Delhi District Court
Has Relied Upon The Judgment Sajjan ... vs State Of on 27 July, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE,
(PC ACT) - 02 : DELHI.
RC No.25(A)/2000
CC No. 37/2002
CBI/ACB/N.DELHI.
ID NO. 02401R0103752002
CBI
VS
RANBIR KUMAR VIJ, (RESIGNED ON 02.12.1995)
S/O LATE SH. BRIJ LAL VIJ,
THE THEN SR. MANAGER (MKT.),
BONGAIGAON REFINARY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW DELHI.
AND ALSO AT:-
R/O 58, TRIVENI APARTMENTS,
A-6, PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI.
Date of Institution : 18.11.2002.
Date of Arguments : 17.07.2013.
Date of Judgment : 27.07.2013.
1 To 64
2
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will dispose off the CBI criminal case referred to herein above filed by the CBI on 18.11.2002.
2. Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that initially a case vide RC No. 25(A)/00-ACB dated 10.05.2000 was registered against accused Ranbeer Kumar Vij, S/o Late Sh. Brij Lal Vij, R/o 58, Triveni Apartments, A-6, Paschim Vihar, Delhi the then Sr. Manager (Mkt.), Bongaigaon Refinary & Petrochemicals Ltd., Regional Office New Delhi (resigned on 02.12.95). This case was registered on the basis of a complaint of Sh. A.K. Malik, the then Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. It was alleged that accused R.K. Vij joined Bongaigaon Refinary & Petrochemicals Ltd. (BRPL) at New Delhi on 23.08.87 as Dy. Manager (Mktg.) in the regional office and left BRPL on 02.12.95 as Sr. Manager (Mktg.) of BRPL, New Delhi and while posted as Sr. Manager (Mktg.) in the Regional Office of BRPL at New 2 To 64 3 Delhi, accused R.K. Vij being a public servant was found in possession of following assets on 31.01.95:-
S.NO. ASSETS AMOUNT
1. Fixed deposit receipts of Union Bank of India, Rs.25,65,000/-
Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi obtained from the bank against cash payment between 10.12.94 to 31.01.95 in his own name as Ranbir
2. Flat no. 55, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, Rs. 8,00,000/-
New Delhi.
3. Flat no.58, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, Rs. 8,00,000/-
New Delhi.
4. Two shops in the shopping complex adjacent to Rs. 4,00,000/-
Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
Total :- Rs.45,65,000/-
3. It was further alleged that accused R.K. Vij was leading a lavish life style and was also in possession of various costly house hold articles viz. Air Conditioners, Refrigerators, Colour T.V. , Maruti Car, etc. His son was alleged to be studying in BA during the relevant period and his wife Usha Vij was a house wife. The gross income of accused R.K. Vij from his employment with BRPL during the period from 23.03.87 to 31.01.95 was not 3 To 64 4 exceeding Rs.7 lacs and he has spent 1/3rd of his salary towards maintenance of family / kitchen expenses. His likely savings of Rs.4.67 lacs and accused R.K. Vij has been found in possession of assets amounting to Rs.45.65 lacs which are far exceeding his known sources of income and for which he cannot satisfactorily account for.
4. Investigation disclosed that Sh. R.K. Vij was working as Weaving Assistant in Modi Cloth Mills, Modi Nagar U.P. During 1973 to 1974 and was getting Rs.550/- per month as salary besides other allowances as conveyance + accommodation etc. Thereafter he worked as Production Manager (Weaving) with Calico Mills, Ahmedabad from 1974 to December 1975 (2 years) and got Rs.1,200/- per month as salary besides accommodation + conveyance allowances etc. and production incentives of Rs. 350/- per month. Thereafter, in December 1975 he joined DCM, Delhi as Assistant Weaving Master and continued working there till March 1987. There he was drawing an initial salary of Rs.
4 To 64 5 1,900/- per month and at the time of leaving job he was getting around Rs.7,000 per month.
5. Investigation further disclosed that accused R.K. Vij joined Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (BRPL) New Delhi as Deputy Manager (customer service) on 23.03.87 in the pay scale of Rs.1,300 - Rs. 1,850/- at the basic of Rs.1,300/- per month. He was promoted as Additional Marketing Manager at New Delhi in April 1991. Thereafter he was promoted as Senior Manager (Marketing) at New Delhi on 01.01.94 and was transferred to Bombay from 30.09.95 and from there he resigned on 29.11.95 and left BRPL w.e.f. 02.12.95.
6. Investigation further disclosed that accused R.K. Vij was married to Smt. Usha in 1977 who is a house wife and has two sons viz. Manish Vij (date of birth 20.04.78) and Harshit Vij (date of birth 20.12.87). His son Manish has studied in Manavsthali School, New Delhi from 1981 to 1995 and thereafter went to Devi Ahilya University, Indore (MP) and did his MBA (five 5 To 64 6 year's degree course) in June 2000. The younger son Harshit Vij was admitted in Bal Bharti School, Pusa Road, New Delhi in 1991 and is presently studying in class IX.
7. Investigation further disclosed that accused R.K. Vij is the younger son of his father Late Sh. Brij Lal from his second wife Smt. Pushpawanti and hails from Village Gohana, Dist. Sonepat. His father had one son Sh. Ramji Dass (69 years bachelor) from first wife and who stays at Gohana looking after the agricultural interests of the family. Accused R.K. Vij has one elder brother Sh. Kamal Kishore Vij aged 64 years who is also residing at Gohana looking after agricultural holdings. Sh. Kamal Kishore Vij has 3 sons out of which elder two are already married and are engaged in manufacture and sale of electrical motors (water lifting pumps) and third son is studying at Gohana.
8. Investigation further disclosed that the father (deceased) of Sh. R.K. Vij was one amongst four brothers and was an agriculturist and was having approx 60-65 acres of 6 To 64 7 agricultural land in Gohana, Distt. Sonepat and was personally looking after the same. Late Sh. Brij Lal (father of accused R.K. Vij) distributed the land among accused R.K. Vij and his elder brother Kamal Kishore Vij and kept one share with himself in around 1972. Thus from 1972 to 1982, accused R.K. Vij was owing around 29.2 acres land and from 1982 to 1991 he was left with around 13 acres of land, some of the land was sold by his father. It is further disclosed that Government of Haryana had acquired approximately 3 acres of land from accused R.K. Vij in the year 1991 for which he was awarded claim/ compensation to the tune of Rs.4,76,701/-. Investigation further disclosed that accused R.K. Vij was owning around 10 acres of land during the period 1991 to 1994. It further came in investigation that accused R.K. Vij had himself declared his agricultural income in Bongaigaon Refinary and Petrochemicals Ltd. (BRPL) as Rs. 6,000/- per annum per acre. The father of accused R.K. Vij died in the year 1991 and his mother died in May 2000.
7 To 64 8
9. For the purpose of investigation the check period has been taken w.e.f. 23.03.87 to 31.01.95 which coincide with the whole period of the association of accused R.K. Vij with Bongaigaon Refinary and Petrochemicals Ltd. (BRPL) as a public servant.
10. Investigation further revealed that 26 Short Term Deposit Receipts (SDRs) for total Rs.25,65,000/- were prepared from Union Bank of India, Jwala Heri Branch, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi against cash payment which include 20 SDRs prepared on 10.12.94 amounting to Rs.18,65,000/-, 5 SDRs each of Rs.1,00,000/- amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- were prepared on 16.12.94 and four SDRs each for Rs.50,000/- amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- were prepared on 29.01.95 all in the name of Sh. Ranbir resident of Gohana whose occupation in bank ledger is reflected as Agriculturist and during investigation it revealed that Ranbir in whose name these SDRs were prepared is in fact accused Ranbir Kumar Vij and that all these SDRs were made 8 To 64 9 through cash payment by accused R.K. Vij himself who had come to the bank and the proceeds of these SDRs found their way out from SB A/c nos.40713 and 45897 held in Union Bank of India, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi in the name of accused R.K. Vij and his family members.
11. Investigation further revealed that accused R.K. Vij has sold a plot measuring 260 Sq. yards out of khasra no.26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi on 28.07.89 to Smt. Kanta Kaushik for Rs.1,25,000/- and had also sold a tractor to one Sh. Zile Singh S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Village Pur Khas, Tehsil & District Sonepat on 27.02.88 for Rs.50,000/-.
12. Investigation has further revealed that the expenditure incurred by accused R.K. Vij towards the education of his son Manish Vij in Manavsthali School was Rs.30,820/- and the house tax paid towards flat no. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar was Rs.15, 470/- and house tax paid towards flat no. 58, A-6 Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar was Rs.6,650/-.
9 To 64 10
13. Investigation has further revealed that accused R.K. Vij as original allottee had paid total amount of RS.1,71,827=64 towards acquisition of flat no.58, Triveni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from SBM Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. Triveni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi but the said acquisition was made prior to the check period, hence not considered as asset created during the check period.
14. Investigation further revealed that flat no. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was initially booked by Sh. Prabhash Chand Jain on 10.02.74 who was the original allottee as per the records of SBM Coop. Group Housing Society and the total initial cost came to Rs.1,94,013/- who sold it to Smt. Rekha Vij W/o K.K. Vij R/o Gohana (Sister in law of accused R.K. Vij) in July 1991 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Smt. Rekha Vij sold it to accused R.K. Vij for Rs.2,50,000/- on 28.06.96 through agreement to sell and payment was made vide cheque no. EC 652593 drawn on OBC, Gohana for Rs. 2 lacs dated 04.10.94 10 To 64 11 and Rs.50,000/- in cash on 03.04.95 and it has transpired that Sh. R.K. Vij acquired this property during the check period.
15. Investigation further revealed that one shop no. 3 CSC Block A-4 Paschim Puri Near SB Mills, New Delhi was allotted in the names of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij in an open auction on 24.03.94 against bid amount of Rs.1,99,000/- and total amount of Rs.2,03,025/- was paid by him and similarly one shop no.9, CSC, A-4 Block, Paschim Puri near SB mills, New Delhi was allotted in the names of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij in an open auction on 21.04.94 against bid amount of Rs.2,41,000/- and total amount of Rs.2,45,865/- was paid by him for acquisition of this shop.
16. During investigation the personal file of accused R.K. Vij was procured from BRPL and it revealed that he had declared his mother and father as his dependents. The BRPL Authorities have also furnished the salary income of accused R.K. Vij for the check period and the gross salary income for the check period 11 To 64 12 has come to Rs.8,34,256=95.
17. It is further revealed in the investigation that Late. Sh. Brij Lal, father of accused R.K. Vij had sold around 17 acres of agricultural land of accused R.K. Vij in village Khandrai, Gohana to one Sh. Kali Ram S/o Ganga Ram R/o Village Khanpur Khurd District Sonepat during 1981-1982 for total amount of Rs. 1,59,000/-.
18. Investigation further revealed that vide Award no.13 dated 25.01.91 for the year 1990-91 announced by Sh. K.K. Gupta DRO cum Land Acquisition Collector of Rohtak, Government of Haryana had acquired Kila nos. 133/8 and 148/13/2 measuring a little less than one acre from Smt. Pushpawati, mother of accused R.K. Vij for which she received Rs. 2.20 lacs as award / compensation.
19. During the investigation, the details of total income, assets and expenditure of accused R. K. Vij during the check period are as under:-
12 To 64 13 A. INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:
S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1. Gross Salary income of accused R.K. Vij Rs. 8,34,256=95 as public servant during the check Period from BRPL.
2. Agricultural Income @ Rs. 6000/- per Rs. 5,52,000=00 annum per acre for the land held in the name of accused R.K. Vij from time to time, from 1987 to 1991 (13 acres) and from 1991 to 1995 (10 acres)
3. Amount received from Govt. of Haryana Rs. 4,76,701=00 towards acquisition of 3 acres land in Gohana.
4. Income from sale of 260 Sq. Yards plot out Rs. 1,25,000=00 of Khasra no. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi on 28.07.89
5. Income from sale of tractor to Sh. Zile Rs. 50,000=00 Singh S/o Prabhu Dayal R/o village Purkhas, Tehsil & District Sonepat on 27.02.88.
6. Amount received from sale of around 17 Rs. 1,59,000=00 acres land in village Khandrai by Late Sh.
Brij Lal, father of accused R.K. Vij during 1981-82.
7. Amount received by Smt. Pushpawanti Rs. 2,20,000=00 mother of accused R.K. Vij from Govt. of Haryana as compensation on towards acquisition of land measuring little less than an acre.
TOTAL Rs.23,04,457=95
13 To 64
14
B. ASSETS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD.
(I) IMMOVABLE ASSETS
S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1. Flat no. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartments, Rs.2,50,000=00 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Shop No.3 CSC A-4, Paschim Puri near Rs.2,03,025=00 SB Mills in the names of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij.
3. Shop No.9 CSC A-4, Paschim Puri near Rs.2,45,865=00 SB Mills in the names of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij.
4. Land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas out of Rs. 42,000=00 Khasra no. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi (cost of land) purchased in the name of Smt. Usha Vij from Devinder Kumar S/o Laxman Das Rs. 3,360=00 R/o A-1/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (stamp duty) on 22.12.88.
TOTAL Rs.7,44,250=00
14 To 64
15
(II) MOVABLE ASSETS.
S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1. Cost of house hold articles acquired Rs. 1,58,155=00 by accused R.K. Vij during check period found during search.
2. SDRs in the Union Bank of India, Rs.25,65,000=00 Jwala Heri Branch, Paschim Vihar in the name of accused Ranbir R/o village P.O. Gohana made in cash.
TOTAL Rs.27,23,155=00 IMMOVABLE ASSETS + MOVABLE ASSETS = ASSETS. Rs.7,44,250 + Rs. 27,23,155=00 = Rs.34,67,405=00 Thus accused R.K. Vij was having total assets worth Rs. 34,67,405=00 during the check period.
C. EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD
S. NO PARTICUALARS AMOUNT
1. Kitchen / domestic expenses. Rs.2,78,085=65
(1/3 of salary of accused R.K. Vij)
2. Expenditure incurred towards Rs. 30,820=00
education of Sh. Manish Vij S/o
accused R.K. Vij.
15 To 64
16
3. House Tax paid towards flat no.55, A-6, Rs. 15,470=00 Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
4. House Tax paid towards flat no. 58, Rs. 6,650=00 A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
TOTAL Rs.3,31,025=65 Thus accused R.K. Vij incurred a total expenditure of Rs.3,31,025=65 during the check period.
20. Thus accused R.K. Vij was found in possession of assets immovable and movable worth Rs. 34,67,405=00 at the end of the check period.
21. As per the charge sheet, Computation of Disproportionate Assets:-
Likely Savings during the Check period. = Income - Expenditure = Rs.23,04,457=95 - Rs.3,31,025=65 = Rs.19,73,432=30 (approx.) Disproportionate Assets:
= Assets acquired during the check period - Likely savings during the check period. = Rs. 34,67,405=00 - Rs. 19,73,432=30 16 To 64 17 = Rs. 1493972=70
22. Thus, accused R.K. Vij has been found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1493972=70 during the check period i.e. 23.03.1987 to 31.01.1995 against his total income of Rs. 23,04,457=95, which he could not explain satisfactorily, hence he has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Sanction for prosecution has not been obtained against accused R.K. Vij, the then Sr. Manager, Marketing, Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. as he is no more a public servant and he has already resigned from service. The prosecution has filed the charge sheet against accused R.K. Vij on 18.11.2000 for trial for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act, 1988.
23. Accused was summoned to appear in the court. He was supplied the copies of the documents.
17 To 64 18
24. After hearing the accused and his counsel, vide order dated 04.02.2004 charge was framed against accused R.K. Vij under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of PC Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
25. To bring home the charge, CBI examined 19 witnesses.
26. PW - 1: Inspector A.K. Malik has deposed that he filed the complaint Ex. PW-1/A to SP, CBI for registration of a case against accused R.K. Vij u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (e) of PC Act.
27. PW - 2: Sh. A.K. Kaul, Independent witness has deposed that on 11.05.2000 he joined the CBI raid conducted in the house of accused R.K. Vij. He identified his signatures on the Observation Memo Ex. PW 2/A, Search cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-2/B and on the Search cum Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C.
28. PW - 3: Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Independent Witness has deposed that on 11.05.2000 he joined the CBI raid 18 To 64 19 conducted in the house of accused R.K. Vij. He identified his signatures on the Observation Memo Ex. PW 2/A, Search cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-2/B and on the Search cum Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C.
29. PW - 4: Sh. Anil Kumar Sanon, the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Paschim Vihar Branch, Delhi has identified his signatures on the letter Ex. PW-4/A and on the documents Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C. He also identified his signatures on the letter Ex. PW-4/D and also on the account statement Ex. PW-4/E of account no. 45897.
30. PW - 5: Sh. Bipin Chandra Goswami has deposed that he has been working as Manager (Personnel) in the Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Dhaligaon, Assam since 1974. He had seen the personal file Ex. PW-5/A of accused R.K. Vij in the court. Vide joining letter Ex. PW-5/B accused R.K. Vij joined his services on 23.03.87. He further deposed that the dependents of accused R.K. Vij are mentioned 19 To 64 20 in the declaration Ex. PW-5/C. He further deposed that as per records accused R.K. Vij was having 13 acres of Agricultural land as mentioned in Ex. PW-5/D and he has mentioned in this return that he was having an approximate income of Rs. 6,000/- per year from agricultural land. There is mention of only flat no. 58, Triveni Apartments and not of flat no.55.
31. PW - 6: Sh. Rampal has deposed that he was working as Patwari, in Halqa Gohana No.1, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, Haryana since 1998. In the year 1975, the agricultural land in the share of accused R.K. Vij was about 30-35 acres. He further deposed that he cannot specify the exact share of other brother without complete record. In the year 1975, the agricultural income per acre was about Rs. 6,000/- per annum.
32. PW - 7: Sh. D.K. Chatwal, Sr. Manager, Union Bank of India, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi has identified the signatures of Sh. M. K. Batra, the then Senior Manager on the Account 20 To 64 21 Statement Ex. 7/A of account no. 2180.
33. PW - 8: Sh. Sukhram (Ex Patwari) has deposed that he remained posted in Gohana during the year 1974 till retirement in the year 2000. He further deposed that he know Late Sh. Brij Lal who was holding agriculture land in Gohana and Khadarayi consisting of 60 acres. During the year 1975 the income from this agriculture land was Rs. 6000/- per acre and during the year 1992 to 1999 the average income of that land was Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The above incomes were net incomes i.e. after deduction of all the expenses.
34. PW - 9: Sh. S.P. Goel, Regional Head, Union Bank of India, Indore, M.P. has deposed that he know accused R.K. Vij as they are from same place i.e. Gohana. He further deposed that accused R.K. Vij purchased SDRs to the tune of Rs. 25,65,000/-. He deposited all the amount in cash in his SDR accounts and the proceeds of above said SDRs proceeded towards DRC account no. 8551, 6746 and 7985. The account 21 To 64 22 statements Ex. PW-9/A1 to A5 were issued by their bank.
35. PW - 10: Sh. Anand Prakash Sharma, Manager (Finance) BRPL has identified the signatures of Sh. S.R. Shangpliang, the then CVO, BRPL on letter Ex. PW-10/A. He also identified his signatures on the salary statement Ex. PW-10/B of accused R.K. Vij. He also identified the signatures of Sh. T.V. John on the letter Ex. PW-10/C.
36. PW - 11: Sh. Mohan Lal, Asst. Director, Commercial Estate, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi has deposed on being shown the Demand Notices Ex. PW-11/A and Ex. PW-11/B that the said notices were issued by DDA for deposit of Rs. 2,03,025/- against allotment of shop bearing no.3, CSC at A-4, Paschim Puri, allotted in the name of accused R.K. Vij and his wife and for deposit of Rs. 2,45,865/- against allotment of Shop no. 9, A-4, Paschim Puri, allotted in the name of Smt. Usha Vij and her husband accused R.K. Vij.
37. PW - 12: Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain (retd.) Chief 22 To 64 23 Manager, Union Bank of India has deposed that the account no. 40713 was opened in their branch in the name of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij with an initial amount of Rs. 500/- on his introduction. He identified his signatures on the Account Opening Form Ex. PW-4/B.
38. PW - 13: Sh. Ranjit Singh, Estate Officer, Manavsthali School, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi has identified the signatures of Ms. Mamta V. Bhatnagar, the then Principal on the letter Ex. PW-13/A.
39. PW - 14: Sh. P.K. Gupta, Sr. Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gohana, District Sonepat, Haryana has identified his signatures on the Account Statement Ex. PW-14/A, pertaining to account no. 8583 in the name of Sh. Ranvir Singh Vij & Sons (HUF).
40. PW - 15: Sh. Devender Kumar, S/o Sh. Laxman Dass has deposed that he has sold 1 bigha and 3 biswas land out of Khasra No. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi to Smt. Usha Vij W/o Sh.
23 To 64 24 R.K. Vij, R/o 58, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, Delhi for an amount of Rs. 42,000/-. He identified his signatures on the sale deed Ex. PW-15/A.
41. PW - 16: SI D.K. Singh has proved the FIR as Ex. PW-16/A and identified the signatures of Sh. R. S. Diwedi, the then SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi. He identified his signatures on the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A. He also identified his signatures on the Search cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-2/B and on the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C.
42. PW - 17: DSP Jayant Kashmere, the 2nd IO of the case has deposed that the investigation of this case was entrusted to him by way of transfer from Inspector D.K. Singh. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized documents vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-17/1 and Ex. PW-17/2. He also collected documents vide letter Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-10/A, Ex. PW-4/D, Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW17/3.
43. PW - 18: Sh. J.S. Popli, Secretary, M/s SBM Co-
24 To 64 25 Operative Society Ltd. Paschim Vihar has identified the signatures of Sh. S.R. Rai and Sh. V.G. Vaidya on the photocopy of letter dated 11.07.98, Ex. PW-18/A. He further deposed that Flat no.55, Triveni Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was originally allotted to Sh. P.C. Jain by the society @ Rs. 1,94,000/- and in the year 2001 Sh. P.c. Jain sold the said flat to Smt. Usha Vij.
44. PW - 19: Sh. R.N. Srivastav, Dealing Assistant, Commercial Estate Branch, Delhi Development Authority, INJ, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi has brought the file pertaining to Shop no. 3, CSC, A-4 Block, Pachim Puri, near Swatantra Bharat Mills, CGHS. As per the record, the aforesaid shop was allotted in the name of Smt. Usha Vij and Sh. R.K. Vij, jointly by DDA. Tenders were submitted by Smt. Usha Vij and Sh. R.K. Vij under the signatures of Sh. R.K. Vij on 24.03.1994 with DDA. Accused R.K. Vij made payment of Rs. 2,04,1758/- to DDA vide two challans dated 23.05.1994 for Rs. 1009/- and Rs. 1,53,000/- deposited 25 To 64 26 with the Central Bank of India. He also deposited Rs.16/- on 19.08.1994. Accused R.K. Vij also deposited RS. 49,750/- on 24.03.1994 with tender document.
45. After closing the Prosecution Evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused for his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. It is submitted by the accused that he is innocent. He does not have any asset which is disproportionate to his known source of income. The investigating officer has not considered the fact that from year 1991 onwards he remained owner of 10 acres of land and after the death of his father, his mother used to keep the net agricultural income with her in the house as she was not having any bank account and on asking of Sh. S.P. Goel, the then Manager, Union Bank of India, Paschim Vihar Branch, who belonged to his village Gohana, accused R.K. Vij deposited total sum of Rs. 25,65,000/- in the said bank in three installments after taking the said amount from his mother, out of the 26 To 64 27 agricultural income. The Investigating Officer has also not given him the benefit of Rs. 60,000 which he received on account of arrears of his Provident Fund from his previous employer DCM in the year 1987. The Investigating Officer has also not given him benefit of his saving for rendering services to M/s DCM and M/s Calico Mills w.e.f. 1973 to 1987. The Investigating Officer has also not given him the benefit of yearly enhancement of the agricultural income nor he has given him the benefit of agricultural income w.e.f. 1972 to 1987. Accused R.K. Vij further submits that his wife is a Graduate and she used to teach English to children of the society on payment in the house and sometimes she also used to attend the factory of his family friend Sh. Luthra for doing designing work on payment. Exorbitant expenditures had been reflected by the Investigation Officer. His savings have not been correctly reflected.
46. In defence, accused examined seven witnesses.
47. DW - 1: Sh. Chander Mohan Sehgal S/o Sh. Sri 27 To 64 28 Kishan, Agriculture, R/o Village Gohana, District Sonepat, has deposed that he has been residing in village Gohana since 1948 when he repatriated there from Pakistan. When they shifted to Gohana, his father was allotted about 100 acres land by the Government of India in lieu of their land in Pakistan. He has further deposed that the accused and his father are having land in Village Khandarai and 2 acres in Gohana. He has further deposed that Brij Lal, father of the accused distributed his land among both sons in 1972 and about 29 acres fell to the share of the accused R. K. Vij and about 29 acres to Kamal Kishore Vij. He has further deposed that Brij Lal and Ranvir Vij were also having 6-7 buffaloes and running a mini dairy and a poultry farm. He has further deposed that the net profit from the land used to be Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,000/- per acre per annum in the year 1972. There used to be 7% to 8% increase in net profit every year.
48. DW-1 has further deposed that in the year 1987, the net profit from the land used to Rs.19,000/- approximately per acre 28 To 64 29 per annum and in the year 1995, net profit from the land used to be Rs.35,000/- per acre per annum approximately.
49. DW - 2: Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Shyam Manohar Shukla, has deposed that he has been working with Talwar Jewellers since 1989. After seeing the Sale Voucher dated 29.11.1988 No. 354 Ex. DW-2/A, he has deposed that the same has been issued by their Employer / Owner Sh. Shyam Sunder Talwar and vide this voucher, R. K. Vij has given 46.85 grams gold jewellery and they issued him new gold jewellery weighing 47.25 grams. He has further deposed that as per the voucher, his employer has charged Rs.95/- including tax and cost of difference of the gold and the market value of the gold was Rs. 1,740/- per ten grams at that time.
50. DW - 3: Smt. Kamlesh Kumari D/o late Sh. Brij Lal Vij, has deposed that her father Brij Lal was allotted about 70/75 acres of agricultural land by the Government of India in place of the land which he left in Pakistan and in the year 1972, the land 29 To 64 30 was divided between her two brothers namely R. K. Vij and Kamal Kishore Vij. She has further deposed that her mother used to keep lot of money in iron safe and once in the month of November, 1994, his brother i.e. accused R. K. Vij came to their house and her mother paid him Rs.25,00,000/- lacs in cash in her presence from the safe. She has further deposed that her mother used to send butter/ghee, vegetables, wheat and other products weekly to accused R. K. Vij, hence he was not to purchase these items for his kitchen from the market.
51. DW - 4: Smt. Usha Vij W/o Ranbir Kumar Vij, R/o 58, Triveni Apartments, A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, has deposed that she was married to accused R. K. Vij on 12.03.1977 at Village Gohana. She has further deposed that from the year 1979, she started teaching students and mostly used to teach English. She also used to teach Hindi to small children and she gave tuition upto 1999. She has further deposed that she used to give tuitions in two shifts and 5-6 30 To 64 31 children in every shift. She used to charge Rs.100/- per month per child in the beginning and in the year, 1999, the rates were Rs.500/- per month per child. She has further deposed that she also started going to a factory in the year 1985 owned by one Gulshan Luthra. The name of the firm was M/s. Anupam Synthetics and they were manufacturer of ladies suits and she used to give designing of ladies suits. She used to go to the factory twice a week or thrice a week whenever there was need for her. Her total earnings were Rs.8,000/- per month on an average from tuitions as well as factory work.
52. DW-5 Gulshan Kumar Luthra S/o Late Sh. R. C. Luthra, Textile Business, R/o House No. D-24, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi, has deposed that he has been in Textile Business since 1973 and he has his office in the Cloth Market at Chandni Chowk and factory at Okhla under the name and style of M/s. Anupam Synthetics Private Limited. He has further deposed that they are manufacturing textiles / fabric in their factory. He has 31 To 64 32 deposed that he knew Usha Vij, the wife of accused R. K. Vij since 1979-1980, who used to do the job of textile designer in their factory from 1985 to 1997 which might be 1998 also. He has further deposed that she might be earning on an average of Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month, which might be more in subsequent time of her working.
53. DW - 6: Ms. Sapna Malik, Additional Law Manager with M/s DCM Sri Ram Consolidated Limited(a unit of Swatantra Bharat Mills) New Delhi, has deposed that she has been working with Swatantra Bharat Mills since 1996. The same is unit of DCM Sri Ram Consolidated Limited. She has seen the Pass Book Ex. DW-6/A, which was objected to by the Prosecution.
54. DW-7: Sh. Deven S/o Sh. RR Dharamdasani, working with M/S. Quasar Media, R/o Flat No. 15, Triveni Apartments, A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, has deposed that he has been residing in Flat No. 15, Triveni Apartments, A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, for the last about 30 years since his 32 To 64 33 childhood. He knew accused R. K. Vij as he used to get tuitions from Usha Vij, the wife of accused. He has taken tuition from 6th to 9th class for two subjects and from 10th class to 12th class in English only. He has further deposed that she used to give tuition in two shifts as he used to attend both shifts. He has also stated that 05 or 07 students used to take tuition in one shift and he used to pay Rs.200/- per month from 06th Class to 09th Class and Rs.500/- per month from 10th Class to 12th Class to her.
55. I have heard final arguments of Sh. J. S. Wadia, Learned PP for CBI and Sh. H. K. Aneja, Learned Counsel of the accused and perused the record.
56. Ld. PP has argued that accused R. K. Vij was a Public Servant and he was working with Bongaigaon Refinery and Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. at Regional Office, New Delhi. Ld. PP has argued that accused being a Public Servant acquired Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs. 14,93,972=70 during the check period i.e. 23.03.1987 to 33 To 64 34 31.01.1995 against his total income of Rs. 23,04,457=95. Ld. PP has relied upon the Judgment SAJJAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1964 SC 464.
57. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that accused R. K. Vij was not a Public Servant and the agricultural income of the accused has not been properly calculated by the Prosecution. He also submitted that the income of the wife of the accused has not been added in the income of the accused. It has been submitted by the accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
58. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the following Judgments:-
(1) STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M. MUNISWAMY, VIII(2000) SLT 646.
(2) G. V. S. LINGAM VS. STATE OF AP. 1999 CR.
L. J. 1026.
(3) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. POLLONJI DARABSHAW DARUWALLA, AIR 1988 SC 88. 34 To 64 35 (4) MADHAB CHANDRA TALUKDAR VS. CBI, 2008 CR. L. J. 181. (5) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. WASUDEO RAMCHANDRA KAIDALWAR, 1981 CR. L. J. 884. (6) M. KRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 1999 (1) JCC (SC) 159. (7) M. KRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE, 1993 CR. L. J. 308. (8) D. S. P., CHENNAI VS. K. INBASAGARAN, (2006) I SUPREME COURT CASES 420. (9) SH. JASTINDER SINGH VS. STATE, 2000 (2) JCC (DELHI) 541.
(10) STATE OF M.P. VS AWADH KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS, (2004) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 691.
(11) ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM, II(2011)SLT 367.
PUBLIC SERVANT & SANCTION.
59. It is an admitted fact that the accused was posted and working as Senior Manager (Marketing) Bongaigaon Refinery and Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. at Regional 35 To 64 36 Office, New Delhi and he resigned from the said company on 02.12.1995. Moreover, the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has also admitted this fact. But he has submitted that he was not a Public Servant.
60. Ld. Defence Counsel has raised the question that accused R. K. Vij was not a Public Servant. On the other hand, Ld. PP has submitted that accused R. K. Vij was a Public Servant. Now firstly I will decide whether the accused R. K. Vij was a Public Servant or not.
61. I have gone through the testimony of PW-5 Bipin Chandra Goswami, who has deposed that he has been working in Bongaigaon, Refinery Petro Chemical Ltd., Dhaligaon, Assam since 1974. After seen the Personal File Ex. PW-5/A and Joining Letter Ex. PW-5/B of accused R. K. Vij, he has deposed that accused R. K. Vij joined service on 23.03.1987 and the dependents of the accused are mentioned in the Declaration Ex. PW-5/C. He has further deposed that as per the record, accused 36 To 64 37 R. K. Vij was having 13 acres of agricultural land as mentioned in Ex. PW-5/D and he has mentioned in this return that he was having an approximate income of Rs.6,000/- per year from agricultural land. Flat no. 58, Triveni apartments, New Delhi is also mentioned in the same.
62. I have also gone through the Personal File Ex. PW-5/A of the accused R. K. Vij, wherein the letter dated 16.12.1986 regarding the Offer for appointment to the post of Dy. Manager (Customer Services- Weaving) is available. The said letter is on the letter head of the Company. It has been mentioned on the letter head that "Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd." (A Government of India Undertaking) having its registered office at P. O. Dhaligaon, Distt. Kokrajhar, Assam.
63. Accused R. K. Vij joined the services on 23.03.1987 vide his Joining Report Ex. PW-5/B.
64. From the testimony of PW-5 as well as the documents, it is clear that "Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd." is a 37 To 64 38 Government of India Undertaking having its registered office at P. O. Dhaligaon, Distt. Kokrajhar, Assam. During the cross examination of PW-5, accused R. K. Vij has put two letters Ex. PW-5/DA and Ex. PW-5/DB to the witness, which related to the appreciation of work of accused by the marketing department written by Sh. D. K. Borgohain, Director (Commercial) of the Company and Sh. J. M. B. Barua, Chairman of the Company. The said two letters are also on the letter head of the Company wherein it has been mentioned that a Govt. of India Undertaking. From this, it is clear that the accused was working in a Government of India Undertaking and was a Public Servant.
65. Now coming to the point of the Sanction for the Prosecution against the accused R. K. Vij. It is an admitted fact that accused R. K. Vij, the then Senior Manager (Marketing) has resigned from services on 02.12.1995. This fact is also admitted by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The Charge Sheet of the present case has been filed on 38 To 64 39 18.11.2002. Hence, no Sanction for Prosecution is required under the PC Act, 1988 since accused R. K. Vij has already resigned from service. Both the issues are disposed off accordingly.
66. The allegation of the Assets of Disproportionate to the Income of the accused emanates from the difference existing between the Assets and Expenditure incurred taken together from the income earned during the check period. Disproportionate Asset = (Expenditure + Immovable & Movable Assets during the check period) - Income during the check period.
67. In this situation, I deem it appropriate to analyze the income details during the check period.
INCOME DETAILS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD.
68. During the check period, the prosecution has taken the salary and income of the accused as Rs.23,04,457=95. This aspect has been disputed by the accused R. K. Vij.
39 To 64 40
69. It has been submitted by the accused that he has not disputed about the salary of Rs.8,34,256=95 received from BRPL during the check period.
70. Prosecution has taken the fact that accused has received the Agricultural Income during the Check Period as Rs. 5,52,000/- as per his declaration Ex. PW-5/D. In this regard, Prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. PW-6 Ram Pal, Patwari and PW-8 Sukhram, Patwari.
71. PW-6 Ram Pal has deposed that in the year, 1975 the agricultural income per acre was about Rs.6,000/- per annum. PW-8 Sukhram has deposed that during the year, 1975 the income from the agricultural land was Rs.6,000/- per acre and during the year 1992 to 1999 the average income of the land was Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre.
72. This fact has been disputed by the accused. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court on the cross examination of PW-6 and PW-8. During the cross examination, 40 To 64 41 PW-6 Ram Pal has admitted the fact that the land is very fertile due to good irrigation facilities and two regular crops i.e. Rabbi and Kharif are raised in the land. He has also admitted that the margin of profit increases 8 to 10% per year.
73. During the cross examination, PW-8 Sukhram has admitted the fact that in the year 1987 the net income from the agricultural land was Rs. 11,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per annum and in the year 1995, it could be Rs.15,000/- or Rs.16,000/- or even more. He has also admitted the fact that the agricultural income gradually increase in the net income per acre right from 1972 onwards and at no point of time the income fell down. He has further stated in the cross examination that the sale was made through 'Arhti (Broker) and all the transaction were made in cash and no writings were made for the transactions as this was the system prevalent in the area.
74. Accused R. K. Vij has stated during his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that his agricultural income 41 To 64 42 was much more than Rs.6,000/- per annum per acre and his net agricultural income during the check period was between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per annum per acre. This version of the accused also finds corroboration from the testimonies of PW-6 Ram Pal and PW-8 Sukhram.
75. In view of the above, I find that the agricultural income of the accused from 1987 to 1991 (13 acres) seems to be Rs. 12,000/- per annum per acre and Rs.16,000/- per annum per acre from 1992 to 1995 (10 acres). Hence, the agricultural income of the accused during the check period is Rs.14,20,000/-.
76. Accused has not disputed the amount of Rs. 4,76,701=00 received from Govt. of Haryana towards acquisition of 3 acres land in Gohana.
77. Accused has also not disputed the amount of Rs. 1,25,000=00 received from sale of 260 sq. yards plot out of Khasra No. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi on 28.07.1989.
78. Accused has also not disputed the amount of Rs.
42 To 64 43 50,000=00 received from sale of tractor to Sh. Zile Singh S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal R/o Village Purkhas, Tehsil & District Sonepat on 27.02.1988.
79. Accused has also not disputed the amount of Rs. 1,59,000=00 received from sale of around 17 acres land in village Khandrai by Late sh. Brij Lal, father of accused R. K. Vij and amount of Rs.2,20,000=00 received by Smt. Pushpawanti, mother of accused R. K. Vij from Government of Haryana as compensation on towards acquisition of land measuring little less than an acre.
80. Accused R. K. Vij submitted that the income of his wife Usha Vij has not been taken by the Prosecution in his income. It has been stated by the accused that his wife Usha Vij was teaching students in house and was not employed permanently and goes to cousin's factory occasionally. This fact has been mentioned in the Declaration Ex. PW-5/C. In this regard, DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of accused R. K. Vij has deposed before the Court 43 To 64 44 that from the year, 1979, she started teaching students and she mostly used to teach English. She also used to teach Hindi to small children and she gave tuition upto 1999. She has further deposed that she used to give tuitions in two shifts and 5-6 children in every shift. She used to charge Rs.100/- per month per child in the beginning and in the year, 1999, the rates were Rs.500/- per month per child. She has further deposed that she also started going to a factory in the year 1985 owned by one Gulshan Luthra. The name of the firm was M/s. Anupam Synthetics and they were manufacturer of ladies suits and she used to give designing of ladies suits. She used to go to the factory twice a week or thrice a week whenever there was need for her. Her total earnings were Rs.8,000/- per month on an average from tuitions as well as factory work.
81. The version of DW-4 Usha Vij has been corroborated by the testimonies of DW-7 Deven and DW-5 Gulshan Kumar Luthra.
44 To 64 45
82. DW-7 Deven has deposed that he has been residing in Flat No. 15, Triveni Apartments, A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, for the last about 30 years since his childhood. He knew accused R. K. Vij as he used to get tuitions from Usha Vij, the wife of accused. He has taken tuition from 6th to 9th class for two subjects and from 10th class to 12th class in English only. He has further deposed that she used to give tuition in two shifts as he used to attend both shifts. He has also stated that 05 or 07 students used to take tuition in one shift and he used to pay Rs. 200/- per month from 06th Class to 09th Class and Rs.500/- per month from 10th Class to 12th Class to her.
83. DW-5 Gulshan Kumar Luthra has deposed that he has been in Textile Business since 1973 and he has his office in the Cloth Market at Chandni Chowk and factory at Okhla under the name and style of M/s. Anupam Synthetics Private Limited. He has further deposed that they are manufacturing textiles / fabric in their factory. He has deposed that he knew Usha Vij, the wife 45 To 64 46 of accused R. K. Vij since 1979-1980, who used to do the job of textile designer in their factory from 1985 to 1997 which might be 1998 also. He has further deposed that she might be earning on an average of Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month, which might be more in subsequent time of her working.
84. Nothing favourable to the Prosecution has been extracted from the cross examination of DW-4, DW-5 and DW-7 conducted by the Prosecution.
85. In view of the above, I find that the income of the wife of the accused seems to be Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the income of Rs.7,52,000=00 of the wife of the accused during the check period be added in the income of the accused R. K. Vij.
EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD.
86. Prosecution has taken the expenditure regarding the Kitchen / domestic expenses as a sum of Rs.2,78,085=65 which is 1/3rd of salary of accused. This fact has not been disputed by the accused R. K. Vij.
46 To 64 47
87. Prosecution has taken the expenditure incurred towards the education of his son Manish as a sum of Rs.30,820=00. This fact has also not been disputed by the accused R. K. Vij.
88. As regard to the expenditure regarding the house tax paid towards flat no. 55, A-6, Trivent Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, Prosecution has taken the amount as Rs.15,470=00, which has not been disputed by the accused.
89. As regard to the expenditure regarding the house tax paid towards flat no. 58, A-6, Trivent Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, Prosecution has taken the amount as Rs.6,650=00, which has not been disputed by the accused.
IMMOVABLE ASSETS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD.
90. The prosecution has taken the Immovable Assets i.e. (1) Flat No. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar New Delhi, for the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (2) Shop No.3, CSC A-4, Paschim Puri, Near SB Mills in the names of accused R. K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij for the sum of Rs.2,03,025=00 (3) 47 To 64 48 Shop No.9, CSC A-4, Paschim Puri, Near SB Mills in the names of accused R. K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij for the sum of Rs. 2,45,8765=00, and (4) Land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas out of Khasra No. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, purchased in the name of Smt. Usha Vij from Sh. Devinder Kumar S/o Laxman Das, R/o A-1/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi on 22.12.1988 for the sum of Rs.42,000=00 as cost of land and Rs.3,360=00 as stamp duty. Out of the above immovable Assets, accused has not disputed regarding the (1) Shop No.3, CSC A-4, Paschim Puri, Near SB Mills in the names of accused R. K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij for the sum of Rs.2,03,025=00 and (2) Shop No.9, CSC A-4, Paschim Puri, Near SB Mills in the names of accused R. K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij for the sum of Rs.2,45,8765=00.
91. Accused has disputed regarding the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was taken by the Prosecution as Immovable Assets of Flat No. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. It has been submitted by the accused that the 48 To 64 49 amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid through Cheque No. EC652593, dated 04.10.1994, OBC, Gohana, which is during the Check Period. It has been further submitted that the amount of Rs.50,000/- were paid on 03.04.1995, which is beyond the Check Period.
92. Accused has disputed regarding the Immovable Assets of Land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas out of Khasra No. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, purchased in the name of Smt. Usha Vij from Sh. Devinder Kumar S/o Laxman Das, R/o A-1/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi on 22.12.1988 for the sum of Rs.42,000=00 as cost of land and Rs.3,360=00 as stamp duty. It has been submitted by the accused that the same was purchased by his mother Pushpawanti in the name of her daughter in law i.e. wife of the accused. Moreover, the version of the accused has been corroborated with the testimony of PW-15 Devinder Kumar, who during his cross examination deposed before the Court that the mother of the accused has made payment for sale of the land 49 To 64 50 and it was she who gave the sale price in cash saying that the land may be purchased in the name of her daughter in law Smt. Usha Vij.
93. In view of the above, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of purchasing of flat no. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, is beyond the period of check period. It is also clear that the land at Tikri Kalan, Delhi was purchased by the mother of accused in the name of her daughter in law Usha Vij. Hence, the amount of Rs.50,000/- and the amount of Rs.45,360=00 (Rs.42,000 as cost of land + Rs. 3,360 as Stamp Duty) be excluded from the Immovable Assets of the accused.
MOVABLE ASSETS DURING THE CHECK PERIOD.
94. The Prosecution has taken the movable assets of cost of house hold articles acquired by accused during check period found during the house search for the sum of Rs.1,58,155=00 which is disputed by the accused. It has been submitted by the 50 To 64 51 accused that the Jewellery which was mentioned in Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was gifted to his wife by his parents as well as her parents at the time of marriage in the year 1977. The valuation in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was exaggerated.
95. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.8 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1997 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1995.
96. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.11 of the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1985 and item no. 12 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1981 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase of item no. 11 and 12 have been mentioned as 1990.
51 To 64 52
97. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.19 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1985 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989.
98. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.20 and 24 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given to her at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989.
99. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.22 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1979 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989.
100. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.25 to 29 of Observation Memo Ex.
52 To 64 53 PW-2/A was given to her at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the years of purchases have been mentioned as 1990, 1995, 1996, 1989 onwards and 1992.
101. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.32 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given to her as a gift by her parents at the time of her 20 th Wedding Anniversary whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989.
102. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.33 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1985 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989.
103. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no. 35 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her in the year 1997 whereas in the 53 To 64 54 Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1990.
104. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no. 41 and 45 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given by her parents at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989 and 1992.
105. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.50 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by them in the year 1996-1997 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1995.
106. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.63 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was sent by her in laws from Gohana whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1980 onwards.
54 To 64 55
107. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.67 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given by her parents and in laws at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989 onwards.
108. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.68 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was received by her in a lucky draw prize during the Diwali Mela in the year 1996 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1995.
109. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.76 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by her husband in the year 1997-98 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989 onwards.
110. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before 55 To 64 56 the court that the item no.90 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given by her parents at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989 onwards.
111. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.105 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was left by sister of her mother in law when she left India for USA whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1994.
112. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.107 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was purchased by them in the year 1997 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1990 onwards.
113. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.110 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A were recent one i.e. for the year 2007-2008 whereas in the 56 To 64 57 Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1989 onwards.
114. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.111 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given by her parents as well as her in laws at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977. In the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1977 onwards.
115. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.115 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A was given by her parents as well as her in laws at the time of her marriage i.e. in the year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1980 onwards.
116. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.7 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C was given by her parents at the time of her marriage i.e. in the 57 To 64 58 year 1977 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1995 onwards.
117. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.9 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C was purchased by them after 1995 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1995 onwards.
118. DW-4 Usha Vij, wife of the accused has deposed before the court that the item no.5 of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C was purchased by them in the year 1985 whereas in the Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A, the year of purchase has been mentioned as 1992.
119. Accused has drawn the attention of the Court towards the testimony of PW-16 SI D. K. Singh, who searched the house of the accused alongwith the two independent witnesses i.e. A. K. Kaul and Rajinder Kumar. PW-16 SI D. K. Singh, during his cross examination conducted by accused, deposed that item no.
58 To 64 59 100 and 111 in Ex. PW-2/A relates to the jewellery found in the house and he mentioned these articles to be in yellow metal and in respect of one article mentioned at (f) as appearing to be of Gold. He further deposed during cross examination that he was not sure whether all these articles mentioned above were of gold or not. He also did not take any expert who could certify that items were made of gold. He was not having any weighing scale and approximate weight has been mentioned. The year of acquisition of jewellery as 1977 onward was mentioned as per information given. He also admitted that he cannot say with certainty whether these acquisitions of jewellery were between 1987 to 1995 and whether the acquisition could be after 1995.
120. Accused has also drawn the attention of the court towards the testimony of PW-2 Sh. A. K. Kaul, JE, who has deposed before the court during the cross examination that the jewellery mentioned at serial no. 111 in Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A appeared to be an old jewellery. He further deposed 59 To 64 60 during the cross examination that the jewellery was not weighed and only approximate estimate was taken and the rate of gold was taken as on the date of raid.
121. In view of the above, the amount of Rs.1,78,555=00 be excluded from the cost of household articles acquired by the accused R. K. Vij during the Check Period. But the cost of Household articles has been mentioned by the Prosecution as Rs.1,58,155=00 which is the calculation of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/A. Prosecution has not calculated the amount of Rs. 25,900/- which is the sum of Observation Memo Ex. PW-2/C. Hence, the cost of house hold articles be excluded from the Movable Assets of the accused.
122. The Prosecution has also taken the Movable Assets of SDRs in the Union Bank of India, Jwala Heri Branch, Paschim Vihar, in the name of accused Ranbir R/o Village P. O. Gohana made in cash for the sum of Rs.25,65,000=00 which is not disputed by the accused.
60 To 64 61
123. On the basis of my above findings, the details of income of the accused would be as under:
A. TOTAL INCOME OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:-
S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1. Gross Salary income of accused R.K. Vij Rs. 8,34,256=95 as public servant during the check Period from BRPL.
2. Agricultural Income @ Rs. 6000/- per Rs. 14,20,000=00 annum per acre for the land held in the name of accused R.K. Vij from time to time, from 1987 to 1991 (13 acres) and from 1991 to 1995 (10 acres)
3. Amount received from Govt. of Haryana Rs. 4,76,701=00 towards acquisition of 3 acres land in Gohana.
4. Income from sale of 260 Sq. Yards plot Rs. 1,25,000=00 out of Khasra no. 26/20, Tikri Kalan, Delhi on 28.07.89
5. Income from sale of tractor to Sh. Zile Rs. 50,000=00 Singh S/o Prabhu Dayal R/o village Purkhas, Tehsil & District Sonepat on 27.02.88.
6. Amount received from sale of around 17 Rs. 1,59,000=00 acres land in village Khandrai by Late Sh.
Brij Lal, father of accused R.K. Vij .
61 To 64 62
7. Amount received by Smt. Pushpawanti Rs. 2,20,000=00 mother of accused R.K. Vij from Govt. of Haryana as compensation on towards acquisition of land measuring little less than an acre.
8. Income of Usha Vij, wife of accused R.K. Rs. 7,52,000=00 Vij from tuitions as well as factory work during the check Period TOTAL Rs. 40,36,957=95 B. DETAILS OF ASSETS (1) IMMOVABLE ASSETS:-
S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1. Flat no. 55, A-6, Triveni Apartments, Rs.2,00,000=00 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Shop No.3 CSC A-4, Paschim Puri Rs.2,03,025=00 near SB Mills in the names of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij.
3. Shop No.9 CSC A-4, Paschim Puri Rs.2,45,865=00 near SB Mills in the names of accused R.K. Vij and his wife Smt. Usha Vij.
TOTAL Rs.6,48,890=00 62 To 64 63 (2) MOVABLE ASSETS.
S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT
01. SDRs in the Union Bank of India, Rs.25,65,000=00 Jwala Heri Branch, Paschim Vihar in the name of accused Ranbir R/o village P.O. Gohana made in cash.
TOTAL Rs.25,65,000=00 C. EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD:-
S. NO PARTICUALARS AMOUNT
1. Kitchen / domestic expenses. Rs.2,78,085=65
(1/3 of salary of accused R.K. Vij)
2. Expenditure incurred towards Rs. 30,820=00
education of Sh. Manish Vij S/o
accused R.K. Vij.
3. House Tax paid towards flat no.55, Rs. 15,470=00 A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
4. House Tax paid towards flat no. 58, Rs. 6,650=00 A-6, Triveni Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
TOTAL Rs.3,31,025=65
124. On the basis of the above details, the total of the assets 63 To 64 64 and expenditure would become (Rs.32,13,890=00) + (Rs. 3,31,025=65) = Rs.35,44,915=65. Since the income of the accused on the basis of my findings is Rs.40,36,957=95 therefore, there is no asset or expenditure of the accused which is Disproportionate to the source of income.
125. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that prosecution has not succeeded in proving the commission of offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)
(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, accused is acquitted of the substantive offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. ON 27.07.2013 (N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 , DELHI.
64 To 64