Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs (1)D.L. Vaid on 16 November, 2011

    IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE & 
    ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE 
             (CBI), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.



AC No.05/2003
Unique Case ID No.02402R0008892003

FIR No.RC ­DAI­2000­A­0048
U/s 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e)
& 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act.

CBI                 Versus           (1)D.L. Vaid
                                     S/o Late Sh. Bishan Dass Vaid
                                     R/o (I) H.No.A­66, East Azad Nagar,
                                     Delhi
                                     (II) B­94, Sector 26, Noida, UP.
                                     (III) Sapri Mohalla, Chamba, HP.

                                     (2) Smt. Kamlesh Vaid
                                     W/o Sh. D.L. Vaid
                                     R/o (I) H.No.A­66, East Azad Nagar,
                                     Delhi.
                                     (II) B­94, Sector 26, Noida, UP.

Date of Institution                  :      30.09.2003
Date of judgment reserved            :      02.11.2011
Date of judgment                     :      14.11.2011


AC No.05/2003                     CBI  Vs.  D.L.Vaid etc.      Page 1 of 72
 J U D G M E N T

Two accused persons, namely, D.L. Vaid and his wife Kamlesh Vaid (both on bail) have been sent to face trial by the Anti Corruption Branch of the CBI, for the offences punishable under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988.

2 At the time of commission of the offence, accused D.L. Vaid was posted as Assistant Director in Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi.

3 Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that on the basis of source information, present case FIR Ex. PW56/A was registered on 31.8.2000 against accused D.L. Vaid for amassing assets in his name as well as in the name of his family members disproportionate to known sources of income. It is alleged that accused D.L. Vaid acquired movable and immovable properties in the name of his wife accused Kamlesh Vaid as well as in the name of his son Lokesh Vaid and daughter Sonia Vaid. It is alleged that land for construction of Hotel Himgiri at Dalhousie was purchased worth Rs. 39,000/­ and its estimated construction cost was Rs.15,23,000/­. House No.A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi was purchased for a sum of AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 2 of 72 Rs.66,000/­. It is also alleged that 87950 shares of M/s Kuku Motors Finance (KMF) worth Rs.8,79,500/­ were purchased in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid, 34900 shares worth Rs.3,49,000/­ were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid whereas 34700 shares worth Rs.3,47,000/­ were purchased in the name of Sonia Vaid. 4 Accused D.L. Vaid got married to accused Kamlesh Vaid in the year 1973. Their daughter Sonia Vaid was married in 1996 whereas son Lokesh Vaid got married in the year 2000. 5 Accused D.L. Vaid joined services as Assistant Enforcement Officer on 12.5.1971 and was promoted as Enforcement Officer on 2.7.1976 and then again promoted as Chief Enforcement Officer in June, 1987. On 16.12.1994, he was promoted as Assistant Director and remained posted in Delhi Zone upto 05.05.1995. Check period in the present case has been taken from 1987 to 31.03.1995 as it is alleged that accused acquired most of the properties during this period in his name and in the name of his family members and mixed up his illegal money with the income of his wife accused Kamlesh Vaid. Therefore, income, expenditure and assets acquired by accused D.L. Vaid in his name and in the name of his family members have been taken into consideration for computation during check period. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 3 of 72 6 During investigation, it revealed that on 4.11.1987, a piece of land was purchased for constructing Hotel Himgiri at Dalhousie for a sum of Rs.39,000/­ in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid and cash payment therefor was made by accused D.L. Vaid. After demolition of existing structure, Hotel with 21 rooms and basement was constructed. Building plan was sanctioned in 1992 and construction completed in 1994. A loan of Rs.15,23,000/­ was taken from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (HPFC) on 18.1.1994 by accused Kamlesh Vaid. The said hotel was evaluated at Rs. 41,03,638/­. Since House No.A­66, East Azad Nagar was purchased prior to check period, therefore, its value was not considered. 7 With regard to movable assets, it is alleged that accused Kamlesh Vaid is one of the promoters of M/s Kuku Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd now known as M/s KMF Ltd. She was honorary Director of M/s KMF Ltd. upto 31.05.1997 and was one of the promoters of M/s Kuku Leasing Ltd. Accused D.L. Vaid purchased shares worth Rs.16,87,500/­ of both these companies in the name of his wife, son and daughter from 1987 to 1994. He also purchased shares of different companies and invested in Unit Trust of India (UTI) amounting to Rs.1,26,400/­. He also purchased Special Term AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 4 of 72 Deposit Receipt (STDRs) from banks, M/s KMF Ltd., National Saving Certificate and paid premium of LIC Policies amounting to Rs.1,07,997.50 in his name and in the name of his family members. On 7.9.2000, search of H.No.A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi and of H. No.B­94, Sector 26, Noida was conducted during which it revealed that accused D.L. Vaid purchased household articles worth Rs. 2,89,302/­. During investigation, it also revealed that in the year 1994, accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased vehicle bearing registration No.HP 47 0109 in the name of Hotel Himgiri for a sum of Rs. 2,89,302/­ out of which Punjab National Bank, Dalhousie sanctioned loan of Rs.2,16,976.50 whereas she paid Rs.73,050.50 as margin money. During the period 23.06.1994 to 03.10.1994, she paid Rs. 2,22,510.50 to the bank against loan. Various bank accounts in the name of accused D.L. Vaid and his family members showed balance of Rs.1,68,890.73 as on 31.03.1995. It also revealed that in the year 1991 and 1992, a sum of Rs.2,41,500/­ was invested with M/s Manu investments Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of shares in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid as well as Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid. 8 With regard to expenditure, during investigation, it revealed that a sum of Rs.2,62,726/­ was paid to HPFC against loan AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 5 of 72 obtained for construction of Hotel Himgiri. Accused Kamlesh Vaid paid a sum of Rs.61,365/­ towards Income Tax, Advertisement Tax and Municipal Tax of Hotel Himgiri. A sum of Rs.1,23,081.66 as 1/3rd of net salary of accused D.L. Vaid is taken for his known verifiable expenditure. It is mentioned that accused D.L. Vaid and his family members incurred expenditure worth Rs.2,86,301.05 towards registration of land of Hotel Himgiri, House Tax, School Fee of children, Bob Card Payment, repayment of vehicle loan, Insurance Premium and household articles.

9 With regard to income of accused persons and their family members, it is mentioned that from January, 1987 to 31.3.1995, accused, D.L. Vaid got net salary of Rs.3,69,245/­. Accused Kamlesh Vaid had income from her cloths shop and Hotel Himgiri worth Rs.4,95,494/­. Her income has been calculated on the basis of Income Tax returns/orders. HPFC disbursed a sum of Rs. 15,23,000/­ on 18.01.1994 as loan for construction of Hotel Himgiri. Accused Kamlesh Vaid took loan of Rs.2,16,976.50 in the year 1994 from PNB, Dalhousie for purchase of vehicle. Accused D.L. Vaid and his family members sold shares of Ranbaxy worth Rs.1,67,500/­ from 1993 to 1995 and that they had income of Rs.70,636.92 as AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 6 of 72 interest on deposit in various bank accounts, dividends and loan from Sh. Nirmal Kumar.

10 It is alleged that total assets of accused persons and their family members were worth Rs.68,46,958.23 whereas total income was worth Rs.28,42,852.42. The expenditure incurred by accused persons and their family members during the check period was worth Rs.7,33,473.71. It is further alleged that accused D.L. Vaid acquired disproportionate assets worth Rs.47,37,579.92 and could not account for the same. It is also alleged that accused Kamlesh Vaid also could not explain source of assets acquired in her name which are hugely disproportionate to her known sources of income and thus she abetted and aided her husband accused D.L. Vaid to acquire assets in her name to convert his ill­gotten money. 11 Competent Authority accorded sanction for prosecution of accused D.L. Vaid vide sanction order dated 04.02.2003 Ex.PW33/A. 12 After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the court where the accused persons were supplied with the copies of the charge­sheet and the documents of the CBI. 13 On 27.7.2005, charge under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 7 of 72 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act was framed against accused Kamlesh Vaid which reads as under:­ "That you during the period 01.01.1987 to 31.03.1995 at Delhi abetted your husband/co­accused D.L. Vaid to commit an offence of criminal misconduct defined under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under section 13(2) of the said Act and thereby you committed an offence under Section 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and within cognizance of this Court."

14 A separate charge under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act was framed against accused D.L.Vaid which reads as under:­ "That you while being employed as Assistant Director, Delhi Zone, Directorate of Enforcement of Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi, during the period 01.01.1987 to 31.03.1995 at Delhi were found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 68,46,958/­ disproportionate to known sources of your income and for which you could not satisfactorily account for and thereby you committed an offence under section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under section 13(2) of the said Act and within cognizance of this Court."

15 Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

16 The prosecution has examined as many as 57 AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 8 of 72 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Ashok Kumar Mehta submitted file of H.No.A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi to CBI. PW3 Narender Kumar Chawla proved fees statement paid in respect of Sonia Vaid in Institute of Home Economics, University of Delhi. PW23 Dr. S.C. Shukla proved fees statement paid in respect of Lokesh Vaid in Delhi College of Arts and Commerce. PW35 Sister Phyllis proved fees statement of Sonia Vaid paid to Presentation Convent Sr. Sec. School. PW7 Ram Lal Gupta is the brother­in­law of accused D.L. Vaid and was residing at A­66 East Azad Nagar, Delhi where search was taken by CBI team on 7.9.2000 in the presence of PW17 S.N. Mishra and PW 28 M.M. Malhotra. Witnesses PW4 J.K. Aggarwal, PW15 Ram Kishan are the witness to the search taken at H.No.B­94, Sector 26, Noida, U.P. PW14 S.K.Anand proved the householder policy issued in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid in respect of abovesaid house. PW10 Vipin Mahajan sold the property to accused Kamlesh Vaid on which Hotel Himgiri was constructed. PW8 Vinod Kumar proved the photocopy of sale deed of the said plot. PW25 Govind Sharma took photographs of Hotel Himgiri. PW38 P.L. Malik proved the registration documents of Hotel. PW26 R.S. Rana proved the sanctioned building plan of Hotel Himgiri and taxes paid in respect AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 9 of 72 thereof. PW36 Rajesh Banga proved the valuation report of Hotel Himgiri. PW52 Anil Kumar Sharma is the Manager of Hotel Himgiri in whose presence search was conducted there in the presence of independent witness PW37 Raja Ram. PW49 Upender Kumar Sharma proved the loan files of Hotel Himgiri. PW21 Chander Shekhar, PW30 Dharamvir Jain, PW31 Dharamvir Mahajan and PW57 Joginder Singh have proved that bank accounts in the name of Hotel Himgiri were maintained in various banks. PW42 Vinod Kumar proved the registration of vehicle in the name of Hotel Himgiri. PW5 Joga Singh, PW6 Saroj Gupta and PW20 Sanjay Sinha proved LIC policies in the name of accused persons. PW34 Surender Kumar Chadha is the owner of KMF Ltd. of which accused Kamlesh was one of the promoters and directors. PW11 Lekh Raj proved memo of association, annual returns, subscribers details and documents of KMF Ltd. PW16 Pramod Puri, one of the promoters of KMF Ltd. proved the statement showing shares of accused Kamlesh Vaid as well as of her son Lokesh Vaid and daughter Sonia Vaid. PW19 R.N. Mittal, Chartered Accountant/Auditor of Manu Investments Pvt. Ltd. proved the entries with regard to purchase of shares by accused Kamlesh Vaid and her children in the said company. PW29 Harish AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 10 of 72 Chandra Joshi, Liquidator, deposed that M/s KMF Ltd. was wound up and search in the premises was taken by CBI officials. PW9 Anoop Singh Rauthan proved the vigilance file of accused D.L.Vaid along with property returns. PW­2 Om Prakash proved salary statements of accused D.L. Vaid. PW32 K.C. Rastogi proved the salary statements, service book and vigilance file of accused D.L. Vaid. PW40 T.P.M. Nair proved that shares were allotted to Sonia Vaid in Computronics Financial Services India Ltd. PW43 proved that shares were allotted to accused Kamlesh Vaid in M/s Kitply Industries Ltd. PW45 Rohit C.Shah proved that debentures were issued to accused Kamlesh Vaid in Reliance Industries Ltd. PW46 Y.K. Gautam proved that shares were issued to Lokesh Vaid in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. PW48 Kishan Lal Sharma of Statement Bank of Bikaner and Jairpur proved that SDTRs were issued in the name of Lokesh Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid. PW50 Rakesh Aggarwal of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. proved that shares were issued in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid. PW51 Vinod Kumar Sharma of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. has deposed that shares were held by both the accused and their children and the same were transferred. PW54 Suresh Kumar of MCS Ltd. proved that shares were held by accused Kamlesh Vaid. PW55 Rohit S. Vyas has AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 11 of 72 deposed that shares of Indian Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. were held by accused Kamlesh Vaid. PW27 Oliver Minj has deposed that UTI Certificates were held by accused Kamlesh Vaid. PW12 Rajender Singh Pawar, Income Tax Officer, proved the income tax returns of accused Kamlesh Vaid. PW18 Ishwar Singh Kapil, official of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Delhi, proved that accounts in the name of Sonia Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid were maintained in his bank. PW22 S.N. Mathur, official of Punjab and Sind Bank, Delhi proved that account in the name of both the accused was maintained in his bank. PW24 N.R. Hari Haran of Punjab National Bank, Delhi proved that account in the name of accused D.L. Vaid was maintained in his bank. PW41 T.K. Sharma of Central Bank of India proved that account in the name of accused D.L. Vaid was maintained in his bank. PW53 Deena Nath Thakur of State Bank of India, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh proved that accounts in the name of both the accused were maintained in his bank. PW13 Diwan Singh Yadav, official of Bank of Baroda, Delhi proved that account in the name of accused D.L. Vaid was maintained in his bank. PW47 Mahadev Chandra Sarkar, Sub Post Master, has deposed that accused D.L.Vaid was having National Saving Certificate worth Rs.5000/­. PW33 Ms Mala AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 12 of 72 Srivastava proved the sanction order of accused D.L. Vaid. PW56 DSP Surendra Malik is the Investigating Officer of the case. 17 Statements of both the accused have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have stated that this is a false and fabricated case. Both the accused have opted to lead evidence in their defence.

18 Accused persons have examined DW­1 Inspector Shri Bhagwan who deposed that accused Kamlesh Vaid filed a criminal revision No.786/2005 in Hon'ble High Court against CBI in which reply was filed by CBI by way of affidavit but the copy of said affidavit is not available with the CBI. Defence witness Mr. Jolly Anand (DW­2), official of Income Tax Office has proved letter Ex.DW2/A vide which it was informed that the assessment record of accused D.L. Vaid beyond past seven years was not available with Income Tax Department. Sh. K.C. Rastogi (DW3) (who appeared as PW32) has deposed that accused D.L. Vaid was working as Assistant Director in Enforcement Directorate whereas Sh. R.N. Dass was the Director in the year 2003. He proved noting Ex.DW3/A forwarded to CBI and deposed that as per summoned file, there is no document indicating information given by accused D.L. Vaid to the AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 13 of 72 department regarding starting of business by his wife. Defence witness (DW4) Smt. V.Ramakrishnan, Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, has deposed that she retired from job in May, 2008 and did not have summoned record. 19 I have heard learned PP for the CBI as well as ld. Counsel for accused persons. Written submissions on behalf of accused persons have also been filed. I have also carefully gone through their submissions and the material available on record. 20 In order to prove a case of disproportionate assets, prosecution is required to prove that an accused has acquired assets and incurred expenditure disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Assets 21 It is alleged against accused D.L. Vaid that he was a Public Servant and during the check period 1987 to 31.03.1995, he acquired various assets in his name, in his name of his wife accused Kamlesh Vaid, his son Lokesh Vaid and daughter Sonia Vaid. It is alleged that Hotel Himgiri was purchased and construction thereon was raised. Shares were purchased in M/s KMF Ltd. in the name of Lokesh Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid whereas investment was also AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 14 of 72 made in the said company. It was also alleged that shares in the name of Lokesh Vaid, Sonia Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid were purchased in M/s Kuku Leasing Ltd. Various insurance policies were taken for which premium was paid apart from purchasing STDRs and National Saving Certificate. It was also alleged that shares in various companies were purchased. It was also alleged that several bank accounts were maintained by accused persons and their family members in which cash was lying. During investigation, searches in premises of the accused at Azad Nagar and Noida were conducted wherein articles worth Rs.38,330/­ and Rs.83,400/­ respectively were found.

22 To prove the acquisition of asset in the form of Hotel Himgiri at Dalhousie, Himachal Pradesh, Sh. Vipin Mahajan (PW10) has deposed that he sold one property to accused D.L.Vaid near bus stand at Dalhousie. He sold the same to accused Kamlesh Vaid for a sum of Rs.39,000/­ on 4.11.1987 with whom accused D.L.Vaid had come. He also testified that accused D.L.Vaid gave money to him in cash. In his cross­examination by Ld. PP for CBI, he admitted that the land was got registered in the name of wife of accused D.L.Vaid. 23 PW8 Vinod Kumar, official of SDM Office, AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 15 of 72 Dalhousie has proved the copy of sale deed of property at Dalhousie executed in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Vaid as Ex.PW8/A. 24 Perusal of sale deed Ex.PW8/A shows that PW10 Vipin Mahajan sold his plot situated at Pathankot Road near Bus Stand, Dalhousie to accused Kamlesh Vaid for a sum of Rs.39,000/­. 25 Sh. P.N. Malik (PW38), Dy. Registrar of Companies has proved the documents of registration of Hotel Himgiri vide Ex.PW38/A. As per letter Ex.PW38/A, information was supplied to CBI regarding incorporation of Hotel Himgiri and its share holding. Certificate of incorporation is dated 18.06.1993 and Sonia Vaid as well as accused Kamlesh Vaid were the share holders of the said company/Hotel having 100 shares each. Vide letter dated 18.07.1992, it was declared by accused Kamlesh Vaid that she was the Director of Him Sagar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Even the annual return of the said Hotel/ Company was filed by accused Kamlesh Vaid being Director. 26 Sh. R.S. Rana (PW26) Jr. Assistant, Municipal Council, Dalhousie, has proved the documents regarding building plan of Hotel at the site as Ex.PW26/A to Ex.PW26/E. Ex.PW26/A is letter written to CBI in this regard by the Executive Officer of Municipal council of Dalhousie. Ex.PW26/C is the letter written by AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 16 of 72 accused Kamlesh Vaid for sanction of building plan for construction of Hotel Building after demolishing the existing structure. Ex.PW26/B is the letter to accused Kamlesh Vaid by Municipal Office, Dalhousie to the effect that building plan Ex.PW26/D of Hotel building was sanctioned. PW26/E are the house taxes paid by accused Kamlesh Vaid with regard to Hotel Himgiri. 27 From the testimony of PW10 Vipin Mahajan, it has been established that plot on which Hotel Himgiri was constructed, was purchased by accused D.L. Vaid in the name of his wife accused Kamlesh Vaid. He is specific that accused D.L.Vaid made cash payment of Rs.39,000/­ to him towards purchase of said land. Ex.PW8/A sale deed of said plot also establishes this fact. From the statement of Sh. R.S. Rana (PW26), it is established that existing structure on the land was demolished whereupon Hotel building was constructed as per sanctioned building plan Ex.PW26/D. Municipal Taxes paid vide Ex.PW26/E also show the ownership of Hotel building in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid.

28 Sh. Upender Kumar Sharma (PW49), official of Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, has deposed that a loan of Rs.15,23,000/­ was disbursed to Hotel Himgiri which was applied by AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 17 of 72 accused Kamlesh Vaid being Director of the company. He proved the loan statement of account as Ex.PW49/B which shows that a sum of Rs.15,23,000/­ was disbursed to Hotel Himgiri on 18.01.1994. He also deposed that a sum of Rs.1,23,804/­, Rs.1,38,922/­ and Rs. 8,000/­ was repaid by accused Kamlesh Vaid upto 31.03.1995. 29 PW42 Sh. Vinod Kumar, License Clerk in the office of SDM, Dalhousie, has proved the document Ex.PW42/A to Ex.PW42/C. Ex.PW42/B is the invoice dated 23.06.1994 of vehicle TATA 407 sold to Hotel Himgiri for a sum of Rs.2,89,302/­. It was registered with Government of Himachal Pradesh and fees towards registration, token tax and hypothecation were paid by Hotel Himgiri vide receipts Ex.PW42/C. 30 Ex.PW42/B and Ex.PW42/C establish that accused Kamlesh Vaid was in possession of a truck make TATA 407 being Director of Hotel Himgiri which was one of assets worth Rs. 2,89,302/­ in her name.

31 During investigation, search was conducted in Hotel Himgiri in the presence of independent witness Raja Ram (PW37) and PW52 Anil Kumar Sharma, Manager of the Hotel. Sh. Raja Ram has deposed that during the year 2000, CBI called him and he had AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 18 of 72 gone to Hotel Himgiri where search was conducted by CBI. CBI prepared list of articles and he signed the list. He also deposed that search cum seizure Ex.PW37/A as well as observation memo Ex.PW37/B were prepared.

32 Search in Hotel Himgiri and deposition of independent witness Raja Ram (PW37) has been corroborated by Manager of the Hotel Anil Kumar Sharma (PW52). PW52 deposed that he knew accused D.L. Vaid. He contacted accused Kamlesh Vaid in 1994 and got job in the Hotel Himgiri and has been working as such since May, 1994. After working there, he came to know that accused D.L. Vaid is the husband of accused Kamlesh Vaid. He further deposed that Hotel Himgiri has its own tanker for the purpose of bringing water. Witness was shown seizure memo and observation memo dated 7.9.2000, Ex. PW37/A and Ex.PW37/B respectively. After going through these documents, witness admitted his signatures on the same and stated that he signed the same on 7.9.2000 when CBI conducted search at Hotel Himgiri. Sh. Govind Sharma (PW25) took photographs of Hotel Himgiri on 7.9.20000 and proved the same as Ex.PW25/A (collectively).

33 From the statement of independent witness Raja Ram AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 19 of 72 (PW37) which has duly been corroborated by manager of the Hotel (PW52), it has been established that a search was conducted in Hotel Himgiri vide search cum seizure memo Ex.PW37/A and observation memo Ex.PW37/B. 34 Inspection of Hotel Himgiri was done by Assistant Engineer Kulwant Singh vide evaluation report Ex.PW36/B which was forwarded by Sh. Rajesh Banga (PW36) Executive Engineer, CPWD. PW36 deposed that vide letter dated 22.10.2002 Ex.PW36/A, he forward evaluation report Ex.PW36/B to the CBI. He also deposed that he evaluated Hotel Himgiri and as per report, he evaluated cost of building including land and other fixtures to be Rs.42,05,839/­. 35 From the testimony of PW42 Vinod Kumar, it has been established that Hotel Himgiri was having a vehicle worth Rs. 2,89,302/­ and as per valuation report Ex.PW36/B, Hotel Himgiri was worth Rs.42,05,839/­ which were owned by accused Kamlesh Vaid. 36 The house bearing No.A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi was searched by CBI team on 7.9.2000. To prove this aspect, prosecution has examined PW7 Ram Lal Gupta. He deposed that he is living in said house which belongs to his brother in law D.L. Vaid. He further deposed that he is living at the ground floor, first floor is in AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 20 of 72 possession of accused D.L. Vaid and on top floor, this witness is doing work of plastic moulding. He deposed that on 7.9.2000, search was conducted at first floor of said house and he informed that it was in possession of accused D.L. Vaid. After search articles seized were mentioned in memo Ex.PW7/A and deposed that observation memo Ex.PW7/B­1 to B­11 was prepared. This search was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses J.K. Aggarwal (PW4), Ram Kishan (PW15), S.N.Mishra (PW17) and M.M. Malhotra (PW28). All these witnesses have also deposed that search at the said house was conducted by CBI team in their presence on 7.9.2000 and memos Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B­1 to B­11 were prepared.

37 Ex.PW7/A is the search cum seizure memo of H.No. A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi. Vide observation memo Ex.PW7/B­1, list of articles and their cost was ascertained which came to be Rs. 38,330/­. Search of House No. B­94,Sector 26, Noida, UP was conducted by CBI on 7.9.2000 in the presence of independent witness Ram Kishan (PW15). He deposed that on 7.9.2000, he along with CBI team went to said house where search was conducted by CBI official. One list was prepared in which details of items and cash recovered were mentioned. He proved the search cum seizure memo AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 21 of 72 as Ex.PW15/A and observation memo as Ex.PW14/A. 38 Search memo Ex.PW15/A shows that several cash receipts towards expenditure, statements of account, receipts of credit cards, telephone bills, electricity bills, premium receipts, investment documents, shares certificate, pass book and cash were recovered. Vide observation memo Ex. PW14/A, list of articles in the said house was prepared. As per case of CBI, the worth of the household articles of the said house is Rs.83,400/­.

39 It is case of the prosecution that accused D.L. Vaid purchased shares of M/s KMF Ltd. in the name of his family members. To prove this aspect, prosecution has examined PW11 Lekhraj, official of Registrar of Companies. He proved the letter dated 16.7.2001 as Ex. PW11/A vide which information and documents regarding M/s Kuku Motors Finance Ltd. and Kuku Motors Leasing Ltd. were furnished to CBI. He proved the documents as Ex.PW11/B to Ex.PW11/D­1.

40 PW34 Sh. Surender Kumar Chadha has deposed that he is running M/s KMF Ltd. since 1989 and knew accused Kamlesh Vaid as she was Director of the company who remained as such upto 1996. He proved letter dated 28.03.2001 as Ex.PW34/A vide which AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 22 of 72 information regarding shares held and deposit made in M/s KMF Ltd. by Sonia Vaid, Lokesh Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid was given to CBI. As per Ex. PW34/A, accused D.L.Vaid purchased FDRs from M/s KMF Ltd. worth Rs.9548/­ whereas accused Kamlesh Vaid also purchased FDR of the same amount.

41 As per memo of association Ex.PW11/B of M/s KMF Ltd., accused Kamlesh Vaid is the subscriber of said company having 20 shares. Ex.PW11/C­1 are the annual returns of the company which also shows that Lokesh Vaid, Sonia Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid were the share holders of the said company. Ex.PW11/D­1 is the memo of association of Kuku Motors Leasing Ltd along with list of share holders which also shows that accused Kamlesh Vaid is one of the share holders of the said company. The share holding documents of both these companies show that accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares worth Rs.8,79,500/­ of M/s KMF Ltd. from 1987 to 1994 and of shares worth Rs.52,000/­ of M/s Kuku Leasing Ltd. Documents also show that shares worth Rs.3,54,000/­ and Rs. 3,52,000/­ were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid respectively in M/s KMF Ltd. during the period 1989 to 1994. Ex.PW11/D­1 also shows that shares worth Rs.25,000/­ were AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 23 of 72 purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid whereas shares worth Rs. 25,000/­ were also purchased in the name of Sonia Vaid of the company M/s Kuku Leasing Ltd.

42 Sh. R.N. Mittal (PW19), Chartered Accountant/ Auditor of Manu Investment Pvt. Ltd, has proved the cash books of said company as Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B. After going through the cash books, he deposed that vide entries dated 5.7.1991, 18.07.1991, 19.07.1991, 5.8.1991 and 30.5.1992, share application money of Rs.5,000/­, Rs.17,000/­, Rs.12500/­, Rs.55000/­ and Rs. 5000/­ respectively was received from accused Kamlesh Vaid by the said company towards purchase of shares of the said company. Thus, shares worth Rs.94,500/­ were purchased by accused Kamlesh Vaid of M/s Manu Investment Pvt. Ltd. This witness also deposed that as per cash books Ex.PW19/A and x.PW19/B, vide entries dated 5.7.1991 and 26.10.1991, shares worth Rs.9,000/­ and Rs.45000/­ respectively were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid and thus totaling to Rs.54,000/­. He also deposed that as per cash books, vide entries dated 2.7.1991, 19.7.1991, 5.8.1991 and 8.10.1992 shares worth Rs.10,000/­, Rs.29,000/­, Rs.51,000/­ and Rs.3000/­ in the name of Sonia Vaid were purchased in M/s Manu Investment Pvt. Ltd AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 24 of 72 and thus she purchased total shares worth Rs. 93,000/­. 43 Sh. Umesh Sharma (PW43), Manager (Accounts) of M/s Kitply Industries Ltd. has proved that shares worth Rs.16,800/­ of the said company were purchased in the name of both the accused and he proved letters written to CBI as Ex.PW43/C and Ex.PW43/D, share certificates as Ex.PW43/A and Ex.PW43/B and allotment advice cum allotment money notice dated 10.04.1995 as Ex.PW43/E. 44 It is also the case of prosecution that during search of house of accused at B­94, Sector 26, Noida, several share certificates of different companies were recovered. Independent witnesses PW­4 J.K. Aggarwal and PW15 Ram Kishan have proved the recovered share certificates as Ex.PW15/B to Ex.PW15/K. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/B (collectively), accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares of M/s Lohia Polysters Ltd. worth Rs.1000/­. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/C (collectively), accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares of M/s Nova Udyog Ltd. worth Rs.1000/­. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/D (collectively), accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased debentures of M/s Fly Up Fashions Ltd. worth Rs. 1250/­. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/E (collectively), accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased debentures of M/s Nath Pulp and Paper AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 25 of 72 Mills Ltd. worth Rs.2250/­. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/F­1 to F­4, accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares of M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. worth Rs.18,900/­. PW54 Sh. Suresh Kumar, Officer of MCS Ltd. has also deposed that he supplied information in this regard to CBI vide letters Ex.PW54/A and Ex.PW54/B. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/G (collectively), Sonia Vaid purchased shares of M/s Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. worth Rs.1,12,500/­ whereas share certificate Ex.PW15/H (collectively) shows that shares worth Rs.10,000/­ were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/J (collectively), accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares of M/s Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. worth Rs.2500/­. As per share certificates Ex.PW15/K, accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares of M/s State Bank of India worth Rs.5,000/­. Ex.PW38/A also shows that worth Rs.1000/­ were purchased by accused Kamlesh Vaid in M/s Himsagar Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

45 PW39 Sh. Kedar Phadke, Company Secretary of Eco Board Industries Ltd. proved letter dated 12.03.2001 as Ex.PW39/A as per which shares worth Rs.1,000/­ were purchased by accused D.L. Vaid. PW40 Sh. T.P.M. Nair, DGM, Computronics Financial AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 26 of 72 Services India Ltd. has proved letter dated 6.3.2001 as Ex.PW40/A vide which information was supplied to CBI. As per this letter, SBI mutual funds worth Rs.3,200/­ were purchased in the name of Sonia Vaid. PW46 Sh. Y.K. Gautam, Officer of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., has deposed that vide letter dated 23.2.2001 Ex.PW46/A, information regarding holding of shares by Lokesh Vaid was supplied to CBI. As per this letter, Lokesh Vaid was having 200 shares worth Rs.18,000/­ of the said company.

46 PW51 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, the then Manager of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. has deposed that he issued letter Ex.PW51/A to the CBI regarding shares/debentures held by accused D.L. Vaid and his family members worth Rs.20,000/­. Vide Ex.PW51 /B­1 to B­4, shares were transferred. This witness also proved letter dated 28.10.2002 as Ex.PW51/C vide which copies of transfer deeds Ex.PW51/D­1 to D­7 were sent to CBI. These transfer deeds show that both the accused as well as Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid sold their shares.

47 PW27 Sh. Oliver Minj, Manager of Unit Trust of India, has proved the UTI certificates as Ex.PW27/A to Ex.PW27/E which show that 500 shares of UTI worth Rs.5000/­ were purchased AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 27 of 72 by accused Kamlesh Vaid. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal (PW50) Manager of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. has deposed that vide letter dated 12.03.2001 Ex.PW50/A, information regarding shares held by accused Kamlesh Vaid was given to CBI. He proved the share certificate as Ex.PW50/B. As per share certificate Ex.PW50/B, accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased 100 shares of said company worth Rs.6000/­.

48 From the above evidence, it has been established that both the accused persons in their names as well as in the name of their children purchased shares/debentures/mutual funds/FDRs of various companies totalling to Rs.18,33,996/­.

49 Sh. Kishan Lal Sharma (PW48), official of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has proved the STDR dated 10.05.1998 for a sum of Rs.8,602/­ in the name of Lokesh Vaid as Ex.PW48/A and STDR dated 9.7.1998 for a sum of Rs.22,450/­ in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid as Ex.PW48/B. Both these STDRs prove that accused Kamlesh Vaid as well as her son were having assets in the form of STDRs.

50 Sub Post Master Sh. Mahadev Chandra Sarkar (PW47) has proved the National Saving Certificate dated 26.12.1988 AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 28 of 72 for a sum of Rs.5000/­ in the name of accused D.L.Vaid as Ex.PW47/A and identity slip of accused as Ex.PW47/B. 51 Sh. Joga Singh (PW5), official of LIC of India, has proved the status report Ex.PW5/A of Policy No.130525592 in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid vide which premium @ Rs.3498.50 was yearly paid and it is the case of prosecution that she paid total premium to the tune of Rs.24,489.50. PW6 Smt. Saroj Gupta (another official of LIC) has proved that policy No.410532978 was issued in the name of accused D.L. Vaid and she informed about the same to CBI vide letter Ex.PW6/A. As per this document, accused D.L. Vaid paid yearly premium @ Rs.3664.50 and it is the case of prosecution that he paid total premium to the tune of Rs.25,651.50. Sh. Sanjay Sinha (PW20), Branch Manager of LIC, has deposed that policy No.111320697 was in the name of accused D.L. Vaid and he vide letter dated 28.06.2001, Ex.PW20/A supplied documents to the CBI. He proved application form of accused D.L. Vaid as Ex.PW20/A­1 and status report of Policy as Ex.PW20/A­2. As per status report, accused D.L.Vaid paid premium @ Rs.383/­ half yearly from 28.10.1991 and it is case of the prosecution that he paid total premium to the tune of Rs.2709/­.

AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 29 of 72 52 The above evidence establishes that both the accused were having LIC policies in their names and they paid total premium of Rs.52,850/­. STDRs were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid worth Rs.31,052/­ apart from purchasing NSC by accused D.L.Vaid worth Rs.5000/­. Total investment made in this regard by accused persons is worth Rs.88,902/­. 53 It is also case of the prosecution that accused persons as well their family members have maintained various bank accounts in different banks apart from account in the name of Hotel Himgiri which was being operated by accused Kamlesh Vaid. 54 Sh. Ishwar Singh Kapil (PW18), Assistant Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has proved letter dated 12.2.2001 as Ex.PW18/A vide which information regarding account No.14348 was furnished to CBI. He also proved the statement of account of SB Account No.14348 in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid as Ex.PW18/C. He also proved statement of account of SB account No. 14349 in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid and Bhupinder Pal as Ex.PW18/B and statement of account of SB Account No.19583 in the name of Sonia Vaid as Ex.PW18/D. Statement of SB Account No. 14348 in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid Ex.PW18/C shows that AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 30 of 72 there was balance of Rs.27,668.76 as on 31.03.1995. Statement of SB Account No.14349 in the joint name of accused Kamlesh Vaid and Bhupinder Pal Ex.PW18/B shows that there was balance of Rs. 28,808.73 as on end of check period whereas statement of SB Account No.19583 in the name of Sonia Vaid Ex.PW18/D shows that there was balance of Rs.17,365.46 as on 31.03.1995. 55 Sh. T.K. Sharma (PW41), Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh has proved letter dated 5.7.2002 as Ex.PW41/A. As per this letter, information regarding account No.520 in the name of accused D.L.Vaid was supplied to CBI along with statement of account which shows that there was balance of Rs.1668/­ as on end of check period. PW53 Sh. Deena Nath Thakur, Assistant Manager, SBI, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh has deposed that vide letter dated 8.7.2002, he supplied copy of account opening form and statement of account No. 364 and 1249C to CBI and proved the documents collectively as Ex.PW53/A. As per account opening forms, both these accounts were in the joint name of accused D.L.Vaid and Kamlesh Vaid. As per statement of account No. 364, there was balance of Rs.1751/­ whereas as per statement of account No. 1249C, there was balance of Rs.3,16,980/­ as on end of AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 31 of 72 check period.

56 Witness S.N.Mathur (PW22), the then Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, has deposed that vide letter dated 16.10.2000 Ex.PW22/A, he informed CBI that SB A/C No. 3133 was maintained in the bank by accused Kamlesh Vaid and he forwarded copy of account opening form Ex.PW22/B and statement of account Ex.PW22/C to the CBI. As per account opening form Ex.PW22/B, A/c No. 3133 was in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid and as per statement of account Ex.PW22/C, there was balance of Rs.9127.73 as on end of check period.

57 PW24 N.R.Hariharan, Officer of Punjab National Bank has deposed that in Khan Market Branch, accused D.L.Vaid was maintaining A/C No. 13502 and he forwarded documents of said account to CBI vide letter Ex.PW24/A. He proved account opening form as Ex.PW24/B, copy of ledger sheet as Ex.PW24/C and statement of account as Ex.PW24/D and Ex.PW24/E­1 and E­2. As per statement of account, there was balance of Rs.21,477.45. 58 Witness PW21 Chander Shekhar, official of UCO Bank, Mayapuri, Delhi has deposed that current account No. 1163 was maintained with his bank by Hotel Himgiri and he proved AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 32 of 72 statements of account as Ex.PW21/B to Ex.PW21/D. As per statement of account, current account No.1163 in the name of Hotel Himgiri was being maintained and there was balance of Rs.2392/­. Sh.Dharamvir Mahajan (PW31) the then Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dalhousie has deposed that current account No.425 was maintained in the name of Hotel Himgiri and statement of account Ex. PW31/B was forwarded to CBI vide letter Ex.PW31/A. Statement Ex.PW31/B shows that said account was operated by accused Kamlesh Vaid being proprietor and the balance in the said account was Rs.24,436.60 at the end of check period. PW57 Sh. Jogender Singh, Sr. Manager (PNB), Dalhousie has deposed that current account No.1324 was in the name of Hotel Himgiri. He proved the statement of account as Ex.PW57/2 and account opening form as Ex.PW57/4. Account opening form Ex.PW57/4 shows that said account was also being operated by accused Kamlesh Vaid and as per statement Ex.PW57/2, there was balance of Rs.1499.50 in the said account at the end of check period.

59 Thus, from this evidence, it has been established that both the accused persons as well as their children were maintaining various accounts in different banks and also accused Kamlesh Vaid AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 33 of 72 was operating several accounts in the name of Hotel Himgiri. The total value of the balance in those accounts comes to Rs.4,53,973.23 which is also an asset of accused persons.

60 Therefore, from above evidence, it stands proved on record that accused persons were having movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs.68,46,958/­ in their name as well as in the name of their children for which they have not accounted for. Expenditure:­ 61 It is the case of the prosecution that during the check period i.e. 1.1.1987 to 31.03.1995, accused persons spent total sum of Rs.7,33,473.71.

62 To prove the expenditure incurred by accused persons, prosecution has examined Sh. Upender Kumar Sharma (PW49), the then DGM, Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, who deposed that a loan for a sum of Rs.23 lacs was applied by accused Kamlesh Vaid being Director of Hotel Himgiri vide application Ex.PW49/C­1. He further deposed that as per statement of account Ex.PW49/B, a sum of Rs.15,23,000/­ was disbursed out of which a sum of Rs.1,23,804/­ and Rs.1,38,922/­ was repaid. Perusal of statement of account also shows that loan amount of Rs. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 34 of 72 15,23,000/­ was disbursed to Hotel Himgiri on 18.01.1994 and repayment of Rs.1,23,804/­ and Rs.1,38,922/­ was made on 2.7.1994 and 17.12.1994. PW57 Sh. Jogender Singh,Sr. Manager, PNB Dalhousie, has proved the statement of account of term loan account of Hotel Himgiri of which accused Kamlesh Vaid was proprietor as Ex.PW57/5. This statement shows that a sum of Rs.2,16,976.50 was advanced to Hotel Himgiri and a sum of Rs.2,22,510.50 was repaid. 63 The erstwhile company of Hotel Himgiri Pvt. Ltd. was M/s Himsagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Sh. P.L. Malik (PW38), Dy. Registrar of Companies, has deposed that he supplied documents regarding Hotel Himsagar to CBI vide letter dated 1.8.2002 Ex.PW38/A. Annexures to this letter show that accused Kamlesh Vaid was the share holder of said Himsagar Hotel Pvt. Ltd and she made the payment of Rs.22,480/­ towards registration fee. The loan files of M/s Hotel Himgiri Pvt. Ltd. have been proved by PW49 Sh. Upender Kumar Sharma as Ex.PW49/C­1 and C­2. As per Ex.PW49/C­2, a sum of Rs.3,824/­ was paid by Hotel Himgiri towards registration of land and stamp duty. Sh. R.S. Rana (PW26), official of Municipal Council, Dalhousie has proved the assessment statements of Hotel Himgiri as Ex.PW26/E. These statements for the AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 35 of 72 period 1993­94 and 1994­95 show that accused Kamlesh Vaid was the owner of said Hotel and she paid a sum of Rs.20,202/­ towards taxes to the Municipal Council, Dalhousie.

64 Sh. Rajender Singh Pawar (PW12), Inspector of Income Tax, has proved the intimations under section 143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act of accused Kamlesh Vaid as Ex.PW12/19 to Ex.PW12/22. He deposed that vide these intimations, accused Kamlesh Vaid was asked to pay taxes to the Department. These intimations Ex.PW12/19 to 12/22 show that same were issued for the years 1990­91 to 1993­94. As per Ex.PW12/19, accused Kamlesh Vaid paid income tax of Rs.17,519/­ for the year 1993­94 whereas as per Ex.PW12/20, she paid income tax of Rs.14,112/­ for the year 1992­93. Vide Ex.PW12/21, she paid income tax of Rs.4862/­ for the year 1991­92 and paid income tax of Rs.4670/­ for the year 1990­91 as per Ex. PW12/22.

65 Sister Phyllis (PW35), Principal of Presentation Convent School, Delhi, has deposed that vide letter Ex.PW35/A, she forwarded details of Ms. Sonia Vaid to CBI that she was student of the school and enclosed fees statement Ex.PW35/A. Fees statement Ex.PW35/A shows that a total sum of Rs.11,563.20 was paid by AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 36 of 72 accused D.L. Vaid towards fees of his daughter Sonia for the period 1987 to 1991. Sh. Narender Kumar Chawla (PW3) Section Officer of Institute of Home Economics, University of Delhi, has proved the letter dated 24.10.2002 as Ex.PW3/A written by the Director of Institute informing fee paid on behalf of Sonia Vaid. As per letter Ex.PW3/A, accused D.L.Vaid paid a total sum of Rs.3477/­ towards fee of his daughter Sonia Vaid for the period 1991­92 to 1993­94. Dr. S.C. Shukla (PW23), the then Principal of Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, has proved the fee statement of Lokesh Vaid as Ex.PW23/B. As per this statement, a total sum of Rs.3441/­ was paid by accused D.L.Vaid towards fee of his son Lokesh Vaid for the period 1992­93 to 1994­95. Thus, a total sum of Rs.18551.20 was paid by accused D.L.Vaid towards school/college fees of his children from 1987 to 1994.

66 Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta (PW1) Inspector of MCD has deposed that he submitted a file of property No.A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi to CBI officers vide letter dated 27.07.2000 Ex.PW1/A written by Sh. H.L. Arora, Asstt. Assessor and Collector. As per House Tax File of said house, house tax of Rs.2963/­ was paid by accused D.L. Vaid. It has been established from the evidence of PW7 AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 37 of 72 Ram Lal Gupta, brother in law of accused D.L.Vaid that said house was owned by him and the ownership of said house has not been disputed by accused persons. The only contention raised is that a said house was an ancestral property. PW14 Sh. A.K.Anand, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has proved the householder Insurance Policies in respect of house of Azad Nagar for the year 1988­89 and 1990­91 as Ex.PW14/1 and Ex.PW14/3 respectively. As per these policies, accused Kamlesh Vaid paid the total premium of Rs.2454/­ for the aforesaid period.

67 Witness (PW13) Diwan Singh Yadav, Officer of Bank of Baroda has deposed that vide letter Ex.PW13/1, information regarding accounts was forwarded to CBI. He proved specimen signatures card of Bob card account No.13769 in the name of accused D.L. Vaid as Ex.PW13/2 and its statement as Ex.PW13/3. He also proved the monthly statements of the said account as Ex.PW13/4 to Ex.PW13/29. As per these statements, a payment of Rs.5828.55 was made by accused D.L. Vaid from April, 1992 to 31.03.1995. 68 Witness PW22 Sh. S.N. Mathur, official of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, has proved the statement of account No.3133 as Ex.PW22/C and account opening form as AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 38 of 72 Ex.PW22/B. This account was in the joint name of late Sh. Bishan Dass Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid. As per statement Ex.PW22/C, accused Kamlesh Vaid made a payment of Rs.1595/­ towards locker charges.

69 Sh. Om Prakash (PW2), official of Directorate of Enforcement, has produced the salary statement of accused D.L. Vaid as Ex.PW2/1­38 issued by the Department. As per salary statement, PW2/3 to PW2/7, accused D.L.Vaid repaid the scooter loan amounting to Rs.6095/­ taken from the department. As per salary statement Ex.PW2/1 to PW2/38, accused D.L. Vaid drew a net salary of Rs.3,69,245/­ from January, 1987 to 31.03.1995. As per procedure, 1/3rd of the net salary of accused D.L. Vaid amounting to Rs.1,23,081.66 was taken as non verifiable expenditure incurred by him.

70 So, from the above evidence, the prosecution has duly established that accused D.L. Vaid as well as accused Kamlesh Vaid incurred a total expenditure of Rs.7,33,473.71 during the check period i.e. 1.1.1987 to 31.03.1995 towards repayment of loans, income tax, fees of children, stamp duty, house tax, Municipal tax, policy premium etc. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 39 of 72 Income 71 It is the case of the prosecution that accused D.L. Vaid was having income in the form of his salary, interest received for deposit in banks, by sale of shares and receipt of dividends. It is also case of the prosecution that income of accused Kamlesh Vaid has been calculated on the basis of her income tax returns, loans, interest, sale of shares, receipt of dividends etc. 72 Witness (PW2) Sh. Om Prakash, official of Enforcement Directorate where accused D.L. Vaid was posted has proved the salary statement of accused D.L. Vaid as Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/38 vide which he received net salary of Rs.3,69,245/­ from January, 1987 to 31.03.1995. As per sanction orders Ex.PW2/19 to Ex.PW2/38, accused D.L. Vaid received reward of Rs.20,400/­ from his department. Account statement Ex.PW24/C to Ex.PW24/E­2 of Punjab National Bank, Khan Market, Delhi shows that accused D.L. Vaid received interest of Rs.822/­ in his account No.13502. Account statement Ex.PW53/A of account No.1249C and account No.364 at State Bank of India, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh show that both the accused persons received interest income of Rs.10,828.40 and Rs. 8902/­ respectively. Account statement Ex.PW41/A of Central Bank AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 40 of 72 of India, Chamba shows that accused D.L. Vaid earned interest of Rs. 4978/­ in the said account.

73 Loan file Ex.PW49/C­2 of Hotel Himgiri shows that accused Kamlesh Vaid annexed Income Tax Returns while applying loan from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation. As per Income Tax Returns, the income of accused Kamlesh Vaid was Rs.91,114/­ during the assessment years 1986­87 to 1989­90. Statement of income of accused Kamlesh Vaid Ex.PW12/8 for the year 1996­97 shows that she was having income of Rs.1,26,610/­. Documents of Income Tax Department Ex.PW12/19 to Ex.PW12/22 shows that accused Kamlesh Vaid was having income of Rs.96,510/­, Rs. 92,600/­, Rs.43,200/­ and Rs.45,460/­ for the years 1993­94, 1992­93, 1991­92 and 1990­91 respectively. Ex.PW22/C is the account statement of account No.3133 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi in which accused Kamlesh Vaid received interest income for a sum of Rs.3516.25.

74 The term loan account statement of Hotel Himgiri Ex.PW57/5 sanctioned by PNB, Delhi shows that a sum of Rs. 2,16,976.50 was taken as loan by Hotel Himgiri of which accused Kamlesh Vaid was proprietor. The loan file of HPFC shows that a AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 41 of 72 loan of Rs.15,23,000/­ was disbursed to Hotel Himgiri in the year 1994 of which accused Kamlesh Vaid was proprietor. The loan taken from bank in the name of Hotel Himgiri was taken as income of accused Kamlesh Vaid as she used the same for running hotel. Investigating Officer has placed on record document Ex.PW56/G which shows that loan of Rs.18,000/­ was taken by accused in the year 1994 from HUF M/s Nirmal Kumar and Sons. As per Ex.PW54/B, accused Kamlesh Vaid received the dividend of State Bank of India equity fund for a sum of Rs.189.38 which was also taken as her income.

75 As per statement of M/s Ranbaxy Ex.PW51/D­1 and D­2, accused D.L.Vaid sold his shares for a consideration of Rs. 38,500/­. As per Ex.PW51/D­3 & D­4, accused Kamles Vaid sold her shares of M/s Ranbaxy for a sum of Rs.64,000/­ and Rs.32,500/­ respectively whereas shares in the name of Sonia Vaid worth Rs. 32,500/­ were sold as per Ex.PW51/D­6. As per Ex.PW45/A, accused Kamlesh Vaid redeemed the debentures of M/s Reliance Polyethylene Ltd. worth Rs.515.61. Accused D.L. Vaid, Kamlesh Vaid and their children received dividend of Rs.1260.28 which is reflected in Ex.PW51/A and Ex.PW51/B­1 to B­4. As per Ex.PW54/A, accused AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 42 of 72 Kamlesh Vaid also received dividend of M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. to the tune of Rs.525/­whereas accused D.L. Vaid received dividend of M/s Eco Board in the sum of Rs.700/­ which is reflected in Ex.PW39/A. 76 From the above evidence, the prosecution has demonstrated that accused D.L. Vaid and his family members were having total income of Rs.28,42,852.42 during the check period. 77 It has been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that during investigation, accused persons appeared before IO and explained the source of property and income but the same has not been placed on record with malafide intention.

78 If for the sake of argument, contention of ld. Counsel for accused persons is taken to be true that they explained the source of income and properties acquired to the IO, it does not appeal to the reasons as to what prevented them from calling those records in the Court at the time of leading defence evidence. If any such explanation/information was furnished by accused persons, they might have retained copies of such documents which could have been produced in defence evidence. But no such record has been produced in the defence evidence to account for the income and assets acquired AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 43 of 72 by accused persons. It is well settled law that parties are required to adduce best evidence in their possession whether they have been called upon to do so or not. In similar situation in Gajender Singh Vs. State of U.P. (Reported in AIR 1975 (SC) 1703), it was held that the parties are bound to lead best evidence in their possession and any party which withholds the same, an adverse inference is warranted against such party.

79 It has further been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Kamlesh Vaid was running a business in the name of M/s Lucky Textiles with her father­in­law which was subsequently diversified in Hotel business. It has further been argued that the fact of running business by accused Kamlesh Vaid was intimated to the department of accused D.L. Vaid.

80 It is correct that accused D.L. Vaid informed his department vide Ex.PW9/DA that his wife accused Kamlesh Vaid is a partner of M/s Lucky Textiles. The annual return file of accused D.L. Vaid Ex.PW9/A and his service book is Ex.PW32/A. Perusal of both these files shows that it was never informed by accused D.L. Vaid that his wife is the proprietor/owner of Hotel Himgiri and that she was running the business of Hotel. Accused persons have examined AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 44 of 72 Sh K.C. Rastogi (DW3) as their defence witness. He specifically deposed that there is no document in the file indicating the information given by accused D.L. Vaid to the department that his wife started business. No other evidence or material has been produced by accused D.L. Vaid to show that he informed his department that his wife was running Hotel business. 81 It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Kamlesh Vaid was having her independent sources from which land of Hotel Himgiri was purchased and construction over it was raised. It is apparent from the record that accused D.L. Vaid joined the services of Enforcement Directorate in 1971 and got married to accused Kamlesh Vaid in 1973. Brother of accused Kamlesh Vaid, namely, Sh. Ram Lal Gupta (PW7) has testified that his sister Kamlesh was married to accused D.L. Vaid in 1973 but he did not remember how much gold jewellery was given at the time of marriage. He has not given any details of assets acquired by accused Kamlesh Vaid at the time of her marriage. He has also not stated that what was the money with accused Kamlesh Vaid at the time of her marriage which was subsequently allegedly used by her for running business. So, there is no justification that accused Kamlesh Vaid was AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 45 of 72 having so much money with which she was able to start Hotel business. The only inference which can be drawn is that ill­gotten money of accused D.L. Vaid was used by accused Kamlesh Vaid for running hotel business and amassing wealth in her name also. In this way, accused Kamlesh Vaid has abetted and aided her husband accused D.L. Vaid to commit criminal misconduct by converting his ill­gotten money by making investments in the form of shares, debentures, starting Hotel business, having shares in companies like M/s KMF Ltd., M/s Kuku Motors Leasing Ltd etc. 82 It is further by ld. Defence counsel that accused Kamlesh Vaid was running an independent business and her income can not be linked with income of her husband accused D.L. Vaid. There is no force in this contention of Ld. Defence counsel as I have already observed that accused Kamlesh Vaid has failed to show that she was having any income which could have been used by her to start Hotel business. Though, it is correct that accused Kamlesh Vaid was filing income tax return to show that she was having income from some sources but the returns do not disclose the source from which said income was generated. So, the only inference which can be drawn is that ill­gotten money of accused D.L.Vaid was used by AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 46 of 72 accused Kamlesh Vaid in running Hotel business and making investments in different forms.

83 It is further argued that income of family members of accused D.L. Vaid can not be clubbed with his income as they had given proper explanation to the investigating officerand accounted for the same. In support of this contention, ld. Defence counsel has relied upon judgment in case DSP, Chennai vs. K. Inbasagaran JT 2005(10) SC 332; Rasik Behari Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 Cri.L.J.3108; Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. UOI 1994 Cri.L.J. 12 in which it was held that when accused has given satisfactory explanation that the money belonging to his family members was owned by them, unless there is categorical evidence that the money was in the hands of accused, he can not be fastened with liability of that money/assets. 84 In the present case, prosecution has produced clinching and convincing evidence to show that ill­gotten money of accused D.L. Vaid was used by accused Kamlesh Vaid by making investments in shares/debentures and starting her business. Accused has failed to probabilise his defence his wife accused Kamlesh Vaid or his children were having independent sources of income which has been linked with his income. Therefore, accused can not get any help AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 47 of 72 from the aforesaid authorities.

85 The Ld. Defence counsel has further relied upon authorities in case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 2011(2) JCC 1153 and Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab 2010(1) RCR(Criminal) 880 wherein it was observed that where a public servant possessing assets in excess of his known sources of income and disproportion is not of sizeable extent, conviction was not justified and liberal view be taken in such matters. 86 In the present case, it has been demonstrated by the prosecution that both the accused acquired assets worth Rs. 68,46,958/­ and their total expenditure was Rs.7,33,473.71. On totaling it comes to Rs.75,80,431.71 whereas the income from all sources has come to be Rs.28,42,852.42. Thus, the accused persons acquired disproportionate assets to the extent of 166.64% to their known sources of income. This disproportion can not be said to be minimal and no liberal view is warranted against accused persons. 87 It is further argued that the house of East Azad Nagar, Delhi where search was made by CBI is an ancestral house belonging to the parents of accused D.L. Vaid whereas house of Noida where searches were also conducted by the CBI, was in the AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 48 of 72 name of Sh. Bhupinder Pal, maternal uncle of Lokesh Vaid. It is correct that both these house were searched by the CBI, but the fact remains that value of both these houses has not been taken as asset of accused persons. Only the value of articles were computed as asset of accused persons which were lying in the house at East Azad Nagar which was in the possession of accused D.L. Vaid. Same is the position with regard to house of Noida of which only the value of articles has been computed and not the value of house has been taken as asset of the accused persons.

88 It has also been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that there was no formal complaint against accused D.L. Vaid which led to registration of FIR of present case. It is true that no formal complaint has been placed on record by the CBI against accused D.L. Vaid on the basis of which present case was registered. As per charge­sheet, it is case of the prosecution itself that there was no formal complaint against the accused, rather there was a source information which led to registration of present FIR and searches at the houses of accused persons in which accumulation of huge wealth was confirmed. 89 It has further been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the evaluation report of Hotel Himgiri cannot be read in evidence AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 49 of 72 as the Assistant Engineer Sh. Kulwant Singh who inspected the site has not been examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that PW36 Sh. Rajesh Banga did not visit the site which shows that he prepared the report as per wishes of CBI. It is submitted that the valuation of hotel building was prepared after eight years of its construction on the basis of new prevailing rates which are on the exaggerated rates.

90 The evaluation report Ex.PW36/B of Hotel Himgiri was prepared by Executive Engineer Sh. Rajesh Banga (PW36) and he specifically deposed that after preparing the same, he forwarded the same to the CBI. It is correct that this witness has not visited the site as the same was visited by Sh. Kulwant Singh, but this report cannot be rejected on this ground alone that the person who visited the site has not been examined as witness. Accused persons have not disputed the fixtures of hotel which were evaluated in the report Ex.PW36/B. The other contention raised is that the rates prevailing at the time of its construction were not taken rather the rates at the time of preparation the report were taken as base value. It is case of accused persons themselves that the hotel building was constructed in the year 1992­93 and started functioning in the year 1994. PW36 Sh. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 50 of 72 Rajesh Banga has also stated that the cost index approved on 28.6.1994 was 142 which was taken in the records while evaluating the property. So the base rates prevailing in 1994 were taken by the evaluating officer at the time of evaluating the hotel building. So, there is no force in the contention of accused persons that rates prevailing in the year 2002 were taken for computing the value of Hotel Himgiri.

91 It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the values of shares purchased in the name of accused persons and their children have been taken into consideration by the CBI, but the said shares were neither seized nor produced in the court. It is correct that the values of shares, debentures and mutual funds have been taken into consideration by the CBI but the same have not been produced in the court. But the fact remains that the respective witnesses of the companies have been examined by the CBI who deposed that shares of different companies were held by accused persons in their names and in the name of their children. Even in some cases, share certificates have been proved by the prosecution. So, non­production of shares is having no consequence.

92 It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that son AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 51 of 72 and daughter of accused persons are also having independent business and were filing income tax returns. It may be correct that children of accused persons are running their independent businesses, but the CBI has taken into consideration only the expenditure incurred by accused D.L. Vaid on their studies. CBI has not taken the income of Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid as that of accused persons when they became adult and started their businesses.

Sanction 93 It is argued on behalf of the accused D.L.Vaid that his appointing and removing authority is the President of India and not the Minister on whose approval sanction was accorded. It is further argued that draft sanction was sent by CBI to the Sanctioning Authority which was approved, so, there can not be said to be any application of mind while according the same. It is further argued that PW­33 who proved the sanction order has just communicated the same but has not passed the same. In support of his contention, he has relied upon authorities in case of Om Parkash vs. State and others 2009(3) RCR( Criminal) 293 in which it was observed that when proforma order was put by Subordinate Officer before Sanctioning Authority, sanction can not be said to be valid. Another AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 52 of 72 authorities relied upon is in case of State of Goa vs. Babu Thomas 2005 Cri.L.J. 4379 ; State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri ( 2006) 7 SCC 172; State of Karnataka vs. C.Nagarajaswamy ( 2005) 8 SCC 370; K.Kalimuthu vs. State ( 2005) 4 SCC 512 in which it was held that sanction orders passed by Authorities were not having competence to pass the same. He has further relied upon judgments in case of State of T.N. vs. M.M.Rajendran 1998 ( 009) SCC 0268 SC; Mansukhlal Vithaldass Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat 1997(084) AIR 3400 SC and State by Police Inspector Vs. Sri.T.Venkatesh Murthy JT 2004 (8) SC 362 in which it was observed that when all the relevant material including statements recorded by the IO had not been placed before the Competent Authority and that there was non application of mind, order of sanction was held to be invalid.

94 On the other hand, Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that Sanctioning Authority in the present case is the President of India which can not be called into a witness box and that was the reason witness PW33 has proved the sanction order on behalf of President of India.

95 Section 19 of the Act provides protection to an AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 53 of 72 accused who happened to be public servant at the time of taking the cognizance by the court. The purpose of sanction under section 19 of the Act to have the approval of the competent authority to remove the accused from the office, is just because that at the time of taking the cognizance, he was a public servant.

96 PW33 is Mala Srivastava who has deposed that in the year 2003, she was working as Director, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The Ministry received a proposal from CBI along with complete set of documents requesting for sanction for prosecution against D.L.Vaid. The proposal was approved by Minister to accord the sanction. The file was sent back through same channel. On receipt of file, fair copy of sanction was prepared and signed by her as the authentication for grant of sanction. She proved the sanction order as Ex.PW33/A. 97 During her cross examination, she stated that she had not accorded the sanction and only communicated the same as ordered by the Minister. She denied that Minister has approved the draft sanction put up by the Department. Though, she admitted that CBI sent the draft sanction along with file but clarified that it was just to facilitate the preparation of sanction order. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 54 of 72 98 Perusal of sanction order Ex.PW33/A shows that the sanction for prosecution of accused D.L.Vaid was accorded by the President and it has nowhere been mentioned that the same was passed by the Minister. So, there is no force in the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that it was approved by the Minister and not accorded by the President. PW­33 just communicated the order of sanction on behalf of President of India. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or defect in the sanction order. The accused can not get any help from the judgments relied upon by him.

99 Even otherwise, my attention is drawn towards case titled State vs. K.Narasimhachary 2006 Cri.L.J. 518. In that case, the Secretary to the State Government authenticated the order of sanction which was issued in the name of Governor of State. The said order of sanction issued by the State in discharge of its statutory function, it was held to be an executive action of a State and was held to be authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The Sanction Order was held to be a Public Document within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act which can be proved in terms of section 76 to 78 of Evidence Act. 100 The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 55 of 72 Narasimhachary's case ( supra). In the present case also, sanction has been accorded by President of India which has been authenticated by PW33 Mala Srivastava. As per settled law in above referred judgment, sanction order Ex.PW33/A is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of Evidence Act and it can be proved in terms of section 76 to 78 of Evidence Act or otherwise. Even otherwise, authenticity of such a public document can not be questioned. Therefore, no fault can be found with sanction order Ex.PW33/A. 101 Consequently, in view of the above mentioned discussion, it is held that the sanction accorded for prosecution of accused D.L.Vaid on behalf of President of India is just and proper. Conclusion:­ 102 In view of above discussed evidence, it has been established by the prosecution that Hotel Himgiri at Dalhousie is an asset in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid which was evaluated by Sh. Rajesh Banga(PW36) who evaluated the cost of land and construction of Hotel Himgiri, Dalhousie to the tune of Rs. 41,03,638/­. It has also been established that from the statement of Surender Kumar Chadha(PW34), owner of M/s KMF Ltd. that shares of said company worth Rs. 8,79,500/­, Rs. 3,54,000/­ and Rs. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 56 of 72 3,52,000/­ were purchased in the name of Kamlesh Vaid, Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid respectively. From the statement of witness PW­11 Lekhraj, official of Registrar of Companies, it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares of M/s Kuku Leasing Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 52,000/­. From the statement of Sh. Ram Lal Gupta(PW7) and independent witness(PW15), it has been established that search at H.No. A­66, East Azad Nagar, Delhi, a portion of which was in possession of accused persons was conducted in which articles worth Rs. 38,330/­ were found. From the statement of public witness J.K.Aggarwal(PW4), it has also been established that search at H.No.B­94, Sector 26, Noida where accused persons along with their family were residing was conducted in which articles worth Rs. 83,400/­ were found. From the statement of Sh. Kishan Lal Sharma(PW48), it has been established that STDRs worth Rs. 8602/­ and Rs. 22450/­ were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid respectively from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Sh. Mahadev Chandra Sarkar(PW47) Sub Post Master has proved that accused D.L.Vaid purchased NSC worth Rs. 5000/­. Accused Kamlesh Vaid paid total premium of Rs. 24,489.50 whereas accused D.L.Vaid paid total premium of Rs. 25,651.80 during check AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 57 of 72 period towards LIC policies in their name which has been established from the testimony of Joga Singh(PW5) and Saroj Gupta(PW6), officials of LIC. PW20 Sh. Sanjay Sinha, another official of LIC, has proved that accused D.L.Vaid paid premium of policy in the sum of Rs. 2709/­.

103 From the statement of PW43 Umesh Sharma, it has been established that both the accused persons purchased shares worth Rs. 16,800/­ of M/s Kitply Industries Ltd. Sh. Lekhraj (PW11), official of Registrar of Companies, has also proved that shares worth Rs. 25,000/­ each were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid in the year 1991 in M/s Kuku Leasing Ltd. From the testimony of independent witness Ram Kishan(PW15) as well as J.K.Aggarwal(PW4), it has been established that shares of different companies were found in the house search. Ex. PW15/B proves that accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares worth Rs.1,000/­ of M/s Lohia Polysters whereas Ex.PW15/C proves that she purchased shares worth Rs. 1,000/­ of M/s Nova Udyog Ltd. Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E establish that accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased debentures of M/s Fly Up and M/s Nath Pulp worth Rs. 1250/­ and Rs. 2250/­ respectively. Ex.PW15/G, Ex.PW15/H and Ex.PW15/J AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 58 of 72 establish that shares worth Rs.12,500/­ Rs 10,000/­ and Rs. 2500/­ were purchased in the name of Sonia Vaid, Lokesh Vaid and accused Kamlesh Vaid respectively in M/s Premier Vinyl Flooring. Ex.PW15/K establishes that accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares worth Rs. 5,000/­ of SBI. From the testimony of P.L.Malik(PW38), Assistant Registrar of Companies, Himachal Pradesh, it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid purchased shares worth Rs. 1,000/­ of M/s Himsagar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1992. From the statement of Sh. Y.K.Gautam(PW46), it has been established that shares worth Rs. 18,000/­ were purchased in the name of Lokesh Vaid whereas Ex.PW39/A establishes that accused D.L.Vaid purchased shares of Rs. 1,000/­ of M/s Eco Board. From the statement of Sh. T.P.M.Nair(PW40), it has been established that mutual funds of SBI worth Rs. 3200/­ were purchased in the name of Sonia Vaid whereas as per Ex.PW15/F­1 to F­4, it has been established that shares worth Rs.18,900/­ of M/s IPCL were purchased by accused Kamlesh Vaid. As per testimony of Sh. R.N.Mittal(PW19), shares worth Rs.94,500/­, Rs. 54,000/­ and Rs. 93,000/­ of M/s Manu Investment Pvt. Ltd. were purchased in the name of accused Kamlesh Vaid, Lokesh Vaid and Sonia Vaid respectively.

AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 59 of 72 104 Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma(PW51) of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. has proved that debentures worth Rs. 20,000/­were purchased in the name of accused D.L.Vaid and his family members. Sh. Oliver Minj(PW27) has proved that UTI units in the sum of Rs. 5000/­ were purchased by accused Kamlesh Vaid. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal(PW50) has proved that shares worth Rs.6,000/­ were purchased by accused Kamlesh Vaid of M/s LIC Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. From the testimony of Vinod Kumar(PW42), License Clerk of Dalhousie, it has been established that vehicle worth Rs. 2,89,302/­ was purchased in the name of Hotel Himgiri of which accused Kamlesh Vaid was proprietor. From the statement of PW34 Surender Kumar Chadha, it has been established that FDRs worth Rs. 9548/­ each were purchased by both the accused from M/s KMF Ltd. As per Ex.PW41/A, PW53/A, PW18/B, it has been established that balance of Rs.1668, Rs. 1751/­, Rs. 29808.73 was lying in the bank accounts in the name of accused persons. Ex.PW21/B to Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW31/B and Ex.PW57/2 establish that a sum of Rs. 2392/­, Rs. 24,434.60 and Rs. 1499.50 was lying balance in the bank accounts of Hotel Himgiri of which accused Kamlesh Vaid was proprietor. Ex.PW18/C shows that there was balance of Rs. 27668.76 in the AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 60 of 72 account of accused Kamlesh Vaid whereas Ex.PW18/D shows that there was balance of Rs. 17,365.46 in the account of Sonia Vaid. As per testimony of PW24 Sh. N.R.Hariharan, accused D.L. Vaid was having balance of Rs.21477.45 in his account whereas as per Ex.PW53/A and Ex.PW22/C, accused persons were having balance of Rs. 3,16,980 and Rs.9127.73 in their account.

105 From the statement of above witnesses and documents referred to above, it has been established that accused persons and their family members were having assets worth Rs. 68,46,958.23 during check period.

106 So far as expenditure incurred by accused persons and their family members is concerned, from the statement of PW49 Upender Kumar Sharma, it has been established that a sum of Rs. 3824/­ was spent by accused D.L.Vaid towards registration of land and stamp duty of Hotel Himgiri. From the testimony of Sh. Narender Kumar Chawla(PW3), Dr. S.C.Shukla(PW23) and Sister Phyllis(PW35), it has been established that accused D.L.Vaid paid total fees of Rs. 18,551.20 for studies of his children in school/ college. Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehta has proved that accused D.L.Vaid made payment of Rs. 2963/­ towards house tax of property at East AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 61 of 72 Azad Nagar. From the testimony of PW14 S.K.Anand, it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid paid premium of Rs. 2454/­ for the householder policy. Ex.PW12/19 to PW12/22 establish that accused Kamlesh Vaid paid Income Tax of Rs. 17,519/­, Rs. 14,112, Rs. 4862/­ and Rs. 4670/­ respectively for the period 1993­94 to 1990­91.

107 From the testimony of PW38 Sh. P.L.Malik, it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid paid registration fee worth Rs. 22480/­ etc. of Hotel Himsagar Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW13/1 to Ex.PW13/29 show that accused D.L.Vaid made payment of Rs. 5828.55 towards use of Bank of Baroda Card from 1992 to 31.03.1995. Sh. Jogender Singh(PW57) proved that a sum of Rs. 2,22,510.50 was repaid by Hotel Himgiri to PNB of which accused Kamlesh Vaid was proprietor. Similarly, PW49 Upender Kumar Sharma of HPFC has proved that accused Kamlesh Vaid repaid the loan of Rs. 1,23,804/­ and Rs. 1,38,922/­. From the testimony of PW26 R.S.Rana, it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid paid Municipal Taxes of Rs. 20,202/­ of Hotel Himgiri. Sh. S.N.Mathur(PW22) proved that accused Kamlesh Vaid made the payment of Rs. 1595/­ towards locker charges in Punjab and Sind AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 62 of 72 Bank. The salary statements Ex.PW2/3 to Ex.PW2/7 of accused D.L.Vaid show that he repaid the scooter loan of Rs. 6095/­ to his department. As per his salary statements, he received net salary of Rs. 3,69,245/­ from January 1987 to 31.03.1995 and his 1/3rd of net salary amounting to Rs.1,23,081.66 was taken as non verifiable expenditure incurred by him.

108 Therefore, above evidence and documents have established that accused D.L.Vaid and his family members incurred total expenditure of Rs.7,33,473.71 during the check period i.e. 1.1.1987 to 31.03.1995.

109 So far income of accused persons and their family members are concerned, Sh. Om Prakash(PW2) has proved the salary statements Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/38 of accused D.L.Vaid which show that he received net salary of Rs. 3,69,245/­ during check period. From sanction orders Ex.PW2/19 to Ex.PW2/38, it has been established that accused D.L.Vaid received reward of Rs. 20,400/­ from his department. As per loan file of Hotel Himgiri Ex.PW49/C­2, accused Kamlesh Vaid had an income of Rs. 91,114/­ during the period 1986­87 to 1989­90. As per Income Tax Returns of accused Kamlesh Vaid Ex.PW12/22, Ex.PW12/21, Ex.PW12/20, Ex.PW12/19 AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 63 of 72 and Ex.PW12/8, she had income of Rs.45,460/­, Rs.43,200/­, Rs. 92,600/­, Rs.96,510/­ and Rs.1,26,610/­ for the years 1990­91 to 1994­95. From the testimony of Suresh Kumar(PW54), it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid had an income of Rs. 189.38 from the dividend of SBI. As per loan file Ex.PW49/C­2 and statement of loan account Ex.PW57/5, accused Kamlesh Vaid being proprietor of Hotel Himgiri had income in the form of loan of Rs. 15,23,000/­ and Rs. 2,16,976.50 respectively. It has also been established that loan of Rs. 18,000/­ was taken by accused persons from M/s Nirmal Kumar & Sons, HUF. As per statements of account Ex.PW24/C­1 to Ex.PW24/E­2, Ex.PW53/A, ExPW41/A and Ex.PW22/C, accused persons have received income in the form of interest in various bank accounts for a sum of Rs. 822/­, Rs. 10828.40, Rs.8902/­, Rs. 4978/­ and Rs. 3,516.25. 110 From the testimony of Vinod Kumar Sharma(PW51) of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid as well as her daughter Sonia Vaid received sale consideration of Rs.96,500/­ and Rs.32,500/­ respectively towards sale of shares of said company. From his testimony, it has also been established that accused persons and their children received AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 64 of 72 dividend of M/s Ranbaxy worth Rs. 1,260.28. From documents Ex.PW54/A and Ex.PW39/A, it has been established that accused Kamlesh Vaid and D.L.Vaid received dividend of M/s IPCL and M/s Eco Board for a sum of Rs. 525/­ and Rs. 700/­ respectively. Accused Kamlesh Vaid had income of Rs. 515.61 in the form of redemption of debentures of M/s Reliance Polyethylene which has been established from the testimony of PW45 Sh. Rohit C.Shah.

111 From the above evidence and the documents, it has been established that accused persons and their family members had income of Rs.28,42,852.42 from their all sources during check period. 112 In the present case, it has been established by the prosecution that accused persons and their family members were having total assets of Rs. 68,46,958/­ and they incurred expenditure of Rs.7,33,473.71 during check period for which they did not account for. The total income of accused persons and their family members from all sources was found to be Rs. 28,42,852.42 and after deducting it from the sum of assets acquired and expenditure incurred, disproportionate assets acquired by them comes to the tune of Rs. 47,37,579.52 i.e. 166.64% than their known sources of income. Thus, the prosecution has duly established that accused D.L.Vaid acquired AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 65 of 72 disproportionate assets worth 166.64% than known sources of his income. Prosecution has duly established that accused Kamlesh Vaid abetted and aided her husband accused D.L.Vaid in acquiring disproportionate assets by converting his ill­gotten money into the assets.

113 The accused persons were having ample opportunity to explain the source of their income but they failed to give any reasonable explanation and account for the assets acquired by them. The income of a public servant is the income which he derives from the office or post with which he was attached to. For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary income of his income. Other income which can be income with the public servant would be from his property or from his investments. A receipt from gains or graft, crime or immoral secretions by public servants would not be receipt from the known sources of his income. 114 In similar circumstances, in cases of R.Janakiraman vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras AIR 2006 SC 1106, N. Ramakrishnaiah( dead) through Lrs. vs. State of A.P. 2009 Cri.L.J.1767, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld conviction of AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 66 of 72 accused persons when they were found to be possess assets disproportionate to known sources of their income without satisfactory explanation therefor.

115 It is important to note that corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere and no facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the sting of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country and large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding our country like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does his duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of his duty to the post.

116 Consequently, accused D.L.Vaid is hereby held guilty for commission of offence under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13 (2) of P.C. Act. Accused Kamlesh Vaid is also held AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 67 of 72 guilty under section 109 IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act. Both the accused are convicted for aforesaid offences.

Announced in the open Court                                              ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 14.11.2011                                            District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East)
                                                                    Special Judge (CBI)
                                                              Karkardooma Courts : Delhi




AC No.05/2003                        CBI  Vs.  D.L.Vaid etc.                 Page 68 of 72
     IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE & 

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.

AC No.05/2003 Unique Case ID No.02402R0008892003 FIR No.RC ­DAI­2000­A­0048 U/s 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act.

CBI                 Versus           (1)D.L. Vaid
                                     S/o Late Sh. Bishan Dass Vaid
                                     R/o (I) H.No.A­66, East Azad Nagar,
                                     Delhi
                                     (II) B­94, Sector 26, Noida, UP.
                                     (III) Sapri Mohalla, Chamba, HP.

                                     (2) Smt. Kamlesh Vaid
                                     W/o Sh. D.L. Vaid
                                     R/o (I) H.No.A­66, East Azad Nagar,
                                     Delhi.
                                     (II) B­94, Sector 26, Noida, UP.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

                    I   have   heard   Sh.   R.M.   Tufail,   Ld.   Counsel   for 

convicts as well as learned PP for the CBI on the quantum of sentence.

AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 69 of 72 2 On behalf of convict D.L. Vaid, it has been submitted that he is a senior citizen aged about 65 years. He is a retired government servant. He is ailing from heart diseases and even suffered heart attack. On behalf of convict Kamlesh Vaid, it has been submitted that she is also a senior citizen aged about 63 years. She is also suffering from old age ailments. It is submitted that there is no previous involvement of convicts in any other case. It is further submitted that if custodial sentence is awarded to convicts, it would play havoc in their life. It is prayed that keeping in view old age and ailments of convicts, a lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them.

3 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that the convict D.L. Vaid being public servant, misused his official position and amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is further submitted that convict Kamlesh Vaid abetted his husband convict D.L. Vaid in converting his ill­gotten money by making investments and acquiring assets in her name. It is further argued that the acts committed by the convicts have potential to infect the entire society. He has further submitted that the convicts may be awarded the maximum punishment prescribed under the law. AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 70 of 72 4 Vide judgment dated 14.11.2011, convict D.L. Vaid has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act whereas convict Kamlesh Vaid has been convicted for offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act. 5 It is important to note that corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere and no facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the sting of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country and large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding our country like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does his duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of his duty to the post.

6 Considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed, the convict D.L. Vaid is hereby awarded AC No.05/2003 CBI Vs. D.L.Vaid etc. Page 71 of 72 sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/­ for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Convict Kamlesh Vaid is awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/­ for the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 7 The convicts shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convicts.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court                                              ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 16.11.2011                                            District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East)
                                                                    Special Judge (CBI)
                                                              Karkardooma Courts : Delhi




AC No.05/2003                        CBI  Vs.  D.L.Vaid etc.                 Page 72 of 72