Delhi District Court
Heard On The Point Of Sentence And ... vs P. Chauhan on 6 October, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE03, CBI
NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 08/2011
Case ID No. 02403R0965822008
RC No. DAI/2008/A0028/CBI/ACB/ND
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
SHASHI BHANU
S/O SH. PREM PAL SINGH
R/O 1/1073, A2/C1,
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI110030
Date on which charge sheet was filed 19.12.2008
Date on which charges were framed 07.08.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved 26.09.2012
Date on which judgment was pronounced04.10.2012
APPEARANCES:
MEMO OF
Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused.
04.10.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Shashi Bhanu S/o Prem Pal Singh, a public servant deputed and functioning as Work Assistant in Delhi Development Authority has been arraigned for trial on the allegations that during the period 01.01.1981 to 15.01.2008 while employed in different capacities in the DDA, he acquired State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.1/48 2 movable and immovable assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.14,69,408/. FACTS
2. The present FIR Ex.PW 31/B was registered on a written complaint Ex.PW 31/A dt. 15.01.2008 by Smt. Vibha Kumari (PW31) SI, CBI, ACB, New Delhi on the allegations that subsequent to laying of trap in RC No. 6(A)/2008/DLI on Shashi Bhanu, JE, DDA, Enforcement Branch, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, search was conducted at his residence at 1/1073, A/2, C1, Mehrauli, New Delhi on 15.01.2008 and the documents that were seized and subsequently verified prima facie revealed that accused in his name and that of his family members have movable and immovable assets of Rs.31.39 lakhs whereas his salary and other earnings were not more than Rs.21.70 lakhs and the likely savings after deduction of expenditure was not more than Rs. 12.79 lakhs and thus he was found having assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.18.60 lakhs.
3. The case of the CBI is that accused joined DDA as work Assistant on 12.01.1981; that, thereafter, appointed as JE in DDA w.e.f. 08.03.1985 and joined Enforcement Branch of DDA in December 2006 where he continued to work till 15.01.2008. The check period has been taken w.e.f. 01.01.1981 to State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.2/48 3 15.01.2008. It is further stated that accused was born on 08.02.1960 and got married with Smt. Prabha Singh in the year 1994 and has four children namely Anshu Singh, Astha Thakur, Himanshu Thakur and Monika Thakur and all the family members were financially dependent upon the accused.
4. During the investigation, the CBI carried out detailed assessment into income, expenditure and assets of the accused during the check period and the position that emerges is as under:
STATEMENT A (ASSETS AT THE END OF CHECK PERIOD I.E AS ON 15.01.2008
5.
S. Name of Assets In the name of Amount
N. in Rs.
1. Property No. 1/1073, A/2, Smt. Prabha 1,70,000/
C1, Mehrauli, New Delhi Singh W/o Sh.
Shashi Bhanu
2. Property No. C25A, Smt. Prabha 4,00,000/
Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki, Singh
New Delhi
3. Investment in plot no. Smt. Prabha 7,08,875/
501204 A/1/0227 Ansal Singh
Properties and Infra
Structure Ltd., Sushant
Gold City, Lucknow.
4. Indica Car no. DL3C AF Sh. Shashi Bhanu 378163/
5129
5. Investment in LIC policy Sh. Shashi Bhanu 57,134/
no. 110830232
Investment in LIC policy Sh. Shashi Bhanu 10,372/
6 no.331754768
Investment in LIC policy Sh. Shashi Bhanu 20,710/
7 no. 114240237
Investment in LIC policy Anshu Singh 25,000/
no.3317545770
8
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.3/48
4
Balance in SB A/c no. Sh. Shashi Bhanu 1745/
14203 SBI, IPX, extn. New
9 Delhi
Balance in SB A/c no. Astha Thakur 333802/
2124 Vaish Coop. Adarsh
10 Bank Ltd.
Balance in SB A/c no. Prabha Singh 1,19,989/
7980 Central Bank of
India, Mehrauli New
11 Delhi
Balance in SB A/c no. Anshu Singh 48,762/
11734, Central Bank of
India, Mehrauli New
12 Delhi
Balance in SB A/c no Sh. Shashi Bhanu 2653/
6840, Syndicate Bank
Green Park Extn. New
13 Delhi
Balance in SB A/c no 980 Sh. Shashi Bhanu 8773/
14 SBBJ, Vasant Kunj
Balance in SB A/c Sh. Shashi Bhanu 43503/
no7695, Canara Bank,
15 Mehrauli, New Delhi
Balance in SB A/c no Sh. Shashi Bhanu 1004/
3001866455 Central Bank
of India, Vikas Sadan,
16 New delhi
Balance in SB A/c Sh. Shashi Bhanu 260/
no654858 AGCR Post
17 Office
Balance in SB A/c no Monika Thakur 20,000/
322420 Mehrauli Post
18 Office
Balance in SB A/c no Himanshu 11000/
322421 Mehrauli Post
19 Office
20 House Hold Articles Sh. Shashi Bhanu 42,880/
Purchase of second hand Prabha Singh 124000/
Maruti 800 vehicle no. DL
21 3CE 1990
Purchase of Bajaj Barvo Sh. Shashi Bhanu 27550/
22 Scooter no. HR 26H 8638
Cash found and observed Sh. Shashi Bhanu 18,360/
during house search of
1/1073, A2, C1,
23 Mehrauli, New Delhi
Total Rs.25,74,535/
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.4/48
5
STATEMENT B (EXPENDITURE DURING CHECK PERIOD (01.01.1983 TO 15.01.2008) S. Items In the name of Amount in N. Rs.
1. One third of Gross pay Shashi Bhanu 1447071/ income tax paid 1435232 + 11839) = 1447071
2. Payment of Shashi Bhanu 1,25,000/ compensation / settlement amount in respect of plot no. 4, Bijwasan, New Delhi
3. Expenditure towards Shashi Bhanu 20,000/ construction on plots in Bijwasan
4. Expenditure towards Shashi Bhanu 5000/ construction on plots in Bijwasan
5. Payment of fees for BA Anshu Singh D/o 1156/ Hon. On 17.07.2007 of Sh. Shashi Bhanu Anshu Singh Payment of school fees Monika Thakur 143616/ in respect of Astha D/o Shashi Bhanu Thakur in DAV Public School, Vasant Vihar, 6 Delhi Payment of school fees Astha Thakur D/o 163471/ in respect of Astha Shashi Bhanu Thakur in DAV Public School, Vasant Kunj Payment of school fees Himanshu Thakur 110915/ in respect of D/o Shahu Bhanu Himanshu Thakur in DAV Public School, Vasant Kunj 7 Payment of school fees Anshu singh 138461/ in respect of Anshu Singh in DAV Public 8 School, Vasant Kunj Payment of fees for B. Astha Thakur 64000/ Tech course in Amity School of Engineers and Technology (Astha Thakur) on 02.09.2007 9 and 06.09.2007 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.5/48 6 Payment of Shashi Bhanu 20,000/ commission to Sh. Lal Chand Gupta for mediating purchase of C25A, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki, New 10 Delhi Payment of Shashi Bhanu 555/ registration fee to Registration Authority Gurgaon in respect of scooter no. HR 26H 11 8638 Payment of premium Shashi Bhanu 571/ in respect of scooter 12 no. HR 26H 8638 Repayment of car loan Shashi Bhanu 247163/ of Rs.2.50 lakhs of ICICI Bank for Indica 13 car no. DL3CAF 5129 Total 24,86,979/ STATEMENT C (INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD) S. Name of Assets In the name of Amount in N. Rs.
1. Net Salary as work Shashi Bhanu 35875/ Asstt. 12.01.1981 to 07.03.1985
2. Net salary as JE upto Shashi Bhanu 2183358/ 15.01.2008
3. Net gain from Shashi Bhanu 20131/ Income received from maturity of police o. 110830233
4. Income received Prabha Singh 21,000/ from Rent of property no. C25A Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki, N. Delhi
5. Interest received in Anshu singh 28,983/ SB a/c 11734/ Central Bank of India, Mehrauli, New Delhi State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.6/48 7 Interest received in Prabha singh 1427/ SB a/c 7980/ Central Bank of India, 6 Mehrauli, New Delhi Interest received in Shashi Bhanu 10954/ SBI, IP Extn. A/c 7 14203 Interest received in Astha Thakur 13291/ SB a/c 2124/ Vaish Cooperative Adarsh 8 Bank Ltd. Daryaganj Interest received in Shashi Bhanu 4834/ SB a/c 7695 Canara 9 Bank Mehrauli, Delhi Interest received in Shashi Bhanu 1356/ SB a/c 980 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 10 Vasant Kunj, Delhi Interest received in Shashi Bhanu 1778/ SB a/c no. 6840 Syndicate Bank, Green Park Extn. New 11 Delhi Interest received in Shashi Bhanu 83/ SB a/c no. 11686 Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New 12 Delhi Net gain from Sale of Shashi Bhanu 210000/ plot no. 4 Khasra no.
30/6, Ambedkar Colony, Bijwasan, N. 13 Delhi Interest received in Shashi Bhanu 8968/ 14 SB a/c no. 654858 LIC claim receipt in Shashi Bhanu 10,000/ respect of LIC policy no. 110830232 15 Net gain on account Monika Thakur 3170/ of payment received on account of closure of account no.
16 319641, PO Mehrauli LIC claim receipt in Shashi Bhanu 10000/ respect of LIC policy 17 no. 11232 18 Net gain from Shashi Bhanu 10,338/ encashemnt of STDR State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.7/48 8 in SB A/c no.
01190/014303, SBI, IP Extn. New Delhi Net gain on closure Monika Thakur 3170/ of a/c no. 319641 19 Mehrauli Post office Net gain on closure Astha 89094/ of a/c no. 319819 20 Mehrauli Post office Net gain from Shashi Bhanu 25,000/ encashemnt of KVPs vide cheque no.
930446 dt. 12.09.1997
of HPO Sarojini
21 Nagar
Net gain from Shashi Bhanu 25,435/
encashemnt of NSC
vide cheque no.
75124 dt. 06.09.2004
of HPO Sarojini
22 Nagar
Receipt of Rs.60,000/ Shashi Bhanu 60,000/
through cheque dt.
27.12.2004 of PNB,
Ec. 27, Noida in SB
A/c no. 7695, Canara
23 Bank
Net gain from Shashi Bhanu 25000/
encahsement of KVPs
vide cheque no.
762442 dt. 18.02.2005
of HPO Sarojini
24 Nagar
Receipt of Rs.2424/ Shashi Bhanu 2424/
through cheque no.
190314 dt. 24.03.2005
of Indian Bank in SB
A/c no. 7695 of
25 Canara Bank
Receipt of refunds Shashi Bhanu 25,000/
during continuation
of LIC policy no.
26 11083233, Mehrauli
Receipt of refunds Shashi Bhanu 10,000/
during continuation
of LIC policy no.
27 11083232, Mehrauli
28 Net gain from Shashi Bhanu 13189/
encashment of ICICI
Prudential life
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.8/48
9
insurance policy no.
00553096
Receipt of cheque dt. Shashi Bhanu 30,000/
22.02.1994 from UTI
29 of Rs.30,000/
Receipt of Car loan Shashi Bhanu 2,50,000/
for purchase of car
30 no. DL3CAF 5129
TOTAL 31,33,858/
6. In the light of the said position, it was found that there were likely savings of Rs.6,46,879/ as against which the accused was having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.19,27,656/ i.e., about 61%. It is alleged that accused was not able to give any satisfactory explanation regarding the acquisition of such assets and accordingly on completion of the investigation, the present charge sheet / report u/s 173 Cr.Pc was filed against the accused on 19.12.2008 and cognizance of offence was taken vide order dt. 05.03.2009.
CHARGE
7. It is needless to state that accused has been charged for committing an offences under section 13 (i) (e) r/w section 13 (2) of PC Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 40 witnesses: State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.9/48 10 IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES
9. PW1 was Mr. Bhagwan Shukla who was in the business of real estate. He deposed that property C25A, Second Floor, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki, New Delhi was sold through him by owner Smt. P. Geeta to Smt. Prabha Singh wife of accused Shashi Bhanu for a total consideration of Rs.4 lakhs on 04.07.2005 and he deposed about the various documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipts that were executed in this regard that are Ex.PW 1/A to Ex.PW 1/E.
10. PW3 was Mr. Prithvi Singh. He deposed having purchased a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in Ambedkar Colony, Bijwasan Delhi, from the accused in the name of his daughter for a sum of Rs.2.80 lakhs in the year 1998 and deposed about the documents Ex.PW 3/A to Ex.PW 3/ D.
11. PW4 was Ms. Sunita Singh who was the daughter of PW3 Prithvi Singh and her evidence is ditto having purchased a plot of land from the accused.
12. PW7 was Mr. Narender Kumar Sondhi, Assistant Assessor & Collector, MCD, Delhi. He deposed that flat no. C1, (Internal number) constructed on plot no. 1/1073, A 2 Mehrauli, Delhi was sold to Smt. Prabha Singh wife of accused Shashi Bhanu probably in the month of June 1992 for a sum of State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.10/48 11 Rs.1,70,000/ and further deposed that the construction was completed in the year 1995.
13. PW 15 was Deokant Singh , General Manager from Ansal Properties. He deposed about the agreement on purchase of land measuring 162 sq. meter for their project at Sushant Lok at Lucknow bought by Smt. Prabha Singh wife of the accused and he deposed about the payments made from time to time supplying details vide receipt which are Ex.PW 15/B1 to Ex.PW 15/ B6 besides supplying the ledger account Ex.PW 15/C and deposed that up to 15.01.2008 total payment of Rs.7,08,875/ had been made.
14. PW19 was Mr. Yaad Ram, a neighbour of the accused who deposed that on 21.09.2001 a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ in cash was paid by the accused to one Hari Ram vide documetns Ex.PW 19/A to settle a pending case with him. PW20 was Hari Ram who corroborated the version of PW19.
15. PW26 was Sh. Udai Bhan Sharma. He deposed about the General Power of Attorney executed by Radhey Shyam in favour of the accused Ex.PW 26/A in which he was one of the witness.
16. PW27 was Pawan Gupta who deposed about D18 which were documents executed by his father Lal Chand Gupta Ex.PW 1/A to E (to be tagged PW1).
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.11/48 12
17. It is pertinent to mention here that the ratable value of the property was proposed to be Rs.4,28,400/ by the MCD and D29 is the documents which were admitted by the accused whereby objections were raised with the MCD requesting that the property was purchased for Rs.1,70,000/ but how much amount was spent on construction has not been spelled out. CASH / BANK / INVESTMENTS
18. PW2 was Mr. Ram Babu Sharma Assistant Superintendent (Post), Post Office Patel Nagar, New Delhi who produced the record in regard to account no. 654858 in the name of the accused opened with initial deposit of Rs.50/ in the year 1981 and showing balance of Rs.260.05p as on 15.01.2008 also deposing about the total interest earned of Rs. 8,967.85p .
19. PW5 was Rajinder Pal, Mail Overseer, Post Office Mehrauli, New Delhi. He deposed that vide letter dt. 10.09.2008, he handed over to the CBI the details of account opening form and statement of accounts in regard to four RD accounts in the name of Monica, Himanshu, Kumari Astha Ex.PW 5/A and the account opening form and statement of account are marked Ex.PW 5/B to Ex.PW 5/F. He further deposed that Kishan Vikas Patra in the sum of Rs.25,000/ was subscribed by the accused State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.12/48 13 in the name of Kumari Anshu Singh as per application form Ex.PW 5/K.
20. PW6 was V. P. Chauhan, Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Green Park Branch, Delhi. He deposed about the details of account no. 6840 in the name of accused with Green Park Branch, Delhi that showed balance of Rs.3819.45 on 11.06.2007 and had a balance of Rs.18,365.45 earlier on 31.12.2003. He deposed that balance as on 15.01.2008 was of Rs.2,699.70 documents in this regard deposed and are Ex.PW 6/A to Ex.PW 6/H.
21. PW10 was Mr. R. K. Singh Dy. Manager State Bank of Bikanair and Jaipur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi who deposed about the saving account of the accused with the bank, certified copies of which were marked Ex.PW 10/A in respect of accused and on which he earned total interest of Rs.2256/ during the check period.
22. PW11 was Mr. K. S. Tiwari, Special Assistant, Central Bank of India, Mehrauli Branch, Delhi who deposed about certain documents that were seized by the CBI from the bank vide seizure memo D4 and proved the same Ex.PW 11/A.
23. PW12 was Mr. Ram Singh posted as Dy. Manager (Cash) with State Bank of India, I. P. Extension Branch and deposed State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.13/48 14 about the details of SB account in the name of accused maintained during the period 11.01.1997 to 30.06.2008 which is Ex.PW 12/A.
24. PW 16 was Mr. Deepak Sinha, Officer, Canara Bank, Mehrauli Branch during the relevant time. He produced the details of account no. 7695 maintained by accused with Bank the relevant documents are Ex.PW 16/ A1 to A4.
25. PW 22 was Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta Branch Manager Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Limited, Yusuf Sarai, Delhi. He deposed that account no. 2124 was opened in the name of Ashta Thakur under the guardianship of Smt. Prabha Singh as on 23.04.1998 there was a credit balance of Rs.3,39,760/.
26. PW28 was Mr. K. S. Tiwari, Official from Central Bank of India, Mehrauli Branch, Delhi. He deposed about account no. 7980 opened on 18.06.1989 by Smt. Prabha singh besides another account in the name of Anshu Singh under natural guardianship of Prabha Singh and the said documents are Ex.PW 28/A to Ex.PW 28/ D.
27. PW29 was Mr. Vikram Vishwakarma, Assistant Manager from Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. The witness produce the details of account in the name of accused Ex.PW 29/A1 to Ex.PW 29/A7 (admitted by the accused). State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.14/48 15
28. PW30 was Mr. A. Tigga. He deposed about the handing over certain documents to Inspector Karan Arya, CBI, Delhi on 25.11.2008. The originals of which were in the HPO, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.
EXPENDITURE
29. PW9 was Mr. T. N. Bhalla, Office Superintenden, DAV Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He produced and deposed about the fee details of the children of accused namely Himanshu Thakur, Monika Thakur, Ashta Thakur and Anshu Thakur that are details Ex.PW 9/B to Ex.PW 9/E.
30. PW 13 was Mr. Prem Prakash, Director Amity School of Engineer and Technology, Bijwasan, New Delhi. He deposed about the fee details of Ashta thakur who was student of B. Tech, Second Year which details are Ex.PW13/A.
31. PW14 was Mr. Harish Kumar from LIC who deposed about the insurance policy subscribed in the name of Anshu Singh for which one time premium of Rs.25,000/ was paid on 29.11.2006;
32. PW17 was Ms. Vibha Maurya, Professor from Delhi University who deposed supplying details of admission of Anshu Singh daughter of the accused in a foreign language course for the Academic Session 20072008 and the fee details State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.15/48 16 of which documents Ex.PW 17/A to Ex.PW 17/C.
33. PW18 was Mr. Puna Mehandiratta who deposed that a Maruti Car 800 Saloon bearing registration no. DL 3CE 1990 was purchased by him in the name of his wife Sonali and selling the same after a month to Ms. Prabha Singh for a sum of Rs.1,24,000/. The documents in this regard were mark Ex.PW 18/A & B. He also deposed that Rs.99,000/ were paid in cash and remaining amount paid through cheque.
34. PW23 was Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Sr. Branch Manager LIC. He deposed about the four LIC policies that were in the name of accused and supplied the details Ex.PW 23/A.
35. PW39 was Mr. Jitender Kumar, UDC from Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi during the relevant time who supplied the information about the two vehicles to Inspector Karan Arya vide document D22, Ex.PW 39/A. SALARY DETAILS
36. PW21 was Mr. M. H. Khan, who was posted as XEN, Civil, Eastern Division, DDA at Shakarpur, Delhi. He deposed about the salary details of the check period 12.01.1981 to 08.03.1985 totalling Rs.35,875/ which documents Ex.PW 21/A.
37. PW33 was Mr. Krishan Pal Accounts Officer who State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.16/48 17 produced the salary details from January 2007 to December 2007 which details are Ex.PW 33/A & B.
38. PW34 was Vivin Kumar Ahuja, Dy. Director, Vigilance, DDA, Delhi. He deposed about the salary details of accused for the period 01.12.1992 to 31.10.1994 besides 01.12.1985 to 30.11.1992 and also 09.03.1985 to 30.11.1985 which are Ex.PW 34/A to Ex.PW 34/ D.
39. PW35 was Mr. T. D. Bajaj, Executive Engineer, DDA, Shakarpur, Delhi who supplied the salary details of accused w.e.f. 01.06.2006 to 31.12.20006 vide document Ex.PW 35/A1.
40. PW36 was Mr. N. K. Prabhakar, Executive Engineer, Dwarka, Delhi who supplied the salary details of accused for the period 01.01.2002 to 31.05.2006 which are Ex.PW 36/A1.
41. PW37 was Mr. Vijender Singh, Assistant Accounts Officer, DDA, Delhi who supplied the salary details of accused w.e.f. 01.11.1994 to 31.12.2001 Ex.PW 37/A1 . He further supplied the details for the period 01.12.1992 to 31.10.1994 Ex.PW 34/C.
42. PW38 was Mr. A. K. Jha, XEN, Vasant Kunj, Delhi who supplied salary details of accused w.ef. 09.03.1985 to November 1985 Ex.PW 38/B. State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.17/48 18 SEARCH / SEIZURES & MISC.
43. PW8 was Ms. Promila H. Bhargav, Commissioner Personnel, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. She was the Competent Authority who deposed that she accorded sanction for prosecution as against the accused vide order dt. 11.12.2008 Ex.PW 8/A.
44. PW24 was Inspector Dalip Kumar Thakur. He deposed about the search of the residence of the accused on 15.01.2008. PW25 was Mr. Kulbir Singh, LDC from Police Hqr. who was associated during the house search of the accused on 15.01.2008.
45. PW31 was Inspector Vibha Kumari who was associated during the search of the house of the accused on 15.01.2008 and lodged the complaint Ex.PW 31/A.
46. No one was examined as PW32 as the said document was admitted by the accused as reflected in order dt. 08.02.2012 (check).
47. Lastly, the Investigating Officer was Inspector Karan Arya who was examined as PW 40 who deposed about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
48. On the close of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.18/48 19 facts and circumstances were put to the accused Shashu Bhanu who denied the case of the prosecution that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In his defence, he filed written statements as per section 313 (5) Cr.P.C and chose to examine the following witnesses:
49. DW1 Mr. Badri Prasad Gupta, who deposed that he purchased two wheeler scooter no. HR 26H 8636 from the accused for Rs.4,000/ as per sale form no. 30 Ex. DW 1/A. DW2 was Mr. Ajay Pal Singh who deposed that accused was his brotherinlaw. He deposed that in the year 2001 accused had purchased one plot of land in Bijwasan from Sh. Radhey Shyam and sold the same to another person Mr. Hari Ram. On 21.09.2001, Radhey Shyam returned Rs.1,25,000/ to accused and the same amount had been returned by him to Hari Ram.
50. DW3 was Mr. Sat Pal Singh, brother of accused who deposed that on 21.11.2006 he purchased Maruti car 800 bearing registration no.DL3CE 1990 from Smt. Prabha Singh for a sum of Rs.60,000/ and the documents Ex. DW 3/A to Ex.DW 3/C were proved in this regard.(CHECK WITH PW)
51. DW4 was Mr. Prem Pal Singh, father of the accused. He deposed depositing Rs.6,000/ per month from March 2002 to March 2007 in a Recurring Account in the Post office in the State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.19/48 20 name of his grand daughter Ashtha and receiving an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs on maturity. He deposed that the said amount was incurred on the education of Ashtha.
52. DW5 was Mohimuddin who was in the business of scrap. He had taken a garage on rent from the accused in his premise C25A, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/ and deposed that he paid rent since 2005 to 2009.
53. DW6 was Mr. Jatinder Singh Sharma. He was retired DANICS Officer who deposed that he had seen wife of accused doing some stitching work and earning on various family get together, people gifting cash to accused as a matter of love and affection.
54. DW7 was Mrs. Prabha Singh wife of the accused. She deposed that she utilized her own earnings in order to purchase the flat at C25 A, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi and that she also booked one plot in Ansals, Sushant Lok, Lucknow out of her own earnings.
ARGUMENTS
55. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. PP for the State (CBI) and also Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also perused the relevant record of the case.
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.20/48 21 PROPOSITION OF LAW
56. Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act provides as under:
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionation to his known sources of income.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
Thus, the following conditions must be satisfied to bring out a case u/s Section 13 ( 1 )( e ) of the PC Act:
(1) The accused is a public servant;
(2) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;
(3) His known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution. (4) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. (5) The aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.
57. It must be kept at the back of our mind that the Superior Courts have observed in a catena of decisions that a liberal view must be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportionate" for Sec. 13(1)(e)of the Act. As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, the meaning of 'disproportionate' is " too large or State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.21/48 22 too small when compared with something else". Thus, in order to hold a person guilty for possession of disproportionate assets, the difference should be too large or unconscionable and not too small or trivial. Further, it must be understood that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and in doing so the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness in the case of the defence. Reference can be had to decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar" AIR 1981 SC 1186.
Explanation of accused:
58. In regard to what is the nature and extent of explanation to be rendered by the accused, the Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 inter alia held while dealing with a case of Prevention of Corruption Act that:
".....The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. Infact, from the cardinal principles, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove its case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Sec. 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him , there is doubt on the prosecution case and therefore, the prosecution cannot said to have been established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the move of proving by standard of benefit of doubt is not State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.22/48 23 applicable to the accused where he is called upon to prove its case or to prove the exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. It is sufficient to the defence to give a version probable with the prosecution version for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on the prosecution case and rejection by the Court."
Income and other earnings(known sources of income)
59. As regards what constitutes "known sources of income,"
in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 CRI. L. J. 598, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:
The expression 'known sources of income' in S. 13 has reference to sources known to the prosecution after thorough investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the accused, within the meaning of S. 106. The phrase 'known sources of income' in S. 13(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word 'income.' It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term 'income' by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however, wise the import and connotation of the term 'income,' it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term 'income.' Therefore, it can be said that, though 'income' is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the 'known sources of income' State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.23/48 24 of a public servant. The Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'satisfactorily account.' The emphasis must be on the word 'satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
(Paras 5, 6, 7) The phrase "known sources of income" in S.1 3(1)(e) (old S. 5(1)(e)) has clearly the emphasis on the word "income." It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income"
by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however, wide the import and connotation of the term "income," it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income." Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant.
The Legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account." The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy or acceptance.
60. With the said proposition at the back of our mind, at the outset, I may indicate that by and large the evidence let by the prosecution is hardly challenged by the defence in regard to itemization of various heads of income and expenditures. As State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.24/48 25 per the charge sheet the salary income of the accused on net basis for the check period has been arrived at Rs.22,19,233/ . As per the evidence of PW21 and that of PW33 to PW38, the salary income of accused on net basis comes as under : Period Amount 12.01.1981 to 08.03.1995 35,875.00 12/85 to 02/1986 5,003.45 03/86 to 02.1987 2,29,64.85 03/87 to 02/1988 25,211.45 03/88 to 02/1989 26,832.00 03/89 to 02/1990 30,238.25 03/90 to 02/1991 50,214.20 03/91 to 02/1992 40,377.00 03/92 to 11/1992 30,648.00 12/92 to 10/1994 1,15,996.00 11/94 to 10/1996 1,22,601.00 11/96 to 02/1999 1,98,814.00 03/99 to 07/2001 2,61,588.00 08/01 to 12/2001 72,035.00 01.01.2002 to Feb. 2003 1,44,993.00 2003 to 2004 1,59,310.00 DA 4,794.00 20042005 1,62,413.00 20052006 1,83,452.00 March 2003 to May 2006 40,820.00 17,34,180.20 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.25/48 26
61. Since the salary details for the period 09.03.1985 to November 1985 are not brought on record, taking a liberal view I assume that net salary of the income during the check period was as disclosed or assessed in the charge sheet i.e., Rs. 22,19,233/.
62. It is then in the evidence that accused was having several bank accounts and also deposits in Post Office. As per PW2, accused earned total interest of Rs.8967.85p during the check period which is to be counted towards his earnings. Then, evidence of PW6 shows that accused had a Saving Bank account with Syndicate Bank, Green Park, New Delhi and he earned interest of Rs.2699.70 up to 15.01.2008. Then, as per evidence of PW16, it comes out that accused was having Saving Account with Canara Bank, Mehrauli, New Delhi and earned interest of Rs.4834/ up to 15.01.2008. As per evidence of PW10, accused was having an account with the State bank of Bikanair & Jaipur, Vasant Kunj, Delhi and earned interest of Rs.2256/ during the check period. Needless to state that the interest earned has to be counted towards the assessment of total income. Interest of Rs.20,356/ was earned in the Bank Account of Astha Thakur as Ex.PW 28/B. (Rs.8,967.85 + 2,699.70 + 4,834 + 2,256 + 20,356) = Rs.39,113.85 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.26/48 27
63. Further, it is in evidence of PW23 that accused had subscribed to two insurance policies, the details of which are given in letter Ex.PW 23/A. Policy no. 110830232 which was subscribed on 10.04.1990 with half yearly premium of Rs. 1632.50 fetched him benefit of Rs.10,000/ each three occasion in 1995, 2000 and later in 2005(D31). Further, policy no. 110830233 twice fetched him benefit of Rs.12,500/each plus Rs.67,300/ in 1995, 2000 and 2005 respectively which are to be counted towards the earning(D31). Total benefit comes to Rs. 1,22,300/. Another item that could be considered towards the earnings is the car loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/ taken from ICICI bank D41 Ex.PXII (admitted document).
64. Further, if the evidence of DW1 Mr. Badri Prasad Gupta is believed, he purchased two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. HR 26H 8636 from the accused for a sum of Rs. 4,000/ as per receipt Ex. DW 1/A and taking a liberal view, the same is counted towards income / earnings of the accused Lastly, if evidence of DW3 is believed, he purchased maruti car no. DL 3CE 1990 from Smt Prabha Singh albeit the accused since she was financially dependent on him and paid Rs. 60,000/. I may hasten to add that I have believed such evidence taking a liberal view despite the fact that the evidence State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.27/48 28 led in defence is not inspiring confidence since such income had not been accounted for by him with his department. Any how, the total income form "known sources" of the accused is arrived as under: Salary income 22,19,233.00 Interest income from banks & post office 39,113.85 Money back benefit of insurance 1,22,300.00 Car Loan 2,50,000.00 sale of car 60,000.00 sale of scooter 4,000.00 TOTAL 26,94,646.85 Expenditure during the check period
65. It is in evidence of PW9 that four children of the accused studied in DAV Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Himanshu Thakur studied from UKG to 8th Class during the check period and the school fee certificates is Ex.PW 9/B indicating payment of Rs.1,29,164/. Further, Monika Thakur studied from UKG to 12th standard and her fee certificate is Ex.PW 9/C indicating total payment of Rs.1,57,684/. Similarly, Astha Thakur studied in the same school from UKG to 12th during the check period and certificate Ex.PW 9/D brings out payment of total fee of Rs.1,60,946/. Then is the fee certificate of Anshu Thakur who studied from UKG to 12th Ex.PW 9/E and State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.28/48 29 the total fee comes to Rs.1,36,936/.
66. The fee of Himanshu Thakur has been taken up to October 2008 and, therefore dividing it by 1/10th, actual fee for one month ie. January 2008 amount for the check period comes to Rs.1,20,107.30. Similarly, in the certificate Ex.PW 9/C for Monika Thakur, the fee has been taken upto October 2008 and dividing 1/10 i.e for month of January the amounts comes to Rs.1,56,835.30. It is then in evidence of PW13 that Astha Thakur studied in Amity School of Technology and upto her second year 2007 and 2008 total Rs.64,000/ was paid. PW17 then deposed that Anshu Singh had learnt Italian language for which a sum of Rs. 3234/ was paid. Thus, amount spent on education comes to Rs.6,42,058.60.
67. Coming to the insurance policies, as per PW14 one time payment of LIC was subscribed for Anshu Singh for Rs.25,000/. Similar kind of policy was subscribed by Ms. Prabha Singh wife of accused vide policy no. 331744570 during check period mark XA for Rs.25,000/. Although, this document is not exhibited but it was seized during the search of the house of the accused vide search memo Ex.PW 24/A and the same can very well be taken into consideration since it strikes to common sense that the documents are coming from the possession of a person State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.29/48 30 who had interest in the same. Further, there were four insurance policies that were subscribed by the accused as per details Ex.PW 23/A (Colly).: total amount of Rs.35911/ was paid on policy no. 110830232 total of Rs.30,372/ was paid on policy no. 33175768; third policy was no. 110830233 for which total amount of Rs.30870/ was collected / paid during the check period; and the fourth policy was no. 114240237 for which payment of Rs.31,203/ was made. It is further in evidence that PW5 that Kishan Vikas Patra of Rs.25000/ was subscribed in the name of Anshu Singh. This total is Rs.2,03,356/.
68. It is in evidence that a loan of Rs.2,50,000/ from ICICI Bank D41 Ex.PXII (admitted by the accused ) repayable in installment of Rs.7973/ per month had been paid and total payment of Rs.2,79,055/ had been repaid during the check period. Accused also purchased a Bravo Bajaj Scooter vide admitted document D33 for Rs.27,550/ paying in cash.
69. It is then in evidence of PW18 that a Maruti car bearing registration no. DL3CE 1990 was purchased by accused through his wife for Rs. 1,24,000/ vide sale letter and receipt Ex. PW18/A & B. At the cost of repetition, Smt. Prabha Singh was financially dependent on her husband and such purchase has State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.30/48 31 to be attributed to the accused.
70. It is then in the evidence of PW19 , PW 20 vis avis PW 26 that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/ was paid by the accused to PW 19 vide receipt no. Ex.PW 19/D. The plea of the accused is that such amount was paid to him by Radhey Shyam who was also present during the meeting. If that was the case, it is not understandable as to how receipt was issued in the name of the accused. I do not find the evidence of DW2 Ajay Pal Singh to be trustworthy in this regard who was an interested witness being the brother in law of the accused and was not able to explain as to how the receipt was not given in the name of Radhey Shaym. Therefore, such spending has to be attributed to the accused.
71. Lastly, 1/3rd of the amount out of net salary income of the accused could be reckoned towards household expenses. Although with six members in the family, one could infer more spending in terms of food, ration, clothing, electricity bills, sundry kitchen expenses, petrol/diesel, entertainment etc. , but taking a liberal view only 1/3 of the net income is reckoned from the salary income. The plea of the accused in his written submission is that the gross salary during the check period must be reckoned which was Rs.26,75,000/ and total income tax paid up to March 2007 works out to Rs. 23,620/ that be State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.31/48 32 deducted and nonverifiable expenses could only be assumed at Rs.8,68,046/. In our assessment, we have reckoned such expenses much below the amount conceded by the accused based on the net income during the check period for the simple reason that net income was available in the hands of the accused and his family members to make or sustain their living. Accordingly total expenditure during the check period arrived:
Educational fees of all children : 6,42,058.60 payment on insurance policies & KVP : 2,03,356.00 payment to Hari Ram : 1,25,000.00 Household expenses (Rs.22,19,233 x 1/3rd) : 7,39,744.34 Car Loan repayment : 2,79,055.00 purchase of car 1,24,000.00 Bravo Bajaj Scooter : 27,550.00 21,40,763.94 Assets acquired during the check period
72. Now without much ado, the assets would include all such movable and immovable albeit tangible properties acquired or owned by the accused either himself or through his financially depending family members during the check period and/or possessed as on the last day of the check period. State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.32/48 33
73. Although, DW7 Ms. Prabha Singh wife of the accused testified that since marriage she had been doing tailoring job from her residence besides imparting tuition to small kids, I am afraid I am unable to persuade myself that she had any such earnings as disclosed in the self made statement Ex. DW 7/DA. Though her evidence is corroborated by DW6, it is bereft of any details and DW6 was a convenient witness who made a startling and unfathomable deposition that whenever there was any family function organized by accused, he used to be showered with gifts and cash in the denomination of Rs. 101/ to Rs. 501/ to Rs.1100/ by all as if the life of the accused dependent upon such windfalls. The claim that Smt. Prabha Singh earned Rs.10,86,000/ from 1984 onwards till the end of check period is a cry in the wilderness. No Income Tax returns have been filed by her in this regard at any point of time. Leave aside that for a moment, even her bank account vide statement Ex. PW28/A does not show any visible pattern that any savings from her so called earnings were being deposited or dealt with in a particular or uniform manner. Therefore, I must dismiss the claim that she was earning any income during the relevant time and it must be assumed that she was a house wife taking care of her four children and financially dependent on the State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.33/48 34 accused.
74. Now during the check period evidence of PW1 brings out that property at C1/25A, Second Floor, Panchsheel, Khirki New Delhi was purchased by accused in the name of his wife for a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. Further, another property sold by the accused was a plot measuring 250 yards at Ambedkar for Rs.2,80,000/. This amount cannot be taken as an income of the accused as that would amount to legitimizing his ill gotten money. Reference can be had to observations in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (supra).
75. It may be reiterated that there were filed no property returns by him with his department as per CCS (Conduct Rules) that such property had been purchased or sold by him in his or in the name of his wife and it is the value of the property sold that has to be reckoned as having been acquired during the check period in the absence of any other material brought forth by the accused.
76. Then, it is in the evidence of PW7 that flat at C1, plot no. 1/1073, A2 Mehrauli was bought by Smt. Prabha Singh wife of the accused for a total consideration of Rs.1,70,000/. Although the said flat was constructed later on, in the absence of any State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.34/48 35 evidence established on the record by the prosecution, I do not make any assumption in this regard. Evidence of PW15 further brings out that total of Rs.7,08,875/ was paid till check period for purchase of flat at Sushant Lok, Lucknow. At the cost of repetition, these acquisition can only be imputed to the accused as his wife had no source of income. The sum total is Rs.15,58,875/.
77. It is then in the evidence of PW5 that there were four Recurring accounts maintained in the Post office in the name of his children. Recurring account no. 322420 was in the name of Monika from 15.03.2007 to 29.12.2007 with monthly payment of Rs. 2000/ and total amount of Rs.20,000/ was paid as per Ex.PW 5/D. Recurring account for Rs.1000/ per month was opened bearing no. 322421 Ex.PW 5/C and in the aforesaid period Rs.11000/ were paid vide statement Ex. PW 5/E. Third Recurring deposit was in the name of Kumari Astha for Rs. 6,000/ per month from 15.03.2002 to 15.03.2007 and as per Ex.PW 5/J total of Rs.4,49,094/ had been paid. The fourth recurring account was in the name of Monika no. 319641 with monthly deposit of Rs.200/ and total payment of Rs.15170/ was deposited up to 18.12.2006 Ex.PW 5/H. The sum total comes to Rs.4,95,264/.
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.35/48 36
78. In so far as the recurring deposits in the name of Kumari Astha is concerned, Ex.PW 5/J in which monthly deposit of Rs. 6,000/ had been made. I am afraid I am not able to persuade myself that the said amount was contributed on a regular basis by DW4 Prem Pal Singh, father of the accused or grant father of the girl. He hardly had 8 bighas of agricultural land as his share in the ancestral property and retired from UP State Agricultural Department as an Assistant Development Officer in the year 1990. No evidence is led as to what were the pay scales that were being derived at the time of his retirement. No evidence is led about the quantum of pension or other income by him during the relevant time. I may assumed that pension would have been 50% of the basic pay for first ten years and thereafter declined as per the Rules and it is difficult to discern that in a meager pension from March 2002 to March 2007, he contributed Rs. 6,000/ per month coming all the way from Bulandshar, UP to Delhi every month. The deposit, therefore, must be taken to be an asset out of ill gotten money of the accused.
79. It is then in the evidence that account was opened in the name of Astha Thakur in Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. and there was a a balance of Rs.3,39,760/ as on 12.01.2008 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.36/48 37 while she was financially dependent on her father. Evidence of PW28 that Mrs.Prabha Singh was having an account with Central bank of India, Mehrauli Branch as per statement of account Ex.PW 28/E and there was a balance of Rs.1,19,989.42 as on 01.01.2008. Further, there was an account in the name of Anshu Singh in the same bank vide statement Ex.PW 22/D. There was balance of Rs.48,762/ as on 05.01.2008. Further, at the time of house search, cash of Rs. 18,360/ was admittedly recovered. However, I am not reckoning the value of the house hold items that are pegged at a meagre value of Rs. 42,880/ and also the gold/silver jewellery as some of the items could be out of stridhana of Smt. Prabha Singh.
80. So far as accused Shashi Bhanu is concerned, he had saving bank accounts and the balance is shown as on 01.01.2008 are as under:
Name of the Bank Exhibits Amount in Rs.
Syndicate bank, Green Park branch Ex. 6/H 9607.72 State bank of Bikanair & Jaipur Ex. 10/A 8772.64 Canara Bank, Mehrauli Ex.PW16/A4 43,503.00 Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, N. Delhi Ex.PW 29/A1 1,004.00 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.37/48 38 State Bank of India, I. P. Extn. Delhi Ex.PW 12/A 1,745.24 Total 64,632.60
81. I may hasten to add that taking a liberal view, the credit in the bank accounts as on the last day of check period has been reckoned as also in the case of interest paid or accrued on that day. Otherwise, if one reckons the total interest amount credited in his accounts during the entire duration of check period, then it would also be appropriate to reckon the cash deposits in the accounts of the accused during the check period which would turn the tables upon the accused. So this grievance by the Defence is shortsighted. Further, no cogent or reliable evidence is led by the accused that he had let out any portion of his house to DW5. No site plan of the property that was let out has been shown nor proved any rent receipts or counter foils of rent receipts. There is no evidence that the rateable of the property was assessed or revised based on rental income as well. The rent deed Ex. DW 5/A is unstamped, unregistered and inadmissible in evidence. Even otherwise assessing rental income at the rate of Rs, 3,000/ from 2005 for three years totalling Rs, 1,08,000/ is not going to make much a difference to the defence as I would demonstrate hereinafter. State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.38/48 39
82. Now, D33 is the documents admitted by the accused whereby a bravo Bajaj Scooter was purchased by him on 23.03.1999 for Rs. 27,550/ . A sum of Rs. 555/ was paid towards registration but the same is omitted while considering the expenditure. D37 is the admitted documents whereby Tata Indica car bearing registration no. DL 3CAF 5129 was purchased for a sum of Rs.3,58,707/ on 23.04.2005 by the accused. Accordingly, the total assets at the end of the check period are arrived as under : Immovable properties : 15,58,875.00 Amount in recurring deposits : 4,95,264.00 Amount credited in the bank account of Ashtha Thakur : 3,39,760.00 Amount credited in the bank account of Prabha Thakur : 1,19,989.42 Amount credited in the bank account of Anshu Thakur : 48,762.00 Further, cash of Rs.18,360/ was found in the time of house search. : 18,360.00 TOTAL 25,81,010.42 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.39/48 40 CONCLUSION
83. In the light of the said discussion and assessment carried out, the likely savings during the check period from 12.01.1981 to 15.01.2008 comes to Rs.5,53,882.91p( Total income minus expenditure) as against which the accused was possessing the assets to the tune of Rs.25,81,010.42. Therefore, the disproportionate assets comes to the tune of Rs.20,31,127.56p (Assets minus likely savings) i.e almost 75.22% of the known sources of income. The accused has miserably failed to render a satisfactory account of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. At the cost of repetition, such acquisition were never notified by him to his department as per the Service Rules and I do not find any merit in the case of the defence that his wife had acquired the properties out her own income/earnings.
84. I, therefore, find that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was acquired and holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 12.01.1981 to 15.01.2008 to the extent of 75.22 % (percent) . I, therefore, convict accused Shashi Bhanu u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.40/48 41
85. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence on
06. 10. 2012.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DHARMESH SHARMA) TODAY i.e. ON 04.10 .2012 SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI, NDD NEW DELHI xxx State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.41/48 42 CC NO. 08/11 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu 04.10.2012 Present : Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused. Vide separate detailed judgment of even date, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was acquired and holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 12.01.1981 to 15.01.2008 to the extent of 75.22 % (percent). I, therefore, convict accused Shashi Bhanu u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence on
06. 10. 2012.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI, NDD NEW DELHI State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.42/48 43 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE03, CBI NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CC No. 08/2011 Case ID No. 02403R0965822008 RC No. DAI/2008/A0028/CBI/ACB/ND In re:
STATE (CBI) VS SHASHI BHANU S/O SH. PREM PAL SINGH R/O 1/1073, A2/C1, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI110030 Date on which charge sheet was filed 19.12.2008 Date on which charges were framed 07.08.2009 Date on which judgment was reserved 26.09.2012 Date on which judgment was pronounced04.10.2012 APPEARANCES: MEMO OF Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI). Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused. 06.10.2012 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
1. Heard on the point of sentence and perused the record.
2. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Defence counsel for the convict has urged that his client is 52 years of age and his family consists of his wife and four children out of whom Ms. Monika Thakur and Himanshu Thakur are minor and still studying. It is urged that the State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.43/48 44 two daughters of the convict are of marriageable age so much so that the elder daughter Ms. Anshu Thakur has been recently engaged and the date of her marriage remains to be scheduled and the convict has to meet his pious and social responsibilities. It is also pointed out that father of convict is almost on death bed. It is urged convict had completed unblemished service of 27 years in the DDA prior to the instant case. It is prayed by Ld. Defence counsel that a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence to the convict.
3. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for State (CBI) has urged that there are no mitigating circumstances, which could warrant taking a lenient view in favour of the convict. Mr. Sharma has further urged that this is a fit case where the assets, which have been found disproportionate to the known sources of income be also confiscated to the State (CBI). It has further been urged that while imposing the fine, the factors that have already been brought on record may also be taken into consideration in terms of Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Finding of this Court in regard to convict possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income have already been explained in the accompanying judgment dated 04.10.2012 and the same need not be repeated herein for the sake of brevity. State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.44/48 45
Suffice to state that the likely savings during the check period from 12.01.1981 to 15.01.2008 comes to Rs.5,53,882.91p( Total income minus expenditure) as against which the accused was possessing the assets to the tune of Rs.25,81,010.42. Therefore, the disproportionate assets comes to the tune of Rs.20,31,127.56p (Assets minus likely savings) i.e almost 75.22% of the known sources of income.
5. The quantum of disproportionate assets that have been assessed in the accompanying judgment lead to an irrefutable inference that convict has been indulging in corrupt activities during the check period and succeeded in amassing such wealth for which he has not satisfactorily accounted for. Hence on more than one scores, I do find any mitigating circumstance for taking a lenient view in favour of the convict.
6. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the convict, I sentence the convict Shashi Bhanu to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years u/s. 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentence to pay a fine of Rs.7,50,000/; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of six months.
7. As regards the request by the State (CBI) for confiscation of properties of the convict, I am not inclined to pass any orders State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.45/48 46 having regard to the fact that accused has three daughters and he has to meet his pious and social obligations in regard to their marriage and so on. I also consider the point that out of the assets that have been found disproportionate to his known sources of income, the convict is residing in the same along with his family members and, therefore, I exclude the dwelling house for the purposes of his confiscation and it is for that reason that instead the quantum of fine has been fixed high at Rs.7,50,000/.
8. At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.PC. is moved by Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the convict . Copy supplied to Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld.PP for the State (CBI). Fine of Rs.1,50,000/ has been deposited by the convict today in the court.
9. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and he may be granted bail till filing of appeal. Inter alia it is also requested that the convict may be given time to pay the balance amount of fine by Tuesday i.e 9th October 2012. Considering the fact that the convict has been regularly appearing during the trial and unlikely to abscond away, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till Tuesday i.e 09.10.2012 in order to enable the convict to pay the balance fine subject to the State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.46/48 47 applicant/convict Shashi Bhanu furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one surety in the like amount . Bail bonds are furnished and accepted till 09.10.2012. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e ON 06.10.2012 (DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.47/48 48 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.48/48 49 CC NO. 08/11 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu 06.10.2012 Present : Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused. Vide separate detailed order on sentence, I sentenced the convict Shashi Bhanu to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years u/s. 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentence to pay a fine of Rs.7,50,000/; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of six months.
At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.PC. is moved by Mr. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the convict . Copy supplied to Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld.PP for the State (CBI). Fine of Rs.1,50,000/ has been deposited by the convict today in the court.
Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and he may be granted bail till filing of appeal. Inter alia it is also requested that the convict may be given time to pay the balance amount of fine by Tuesday i.e 9th October 2012. Considering the fact that the convict has been regularly appearing during the trial and unlikely to abscond away, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till Tuesday i.e 09.10.2012 in order to enable the convict to pay the balance fine subject to the applicant/convict Shashi Bhanu furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one surety in the like amount . Bail bonds are furnished and accepted till 09.10.2012.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.49/48 50 State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.50/48