Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . R.S. Sisodia on 30 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. G.P. MITTAL, SPECIAL JUDGE:
TIS HAZARI: DELHI
RC NO. 3(A)/1990 CBI / ACU -I /ND
CC No. 02/05
CBI Vs. R.S. Sisodia
JUDGMENT
1. Sh. R.S. Sisodia has been sent up to this Court to face trial for the offence punishable U/S. 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that during the check period, 1.1.1980 to 29.08.1989, he was found in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the tune of Rs.4,66,564/- for which, the accused could not give any satisfactory account.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused had joined as an Assistant Foreman in the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India on 19.01.1971. He was promoted as Foreman on 25.02.1972 and then, as Workshop Officer on 20.11.1975. The accused joined the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India as an Assistant Commissioner on 26.12.1979. After formation of Ministry of Food Processing, the accused was transferred to the said 2 Ministry with effect from 08.08.1988. It is alleged that during the check period, the accused had an income of Rs.5,20,608.33p. and expenditure of Rs.2,60,464.65p. thus, the accused had likely savings of Rs.2,60,143.68Pp. As against this, the accused was found in possession of assets acquired during the check period to the extent of Rs.7,41,023.01p. The savings/assets of the accused at the start of the check period were Rs.14,315.31p. only. After giving benefit of this amount, the accused was found in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income to the extent of Rs.4,66,564.02p. The income, expenditure and assets of the accused as set out in the report U/S. 173 Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience.
INCOME
S. NO. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Net salary of Sh. R S Sisodia in 2,90,223.50
the Min. of Agriculture from
1.1.1980 to 28.2.1989
2 Net Salary in the M/o. FPI from 21340.00
1.3.1989 to August'1989.
3. Withdrawal from GPF (M/o. 30000.00
Agriculture)
3
S. NO. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
4. Loan from Bank of India, Sehore 45,000.00
5. Maturity of LIC Policy No. 12,644.00
21007901
Compensation received from 35,000.00
6 brothers
7. Rent received from the house at 56,000.00
Sehore
8. Interest in SBI A/c No. 2396 at 1,744.10
Canara Bank, Raisina Road, New
Delhi.
9. Interest in SB A/c No. 6024 of 457.00
New Bank of India, Inderpuri,
New Delhi.
10. Interest in SB A/c No. 5319 of 10,731.33
SBI, Inderpuri, New Delhi.
11. Interest in SB A/c No. 5373 of 1,612.26
Bank of India, Sehore.
12. Interest in SB A/c No. 15406 of 1,866.90
State Bank of Patiala, Shashtri
Bhawan, New Delhi.
13. Interest in SB A/c No. 340 of 388.00
SBI, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
14. Interest in SB A/c No. 2596 of 401.64
Canara Bank, Kirkee, Pune.
4
S. NO. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
15. Rent received by Smt. Shalini 2,872.20
Sisodia W/o Sh. R S Sisodia from
the house at New Delhi.
16. Loan from father-in-law 8,000.00
17. Maturity value of FDR of M/s 2,000.00
Kirlosker Ltd., Pune
18. Dividend received from the 327.00
shares of M/s WIMCO Ltd.,
Bombay
TOTAL 5,20,608.33
5
Expenditure
S. Particulars Amount
No. (Rs.)
1 LIC Premium for LIC Policy No. 110409201 10508.00
2 LIC Premium for Policy No. 21007901 6075.20
3 Repayment of loan to Bank of India, Sehore 49795.95
4 House Rent paid 55100.00
5 Payment of Income Tax and other expenditure 16307.00
relating to the house
6 Payment made to the schools for the education
of son : 1080.00
a. Gyan Mandia Public School, Naraina 7051.00
b. Bal Bharti Public School, New Delhi. 4620.00
c. Rockvale Secondary School, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.
7 Payment made to HDFC 1100.00
8 Payment for LPG connection 800.00
9 Deposit for electricity connection 1011.50
6
S. Particulars Amount
No. (Rs.)
10 Registration expenses for purchase of the plot of 1700.00
land
11 Expenditure on petrol for the scooter and 2500.00
maintenance cost
12 House hold expenditure 102816.00
TOTAL 260464.65
Assets
S. Particulars of assets Value
No. (Rs.)
1 Plot of land on Station Road, Sehore 18000.00
2 Cost of the house on the plot on Station Road, 532583.00
Sehore
3 Inventory items in respect of movable articles 65390.00
4 US $ 103 1711.86
5 Balance as on 29.8.89 in SB A/c No. 2396 of 12414.10
Canara Bank, Raisina Road, New Delhi
6 Balance as on 29.8.89 in SB A/c No. 6024 in New Bank of India, Inderpuri, ND 2172.85 7 Balance as on 29.8.89 in SB A/c No. 5319 of SBI, Inderpuri, ND 12549.21 7 S. Particulars of assets Value No. (Rs.) 8 Balance as on 29.8.89 in SB A/c No. 5373 of Bank of India, Sehore 55262.09 9 Balance as on 29.8.89 in CDS A/c No. 554 of 2880.00 SBI, Rail Bhawan, ND 10 Balance as on 29.8.89 in SB A/c No. 15406 of 4671.90 State Bank of Patiala, ND 11 Balance as on 29.8.89 in PPF A/c No. 340 of 11388.00 SBI, Rail Bhawan, ND 12 FDR No. 835 at Bank of India, Sehore 22000.00 Total 741023.01 Assets before the check period, Rs.14,315.31p.
3. A charge for the offence punishable U/S. 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act was ordered to be framed against the accused vide Order dt. 25.03.2003. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and therefore, the prosecution was required to produce its evidence.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses.
85. PW1 Sh. A.K. Taneja was working as a Desk Officer in the Ministry of Food Processing Industry. He proved the sanction Ex.PW1/A granted by the competent authority. PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar was residing as a tenant in the house of the accused during the period 1984 to 1989 and was paying rent @ Rs.75/- p.m. During cross examination, he admitted that he had paid a total rent of Rs.4725/- during the period 01.4.1984 to 30.06.1989. PW3 Sh. Sanjay Kumar was working as Assistant Enforcement Officer in the Directorate of Enforcement in the year 1981. He had given the exchange rate of U.S. Dollars as on 29.08.1989 to be Rs.16.62 P. for the purpose of computation of the assets of the accused, as 153 U.S.$ were recovered during the house search on 29.08.1989. PW4 Sh. Harish Dhingra is clerk from SBI, Rail Bhawan Branch, New Delhi. He proved certain statements of accounts as Ex.PW4/1 & Ex.PW4/2, which have not been disputed by the accused. PW5 Sh. S.K. Kapoor was working as an Accounts Assistant with Bal Bharti Public School during the period 14.07.1972 to 13.12.1996. He proved the class attendance register of Bal Bharti School for 9th & 10th standard of Master Anoop Singh Sisodia, 9 son of the accused as Ex.PW5/1. He further proved certain receipts in respect of payment of fee as Ex.PW5/2. Similarly, PW6 Sh. S.K. Nayyar is an employee of Gyan Mandir Public School. He deposed that Anoop Singh Sisodia was admitted in this school on 20.04.1988 and proved certain payments towards admission fee and other charges as Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/3.
6. PW7 Sh. Sandeep Daudiyal is one of the witnesses to the search of the house of the accused. He proved the inventory Ex.PW7/A as having been prepared in his presence by the CBI Officer. He also identified his signatures thereon. PW8 Sh. D.S. Makhan is the Chairman/ M.D. of M/s. Varuna Agro-Proteins Ltd. He deposed that the company had taken the premises of the accused on rent for six months i.e. March, 1989 to August, 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. This witness becomes important in the sense that there is a dispute as to how much construction had been carried out by the accused during the check period i.e. upto the date of search on 29.08.1989.
7. PW9 Sh. M.K. Khattar proved the statement of account in 10 respect of account No. 6024 of Mrs. Shalini Sisodia, wife of the accused as Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Sh. H.K. Phakka from State Bank of India proved the statement of account Ex.PW10/A in respect of the joint account No.5319 of Sh. R.S. Sisodia and Smt. Shalini Sisodia maintained in The State Bank of India, Naraina Branch. PW11 Sh. M.K. Nagar testified that three electricity connections were obtained by the accused in respect of the property at station road Sehore. He proved the certificate Ex.PW11/A with regard to the same and payment of electricity charges Ex.PW11/B and the forwarding letter to the CBI as Ex.PW11/C.
8. PW12 Sh. P.N. Sharma was produced by the prosecution in order to show that Sh. Nathu Singh father of the accused was working as a Clerk Grade II in Tehsil Sehore (M.P.). His salary in the year 1967 was Rs.195/- p.m. plus D.A. He proved the LPC of Sh. Nathu Singh as Ex.PW12/A. PW13 Sh. A.K. Kulshrestha, Assistant Engineer deposed about his visit to the house of the accused at Sehore alongwith Inspector R.K. Singh during the period 16.01.1990 to 18.01.1990. He stated that the ground floor was fully constructed whereas the first floor 11 was partially constructed to the extent of about 50 %. PW14 Sh. D.R. K. Rao is a Section Officer from the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. He proved the personal file of the accused as Ex.PW14/A. He further proved the application regarding acquisition of the plot, permission granted by the competent authority, application seeking permission to raise construction and various other documents as Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A6. He further proved the personal file as Ex.PW14/B and various other documents as Ex.PW14/B1 to Ex.PW14/B3. He proved the APR folder containing the statement of immovable property for the year 1987 as Ex.PW14/C.
9. PW15 Sh. R.K. Bhargav proved his valuation certificate Ex.PW15/A in respect of the house of the accused at Sehore. In cross examination, he deposed that the constructed area was only 1200 sq. feet at the time the report was given by him. PW16 Sh. Puroshottam Singh has not stated anything relevant to this case. PW17 Sh. P.K. Ojha is Executive Engineer, CPWD. On 19.09.1991, he was posted at Bhopal. On the direction of his Superintending Engineer, he had visited the house of the accused at Sehore, had inspected the building, took 12 measurements and gave his report Ex.PW17/A. He also proved the calculation Ex.PW17/B and the forwarding letter written by Sh. B.K. Chug, SE to the CBI as Ex.PW17/C. He stated that at the time of his inspection, the house was under construction. PW18 Sh. R.K. Chaturvedi was working as Assistant Engineer in Nagar Palika, Sehore in December, 1989. He deposed that as per rules, the building plan is sanctioned in the name of the owner of the plot/ building. The plan for the first floor of any building shall also be sanctioned in the name of the owner unless the roof rights are transferred in favour of some third person. He proved his note sheet Ex.PW11/2 and the file as Ex.PW18/A. During cross examination, the witness admitted that the documents Ex.PW18/DA & Ex.PW18/DB were issued by his office (Nagar Palika Sehore).
10. PW19 Mrs. B.P. Singh was working as Income Tax Officer in the year 1991. She was confronted with the income tax return purported to have been filed by the accused for the years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-
90. She however, could not say if these were the income tax returns filed by accused R.S. Sisodia. She was 13 confronted with her statement alleged to have been made before the IO during the investigation of this case. PW20 Sh. N.K. Mukherjee was posted as Dy. SP, CBI in the year 1990. He was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. He had inspected the house belonging to the accused at Sehore, recorded statements of the witnesses, got the valuation of the house from Executive Engineer and filed the challan in the Court after completion of the investigation.
11. On close of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined U/S. 313 Cr.P.C. Most of the income, expenditure and assets have been admitted by the accused in his statement U/S. 294 Cr.P.C and U/S. 313 Cr.P.C. He took up the plea that some of his legitimate income was not taken into consideration by the IO inspite of the fact that the same was brought to his notice. The valuation of the house at Sehore had not been correctly made. The first floor of the house was built by his mother from her own sources after the check period and the cost of construction was illegally added in his assets. The accused also entered the witness box U/S. 315 Cr.P.C. and gave a detailed account, as to how his income has not 14 been correctly taken into consideration and how the cost of construction after the check period was added in his assets.
12. I have heard Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for the CBI and Sh. S.C. Chawla, Advocate on behalf of the accused and have perused the record.
13. Clause (e) Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Offence creates a statutory offence which must be proved by the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or any other person on his behalf has been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionality of the properties possessed by him.
14. First of all, I shall consider the income of the accused.
According to the allegations of the prosecution, the accused had a total income of Rs.5,20,608.33 P. It has been urged by the Ld. defence counsel that apart from this, the accused had taken loan of Rs.15,000/- (each) 15 from his father, uncle and grand father-in-law. This amount of Rs.45,000/- had come in the account of the accused through bank transaction. An intimation in this regard was also sent by the accused to his office, but inspite of this, this amounts was not taken as the income of the accused. The Ld. defence counsel has taken me through the cross examination of the investigating officer of this case. He admitted that he had seen three credit entries of Rs.15,000/- (each), but the investigation was not conducted about these entries in the light of explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The IO showed his ignorance, if the accused had told him that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- (each) from his father, uncle and his grand father-in-law. The testimony of the accused U/S. 315 Cr.P.C. that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from his father, uncle and grand father in law which was credited in his account D- 13 Ex.P8 was not challenged during cross examination. The accused had also given an intimation in respect of the loan of Rs.15,000/- (each) from his father Sh. N.S. Sisodia and from his grand father-in-law Sh. R.S. Hada vide intimation dated 23.12.1987 in file Ex.P1/XX. Though, the accused has not been able to place on record any 16 intimation having been given by him to his department in respect of the loan of Rs.15,000/- taken from his uncle, but in view of the fact that the accused had taken up this plea even during investigation of this case and the fact that his testimony on oath as DW1 has not been challenged by the prosecution, I accept that the amount of Rs.15,000/- each taken as loan from the father, uncle and grand father in law ought to have been taken in the income of the accused. The amount of Rs. 15,000/-also cannot be disallowed simply on the ground that the intimation under the conduct rules was not given.
15. It has been urged that a sum of Rs. 55,262.09 P. had been taken as the assets of the accused. In fact, an amount of Rs.51,615/- had been credited into his account because of death of his father. This amount was on account of maturity of FD of Rs.30,000/- initiated by his father. This amount alongwith interest had grown into Rs.55,262.09 P. The IO was cross examined with regard to this income also. Initially, he had taken the shelter of loss of memory and had stated that he could neither admit nor deny that the accused had told him that an amount of Rs.51,615/-
17was transferred to his account on maturity of FDR in the name of his father after his death, but immediately thereafter, the IO admitted that this amount was received as maturity value of FDR in the name of the deceased father of the accused. Therefore, once this amount alongwith interest had been taken as asset of the accused, it should also have been reflected on the income side, as this amount was received by the accused on account of death of his father.
16. Another item disputed by the accused is FDR No. 835 at Bank of India, Sehore for Rs.22,000/- shown at serial number 12 in the list of assets. When the IO was cross examined on this aspect, he stated that he did not feel it necessary to investigate in respect of the amount of Rs.22,000/- on the FDR initiated by Smt. Bimla Devi, sister of the accused to enable him to take loan from the bank for construction of the house. The IO admitted that this amount was received by her (sister of the accused) on maturity of the FDR. The IO had to admit that he had been shown a certificate Ex.PW20/D1 issued by the bank to show that this amount was received by Smt. Bimla Devi, sister of the accused alongwith interest. The IO 18 stated that he did not feel it necessary to record the statement of Smt. Bimla Devi during the course of investigation. The testimony of the accused as DW1 was not challenged during cross examination that his name was added simply to enable him to take loan from the bank. In my view, once these documents had come to the notice of the investigating officer while the investigations were in progress, he ought to have investigated the same. This asset of Rs.22,000/- therefore, is liable to be deducted from the assets of the accused.
17. The expenditure of Rs.2,60,464/- claimed to have been incurred by the accused has not been disputed by the accused. The same stands established from the documents admitted by the accused and the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
18. The most disputed item in this case is the house of the accused at Station Road Sehore. According to the prosecution, the accused had acquired the plot of land for Rs.18,000/-. As per valuation reports Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/C, the accused had spent a sum of Rs.5,32,583/- on the construction of this house. During cross 19 examination of the prosecution witnesses, his examination U/S. 313 Cr.P.C and U/S. 315 Cr.P.C., the accused had taken up the plea that a portion of the house on the ground floor only was built during the check period on the cost of Rs.1,80,000/-. The other portion on the ground floor was built after the check period by spending a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The construction on the first floor of the house was raised by his mother Smt. Shiv Kunwar. It has been urged that prior intimation about raising construction of the house was given by the accused to his department. After completion of the construction, again intimation was given. The roof rights in respect of the terrace had been transferred to his mother, who got the plan sanctioned before the date of the search and raised construction on the terrace after the date of the search and therefore, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- only is liable to be included in the assets of the accused, as it was only this amount, which was spent on construction during the check period.
19. On the other hand, it has been urged by the Ld. Sr. Prosecutor that the entire house at Station Road, Sehore belonged to the accused and that the entire ground floor and part of the first floor had been constructed before the 20 check period as was noticed by PW13 A K Kulshrestha , Assistant Engineer, CPWD. The accused has unsuccessfully tried to manipulate some documents after his house was searched in pursuance of an earlier R C registered by the CBI. It has been urged that in view of the explanation appended to Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the house at Sehore. The prosecution has, therefore, established its case against the accused.
20. PW13 Sh. A K Kulshrestha, was working as a Junior Engineer with the CBI on deputation from the CPWD. He testified that during the period 16.1.90 to 18.1.90 he had accompanied Inspector R K Singh of the CBI on direction of SP CBI and inspected a building at Station Road, Sehore belonging to accused R S Sisodia. He stated that Sh. R S Sisodia and his brother were present at the time of the inspection. He noticed that the ground floor had been fully constructed while the first floor was constructed to the extent of nearly 50%. He deposed that as per his inspection the construction was one year old. However, during the cross examination the testimony of this witness was set at naught when he stated that he did 21 not recollect if he had prepared any inspection report or not. He however, denied the suggestion that he did not place his report on the record as it did not suit the CBI. The witness admitted that he would inspect 15 to 20 properties every year. He was confronted with his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr PC Ex PW13/DA where he had not mentioned the presence of the accused at the time of the inspection. He denied the suggestion that at the time of inspection half portion of the ground floor has been built whereas other half was under construction and that the first floor was also under construction. Without any inspection report being prepared on the basis of the inspection it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of this witness with regard to the extent of construction. Moreover this witness has given the age of entire construction to be one year whereas intimation with regard to completion of a portion was given by the accused in the year 1987.
21. The other relevant witness produced by the prosecution on this point is PW8 Sh. D S Makhan who had taken the ground floor premises belonging to the accused on rent from him. He stated that the premises was under the 22 tenancy of M/s Varuna Agro Proteins Ltd. from March to August, 1989 on a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. He stated that water and electricity charges were being directly paid to the authorities concerned by the company. Much emphasis was laid on the testimony of this witness by the prosecution as the witness has stated that the ground floor portion was taken on rent and that it was a double storey building. During cross examination the witness stated that there were two adjacent houses and if one faces the house then the left side portion consisting of complete ground floor was taken on rent. During his further cross examination the witness specifically stated that the entire ground floor of the property encircled A B C D in the Site Plan was taken on rent by the company.
22. PW18 Sh. R K Chaturvedi was working as an Asstt.
Engineer in Nagar Palika, Sehore in December, 1989. This witness testified that the note dt. 19.12.89 Ex P 11/2 (Ex PW18/D2 ) was prepared by him with regard to the non completion of the construction on the ground floor. Extension to complete the construction for another period of one year was granted vide the orders passed in the file Ex PW 18/A which was admitted by the accused as Ex 23 P11. PW18 is the witness of the prosecution. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the note dt. 19.12.89 had been falsely prepared by PW18 or for that matter by any other official of Nagar Palika, Sehore. During cross examination the witness admitted that the documents Ex PW18/DA and Ex PW18/DB were issued by their office. Vide Ex PW18/DA permission to complete construction as per the sanction plan was granted by Nagar Palika, Sehore. Ex PW18/DB is the letter dt. 29.9.89 through which the accused was informed that the period of construction granted on 22.10.84 had expired and if he wanted to continue with the construction then necessary permission may be obtained by him. On the top of it, there is a Sanction Plan dt. 20.12.88 Ex PW20/D3 through which Smt. Shiv Kunwar Sisodia was permitted to raise construction on the first floor. It was admitted by Sh. N K Mukherjee, IO of the case that the photo copy of the Site Plan Ex PW20/D3 had been produced before him during investigation. The IO has not stated anything to doubt the authenticity of the Site Plan Ex PW20/D3. It therefore, stands established that Smt. Shiv Kunwar Sisodia, mother of the accused had applied for raising construction on the first floor to Nagar Palika, Sehore and the Plan was 24 sanctioned on 20.12.88 much before the search of the house of the accused. It is very well settled law that the accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt but he can prove the same by preponderance of probabilities (see MS Naraina Menon Vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39). The accused has also placed on record a copy of agreement (Ikrarnama) mark DX 4 to show that the roof rights had been transferred by him in favour of her mother. This document is not admissible in evidence as the same has not been registered. Moreover, the accused had not given any intimation to his department under the conduct Rules to transfer the property in favour of her mother. The same therefore, is neither believable nor the same can be considered. The fact, however, remains that there is ample evidence coming from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses as has been stated by me herein above which would show that the right side portion of the ground floor and the construction on the first floor was raised subsequent to the construction of an area of 1200 sq. feet on the ground floor and after the end of the check period on 29.8.89. PW17 Sh. P K Ojha had visited the house of the accused only on 19.9.91. He proved Valuation Report 25 Ex PW17/A and Ex PW17/B. The witness admitted that the period of construction as mentioned in Ex PW17/B was given to him by the CBI. This witness has given the cost of construction of the entire ground floor as Rs.3,37,043/- and the cost of construction of the first floor as Rs. 1,88,949/-. As stated above the accused has raised a probable defence that the construction on the first floor and a portion on the ground floor was raised after the end of the check period, the valuation of Rs.1,80,000/- given by the accused for the portion mark A B C D in the Site Plan Ex PW8/DB only shall have to be accepted. Certified copy of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O. A. No. 826/01 R S Sisodia Vs Union of India and others was placed on record by the accused against the order of the disciplinary authority in the departmental enquiry and the plea of the accused that construction on the first floor was raised by his mother was accepted.
23. In view of the foregoing discussions the income of the accused increases by Rs.45,000/- + Rs.55,262 = Rs.1,00262/- and the assets decrease by Rs. 22,000/- + Rs. 3,52,583/- =Rs.3,74,583. If the income and assets of the 26 accused are computed in accordance with the observations made hereinabove the income of the accused comes to Rs. 5,20,608 + 1,00,262 = Rs.6,20,870/-. The expenditure is Rs. 2,60,264/- resulting into likely savings of Rs. 3,60,406/-. As against this, the assets of the accused were Rs. 3,66,417/-. There was discrepancy of an amount of Rs. 1853/- in calculation of the rental income as stated by PW2 Ashok Kumar as he had paid rent of Rs. 4725/- as against Rs.2872/-. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnanand Vs. State of MP (AIR 1977 SC 796), if the excess of assets is upto the extent of 10% of the total income of the accused he cannot be stated to be in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. In this case the accused may be in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of his income even less than 1%. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused is therefore, entitled to be acquitted. I order accordingly.
24. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (G.P.Mittal) Dated: 30.11.2007 Special Judge: Delhi 27 28