India in respect of the Void Ticket by the person/agent who books the ticket and the agent charges only the service charge for preparation and processing of the void ticket but, the agent does not receive any payment of ticket fare from the customer in respect of void ticket, as there is no transaction in respect of a void ticket. She further deposed that as per letter Ex.PW10/1 (Colly.) (part of D-24), in respect of ticket no. 2630458749 (business class), Air India had charged Rs.100/- as void charges.
14.04 She deposes further that it depends upon the relation of the agent with the customer because in case, a person is a regular customer of the agent, the agent some time may book the ticket even without collecting the ticket fare and in the event of the cancellation of ticket, he may charge the nominal cancellation charges even without receiving any payment from the customer. However, from a new customer, the agents usually take the money in advance and then books the ticket.
(iv) Police Witnesses
15. PW-11 Sh. Avnish Kumar, Dy. SP, CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai, is the officer, who conducted the preliminary inquiry CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 21 of 97 and based upon the PE report, he filed the complaint which led to registration of instant FIR. He deposes that during the year 2018, when he was posted as Inspector, CBI, AC-I, New Delhi Branch, he was entrusted with the enquiry of PE No.06/2018 registered against accused Ashutosh Vasant, the then Director, RCIL for a misconduct and after completion of enquiry, he filed a complaint against said accused, which led to registration of RC of present case i.e. RC6(A)/2019 at AC-I Branch, New Delhi. He proved his aforementioned complaint as Ex.PW11/1 (D-2).
16. PW-12 Inspector Ravinder Kumar, AC-I, CBI, New Delhi is the IO of the case. He deposed that this case was entrusted to him for investigation and during investigation, he collected documents, recorded statement of witnesses and filed chargesheet against accused Ashutosh Vasant for committing offence under Section 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act. PW-12 further deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that accused Ashutosh Vasant, being a senior officer was entitled to business class/executive class air tickets for his official tours and he had booked an economic class air ticket for traveling to US for an official tour during November-December, 2012. Initially, he (accused) booked a business class/executive class ticket for said tour and got the payment done of business class ticket to the travel agent from his office. However, subsequently, the Business class ticket was cancelled/void but, the payment was not returned to the office by the accused Ashutosh Vasant.
16.01 He further deposed that during investigation, upon CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 22 of 97 examination of the witnesses from the travel agent and the witnesses from the office of the accused, it was revealed that the Railtel had made payment of Rs.2,96,500/- towards the business class ticket of the accused. But, the accused had travelled by economic class for which fare was around Rs.90,000 and the difference amount of Rs.2,05,500/- was paid in cash to the accused by the travel agent after withdrawal against three bearer cheques issued by the travel agent in the name of Ashutosh. The said three cheques however, were not traceable by the bank but the name of the payee was mentioned as Ashutosh in the account statement of the travel agent. He further deposed that it was also found that the travel agent had also maintained a ledger account in the name of accused Ashutosh Vasant, and said ledger account also reflected said payments made by the travel agent to the accused.
16.02 PW-12 further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/1 (D-3), he had collected documents from Alok Vishnukant Agnihotri. D-4 was the payment voucher collected from Railtel with respect to payment of Rs.2,96,500 to Travel World through NEFT in pursuance of request of Ashutosh Vasant and invoice of Travel World dated 01.12.2012. During investigation, he had also collected documents from Ms. Preeti Mehta, owner of M/s. Travel World vide letter already exhibited as Ex.PW4/1 (D-15). Alongwith said covering letter, she had provided attested copy of business class ticket no. 098 2630458749 dated 01.12.2012, which was booked by accused Ashutosh Vasant on 01.12.2012. Attested copy of invoice CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 23 of 97 dated 01.12.2012 with respect to business class ticket is already Ex.PW4/3 (D-17). After cancellation of business class ticket, M/s. Travel World had issued credit note Ex.PW4/4 (D-
18) in the name of accused Ashutosh Vasant. Client ledger statement of Ashutosh Vasant maintained by M/s. Travel World is Ex.PW4/5 (D-19). Account statement of Union Bank of India given by travel agent to the IO is available on Court file as D- 20, which reflects three cheque payments in the name of Ashutosh on three dates 03.12.2012, 04.12.2012 and 05.12.2012 totaling to amount of Rs.2,05,500/-. As per PW12, these entries are also reflected in the client ledger of M/s. Travel World in ledger of Ashutosh Vasant.
16.03 It was further testified by PW-12 that during investigation, he had written a letter to Union Bank of India to produce the aforementioned three cheques by which aforesaid withdrawals were made. Vide letter dated 26.11.2020 exhibited as Ex.PW8/1, the bank had informed that the said three cheques were not traceable. During investigation, vide letters dated 20.02.2020 and 24.02.2020 Ex.PW10/1 (Colly) (D-24 & 25), he had also written to Air India for collecting documents and record pertaining to this case and in pursuance thereto, Sh. Tarun Kumar had provided him the information. After completion of investigation, PW12 submitted request for prosecution sanction against the accused, which was received vide sanction order dated 13.08.2024 (Ex.PW2/2).
Statement of Accused/Defence Evidence
17. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 24 of 97 wherein, all the incriminating evidence was put to him but the same was denied by him as wrong and incorrect. The accused pleaded his innocence and came up with the plea that he had been falsely implicated. The accused categorically denied that he ever directed the travel agent to cancel the official ticket either telephonically or otherwise, on the day of booking nor he was aware of any credit note issued by the travel agent for the cancellation of the business class ticket. He also denied that the difference amount of the official ticket and the economy class ticket was refunded to him. Accused stated that M/s Travel World, through witnesses PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 had cooked up a false story to save themselves against any civil or criminal action.
17.01 He further stated that since the cancellation was not done at his behest, there was no question of him receiving the refund towards cancellation of ticket. He completely denied any knowledge of the cheques allegedly issued in his name. He further pleaded that the ledger account was an internal document of the travel agent and in order to save themselves from any criminal or civil action, the same was forged and fabricated to escape the radar of authorities. It was further stated that in absence of any proof of the alleged refund of payment, it is clear that the money was siphoned off by the travel agent and they fabricated their internal records to escape the legal consequences of their ill deeds.
17.02 It was further stated by the accused that neither in the office note dated 04.02.2013 (Ex. PW1/3) nor at any other point of time after his return from the official tour, he ever CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 25 of 97 claimed to have travelled in business class for his official tour. On the contrary, upon his return from the subject tour, he had verbally informed his competent authority MD R.K.Bhahuguna that he had travelled in economic class with his family. He stated that the said office note dated 04.02.2013 (Ex. PW1/3) pertained to settlement of advances received by him and claim for reimbursement of expenditure made by him during said official tour.
17.03 Accused has also filed detailed additional statement under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C on record wherein he claimed that upon his return from the USA, he had informed his Competent Authority, MD, Sh. R.K. Bahuguna, that since he (accused) could not afford paying for business class travel of his wife and two children and the travel agent was also not able to manage complementary upgrade for them to Business Class on Delhi-Chicago-Delhi therefore, he instead travelled in economy class to be with his family on this arduous long journey of almost 16 hours.
17.04 It is further stated in the additional statement that accused has been victimized in this case by the MD Sh. RK Bahuguna, who sat quiet on the issue from 2012 to a day before his retirement i.e. 28.09.2017, but he wrote to ACB, CBI , New Delhi vide letter no. RCIL/2017/CMD Sectt/RB/41 dated 28.09.2017, after a lapse of five years, fixing a list of 6 charges vindictively alleging a series of baseless allegations against him starting with the allegation of manipulation in the finalization of DWDM tender. This action of Sh. Bahuguna was vindictively motivated, as despite his and Sh. Sanjai Kumar's CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 26 of 97 [the present CMD of RailTel (PW-2)] best efforts, they could not prevent accused's elevation as a Board Member of RCIL.
17.05 Accused further stated that with his taking over and being assigned the additional charge of CMD from 03.10.2017, Sh. Sanjai Kumar's (PW-2) ambitions were clearly frustrated. He (Sanjai Kumar) therefore, colluded with Sh. Bahuguna to ensure that accused was derailed by way of the present CBI case where all the bogus allegations were raised against accused to bring the case under the radar of CBI and then keep that lingering so that his career could be terminally damaged. The additional charge of CMD RCIL of the accused stood withdrawn on 23.04.2018 with the registration of CBI Preliminary Enquiry on 17.04.2018 in the instant case and he was not allowed to appear in the selections held for the post of CMD of RCIL.
17.06 Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence. Arrguments were advanced at length by Ld. Counsel Sh. Arshdeep Singh Khurana for the accused Ashutosh Vasant. On behalf of CBI, the arguments were addressed by Ld. Public Prosecutor, Ms. Amita Verma. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of CBI and the accused person. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised from both the sides and also carefully perused the entire record including the written arguments and the supporting judgments filed on record by the parties.
Submissions on behalf of Prosecution
18. Ms. Amita Verma, Ld. PP for CBI has argued that CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 27 of 97 prosecution has been able to successfully prove the charges against the accused by leading clinching evidence both in the form of direct as well circumstantial/link evidence. She has taken me through the testimony of all the important prosecution witnesses and also referred to all the relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution. The broad arguments are noted as under.
18.01 That the accused Ashutosh Vasant and and his one more colleague were nominated by RCIL to visit USA to oversee the demonstration of Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) to be given by M/s Infinera at Sunnyvale, USA. M/s Infinera was a US based entity with whom M/s United Telecom Limited (UTL) had entered into a consortium tie up for participating in a tender awarded to UTL by the RCIL. The tour to USA for said purpose, was scheduled from 08.12.2012 to 19.12.2012, and the same was recommended/approved by Sh. Rajeev Sinha, Director (Project, Operation and Maintenance), RCIL vide endorsement on Ex. PW1/1 (page no. 285 of D-10).
18.02 That the accused Ashutosh Vasant, being an E-8 level public servant in RCIL, was entitled to business class air ticket for his official tours. He booked for himself a sham business class E-ticket bearing no. ETKT 098 263045749 Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (D-4, page 4) through his travel agent M/s Travel World. Invoice No. IS-1664 dated 01.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,96,500/- Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (D-4, page 3), was raised by the travel agent in respect of said ticket. Vide Office Note dated 03.12.2012 Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (D-4, page 2), accused made a request to his department for payment of said amount CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 28 of 97 to the travel agent directly. The department, accordingly made the payment of said amount in favour of the travel agent M/s Travel world through RTGS, vide payment voucher bearing no. 2038 dated 04.12.2012 Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (D-4, page 1).
18.03 That the accused however, had already booked 4 economy class air tickets with Air India on 30.11.2012 for his entire family including himself in the same very flight of Air India for the same very visit to USA. The Economy Class ticket of the accused bearing no. ETKT 098 2631849636-37, which was also booked through M/s Travel World on 30/11/2012, is available on record as part of Ex PW 4/6 (D-21), and the same shows that the travel plan in said E-ticket was different from the officially approved plan. As per the Client Ledger maintained by M/s Travel World Ex.PW 4/5(D-22), the said four tickets were booked for a sum of Rs.3,46,000/-. However, after credit of payment for the business class ticket to the tune of Rs.2,96,500/- by the Department to the account of travel agent, accused took the refund of the difference/excess amount of Rs.2,05,500/- from the travel agent, after deduction of Rs. 1000/- charged by the travel agent towards cancellation charges of business class ticket and Rs.90,000/- towards air fare of the economy class ticket of the accused booked on 30.11.2012. As per the version of PW-4 and 5, the witnesses from M/s Travel World, accused verbally instructed them to cancel his business ticket booked through them and accordingly, the Business Class Ticket of the accused was cancelled on very same day of booking i.e. on 01.12.2012 and as asked by accused, he was provided with the copy of Air CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 29 of 97 ticket Ex. PW4/2 and invoice no. IS/1564 dated 01/12/2012 Ex.PW4/3, raised by M/s. Travel World for said ticket.
18.04 That in the client ledger statement Ex. PW4/5 (D-
19), first the debit entry of Rs. 2,96,500/- was made in the account of the accused in respect of travel dated 08.12.2012 through AI 127 (business class ticket) on 01.12.2012 and thereafter, on the same date of 01.12.2022, a credit entry of Rs. 2,95,500/- was made in the account of the accused in respect of the travel dated 08.12.2012 by AI 127 IS1/1564 (economic class). The said ledger account Ex. PW4/5 further reflects the debit entries of three different amounts of Rs. 55,500/- dated 03.12.2012, Rs. 80,000/- dated 04.12.2012 and Rs. 70,000/- dated 05.12.2012 vide three bearer cheques nos. 447304; 447307, 447313 respectively issued by travel agent in the name of accused and as per his instruction the same were got encashed by the travel agent through their office boy PW6 Sandeep Jairambhai Patel, who handed over said cash to the cashier PW5 Bharat Shah, who in turn handed it over to the accused.
18.05 That the intention of the accused was dishonest from the very beginning because, before getting a business class ticket booked on 01.12.2012, he had already booked the economic class ticket for his entire family including himself on 30.11.2012 for travelling to USA. It was argued that it is only to raise a higher claim for business class ticket, the accused subsequently, booked a business class ticket for himself, which he got immediately cancelled through his travel agent on the very same date. However, after the department made the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 30 of 97 payment of Rs. 2,95,500/- in travel agent's account, accused got the refund of the remaining amount of Rs. 2,05,500/- after adjustment of the air fare of Rs. 90,000/- for the economy class ticket of the accused which was booked on 30.11.2012 and deduction of Rs.1000 towards cancellation charges of business class ticket.
18.06 That PW-5 has duly proved the ledger account Ex.PW4/5, as it was he, who used to maintain the ledger account in respect of the clients of M/s Travel World in their office computer. It was further argued that testimonies of PW- 4, PW-5 and PW-6 are well in consonance with each other and also find support from the other link evidence of bank statement of M/s Travel World account with Union Bank of India, which is available on record as part of Ex. PW8/1 (colly) (D-22 page no.1440). As per said account statement, three cheques were issued from the account of M/s Travel World in the name of accused Ashutosh and same were encashed on three different dates i.e. on 3,4 and 5th December, 2012.
18.07 That after completion of his aforementioned visit to USA, the accused returned back to India on 19.12.2012. Vide Settlement Note Ex PW1/3 is( D-6, Page No.3), duly signed by the accused on 04.02.2013, he raised a final bill with the Department for settling his accounts regarding aforementioned tour. However, in said note, accused never disclosed to his Department regarding cancellation of his business class ticket or his having actually traveled through economy class, which clearly shows that the intention of the accused was to cheat RCIL from the very beginning and he CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 31 of 97 wrongfully enriched himself by causing loss to the RCIL. On the basis of false claim raised by the accused regarding his business class ticket for his official tour and enclosed ticket and the invoice for the same, the accused induced RCIL to release the payment and caused wrongful loss of Rs. 2,05,500/- to RCIL.
18.08 That, it is thus proved on record by evidence that Ashutosh Vasant had travelled through Economy class and had claimed payment in lieu of Business Class Air Ticket from his office, and got difference amount of Rs 2,05,500/- from travel agent in cash and thereby, he caused loss of Rs.2,05,500/- to RCIL. By his aforesaid act, accused caused wrongful loss to RCIL and wrongful gain to himself and committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC and criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC, Act, 1988 (as it existed prior to Amendment Act 16 of 2018).
Submissions on behalf of Accused
19. Per contra, Sh. Arshdeep Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that CBI has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused as there is no cogent evidence to prove that accused derived any wrongful benefit/pecuniary advantage or caused any wrongful loss to anyone or to prove that there was any dishonest intention on his part to cheat anyone. Following are some broad arguments advanced on behalf of the accused.
19.01 It has been argued that initially, accused and his two more colleagues were nominated to visit the factory site of M/s. Infinera at Sunnyvale, USA for demonstration of CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 32 of 97 equipment functionality under the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT). The nominated officials decided to carry their families along by paying their fare as per the norms in RCIL. However, on account of the visa of one of the nominated members being rejected twice, there was constant shifting of tour schedule and dates. For said reason, the accused approached the MD to freeze the dates of the tour program so that he could book the ticket for his family at his own cost at lowest rates of flight tickets, else booking tickets at the nick of the moment, would come heavy on his pocket as he had already decided to take his family along at his own cost and expenses.
19.02 Since the Emirate Airlines rates of air tickets were found to be cheapest, though non-refundable, the accused proposed to travel by economy class through said Airline to enable himself to travel with his family and upon an oral concurrence of the MD, the accused instructed his travel agent M/s Travel World to book four economy class tickets of Emirate Airlines for accused and his family i.e. his wife and two sons. But surprisingly, a day after the accused gave the consent to travel agent for booking, he (Ashutosh Vasant) was informed that he was permitted to travel only by Air India despite the fact that, there was no such policy of RCIL to travel only by Air India for official tours.
19.03 Thereafter, a new tour programme Ex. PW1/1 (D- 10 page no. 411) by Air India was submitted for approval on 26.11.2012 by quickly collecting the flight details from the travel agent and the same was recommended by Sh. Rajeev Sinha, Director (Project, Operation and Maintenance) on CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 33 of 97 29.11.2012. Thereafter, vide note dated 03.12.2012, Ex. PW1/2 (colly-page no.1), accused requested his Department to make the payment to his travel Agent M/s Travel World for his air ticket which was partially business class (Delhi to Chicago and Chicago to Delhi through Air India) and partially economy class (Chicago to San Fransisco and San Fransisco to Chicago through American Airlines). Alongwith the said note, he also enclosed the invoice IS 1564 dated 01.12.2012 part of Ex. PW1/2 and the e-ticket (Travel itinerary) of Air India sent by his M/s Travel World.
19.04 In the said note Ex. PW1/2 (page no.1), the accused requested his department to send him confirmation after the payment was done. It is only on 04.12.2012, after the the RCIL raised a voucher for clearing the payment of Rs.2,96,500/- to the account of travel agent by RTGS, the accused made the cheque payment of Rs. 2,56,000/- to M/s Travel World for the economy class tickets of his wife and two sons, for which the soft booking was got done through M/s Travel world on 30.11.2012. The payment was made by the accused vide a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank from his salary account on 04.12.2012.
19.05 In the backdrop of said circumstances, the prosecution argument that accused deliberately withheld the information regarding his having already booked economy class ticket for himself and his family is totally misconceived. Whereas, the fact was that by 03.12.12, only a soft booking of tickets was done, in order to avoid last time cancellation of the program by his department, because in that scenario, accused CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 34 of 97 had decided to take his family for a personal tour to USA at his own cost after taking leave from his office for said period. Furthermore, on 03.12.12, when accused sent an office note requesting his department for payment of his business class ticket, he had no knowledge of cancellation or voiding of said ticket, nor the prosecution has placed any credible evidence to prove it otherwise.
19.06 First of all, only the soft booking was done for the economy class tickets of the accused and his family on 30.11.2012 and no payment was made by the accused towards any of said tickets prior to 04.12.2012. Even on 04.12.2012, accused made payment for tickets of his family only and not for his own ticket. However, since the flight to Chicago from Delhi was a long travel of almost 16 hours, the accused decided to travel with his family to comfort them and therefore, he asked his travel agent for a complimentary upgrade of tickets for his family to business class, which was however, declined by the travel agent. It is only thereafter, the accused decided to travel with his family in the economy class for which his agent arranged for an economy class ticket at the last minute request of the accused. However, the agent did not seek any extra amount from the accused and accused got an impression that since business class ticket cost much more than the economy class ticket, his ticket for business class might have been converted into an economy class ticket by Air India upon the request of the travel agent, who generally have their own business arrangements with the airline for booking, ticketing and payments.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 35 of 97 19.07 The Counsel vehemently argued that the travel agent never informed him about the cancellation of his business class ticket or any credit note raised by them in that regard. Further, the prosecution argument that E-ticket Ex PW4/2 was a sham document is totally baseless as the same is only an E-ticket containing travel itinerary and it was provided to the accused by the travel agent and even as per the witness examined Air India, said ticket was booked on 01.12.2012 as per their record, though the PNR and other details got removed from their system after it was voided on the same date of its booking.
19.08 It was argued that E-ticket Ex. PW4/2 was a genuine document and it is not even the case of the prosecution that it was a sham or forged document. Even as per prosecution case, said ticket was booked with Air India on 01.12.2012. At the time, when the accused submitted said ticket with RCIL with the office note Ex PW1/2, accused had no knowledge of the cancellation/voiding of said ticket from his travel agent, nor he was informed about it even subsequently at any point of time. As deposed by PW10, Senior Manager (commercial) from Air India, booking of an air ticket can be cancelled on the very same date of its booking before 12 midnight. And there is no credible evidence to establish that said ticket was cancelled/voided on the same day of its booking or to establish that accused had any knowledge of voiding/cancellation of said ticket when he sent his request for payment of said ticket on 03.12.2012 and in this backdrop, there is no question of any inducement or cheating.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 36 of 97 19.09 For attracting the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC or for the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the presence of dishonest intention on the part of the accused to derive wrongful gain for himself and to cause wrongful loss to the victim, is the most essential ingredient. Whereas, in the instant case, except the verbal testimony of the witnesses from M/s Travel World, there is no other evidence to show that the accused derived any monetary benefit for himself or any other person by employing any corrupt or illegal means alleged.
19.10 He further argued that the testimony of witnesses from M/s Travel World i.e. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, suffers from serious infirmities, discrepancies and contradictions and hence, the said witnesses are not trustworthy and no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. Furthermore, said witnesses had a vested interest to depose against the accused as otherwise, they would come under the radar of the authorities for clandestinely pocketing the residual amount. Further, the ledger account Ex. PW4/5 as relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate their version, is a false document on the face of it and it is nothing but a self created document prepared by M/s Travel World to cover up their misdeeds as it was the travel agent, who unauthorisedly and without the knowledge of the accused cancelled his business class ticket on 01.12.2012, and pocketed the difference amount.
19.11 The 03 bearer cheques, which were allegedly encashed on 03.12.2012, 04.12.2012 and 05.12.2012, were CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 37 of 97 never placed on record. As per the witness from Union Bank of India, which is the drawee bank, the said three cheques could not be traced out. As such, the prosecution failed to place on record either the 03 cheques or their deposit slips vide which said 03 bearer cheques were deposited in the bank for encashment. Moreover, the cheques in question bear the name of payee as 'Ashutosh', without mentioning the full name of the payee. The said omission raises a significant doubt about the intention of the drawer of said cheques regarding identity of the withdrawer of the cash.
19.12 Furthermore, no plausible reason has been furnished by the prosecution as to why the refund which has been allegedly made by the travel agent to the accused of the difference amount, was made even prior to receipt of any payment from the RCIL and why the 3 bearer cheques of different dates were issued for refund of amount to the accused. From theses circumstances, it appears that it was the travel agent, who malafidely pocketed the amount of Rs. Rs.2,05,500/-, which they have alleged to have paid to the accused in cash and in order to cover it up, they cooked up the entire story of refund of difference amount and created manipulated records in order to support their plea.
19.13 It was further argued that the accused had never asked his travel agent to cancel his official ticket nor he was informed that his business ticket was voided by the travel agent on 01.12.2012 and till the accused was called for investigation by the IO in the instant case, the accused was never cognizant of the fact that his official ticket was voided CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 38 of 97 on the very date of its issuance. Further the accused never received any alleged credit note of Rs. 2,95,500/- from the travel agent against cancellation of official ticket nor CBI has been able to place any material to show receipt of any such credit note by the accused.
19.14 Ld counsel further argued that it is totally incomprehensible as to how a credit note was issued on 01.12.2012, when the payment was transferred by RCIL only on 04.12.2012 through RTGS, which was credited in the account of travel agent only on 06.12.2012. Not only the credit note was raised prior to any receipt from RCIL but, the refund was also allegedly paid to the accused before such receipt of money from RCIL. Furthermore, the e-ticket booked by the travel agent on 01.12.2012, Ex.PW4/2 clearly shows that it was partly business class and partly economy class ticket, as the flight from Delhi to Chicago and Chicago to Delhi sector in Air India was business class, while the second leg of travel from Chicago to San Fransisco and San Fransisco to Chicago in American Airlines was economy class.
19.15 Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the requisite approval of Section 17A PC Act because, except the letter of Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh (PW-7), whereby, he merely conveyed the prosecuting agency about the alleged approval given by the competent authority i.e. Ministry of Railways to conduct the investigation, no other document has been place on record. The actual approval if any, granted by the competent authority was never filed on record by the IO nor even PW-7 CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 39 of 97 brought any such record during the course of his examination in the court.
19.16 It has been further argued that the sanction under Section 19 PC Act Ex. PW2/2 also suffers from complete non- application of mind, as the sanction order wrongly mentions that the economy class ticket was booked on 29.11.2012, while it was actually booked on 30.11.2012. It also wrongly mentions that the official ticket was a business ticket whereas, said ticket was partly business and partly economy class ticket. It also wrongly mentions that a credit note of Rs. 2,96,500/- was submitted by the accused with RCIL whereas, it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that any such credit note was submitted by the accused with his department. Further as per Para no.3 of the sanction order Ex. PW2/2, a false TA claim bill was lodged. Whereas, in the TA claim bill/Office Note Ex. PW1/3, which was submitted by the accused with the department on 04.02.2012 for settling the account in connection with his official tour to USA, the accused has nowhere claimed that he had traveled in a business class as alleged in the sanction order. Further, PW-12 failed to send the closure report to sanctioning authority while applying for prosecution sanction under Section 19 of PC Act and also failed to handover the draft charge-sheet, which is mandated in law as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) SSC OnLine SC 1030'.
19.17 It was further argued that investigation carried out in the present case is manifestly defective, biased and one CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 40 of 97 sided, which is evident from the fact that the CBI had earlier filed a closure report for want of prosecutable evidence but, on the very same material, instant charge-sheet was filed by CBI after a gap of more than 02 years without collecting even iota of any additional evidence either by way of collecting any document or by examining any witness. Furthermore, despite the fact that the accused during the course of investigation informed the IO (PW-12) that upon his return, he had duly informed his competent authority MD R.K.Bhahuguna that he (accused) had traveled in the economy class during his official tour, IO/PW-12 failed to make any inquiry from R.K.Bhahuguna nor he cited him as a witness.
Analysis of Material by the Court
20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised from both the sides and also carefully perused the entire material placed on record including the judgments filed by the parties in support of their respective arguments.
21. It is a well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognized as a human right which cannot be washed away. Thus, the prosecution has to establish all essential CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 41 of 97 ingradients of charge framed to allay this presumption of innocence. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment in 'Kailash Gour v. State of Assam 2012 (1) LR C (SC)'.
22. Evidence is the only way to prove or disprove anything and oral testimony apart from the documentary evidence are the ways through which evidence is brought on record. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & another', VI(2003) SLT 307 that the anvil for testing the fact 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is same both in criminal trial or a civil trial. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the material before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
23. Whenever, a fact is sought to be proved through an oral testimony, credibility of the witnesses assumes great important and it becomes the bounden duty of any court to determine if the witnesses examined in that regard are trustworthy and reliable. The court has to further check if they have narrated the factual position in a proper and truthful way and not irresponsibly or recklessly. For ascertaining the credibility of a witness, the court has to further be vigilant of the fact that if, he or she has any malafides or ulterior motive in deposing a particular fact for or against a particular person. Thus, the oral evidence has to undergo this acid test.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 42 of 97
24. In order to correctly understand and appreciate the contentions raised by the parties with regard to the case being proved or not proved on essential ingredients of deception, inducement, dishonest intention, wrongful loss, wrongful gain by way of pecuniary advantage, use of corrupt or illegal means etc., we need to now dwell deeper into various aspects of credibility, admissibility and sufficiency of the prosecution evidence led on record and for that, I would be evaluating the evidence under various heads in the light of broad defence arguments.
Points of Determination
25. The broad crucial aspects for determination would be the ingredients of 'dishonest intention' and 'pecuniary advantage' or 'wrongful gain', which are essentially the important ingredients for both the alleged offences of criminal misconduct and cheating. There are few legal objections raised by the defence relating to the validity of sanction under Section 19 of PC Act, lack of sanction of Section 197 CrPC and failure of prosecution to prove the requisite approval for investigation under Section 17-A of PC Act, 1988 (as per the amended Act of the year 2018), which this court has to deal with in the light of respective contentions of parties and material on record. The aforementioned points of determination shall be discussed by the court under the following heads:-
(i) Deception/Dishonest intention/mens rea
(ii) Pecuniary Advantage/Wrongful Gain/wrongful loss CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 43 of 97
(iii) Validity of Sanction under Section 19 of PC Act
(iv) Lack of Sanction of Section 197 CrPC
(v) Lack of Previous Approval under Section 17-A PC Act, 1988
26. In the instant case, the trial has been conducted for the accused Ashutosh Vasant, who, at the relevant time was General Manager (Projects), RailTel Corporation of India Ltd (RCIL), a CPSU under Ministry of Railways. The accused was an IRSSE officer of 1996 Batch of Indian Engineering Services (IES) and worked in Indian Railways till January 2002. Thereafter, he joined RCIL as DGM on deputation. On 30.04.2008, he took absorption in RCIL after submitting his Technical resignation from IRSSE and on 09.04.2012, he became GM (Projects), RCIL.
27. In nutshell, the allegations against the accused are that, he committed a criminal misconduct (punishable under Section 13(2) PC Act, 1988 as it existed prior Amendment Act 16 of 2018) and cheating (punishable under Section 420 IPC), by raising a false claim of having undertaken an official tour to USA from 08.12.2012 to 19.12.2012 on a business class ticket of Air India booked on 01.12.2012, whereas, he actually traveled through an economy class ticket booked on 30.11.2012. It is alleged that he pocketed the difference amount of the fare by taking its refund from his travel agent and by doing so, he wrongfully enriched himself and caused wrongful loss to govt. exchequer.
Relevant laws and Legal Provisions
28. Before adverting to the evidence adduced on CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 44 of 97 record and the respective arguments raised by the parties, it is necessary to first have a glance of the relevant provisions of law in light of important judicial precedent which laid down the principles governing their interpretation and application. As noted above, one of the charges framed against the accused is that of criminal misconduct punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) (i) & (ii) of PC Act, 1988 as it existed prior to amendment of year 2018.
29. Since the alleged act of misconduct relates to the year, 2012, the provisions of unamended PC Act will apply. Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as it existed prior to Amendment Act 16 of 2018, reads as below :-
Section 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct :-
a) xxxx; or
b) xxxx; or
c) xxxx; or
d) if he, -
i. by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or ii. by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or iii. Xxx
e) xxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
30. Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (now repealed) described criminal CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 45 of 97 misconduct by a public servant who by abuse of his position as a public servant or by corrupt or illegal means obtains a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person. A careful perusal of Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, shows that the phrase 'valuable thing' or 'pecuniary advantage' is a common thread running through all the three clauses of said provision. Under sub clause (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, for which the charge has been framed against the present accused, mens rea or dishonest intention is sine qua non. A public servant could be found guilty of criminal misconduct under said two clauses, if he abused his position as a public servant, acted with dishonest intention, obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person by corrupt or illegal means. The dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under sub-clause
(i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which is implicit in the use of the words 'corrupt or illegal means' and 'abuse of position as a public servant'. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment 'C.K.Jaffer Sharief vs. State' [2013 (1) SCC 205], 'Madhu Koda vs State thru CBI decided on 22 May, 2020 in Crl.A. 1186/2017 and 'Runu Ghosh vs C.B.I in Crl.A. 482/2002, Crl.A. 509/2002, Crl. M.A. 1839/2002 & Crl.A. 536/2002 decided on 21 December, 2011.
31. The other offence with which the accused has been charged in this case is the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. The term cheating has been defined in Section 415 IPC, which reads as under:-
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 46 of 97 415 Cheating:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Section 420 IPC, under which the charge has been framed in this case against the accused reads as under:-
420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
32. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh', decided on 10 September, 2025 in Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9744 of 2024, the ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:
"1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby
2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 47 of 97 omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
7. The words 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' are defined as follows:
24. "Dishonestly"-- Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
25. "Fraudulently"-- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.'' Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain:
"Wrongful gain": Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
"Wrongful loss": Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled."
33. Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is evident that in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby, is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property.
34. It is a settled proposition of law that mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating unless the other essential ingredient, i.e. dishonest inducement is established. "Dishonesty" has been defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such intention, deception is practiced and delivery of property is induced then only the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been committed. Therefore, for attracting the offence of Section 420 CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 48 of 97 IPC, the dishonest intention of the accused at the time of alleged inducement has to be proved as one of the essential ingredient of the offence. In 'Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr' in Appeal (crl.) 313-314 of 2000 decided on 31.03.2000, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that Section 415 IPC contemplates two distinct situations; the first where a person is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the second where a person is induced to do or omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not have done or omitted. In the former, the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest, whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore, intention is the gist of the offence.
35. The aforementioned position of law was reiterated in very recent Judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in 'Vandana vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal no. 3977 of 2025 (@ Special leave petition (Criminal) No. 9317 of 2025), wherein, it was held that both for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC and for the offence of using forged document Section 471 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had a dishonest intention (mens rea).
Deception/Dishonest intention/mens rea
36. As already noted above, one of the most important ingredients which constitute the offence of cheating is deception. Deception can be done to induce the other person to either deliver or retain the property or commit an act or omission. Deceiving is to make a person believe what is false to be true or to make him disbelieve what is true to be false.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 49 of 97 In deception, a fraudulent representation or willful misrepresentation of a fact with an a intention to cheat is necessary.
37. Hence, in order to prove the offence of cheating, not only it is important to prove that a false representation was made by the accused but also that he had the knowledge that the representation was false and willfully made it in order to deceive the victim. Therefore, it is only when the accused knowingly makes a representation that is false, then only he can be made liable for the offence of cheating.
38. Similarly, even for the offence of criminal misconduct, element of mens rea is essentially important. The very use of words 'by corrupt and illegal means' and 'abusing his position as a public servant' in sub-clause (i) & (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) PC Act, impregnates the provision with the element of dishonest intention. A plain reading of Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act would reveal that a public servant can be prosecuted only if he has abused his position as a public servant and obtained for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by using corrupt and illegal means. However, the intention of the legislature is certainly not to punish a public servant for any bonafide omission or any erroneous decision taken by them, but to punish them for corruption. To fall within the four corners of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the decision/conduct of the public servant must be dishonest for amounting to corruption.
39. For proving the ingredients of mens rea/dishonest intention on the part of the accused for the alleged offences, CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 50 of 97 prosecution seeks to rely upon following circumstances:-
1. The accused already had a confirmed economy class ticket of 30.11.2012 for himself, but despite that, vide his office note dated 03.12.2012, the accused placed a request with his department for payment of a different ticket i.e. ticket no. ETKT 098 2630458749, which was a business class tticke and with said office note dated 03.12.2012, he also enclosed the copy of business class ticket and its invoice issued in his name.
2. The accused got the said business class ticket voided/cancelled through his travel agent on the same very date of its booking i.e on 01.12.2012, which shows that even at the time of putting his request to his department for payment of his business class ticket, he had no intention to travel by business class.
3. That the accused got the refund of the difference amount of the two tickets in cash from the travel agent by way of three bearer cheques issued in his name, which upon his request were got encashed by the travel agent through their office boy who handed over the cash amount to their cashier from whom it was collected by the accused.
4. After his return from the aforementioned official tour to USA, the accused settled his accounts in connection with said tour vide office note dated 04.02.2013 Ex. PW1/3. But, in said note, he nowhere disclosed anything about his having traveled through economy class ticket.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 51 of 97
40. Even if it is believed that the accused already had a confirmed economy class ticket of 30.11.2025 for himself for the same tour to USA in the same flight of Air India, whether his act of booking another ticket of business class for the very same flight on 01.12.2012 and asking his department to release payment of said 2nd ticket, would be indicative of his dishonest intention, simply because he later on, didn't travel through business class but preferred to travel through economy class.
41. The accused, being an E-8 level employee, was indisputably entitled to business class ticket, but that doesn't bar him from travelling in economy class. There is nothing wrong if he wanted to keep his option open to decide it later, as to which ticket he will actually be using to travel especially when he had his family travelling in economy class in the same flight, whose tickets he had to freeze on 30.11.2012 for avoiding to pay the escalated fare of their tickets. He had the option to cancel his business class ticket anytime within the time prescribed for cancellation and in that eventuality, what the accused was supposed to do at the most was, to inform his department to seek recovery of the remaining amount from the travel agent after adjusting the cancellation charges if any, and the fare of his economy class ticket, which is usually cheaper than business class tickets. Simply because, the accused failed to keep his department informed in this regard, will not automatically lead to a presumption that he was dishonest or he must have derived some pecuniary advantage unless there is some concrete evidence in this regard.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 52 of 97
42. On behalf of accused, it has been vociferously argued that there is no credible evidence to show that the accused had asked his travel agent for voiding of his business class ticket on the same date of it's booking or he had any knowledge about voiding of said ticket as alleged by the prosecution. It was further contended that there is nothing on record to show that accused had any confirmed booking of his economy class tickets for which he only made a soft booking on 30.11.2012 and same is evident from the fact that accused had made the payment only for the tickets (economy class) of his family members and that too after his department confirmed about the payment of his business class ticket on 04.12.2012.
43. Further, after his return accused had verbally informed the MD, Sh. R.K.Bahuguna, regarding his last minute change of programme and his having travelled with his family in economy class of same very flight of Air India. Accused also disclosed this fact to the IO during his interrogation. In his cross-examination, even IO/PW12 has admitted that accused had disclosed him that he had verbally informed his competent authority MD, RCIL Mr. Bahuguna in this regard and this fact finds mention in accused's statement recorded on 05.11.2020 Ex.PW12/DX-3. But, despite that, for reasons best known to the IO, no efforts were made by the IO to check the veracity of accused's version as the IO neither examined Mr. Bahuguna during investigation nor he cited him as a witness in this case.
44. Having taken note of the above argument, now what is required to be considered is, whether CBI has been CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 53 of 97 able to prove that the business class ticket of the accused which was booked by accused on 01.12.2012, had been voided/cancelled on the same day of its booking and if yes, whether it was done with the knowledge and consent of the accused or as per his instructions as alleged by the prosecution.
45. In this regard, prosecution has placed reliance on the testimony of PW-1 and PW4. PW1 is Sh. Manik Sinha, Addl. GM (P&A) from RCIL. He proved on record the office note dated 03.12.2012 with its enclosures i.e copy of the business ticket ETKT 098 2630458749 dated 01.12.2012 and its invoice No. IS/1564 dated 01.12.2012 for the sum of Rs.2,96,500/- as Ex PW1/2 (Colly.). Vide said office note, accused requested his office to make the payment of his aforementioned business class ticket directly to his travel agent. Pursuant to said office note sent by the accused, RCIL vide voucher dated 04.12.2012 released the payment of said ticket through RTGS and the amount got credited in the account of Travel World in HDFC bank on 06.12.2012.
46. After perusing the air ticket submitted with the notesheet Ex. PW1/2, PW-1 admitted that the second leg of travel of said ticket from Chicago to San Francisco and San Francisco to Chicago was through economy class in American Airways. In his cross-examination, PW-1 further stated that at the relevant time, accused was entitled to business class air ticket for his official foreign tour and there was no policy in RCIL that an employee for his official tour to foreign country had to travel through Air India.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 54 of 97
47. PW1 also proved on record the Tour Program of the accused for the official tour to USA from 08.12.2012 to 19.12.2012 as Ex. PW1/1. Perusal of said document shows that the tour program was prepared by the accused on 26.11.2012 and the same was placed before PW-1 for approval. The note was approved by PW-1 on 29.11.2012. During his cross-examination, PW-1 was also confronted with his letter dated 03.11.2012 Ex. PW1/DX1 to Visa Officer, US Embassy for requesting them for issuance of Visa for three nominated officers of RCIL namely, Sh.Arun Singh Rawat, Sh. Ashutosh Vasant and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar for enabling them to visit USA for the Factory Acceptance Test and PW1 admitted to have written said letter.
48. PW-1 also admitted that out of the three nominated officers of RCIL, the visa of one of the officer namely, Sanjeev Kumar was rejected twice. But he said that, he was not aware whether for said reason, there was frequent changing in the tour program and booking of tickets for the same. PW-1 however, admitted that he had written the letter dated 03.11.2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 to US Embassy for processing the visa application of said three officers including the accused Ashutosh Vasant. As per said letter dated 03.11.2012 Ex. PW1/DX1, the tentative tour program was scheduled from 14.11.2012 to 24.11.2012. In this regard, the IO has also filed on record the previous tour program dated 01.11.2012 prepared by the accused for the said period from 14.11.2012 to 24.11.2012. PW-1 further deposed that the said tour program dated 01.11.2012, was recommended by Director CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 55 of 97 (Project, Operations & Maintenance), RCIL, whose signatures PW1 identified on the same besides the signatures of accused.
49. The reason for the court to refer to the aforementioned part of the version of PW-1 regarding previous tour plan is to check the plausibility of the defence plea taken by the accused that it was on account of constant change in tour program, he was unable to freeze air tickets for his family members who were to go with the accused for said tour. As per the defence plea, earlier also accused had made soft booking of economy class air ticket for himself and his family members through Emirate Airlines, which were found to be of cheapest rate and in that regard, the MD R.K.Bhahuguna had already given his nod. But, just one day after accused was informed that the travel only through Air India is permissible.
50. Although, in his cross-examination, PW-1 feigned his ignorance about any such ticket of Emirates air lines being booked by accused for his air travel through Emirates for the aforementioned official tour but, he admitted that in the note sheet Ex. PW1/2, accused had mentioned said fact that he had earlier booked his travel through Emirate Airlines from Ahmadabad to San Francisco via Dubai but, said tickets had to be canceled on the last minute clarification from P&A that only Air India was permissible. He further admitted that said note sheet was marked to him and he had approved the same.
51. As per the version of PW-1, there was no written policy in RCIL requiring the employees to submit the boarding pass with the department for the purpose of reimbursement and same was not required even in cases where air ticket of CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 56 of 97 the employee had been directly booked by the department or where the department had made the payment to the travel agent. He further admitted that the office orders Ex. PW1/4 (colly)(D-7) were pertaining only to TA/DA and transport and incidental allowance for travel abroad and not for the air tickets. He admitted further that neither in the note sheet Ex.PW1/3 (D-6) (vide which the accused had wrote to the department for final settlement of his accounts in connection with the aforementioned tour) nor in any other document, the accused had claimed that he had traveled on business class ticket for the subject tour.
52. The aforementioned version of PW-1 and the documents referred in his testimony, lends support to the defence plea that on account of constant change of tour program, ticketing and dates, the accused was unable to book the tickets for his family members, who were to accompany him for the aforementioned tour to USA and it is in these circumstances, when the tour program dated 26.11.2012 was approved by PW-1 on 29.11.2012, the accused was still apprehensive that there might occur any further change in the tour program and therefore, this time he had decided that he would take his family for a personal tour even in the event of the program getting further postponed or cancelled by the department. Therefore, he asked his travel agent M/s World Travel for soft booking of economy class tickets for him and his family on 30.11.2012. As informed by Ld. Defence Counsel, soft booking of an air ticket gives flexibility to the passenger to finalize their travel plan while ensuring that price of their ticket CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 57 of 97 does not increase.
53. PW-4 Ms. Preeti Vinod Mehta, the proprietor of M/s Travel World, is another very important witness of the prosecution case. Because, it is the Travel World through whom both the economy and business class ticket of 30.11.2012 and 01.12.2012 respectively, were booked by the accused. As per her version, the economy class ticket ETKT 098 2631849636-37 Ex. PW4/6 (D-21) was booked through M/s Travel World on 30.11.2012. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that the air tickets for the three family members of the accused were booked by M/s Travel World on 30.11.2012 and accused had made payment of Rs.2,56,000/- through cheques towards said tickets and the money was credited in their account on 04.12.2012.
54. The said version of PW-4 to the effect that the payment for the economy class ticket for the three family members of the accused was received by them on 04.12.2012, also supports the defence plea that till the accused received confirmation about the payment of his business class ticket from his department, he did not make the payment towards said tickets of his family members. It is only on 04.12.2012, after RCIL issued a voucher for payment of his business class ticket, the accused made payment for air tickets of his family members. It is thereafter, the accused asked his travel agent for complimentary up-gradation of the economy class ticket of his family members to business class but, his request was declined. Consequent thereto, accused made a last minute request to his travel agent to arrange for an economy class CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 58 of 97 ticket for his travel as the accused wanted to travel with his family. During cross-examination of PW-4, a question was put to her regarding accused having requested them for complimentary upgradation of the economy class ticket of his family members to business class but, she gave an evasive reply that she did not know if accused had requested for said purpose.
55. The prosecution case as put forward in the charge- sheet is that, the accused malafidely and fraudulently furnished a false claim of Rs. 2,96,500/- for his official visit to Sunnyvale, USA and dishonestly induced RCIL to release amount of Rs.2,96,500/- towards the cost of business class ticket for said travel. Whereas, the accused actually traveled in economy class and got the business class ticket cancelled to dishonestly get the residual amount and thereby, he caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 2,06,500/- to the govt. exchequer.
56. As already noted above, the accused being an E-8 level employee of RCIL, was entitled for a business class ticket. Further, it is not a case that he used any forged ticket for getting reimbursement without actually undertaking any such journey. Admittedly, the accused had traveled to Sunnyvale, USA from 08.12.2012 to 19.12.2012 for the purpose to oversee the demonstration of Factory Acceptance Test (FAT). Being an E-8 employee, he had a choice to either travel through economy class or business class. However, after cancellation of the tickets booked through Emirate, he decided to travel through Air India, as per his eligibility. He CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 59 of 97 accordingly prepared a tour plan after collecting the details of available flight and got its approval on 29.11.2012. However, in anticipation of any further change in tour program, the accused asked his travel agent to book economy class ticket for him and his family members and the travel agent accordingly booked 04 economy class tickets on 30.11.2012. As the confirmation from the department regarding payment for business class ticket of accused was yet to come, he did not immediately make any payment for said economy class ticket and instead made payment for said tickets (three tickets of his family) on 04.12.2012 after he got the confirmation.
57. During trial, prosecution has also examined PW-10 Ms. Sneh Sharma, Sr. Manager (Commercial) Air India to prove the documents, which were handed over to IO by Mr. Tarun Kumar Sr. AGM (Reservation) through his letter Ex. PW10/1(colly) (D-24 and D-25). As per the version of PW-10, said documents were handed over in respect of business class ticket no. 2630458749. She also deposed that a void ticket was a ticket which was cancelled on the same very date of its issuance before 12 mid night and in that eventuality, the booking details of said ticket i.e its PNR, name of passenger etc. would not get reflected in the system. It is for this reason, in the document D-24 Ex.PW10/1 (colly) page 1483, only the details of ticket of Arun Singh Rawat at Sr. no.002 find mentioned whereas, there are no details of the air ticket 2630458749, which as per Ex. PW4/2, is a business ticket booked for the accused booked on 01.12.2012. Meaning thereby, that the said business ticket of the accused was CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 60 of 97 voided on the very same date of its booking i.e. on 01.12.2012. But, the point for consideration here is that, whether the accused had the knowledge of voiding of said ticket at the time when he submitted the office note dated 03.12.2012 Ex.PW1/2 (colly) with his department and in case, the voiding/cancellatiion was done on 01.12.2012 after said office note was placed before the department, then whether it was done on the request , instruction or with the knowledge of the accused as alleged by the prosecution.
58. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, who are the witnesses from M/s Travel World. We have already referred to the testimony of PW-4 Preeti Vinod Mehta partly. As per her further version, the invoice IS 1564 dated 01.12.2012 Ex. PW4/3 (D-17) was raised in the name of accused in respect of business class e-ticket no. 098-2630458749, booked through them on 01.12.2012. She deposed that the accused had telephonically directed them to cancel the aforementioned business class ticket and pursuant thereto, the ticket was canceled and a credit no. IV/27 dated 01.12.2012 Ex. PW4/4, was generated on the same day. PW-4 also exhibited the ledger account of the period from01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, pertaining to the transaction of accused Ashutosh Vasant as Ex.PW4/5 (D-19). As per her version, the ledger of said account was maintained in her firm in day to day business. She further testified that the computer generated copy of the economy class ticket of the accused bearing ETKT no. 098- 2631849636-37, which was booked through them by the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 61 of 97 accused on 30.11.2012 was also handed over by her to the IO vide her letter Ex. PW4/1.
59. However, except the aforementioned letter Ex. PW4/1, all the other documents exhibited through PW-4, are computer generated printouts. All said documents were exhibited subject to the defence objection as to their admissibility for lack of certificate of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. As far as the documents Ex.PW4/2 (copy of the computer printout) and Ex. PW4/3 (duplicate invoice IS/1564) are concerned (D-17), the accused himself had submitted said documents with his department with his office note Ex. PW1/2 (colly) and therefore, the objection raised regarding their admissibility loses much of its relevance. The business class ticket and the invoice pertaining to it are both dated 01.12.2012 and same are part of the office note Ex. PW1/2(colly). The invoice at page no. 33 of the file containing D-1 to D-7, also bears the signature of the accused at point A and his signatures were duly identified by Sh. Manik Sinha (PW-1), who at the relevant time was the DGM (P&A) in RCIL and it was he, who proved the said office note. The facts for proving which the prosecution has placed reliance on said documents Ex.PW4/2 & Ex.PW4/3, are not even denied or controverted by the accused during trial.
60. But definitely, the question of admissibility of other two documents i.e. the credit note Ex. PW4/4 and the ledger account Ex. PW4/5 is very material for the prosecution. However, the prosecution has failed to file on record any certificate of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 62 of 97 both of said electronic documents. It is pertinent to note that prosecution failed to cure said defect even subsequently, as despite the objection raised by defence counsel to the admissibility of said documents during examination of PW-4, no certificate of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, came to be filed on record even till date.
61. The Cashier/accountant Bharat Shah examined as PW-5, who claimed to have taken the print out of the said documents Ex. PW4/4 and Ex. PW4/5, never furnished his certificate of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in support of said documents. Hence, in my considered view, the said documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution for corroborating the oral testimony of the witnesses from the M/s Travel World.
62. Even otherwise, careful perusal of the ledger account Ex. PW4/5 shows that the same are not even in the nature of the running account, which are usually maintained by the business entities for maintaining record of on going financial transactions in the regular course of business. The entries made in Ex. PW4/5, do not appear to have been made in regular course of business. In this regard, I may note that the entry regarding economy class ticket of accused Ashutosh Vasant, which as per the prosecution's own case was booked on 30.11.2012, has been shown against the date of 29.11.2012, in said ledger account Ex.PW4/5. While the debit entries in respect of the individual tickets of the family members are shown to have been made on 30.11.2012. Furthermore, the accused had made the payment towards CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 63 of 97 economy class tickets for his family members vide cheque no. 098362 drawn on ICICI Bank dated 04.12.2012, while the entry in this regard was made in the ledger account on 01.12.2012.
63. In the backdrop of above discrepancies, the ledger account Ex. PW4/5 appears to be more like a self created document prepared by the travel agent for their own internal purposes and the entries made therein are not based on day to day transactions. Hence, besides being inadmissible for lack of certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, the ledger account is not even relevant within the meaning of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act so as to have any evidentiary value. Further, the above discrepancies in the ledger account lends support to the defence plea that said record has been fabricated by M/s Travel World for keeping themselves and their misdeeds away from the radar of authorities.
64. Reliance is sought to be placed on few more documents which are part of D-24 (Page 2,3 and 4), collected from Air India, for proving the fact that the business class ticket ETKT 098 2630458749, was voided. It is urged by the prosecution that as per the version of PW10 Sneh Sharma, the Senior Manager (Commercial) from Air India, the very fact that the ticket was voided itself means that it was cancelled on the same date of its booking before 12 midnight.
65. PW10 Sneh Sharma, is the Senior Manager (Commercial) from Air India, who proved on record letter dated 06.12.2012 by identifying the signature of AGM CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 64 of 97 reservation, Mr. Tarun Kumar, who had handed over the IO travel details pertaining to said tickets of accused, vide D-24 (Page 2,3 and 4) and D-25. As per her version, once the ticket is voided, the details of said ticket such as passenger name, PNR etc, are removed from the system. Ld prosecutor has argued that it is for said reason, except the the voiding charges of Rs.100, D-24 Page 2,3,4 do not contain any other details against ticket no. ETKT 098 2630458749, which is the business class ticket of the accused booked on 01.12.2012. However, it is pertinent to note that page no. 2,3,4 of D-24 are also computer generated copies of the data fed in the computer system of Air India. But again, prosecution has not filed any certificate of Section 65-B IEA, in support of said documents and in view thereof, even said documents are inadmissible and of no help to the prosecution.
66. In the backdrop of above circumstances, except the verbal testimony of said witnesses PW4, PW5 and PW6, there is no other legally admissible material to corroborate their version that business class ticket of accused Ashutosh Vasant was cancelled on the same date of 01.12.2012 or that it was cancelled as per the request of accused or that, the difference amount was refunded to him in cash. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, even the role of the travel agent M/s Travel World is not beyond reproach as they had also acted unfairly against the business norms.
67. Here, we must understand that, instant case is not a case, where the employee had made the payment of his travel ticket and sought reimbursement from the employer CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 65 of 97 after his return from journey on submission of air tickets or the boarding passes. In the instant case, vide payment voucher 2038 dated 04.12.2012 (part of D-4), the RCIL had directly made the payment for accused's business class ticket even prior to the date of flight. The payment was released from the bank account of RCIL directly in the bank account of the travel agent M/s Travel World. It is nowhere the prosecution case that accused was required to submit his tickets or boarding passes with his department upon his return from journey. The scheduled journey was duly undertaken by the accused in the same flight of Air India but by an economy class ticket booked on 30.11.2012, which was also booked by the same travel agent M/s Travel World.
68. In such a situation, after business class ticket of the accused was cancelled and he was confirmed about his economy class ticket of the same flight, it was the duty of the travel agent to transfer the excess amount (after adjusting the value of economy class ticket of the accused and the cancellation charges, if any) in the same very bank account of the RCIL from where the payment was received by them. As per business norms and propriety, the travel agent ought to have transferred the amount to RCIL on its own under intimation to the accused. There was no reason for the travel agent to refund the difference money to the accused that too in cash without taking any receipt or acknowledgement from the accused against the alleged payment.
69. From the above circumstances, it is clear that M/s Travel World had acted against the business norms as it failed CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 66 of 97 to refund the difference amount to the same source from where, it had received the money for the ticket of the accused. In view of said tainted role of the travel agent, I do not find it safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of said witnesses from the Travel World especially, when veracity of their versions is full of doubts and unexplained discrepancies.
Pecuniary Advantage/Wrongful Gain/ Wrongful Loss
70. As already noted above, Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of PC Act can be invoked only when the public servant by abuse of his position or use of corrupt and illegal means, obtained for himself or any other person any pecuniary advantage. Similarly, even for the offence of Section 420 IPC, wrongful loss to the victim and wrongful gain to the accused, is necessary to be proved on record. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused dishonestly pocketed the residual amount from the travel agent and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 2,06,500 to the government exchequer. The said amount was allegedly received in cash from the travel agent, who initially had issued three cheques bearing no. 51447304 for Rs.55,500/-, 51447307 for Rs. 80,000/- and 51447313 for Rs. 70,000/- (Total amount of Rs. 2,05,500/-), in the name of 'ASHUTOSH' from their account No.435501010030010 maintained with Union Bank of India. But later on, at the request of the accused, the travel agent got the said cheques encashed on 03.12.2012, 04.12.2012 and 05.12.2012 through their office boy namely Sandeep Jairambhai Patel (PW6), who handed over said cash to the cashier Bharat Shah (PW5), who in turn handed it over to accused.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 67 of 97
71. With regard to aforementioned payment of the cash, PW-4 in her examination-in-chief deposed that after cancellation of the ticket (business class ticket), a credit note was issued and difference amount of business class and economy class was refunded to their client Ashutosh Vasant. Initially, three cheques were drawn in the name of Ashutosh for payment of difference amount and he was asked to collect the cheques but at the request of the accused, cheques were encashed by their staff and money was handed over to the accused and the account was settled. She deposed further that the ledger account Ex.PW4/5 (D-19) was pertaining to the transactions of accused Ashutosh Vasant recorded in their firm and all entries were used to be made with respect to credit and debit against the booking and cancellation of tickets. The prosecution sought to corroborate her testimony with the other two prosecution witnesses PW5 and PW6, who were the employees of the M/s. Travel World. PW5 Bharat Shah is the cashier. With regard to aforementioned ledger account and cheques, he had also deposed on the lines of the version of PW4. As per his version, he had handed over the collected cash to Ashutosh Vasant and made entries in the ledger account in respect of the said cheques, however, no receipt was taken from him against the payment of cash of Rs.2,06,500/-.
72. In his cross-examination PW-5 further deposed that the entries regarding cash payment made to the customers were also used to be entered into the ledger account. He deposed further that accused was not informed CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 68 of 97 regarding deposit of cheques issued against his name for encashment. Further, the information was given verbally not in writing. Upon being asked about the reason for encashment of cheques on three different dates, he deposed that since enough balance was not in their bank to encash all three cheques on a same day, therefore, as and when the balance was found sufficient, the aforementioned cheques were drawn and deposited for encashment. He denied the suggestion that there was sufficient amount in their account for encashment of said cheques on a single day.
73. PW5 also admitted that on the dates when said cheques were deposited and encashed, M/s. Travel World had not yet received any payment from the RCIL. He further stated that the invoice raised for the payment of business class ticket was sent to accused on email and one copy of it was also handed over by him to the IO during investigation. As per his version, on two occasions, the money in respect of Visa application was refunded through account payee cheques in the name of accused Ashutosh Vasant vide entries of Rs.1700 and 5100 in Ex.PW4/5. He admitted the suggestion that the Ex.PW4/5 was the ledger account for the purpose of agency and it was never submitted to any government authority.
74. Further, as per his version, the credit note raised for refund of money to the accused Ashutosh Vasant was sent to him (accused) through email and he (PW5) had shown and handed over the copy of the said email to the IO during investigation. He denied the suggestion that no such email was sent to Ashutosh Vasant nor it was ever given to the IO. He CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 69 of 97 further denied the suggestion that no cash towards refund of business class given was given to accused Ashutosh Vasant and for that reason, no receipt was given to accused. He further denied the suggestion that no intimation in any manner regarding voiding or cancellation of business class ticket was given to the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the refund amount had been pocketed by the M/s. Travel World. He also denied the suggestion that credit note could not be issued to a customer prior to receipt of money from the customer.
75. As is evident from above, the version of said two witnesses of M/s. Travel Agent is shrouded with numerous discrepancies, infirmities and contradictions. The e-mail through which, the credit note raised by the travel agent of the difference amount was allegedly sent to the accused, has never seen the light of the day as no such document was placed on record by the IO nor the statement of IO anywhere reflects that he ever seized or was handed over any such document by M/s. Travel World.
76. As per prosecution case, the difference amount was paid to accused in cash by hand by PW-5 after 2-3 days of encashment of aforementioned three cheques. In this regard, the defence has also drawn attention of this court to the testimony of the IO/Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW-12), wherein, he admitted that during investigation, he was shown letter dated 4.12.2012 of RCIL, vide which it was informed that no leave was sanctioned or station leaving permission was granted to the accused for the period from 28.11.2012 to CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 70 of 97 08.12.2012. The office of the travel agent was in Ahmadabad, while the accused during that time was posted in Delhi and as per his office record, he was not on leave from 28.11.2012 to 08.12.2012 and from 08.12.2012 to 18.12.2012, accused was travelling for his official tour to USA. In such a scenario, the version of PW-5 that accused collected money from him in Ahmadabad just 2-3 days of encashment of aforementioned cheques is highly unbelievable. Except his verbal testimony, there is no document to support his said version that the refund was collected from him by the accused from their office in Ahmadabad. There is no receipt/acknowledgment of cash or refund on record to substantiate the plea that any such cash was handed over to the accused. The explanation given by PW-6 regarding encashment of aforementioned three cheques on different dates is also found to be completely false and incorrect because, as per the bank statement of UBI Ex.PW8/1, on all three occasions when the aforementioned three cheques were presented, there was enough balance available in the bank account of the travel agent to clear the entire payment of refund in one go.
77. Further, there is no reason for the travel agent to issue three cheques of different amounts for alleged refund of Rs.2,06,500/-. Moreover, the prosecution failed to produce said three cheques bearing nos. 447304, 447307, and 44731 and came up with the plea that the same were not traceable. However, the absence of said cheques raises serious questions regarding the name in which the said cheques were issued and the identity of the recipient of the payment specially in the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 71 of 97 light of the fact that the cheques were bearer cheques and not account payee. The investigation also failed to ascertain the identity of person who encashed the cheques as no ID proof of the person encashing the cheques was collected, though it was mandatory for the bank to take the signatures and identity proof of the person who encashed the cheques for value above Rs.50,000.
78. The IO also failed to collect bank deposit slip or any counter-foil in respect of deposit slip vide which said three cheques were deposited in the bank for encashment. Furthermore, in the light of the version of PW8, in terms of the RBI guidelines which Union Bank of India was also following, it was mandatory for the banks to retain all necessary record of transactions atleast for a period of 10 years. Despite this mandatory requirement to retain the record of transactions at least for 10 years, the said cheques were not traceable even after 8 years i.e. in 2020 for a transaction of December 2012. Further, IO also failed to seize the cash book from the travel agent which they would be maintaining during relevant time. Interestingly, the payment from RCIL towards business class ticket of the accused was received on 06.12.2012, while said three cheques were encashed on 3rd,4th & 5th December, 2012. In said circumstances, it is highly improbable that a person would give the refund without himself first receiving the excess payment.
79. For the reasons discussed in details in the foregoing part of the judgment in Paras 59-63 of this judgment, the ledger account Ex.PW4/4, credit note Ex.PW4/5 CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 72 of 97 upon which, a strong reliance has been placed by the CBI to prove the alleged payment of cash to the accused, are held to be totally inadmissible documents. The uncorroborated testimonies of the witnesses examined from M/s. Travel World also lack credence for various reasons already discussed in Para 66-69 of this judgment.
80. In said backdrop of circumstances, I do not find any cogent or credible evidence on record to support the prosecution case that accused had received Rs.2,06,500/- in cash as wrongful gain or pecuniary advantage from M/s. Travel World as refund of the residual amount of his business class ticket and caused corresponding loss to goverment exchequer. Even otherwise, as per the cross-examination of PW2, RCIL has already recovered Rs.2,06,500/- from the accused towards the alleged loss caused to RCIL.
Validity of Sanction under Section 19 of PC Act
81. In order to prove the sanction under Section 19 of PC Act, 1988, the prosecution has examined the competent authority Sh. Sanjai Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RCIL as PW-2. PW-2 has proved on record the Prosecution Sanction Order dated 13.08.2024 as Ex.PW2/2 and the letter vide which, it was forwarded to CBI by the Chief Vigilance Officer as Ex.PW2/1. As per PW-2, CBI had provided all the documents collected during the course of investigation i.e. the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC and the CBI report and he (PW2) granted the prosecution sanction against the accused after going through all said documents and with due application of mind on said material.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 73 of 97
82. Section 19 PC Act casts an obligation of application of mind upon the competent authority to what is brought before it, as application of mind is the bedrock of any order that an authority passes, failing which it would be contrary to principles of natural justice, as non-application of mind is in itself violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. Hon'ble Apex Court in 'CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295' has observed that the order of sanction must exfacie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. While referring to the previous case law on the point of sanction under section 19 PC Act, Hon'ble Apex summarised the legal position and the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under :-
8. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 74 of 97 the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.
83. The aforementioned judgment in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (Supra) was referred by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent judgment of 'Joginder Singh Malik v. CBI in Crl. A No. 1302/2010' decided on 08.12.2022, where it was observed that "....the order of sanction should speak for itself and make it evident that the sanctioning authority had gone through the entire set of record, relevant for the purposes of determining as to whether a prima facie case is made out against an accused, and then accorded sanction under Section 19 of P.C. Act, 1988. The sanctioning authority is required to peruse the entire record produced by the prosecution without any bias and then either provide the sanction or reject the request for sanction."
84. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of accused that the prosecution sanction Ex. PW2/2 suffers from complete non-application of mind as CBI has failed to place the entire material before the competent authority which was necessary for him to form an opinion. It was argued that the sanctioning authority i.e PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted that no draft charge-sheet was provided to him, which itself vitiates the sanction in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 75 of 97 (2014) 2014 SCC 295. Even the Closure Report earlier filed by the CBI in the instant case where the IO had concluded that no prosecutable material was found against the accused, was also not placed before the competent authority.
85. It was further argued that the sanctioning authority did not appreciate the various statements of accused recorded by the IO under Section 161 Cr. PC where the accused had countered each and every allegations leveled against him and also disclosed about his having shared information regarding his travel by economy class ticket to his senior R K Bahuguna after his (accused's) return from said official trip. But, despite that, the said fact was neither verified by the IO during investigation nor even by the competent authority before grant of sanction.
86. Ld defence counsel contended further that the sanction order wrongly mentions that a false TA claim was lodged by the accused with RCIL showing that he had traveled by business class. Whereas, no such claim was ever raised by the accused in the TA bill which was raised by him only for settling his accounts with regard to the expenses incurred by him during the subject tour. Even the fact noted in the sanction order that accused had submitted a credit note of Rs. 2,96,500/- with the RCIL for inducing RCIL to release the funds, is apparently false as it is nowhere the prosecution case even in the charge-sheet that accused had ever filed any credit note with his department for release of funds. With his office note dated 03.12.2012 (part of Ex.PW1/2), accused had only submitted the copy of the business class ticket and CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 76 of 97 invoice raised by the travel agent in respect of said ticket.
87. In above regard, the counsel has drawn my attention to Para 3 and 4 of the Sanction Order Ex.PW2/2 (D- 26, Page 1488), which reads as under:-
3. AND WHEREAS, it is alleged that Shri Ashutosh Vasant, with malafide intent, fraudulently booked a Business Class Ticket on 01.12.2012 for journey on Delhi-Chicago-San Francisco route & back through M/s Travel World and submitted a credit note for Rs.2,96,500/- to RailTel Corporation of India to induce RCIL to believe that Shri Ashutosh Vasant would travel on the said business class ticket and to release the said amount to M/s Travel World under the said mistaken belief. The said business class ticket was booked for the sole purpose of inducing RCIL to release the funds and was not processed any further. The said ticket was cancelled on 01.12.2012 itself and accused Shri Ashutosh Vasant got adjusted an amount of Rs.
90,000/- towards cost of an economy class ticket already booked by him on 29.11.2012 for travel to USA and back on Ahmedabad-Delhi-Chicago-San Francisco route, from the said amount of Rs. 2,96,500/- released by RCIL to M/s. Travel World. He also got adjusted Rs. 1,000/- from the funds released by RCIL towards cancellation charges for the business class ticket and dishonestly pocketed the remaining amount of Rs. 2,05,500/- by receiving cash from Shri Bharat Shah of M/s. Travel World.
4. AND WHEREAS, it is alleged that Ashutosh Vasant, despite having cancelled the business class ticket, kept RCIL in dark about the said cancellation and lodged a false TA claim with RCIL showing that he travelled by Business Class. Shri Ashutosh Vasant thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs.2,06,500/- to the Government Exchequer and corresponding wrongful pain to himself.
88. As far as the argument relating to draft charge- sheet is concerned, the same in my view is bereft of merits.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 77 of 97 Because, as per the version of PW2, CBI had provided him all the documents collected during the course of investigation, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as the CBI report and after going through all said documents, he applied his mind and granted sanction. Said version of PW2 makes it clear that it is the draft charge-sheet which has been referred as CBI report in his statement and same is also evident from the document Ex.PW2/DX2, which is the letter dated 05.01.2024 from CBI written to CVO, Railtel for seeking grant of sanction. In said letter, there is a clear reference of the CBI report which was duly enclosed with said letter for perusal of the competent authority.
89. Hence, the above contention relating to non- availability of the draft charge-sheet with the competent authority is merit-less and liable to be rejected. As far as the closure report and statement of accused are concerned, the witness PW-2 during his cross-examination was confronted with letter dated 25.01.2021 Ex.PW2/DX4 of CBI written to Executive Director and Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Railways for initiating major RDA proceedings against the accused Ashutosh Vasant. After perusing said document, PW-2 admitted that said letter mentions that the evidences collected by the CBI were not strong enough to criminally prosecute the accused though CBI recommended major RDA proceedings against the accused. The said letter was also the part of the office file pertaining to grant of sanction brought by the witness at the time of his examination and with said letter, copy of the closure report as well as the statement of the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 78 of 97 accused recorded during investigation of this case were also sent and were already available with the competent authority for his perusal and consideration.
90. However, I do find a substance in the defence argument that the Sanction Order contains certain apparently false factual narrations which are contrary to the case as set out in the chargesheet especially with regard to lodging of false TA claim by the accused with RCIL. The sanction order mentions that in the TA claim, accused represented that he travelled by business class. Whereas, there is no document filed with the charge-sheet to show that any such claim of having travelled through business class was ever raised by the accused at the time when he settled his TA claim with the department. I have carefully perused the office note dated 04.02.2013 Ex.PW1/3 submitted by the accused to his department for settling his claim with regard to travel allowances (TADA) but, it nowhere discloses that the accused had raised any such claim that he had travelled through business class.
91. My attention was also drawn to the Office Order dated 30.12.2011 Ex.PW2/DX3 vide which, for the subject tour of 11 days to USA, accused was held to be entitled for US $ 2860, which he was eligible to draw in advance with the condition that he shall account all the advances within 45 days of his return to India. As per Ex.PW2/DX3, the accused was entitled for US $ 260 per day towards TADA and it included expenses incurred towards DA @ US $ 100 + lodging @ US $ 120 + transport & incidental @ US $ 40. It is in the light of CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 79 of 97 said office note dated 30.11.2012 Ex.PW2/DX3, the accused settled the TA/DA claim with his department vide office note dated 04.02.2013 Ex.PW1/3. In said document Ex.PW1/3, there is no mention of any claim for air ticket fare nor any claim that he had travelled through business class. In view of said circumstances, there is no question of any false claim of TA being raised by the accused nor it is even the case of the prosecution in the charge-sheet.
92. The content of the sanction note regarding credit note allegedly submitted by the accused with the RCIL is also apparently false, wrong and incorrect as again it is nowhere the prosecution case even in the charge-sheet that any credit note was submitted by the accused with RCIL for release of amount to the travel agent for his air ticket. Indeed, with the office note dated 03.12.2012 Ex.PW1/2 vide which, the accused requested for the payment of his air ticket directly to the travel agent, the accused had enclosed only two documents i.e. the copy of his air ticket bearing No. ETKT098 2630458749 dated 01.12.2012 and the invoice IS/1564 dated 01.12.2012 raised by the travel agent in respect of said ticket.
93. It is trite law that grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. In my considered view, the aforementioned discrepancies in the sanction order are very material as the same are touching the core issue of false CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 80 of 97 claim of air ticket allegedly raised by the accused. From aforementioned apparent errors in the sanction order it appears that PW2 did not make any proper scrutiny of material. In the light of the aforementioned contents of the sanction order, he does not appear to be even aware of the actual allegations raised against the accused nor about the material filed in support. Though during his cross-examination when he was confronted with said errors of the sanction order, he tried to somehow cover up his ignorance about said facts, but that is not going to help the prosecution to cure the inherent defects in the sanction note, which are clearly reflective of the non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority.
94. In my considered view, the aforementioned apparent errors pointed out by the defence counsel in the sanction order cannot be ignored as immaterial or inconsequential. The said errors in the sanction order Ex.PW2/2 are prima facie indicative of non-application of mind and hence, same are liable to render the sanction order as well as cognizance of the offence under PC Act taken on that basis, as vitiated.
Lack of Prosecution Sanction of Section 197 CrPC
95. The other challenge raised by the defence is regarding lack of sanction of 197 CrPC in respect of alleged offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. It has been argued that the sanction of 197 CrPC was separately required for alleged offence of cheating and mere obtaining sanction of Section 19 of PC Act shall not fulfill the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 81 of 97 requirement of grant of sanction for the prosecution of a public servant in respect of the offence punishable under IPC. It was argued that the cognizance taken in respect of Section 420 IPC is vitiated for lack of requisite sanction of Sanction 197 CrPC and the prosecution case qua the offence of cheating is liable to fail on this very count only.
96. In this regard, Ld counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in 'G.C.Manjunath & Ors. Vs. Seetaram 2025 SCC Online SC 718', to urge the point that even if the public servant exceeds the bounds of his official duties, still the protective shield of said statutory provision will apply, provided there exits a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and discharge of official function. On the other hand, Ld Sr. PP refuted the above arguments by saying that conduct of accused in cheating his employer by raising a false claim and wrongfully enriching himself by clandestinely pocketing the refund taken from the travel agent of the difference amount and thereby, causing loss to public exchequer, does not fall within the purview of his official duties so as to seek the protection of section 197Cr.P.C.
97. Having considered the above rival contentions in the light of settled proposition of law, I find force in the defence argument only to the extent that a separate sanction of Section 197 Cr.PC was required for prosecution of accused for alleged offence of IPC, as was also held in 'A. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Another, 2023 SCC Online SC 952', wherein Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the need for a separate sanction of section 197 Cr.PC for the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 82 of 97 prosecution of any public servant for the offences of IPC saying that there is a material difference between the statutory requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 on one hand, and Section 197 of the CrPC, on the other. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"59. From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only pre- requisite. If the offences on the charge of which, the public servant is expected to be put on trial include the offences other than those punishable under the PC Act, 1988 that is to say under the general law (i.e. IPC), the court is bound to examine, at the time of cognizance and also, if necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case progresses) as to whether there is a necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC of the CrPC. There is a material difference between the statutory requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 on one hand, and Section 197 of the CrPC, on the other. In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the "nexus" between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC on such reasoning. The "safe and sure test", is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted "in excess of his duty", but if there is a "reasonable connection" between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 83 of 97 cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts."
98. But, if the allegations of cheating raised against the accused in the chargesheet are analysed in the light of the test laid down in the aforementioned judgment, I am of the view that there is no reasonable connection between the impugned act of cheating (which is the only offence of IPC in the chargesheet) alleged against the accused with the performance of his official duties and therefore, in my considered opinion, accused for the alleged offence of cheating was not entitled for the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC at the time of cognizance. Hence, no sanction of section 197 CrPC was required to be obtained by the prosecution for the offence of Section 420 IPC. In view thereof, the defence argument that charges of Section 420 IPC are liable to fail for want of requisite sanction of Section 197 CrPC, is rejected being not sustainable in law.
Lack of Prior Approval under Section 17-A PC Act, 1988
99. As is evident from the charge-sheet, the instant RC was registered on a complaint dated 23.09.2019 filed by Insp. Avinash Kumar, who was assigned preliminary inquiry PE AC-I-2018 A0006, which was registered on a source information. Since the investigation/preliminary inquiry in the instant case was initiated subsequent to the Amendment Act 16 of 2018, therefore, as per CBI, the requisite approval of Section 17-A of amended PC Act, 1988 was required before initiation of preliminary inquiry or investigation and same was obtained from the competent authority.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 84 of 97
100. In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the public servant. As per charge-sheet, the inquiry officer before conducting the preliminary inquiry had obtained approval under Section 17-A PC Act from the competent authority.
101. However, it has been argued by the defence counsel that the requisite approval, which is sought to be proved vide letter dated 02.09.2019 Ex.PW7/1, is completely lacking to show the requisite approval of the competent authority. On the other, Ld. PP rebutted said argument by submitting that the requisite approval of Section 17-A has been duly proved through PW-7 Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary, Establishment, Railway Board, who had conveyed CBI about the grant of approval by the competent authority, which in the instant case was Hon'ble Minister of Railways.
102. I have carefully perused the testimony of said witness PW-7 as well as the document Ex.PW7/1. Ex.PW7/1 is the letter dated 02.09.2019 written by PW-7, who at the relevant time was Director, Vigilance (Intelligence), Railway Board. Vide said letter, PW-7 conveyed it to CBI that their request to conduct the investigation against the accused Ashutosh Vasant in the subject case (PE AC-I-2018 A0006) had been considered by the Ministry of Railways and the CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 85 of 97 competent authority i.e. Hon'ble Minister of Railways had granted approval to conduct investigation against the accused in said preliminary inquiry. PW-7 proved on record the aforementioned letter Ex.PW7/1 (D-1) written by him to CBI.
103. In his cross-examination, PW7 denied the suggestion that no approval was granted under Section 17-A by the Hon'ble Minister or that for said reason, no approval order was forwarded to CBI. PW-7 further volunteered to say that as per Authentication Rule 2002 formed for Business and Conduct framed under Article 77 of Indian Constitution, authenticated copy of the order was provided by him. However, it is pertinent to note that no extract of any authenticated copy of the order of Hon'ble Minister has been placed on record by the prosecution. In the letter Ex.PW7/1, CBI is merely conveyed about the approval granted by the competent authority but no iota of material has been placed on record to show that any such approval was actually granted for investigation by the competent authority.
104. The authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002, is the set of rules that specify, which government official can authenticate orders and other instruments made or executed in the name of President of India. However, nothing has been placed on record to show that PW-7 was the specified officer for the authentication of orders passed by Hon'ble Minister of Railways. Even the order or extract of order vide which, the approval under Section 17-A was accorded, has not been placed on record.
105. Section 17-A of PC Act is a mandatory provision as CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 86 of 97 it starts with a non-obsente clause and it prescribes that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act without previous approval of the competent authority, if the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official function or duties. In Mr Arul Kumar vs State By Revenue Department in WP No. 28622 of 2023 decided on 14 March, 2024, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, while dealing with a challenge raised against the validity of approval granted by the competent authority under section 17-A of PC Act, has observed as under:-
"Application of mind by an authority is demonstrable only in the order that the authority makes, for the order to demonstrate application of mind by the authority, it must contain the reasons, as recording of reasons in an order is the only way that one can construe such application of mind. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker, to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at. Reason and application of mind are impregnable for an order to sustain the scrutiny of law, be it administrative or quasi judicial. Reasons in every circumstance need not be elaborate, but nevertheless should bear application of mind. The case at hand and the order impugned will have to be tested on the anvil of the mandate of the statute, the intent behind its enactment and the rule of application of mind."
106. Whereas in the instant case, there is no document other than Ex.PW7/1 filed by CBI to prove the grant of approval of Section 17-A of PC Act. Vide Ex.PW7CB, CBI was merely informed about the approval granted by the competent CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 87 of 97 authority but no iota of material has been placed on record to show that any such approval was actually granted for inquiry or investigation against the accused by the competent authority.
107. But the next very pertinent question, which falls for consideration is whether prior approval of section 17-A PC Act was at all required for conducting the inquiry or investiagtion of the impugned act alleged against the accused. For answering this question we first need to understand as to what kind of impugned act are relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official function or duties and for that purpose, we have to first understand the legislative intent behind incorporating the said provision in PC Act. For this exercise, I shall again refer to the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Arul Kumar (supra), where in para 12 of the judgment, Hon'ble High Court noted the object and purpose of said provision as under:-
"12. In my considered view, Section 17A of the Act and its purport must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a malicious prosecution. Section 17A of the Act is clearly a filter that the prosecution must pass in order to discourage or avoid vexatious prosecution, though cannot be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent."
108. Having noted the object and purpose, I may again revert back to the facts of the present case, where the accused is alleged to have committed a criminal misconduct as CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 88 of 97 he is alleged to have obtained 'pecuniary advantage' by abuse of his official position as a public servant and by use of corrupt and illegal means. It is alleged against accused that for an official foreign tour to USA, he actually travelled on economy class ticket but, he raised a false claim before his department for having travelled through a business class ticket and got released the ticket fare for his business class ticket directly to his travel agent and later on, he collected the difference amount in cash from the travel agent and thereby, he wrongfully enriched himself by pocketing the refund taken from the travel agent of difference amount and caused loss to public exchequer.
109. The question which will now arise is whether said impugned act which is alleged to be an offence of Criminal Misconduct under PC Act, is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the accused in discharge of his official function or duties. In my considered view, it is not. For holding this opinion, I draw support from the following judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Court in Shankara Bhat vs State Of Kerala in CRL.MC NO. 7542 OF 2018 decided on 27 August, 2021, where the order of special judge was under
challenge whereby, it was held that offences alleged against the accused public servant was one for misappropriation of funds and was not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by him in discharge of his official function or duties and hence, no prior approval of Section 17-A of PC Act was required. The Hon'ble High Court while upholding said decision of the Special Judge made following important CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 89 of 97 observations:-
"19. Section 17A PC Act has to be analysed in the above background. The most crucial part of section 17A provides that previous approval is required in relation to enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act "where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant". It seems that the above part of the section is the most crucial part of the section, since it imposes a rider on the otherwise absolute power under section 17A that enquiry, inquiry or investigation into every act needed prior approval. It is clear that it is not that every offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant under the Act that needed prior approval. Prior approval under section 17A was required only where the alleged offence was relatable to "any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant". This seems to be the heart and soul of the above section. It is clear that the Parliament has consciously used the above words. If the intention of the Parliament was to impose a pre condition that every enquiry, inquiry or investigation into every allegation of offence against a public servant required prior sanction, the words "where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant" ought not have been there. If the above words are omitted, it would have meant that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inqury or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act in discharge of his official function or duties without the previous approval of the competent authority. In other words, if the intention of the statute was to cover every enquiry, investigation or inqury, the words "where alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant" were unnecessary, since even without those words it would have conveyed the intention. Hence, it is clear that the intention of the Parliament was not to insist for previous approval in relation to enquiry, inqury or investigation only in relation to every offence committed by the public servant.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 90 of 97
20. This seems to be in pari materia with section 197 Cr.P.C.and also in tune with the scope of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions referred to earlier, while discussing the scope of section 197(1), Cr.P.C. If section 17A is interpreted as intending to cover every investigation, enquiry or inqury into any offence allegedly committed by a public servant, then it would have run counter to the spirit of all the above decisions.A contra view that section 17A covers every offence, would have resulted in a dichotomy, by which prosecution of a public oficer for offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act may not require sanction under section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. IPC for offences not relating to acts done in discharge of the official duty or purported to be official duty, whereas previous approval, which is a more rigorous provision, would be required in relation to inquiry or investigation against every other offence done by him. Hence, an interpretation in tune with the entire decisions of the Supreme Court under section 197(1) Cr.P.C.,will have to be adopted, which will be in consonance with object of section 17A of PC Act."
110. Similar view was taken even by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Devender Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation WP (Crl.) 3247/2018' decided on 11.01.2019, wherein the permission under Section 17-A of PC Act, 1988 was held to be not warranted. The allegations raised against the accused public servant in said case were that he had harassed the complainant for extorting money for letting him (complainant) off in a criminal case registered by CBI. Hon'ble High Court held that the said act of the accused was not in discharge of his official duties so as to fall within the purview of Section 17-A of PC Act. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:
"The proviso to Section 17A stipulates: "Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 91 of 97 involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person". This Proviso clearly refers to cases where the charge is of accepting or attempting to accept undue personal advantage for himself or for any other person. The purpose of Section 17A can be read to be only to provide protection to officers/public servants who discharge their official functions and/or duties with diligence, fairly, in an unbiased manner and to the best of their ability and judgment, without any motive for their personal advantage or favour. A public servant cannot be possibly left to be under the constant apprehension that bonafide decisions taken by him/her would be open to enquiry or inquiry or investigation, on the whimsical complaint of a stranger. Section 17A as it reads and the legislative intent in its enactment can only be to protect public servants in the bonafide discharge of official functions or duties. However, when the act of a public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offence, prior approval of the Government would not be necessary."
111. In the light of aforementioned judgments, I am the considered view that the impugned act alleged against the accused is not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by him in discharge of his official function or duties so as to require any protection of Section 17-A of PC Act. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, the prior approval of section 17-A of PC Act was not even required to be obtained. Hence, the failure of the prosecution to prove it on record, is not of any consequence for this case. In view thereof, the defence objection raised in this regard is rejected.
Summary of Conclusions
112. From the above discussion, the conclusions arrived at by the court on the aforementioned points of determination CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 92 of 97 can be summarised as under:-
1. That the evidence adduced on record is highly insufficient to conclusively establish any of the essential ingredients viz. deception, inducement, dishonest intention or wrongful gain for the alleged offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC.
2. Similarly, no element of mens rea or pecuniary advantage for the offence of Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) PC Act, 1988 are inferable from any of the legally admissible evidences adduced on record.
3. The cognizance taken in this case qua the offence of Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) PC Act, 1988, is vitiated on account of non-application of mind by the competent authority at the time of grant of sanction under Section 19 PC Act.
4. Considering the nature of impugned allegations of the chargesheet, the sanction of Section 197 CrPC was not required for the offence of cheating.
5. Similarly, prior approval of section 17-A of PC Act was not required because, the impugned act alleged against the accused is not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by him in discharge of his official function or duties.
Final Conclusion
113. After aforementioned discussion and analysis of material on different factual and legal issues invoived in this case, it can easily be concluded that prosecution has miserably CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 93 of 97 failed to establish its case for any of the alleged offences. Leave aside proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is not able to prove them even by preponderance of probabilities. From the overall circumstances which have come on record during the course of trial, it appears that CBI wanted us to see a ghost where there was none. Though the case is ending up into acquittal but, the damage suffered by the accused on account of the allegations raised in this case, is enormous.
114. As has come on record, at the time of filing of closure report in the year 2021, CBI vide their letter Ex. PW2/DX5 recommended major RDA proceedings against the accused, who at that time was posted as Director (POM), Railtel Corporation of India. The CVC gave 1 st stage advice of major penalty proceedings against accused and thereafter, the case for disciplinary proceedings was forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister of Railways who was the Disciplinary Authority of the accused. After detailed inquiry, Hon'ble Minister ordered for dropping of all the charges against the accused.
115. Thereafter, the case was again referred to CVC for 2nd stage advise. CVC kept the case regarding disciplinary proceedings pending with itself and thereafter, on 23.03.2023, CVC gave a 2nd stage advice for major penalty. Pursuant thereto, the case was again sent to Hon'ble Minister of Railways who stood by his decision of dropping of charges and clearly recorded that no new evidence was furnished by CVC to substantiate its stand. On account of this disagreement between CVC and the Disciplinary Authority, the case file was CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 94 of 97 referred to Department of Personnel & Training ("DoPT") on 04.08.2023 for a final decision, where the matter is stated to be still pending. Despite the fact that the matter is still pending at DoPT for final decision on disciplinary inquiry and the outcome of this case was yet awaited, the accused was first prematurely retired on 12.04.2023 at the age of 54 and thereafter, he was compulsorily retired on 02.05.2024.
116. From the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the accused, when he was at the peak of his career, fell prey to unfulfilled ambitions of some of his disgruntled colleagues who started considering him as a stumbling block to their career ambitions. A Preliminary Inquiry was registered on 17.04.2018 by CBI on a so called 'source information' wherein, very serious allegations were raised against accused that in the year 2012, he indulged into corruption by showing undue favours to M/s United Telecom Ltd. and M/s Infinera in award of Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Technology contract and he also took favours from these companies for paying his hotel bills during his official visit to USA and also raised a false claim on the basis of forged documents to fund the air tickets of his family. Since the mere issue of irregularities in air tickets or hotel bill claim could not have invoked CBI's jurisdiction, therefore, it was given a bigger picture of a scam involving forgery of documents and corruption in tender/contract allocation, to target the accused.
117. After said Preliminary Inquiry, instant FIR/RC dated 27.11.2019, was registered under Section 120-B, 420, CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 95 of 97 468 and 471 IPC and Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) PC Act, 1988. However, during investigation neither it was found to be a case of forgery/use of any forged document nor any element of corruption was found in the tendering process or awarding of DWDM contract. The chargesheet thus, came to be filed only for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) PC Act, 1988. The accused was put to trial for the said offence of 'cheating' and 'criminal misconduct' only in respect of the allegations of false claim of air tickets. Now, vide this judgment, the accused has been acquitted by this court for absolute lack of any credible evidence to support even said allegations. But unfortunately, in this entire process, the career of the accused got stalled, jeopardized and ruined because of this case.
118. The reason for taking note of the aforementioned back story of the case is to underscore the necessity for the prosecuting agencies to present concrete, cogent and specific evidence of corruption whenever bringing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Undoubtedly, "zero tolerance"
policy against corruption is the need of hour to uphold ethical governance, yet the courts must balance it for the protection of honest public servants from unwarranted frivolous prosecution. Neither investigation nor trial should start with any preconceived notion that all public servants are corrupt or dishonest. There are officers who give their life and soul to build the institutions they work for and therefore, such lopsided approach needs to be discouraged.
119. Vulnerability of public servants to vindictive attacks CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 96 of 97 due to nature of their jobs, which involves exercising power and authority over others should also be kept in mind while investigating a case of corruption against a public servant. Criminal charges extending to corruption must be supported with concrete and substantive material showing dishonest intention, illegal motive or a corrupt advantage. A mere suspicion or an erroneous administrative decision (act or omission) taken in good faith cannot be transformed into a corruption charge in absence of a clear evidence of any pecuniary advantage.
120. With the above word of caution for the prosecuting agencies, the accused Ashutosh Vasant has been acquitted in this case. Bail Bond/surety bonds if any, stand cancelled and discharged. Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA Announced in the open court SHARMA Date:
2025.09.25 on 25th September, 2025 15:23:17 +0530 (Sunena Sharma) Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-20 Rouse Avenue Court Complex New Delhi.
CBI v. Ashutosh Vasant CBI-114/2024 Page 97 of 97