Delhi District Court
Special Judge (Pc Act) Cbi vs Unknown on 21 July, 2018
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Registration No. : CBI/14/2016
Under Section : 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947.
Branch : CBI/ Anti Corruption Unit-IV/ New Delhi
FIR No. : RC2(A)/1986/ACU-IV, CBI, New Delhi
CNR No. : DLET01-000314-2011
In the matter of :-
CBI
VERSUS
JEEWAN RAM GUPTA
S/o. Late Laxmi Chand Gupta,
R/o. H.No.A-38/D, DDA MIG Flats,
Munirka, New Delhi. ...........ACCUSED
Name and particulars of complainant : Source Information
Date of Institution : 15.02.2011
Date of receiving in this Court : 20.09.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 11.07.2018
Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2018
Decision : Convicted
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION :-
1. Briefly stated, on 26.06.1986 on the basis of source information case no.2/86 was registered by CBI against accused for offence under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. CBI conducted searches at the residential premises and official premises of the accused on 27.06.1987 and found number of incriminating documents. A check period was fixed from 01.01.1973 to 26.06.1986, during which it was found that accused had amassed huge assets, which were disproportionate to known sources of his income, for which accused could not satisfactorily account. It was found that Page 1 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 accused was having number of benami assets in the name of his family members as well and accordingly, he was charge sheeted with allegations of being in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.2,29,251.87/-, under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Initially chargesheet was filed on 13.12.1987, however, accused was discharged on 10.01.2000 on the grounds of invalid sanction. Thereafter, on the basis of fresh sanction order, fresh chargesheet was filed on 21.12.2000, but again vide order dated 18.12.2009 accused was discharged on the grounds of invalid sanction. Thereafter, present third chargesheet was filed. By this time accused had retired and ceased to be public servant, therefore, no fresh sanction was obtained. CHARGE :-
3. Charges were framed against accused Jeevan Ram Gupta on 03.04.2014 under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
4. Prosecution examined 32 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions :-
PW Name of Role of witness Proved document/ No. Witness article PW-1 Ms. Asha She was daughter in law of Ex. PW-1/1 (certified Rathi Sh. Bhagwan Singh Rathi, copy of Will executed who was the owner of on 23.06.82);
property bearing no. 212-A, Munirka, which was later on partly owned by accused in 1980.
She proved a certified copy of Will of Mr. Bhagwan in favour of accused qua 104 sq meters out of the above-said property.
She was declared hostile.Page 2 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 PW-2 Sh. He was working as Postal Ex.PW-2/1 (Attested Rajender Assistant at Indraprastha copy of ledger SB A/c Singh Nain Head Post office. He No. 2351220);
identified attestation made by Ex.PW-2/2 (Pass book Smt. Kusum Lata, who was of SB A/c No. 2351220 posted as APM and who had in the name of identified signatures of Sh. accused);
Rati Ram (who was also APM
prior to her) on some Ex.PW-2/3 (seizure
documents i.e. copy of ledger memo dated 24.10.86);
of SB A/c no. 2351220 and
pass book of accused J.R.
Gupta and seizure memo etc.
PW-3 Ms. Shanta She purchased flat no. 4, DDA Ex.PW-3/1 (Application
Vasudevan SFS Neeti Bagh from one cum voucher dated
Mangi Lal and explained 06.01.84 alongwith
about the mode of payment copies of demand
made by her to Mangi Lal and drafts);
proved application cum Ex.PW-3/2 (search list
voucher alongwith copies of dated 26.07.1986);
demand drafts. She further
disclosed about seizure of Ex.PW-3/3 (documents
some documents from her seized vide seizure
and proved said seizure memo dated
memo as well as documents 26.07.1986);
mentioned in the aforesaid Ex.PW-3/4 (statement
search list. This witness was dated 16.12.1987
declared hostile by ld. PP for recorded u/s 161
CBI. Cr.P.C);
PW-4 Sh. Brijesh He handed over copy of Ex.PW-4/1 Chander superannuation order of (superannuation order accused to CBI and proved of accused);
the same.
PW-5 Sh. Devdutta In 1983-84, he was working in Ex.PW-5/1 (Application
Sengupta NICL......? as Sr. Divisional form of Suresh Chand
Manager, Division no. 6, Goyal);
Nehru place. He explained Ex.PW-5/2
about the procedure regarding (Appointment letter of
issuance of new licenses for Sh. Suresh Chand
running insurance agency of Goyal);
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
and proved xerox copy of
application of Sh. Suresh
Chand Goel for grant of
insurance agency.
Page 3 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
PW-6 Sh. Karan He remained posted as UDC Ex.PW-6/1 (seizure
Singh in Self Financing Scheme memo dated 25.07.86);
(SFS) Branch, DDA during Ex.PW-6/A (file
2007 till 2010 and explained bearing no. F33(338)8
about the procedure regarding 2SFS/NB/II);
allotment of SFS Flat in DDA
during that period. Ex.PW-6/2 (application
bearing no. 10592
He proved documents related dated 16.12.1981,
to allotment of flat in the name whereby applicant of Mangi Lal.
Mangi Lal applied for allotment of category II flat at Second SFS in DDA); Ex.PW-6/3 (Page 36 - allotment letter of flat no. 4 SFS Neeti Bagh to Mangi Lal and Page 37- NOC for the purpose of obtaining electricity and water connection in the name) of Mangi Lal);
Ex.PW-6/4 (Schedule of payment installments PW-7 Sh. Vijay This witness was working in Ex.PW-5/A (letter dated Sharma NICL as Sr. Divisional 27.09.2005, sent by Sh.
Manager. He identified his H.P.S. Saran to SP,
signature on the application CBI)
form of insurance agent
submitted by one Suresh
Chand Goyal and attested the
signature of the applicant.
PW-8 Sh. He was nephew of Mangi Lal and deposed about family
Parmeshwar background and assets of Mangi Lal. Lal PW-9 Sh. Mula He deposed about family background and assets/ Singh property of Lala Laxmi Chand Gupta, who was the father of the accused.
PW- Sh. He was posted as UDC in Ex.PW-7/1 (thumb 10 Rajender Delhi Lotteries at ISBT impression);
Kumar Jain Kashmiri Gate, Delhi where Ex.PW-7/2 to Ex. PW-
accused also joined him as 7/9 (leave applications Accounts Officer. He could not in his name);
identify handwriting of
accused on the documents.
PW- Sh. A.K. He was Administrative Officer Ex.PW-11/1 (seizure
11 Seth (Accounts Officer at NICL and memo)
deposed about renewal of
license of agency and
handing over of documents to
CBI.
Page 4 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
PW- Sh. Sukkhan He participated in the house
12 Singh search proceedings (Not completely
conducted at H.No. 4, SFS examined)
Flat, DDA, Neeti Bagh,
belonging to Smt. Shanta
Vasudevan. (Not completely
examined)
PW- Sh. N. Saini This witness participated in Ex.PW-13/1 (search
13 the office search of accused list);
conducted at Delhi Lotteries, Ex.PW-13/2 (NSC
DDA, Second Floor, ISBT bearing no. F-10-
Building, Delhi and proved the 820256 of Rs.5,000/-); documents seized during the said search.
Ex.PW-13/3 (NSC bearing no. F-11-038156 of Rs.5,000/-); Ex.PW-13/4 (NSC bearing no. F-11-037771 of Rs.5,000/-); Ex.PW-13/5 (NSC bearing no. F-7-671179 of Rs.5,000/-); Ex.PW-13/6 (NSC bearing no. E-7- 497758 to E-7- 497763 of Rs.1,000/- each);
Ex.PW-13/7 (SB Pass Book bearing no. 23569 of SBI of accused); Ex.PW-13/8 (SB Pass Book bearing no. 3185 of SBI of accused); Ex.PW-13/9 (SB Pass Book bearing no. 2569 of SBI of accused); Ex.PW-13/10 (SB Pass Book bearing no. 14442 of PNB of accused); Ex.PW-13/11 (SB Pass Book bearing no. 1611 of Central Bank of India in the name of accused);
PW- Sh. C.P. This witness participated in Ex.PW-14/1 (search 14 Dadlani the house search of accused list);
conducted at Munirka and Ex.P-1 (pass book SB proved the documents seized A/c no. 6775 of Canara during the said search.
Bank in the name of Master Vijay Kumar Gupta son of accused); Ex.P-2 (pass book SB A/c no. 6776 of Canara Bank in the name of Master Ajay Kumar Gupta son of accused);
Ex.P-3 (pass book SB A/c no. 4608 of Canara Bank in the name of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta R/o A-38-D, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi); Ex.PW-14/2 (pass book SB A/c no. 16224 of PNB, R.K. Puram in the name of L.C. Gupta);
Ex.PW-14/3 (pass book SB A/c no. 3779 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place, in the name of Ramesh Chander Gupta); Ex.PW-14/4 (letter head pad of M/s Vee En Agrawal Chit Fund);
Page 5 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-14/5 (one bunch of miscellaneous loose papers of Janta Shoe Store Munirka and M/s Vee En Agrawal Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.); Ex.PW-14/6 (one bunch of miscellaneous papers of M/s Vee En Agrawal Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.);
Ex.PW-14/7 (one bunch of miscellaneous papers of M/s Vee En Agrawal Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and partnership deed between Sh. Vijay Kumar and R.C. Gupta son of accused);
Ex.PW-14/8 (file seized during the seizure proceedings);
PW- Sh. R.P. He was the younger brother of Ex.PW-15/A
15 Gupta accused and deposed about (Statement u/s 161
his family background, Cr.P.C);
educational qualification and Ex.PW-15/B (file
other family details. He was relating to allotment of
declared hostile by ld. PP and flat no. B-77, Katwaria cross-examined. Sarai, New Delhi to Sh.
Kishan Lal);
PW- Sh. Anil This witness had assisted Sh. R.K. Bhakta, Dy. SP of 16 Kumar CBI in a search conducted at the office premises of accused and he proved seizure of documents seized during this search.
PW- Sh. Anil He was a property dealer, who Ex.PW-17/1 (receipt 17 Batra got materialized the deal of dated 04.01.84 issued Flat no. 4-SFS, Niti Bagh, by Batra & Company New Delhi between owner Sh. thereby receiving Rs.
Mangi Lal and Smt. Shanta 5000/- from Smt.
Vasudevan at Rs. 3 lacs. Shanta Vasudevan for
sale of said flat);
Ex.PW-17/2 (receipt dated 06.01.84 in respect of making payment of Rs. 1,45,000/- (i.e. Rs. 36, 000/-, Rs. 36,000/-, Rs. 36,000/- and Rs. 37,000/-) respectively by four bank drafts all drafts were dated 06.01.1984); Ex.PW-17/3 (rent agreement executed between Mangi Lal and Smt. Shanta Vasudevan in respect of said flat);
Ex.PW-17/4 (GPA executed and signed by Mangi Lal in favour of Smt. Shanta);
Ex.PW-17/5 (receipt dated 06.01.84 in respect of making payment of Rs. 1,45,000/- (i.e. Rs. 36,000/-, Rs. 36,000/-, Rs. 36,000/- and Rs. 37,000/-) respectively by four bank drafts all drafts were dated 06.01.1984); Ex.PW-17/6 (Agreement to sell & purchase executed between Mangi Lal and Smt. Shanta Vasudevan);
Ex.PW-17/7 (Affidavit of Sh. Mangi Lal to the effect that the said property was free from all encumbrances);
Page 6 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-17/9 (GPA executed by Sh. Mangi Lal in favour of Smt. Seeta Virmani, thereby appointing her General Attorney in respect of said flat); Ex.PW-17/10 (Will dated 06.01.84 prepared by Sh. Mangi Lal as testator in favour of Smt. Shanta Vasudevan, vide which Smt. Shanta Vasudevan was to receive ownership of flat no. 4, DDA Flats, Niti Bagh, New Delhi after the death of testator);
PW- Sh. M.P. He was posted as Branch Ex.PW-18/A (seizure 18 Aggarwal Manager in PNB and had memo dated 03.08.86);
handed over certain Ex.PW-18/B (Account
documents to Insp. P.R. opening form and
Singh of CBI vide seizure authority for joint Hindu
memo. Family account in
respect of A/c no.
16224 in the name of
Sh. L.C. Gupta (HUF);
PW- Sh. D.P. He was posted as Jr. Ex.PW-19/1 (forwarding
19 Gupta Engineer in Engineering Cell, letter dated 12.03.87
CBI and conducted valuation addressed to SP CBI)
of property bearing no. 212-A, Ex.PW-19/2 (valuation
Village Munirka, New Delhi. report);
Ex.PW-19/3 (map of
the said property);
PW- Sh. Phool He was posted as Sub Ex.PW-20/A (seizure
20 Kumar Accountant in Central Bank of memo);
Chahal India, Vikas Minar Branch. He Ex.PW-20/B (list of
had handed over certain documents seized
documents to CBI officer vide during this process);
seizure memo.
Ex.PW-20/C1 to Ex.PW-20/C60 (the documents handed over by witness to CBI officer);
Ex.PW-20/D (passbook issued on 09.02.79 in the name of Smt. Jagni Devi wife of accused);
PW- Sh. He was posted as LDC in Ex.PW-21/1 (signature 21 Narender DDA, Delhi and working under card of Central Bank of Kumar accused, who was posted India bearing A/c No. there as Accounts Officer in 1611, which bears the same office. He proved signature of accused);
writing and signature of Ex.PW-21/2 (seizure
accused on several memo dated 13.08.87
documents. bearing signature of
accused);
Page 7 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
Ex.PW-21/3 (seizure memo dated 14.08.87 bearing signature of accused); Ex.PW-21/4 (cheque dated 18.05.83 drawn in the name of accused for the sum of Rs. 2500/-, which bears signature of accused at point A & B); Ex.PW-21/5 (deposit voucher dated 10.03.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/6 (deposit voucher dated 11.04.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/7 (deposit voucher dated 10.03.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/8 (deposit voucher dated 08.06.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram for a sum of Rs. 2000/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/9 (deposit voucher dated 18.05.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/10 (deposit voucher dated 19.08.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/11 (deposit voucher dated 11.06.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/12 (deposit voucher dated 07.09.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/13 (deposit voucher dated 16.07.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/14 (deposit voucher dated 05.10.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 3400/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/15 (deposit voucher dated 09.11.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/16 (deposit voucher dated 25.07.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 3000/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Page 8 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-21/17 (deposit voucher dated 27.10.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/18 (deposit voucher dated 25.02.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/19 (deposit voucher dated 26.12.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/20 (deposit voucher dated 25.01.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/21 (deposit voucher dated 25.11.83 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 3000/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/22 (deposit voucher dated 07.03.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/23 (deposit voucher dated 15.04.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/24 (deposit voucher dated 18.05.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/25 (deposit voucher dated 04.07.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/26 (deposit voucher dated 12.07.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/27 (deposit voucher dated 16.08.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/28 (deposit voucher dated 30.10.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/29 (deposit voucher dated 19.12.84 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/30 (deposit voucher dated 20.02.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Page 9 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-21/31 (deposit voucher dated 19/20.03.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/32 (deposit voucher dated 16.01.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/33 (deposit voucher dated 10.05.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/34 (deposit voucher dated 12.07.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/35 (deposit voucher dated 08.07.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/36 (deposit voucher dated 28.06.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/37 (deposit voucher dated 14.08.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 18500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/38 (deposit voucher dated 25.08.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/39 (deposit voucher dated 19.09.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/40 (deposit voucher dated 17.10.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/41 (deposit voucher dated 11.11.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/42 (deposit voucher dated 18.12.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/43 (deposit voucher dated 15.01.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/44 (deposit voucher dated 12.02.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused);
Page 10 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-21/45 (deposit voucher dated 24.03.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 9000/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/46 (deposit voucher dated 22.03.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 9500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/47 (deposit voucher dated 18.03.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 4594/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/48 (deposit voucher dated 10.03.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/49 (deposit voucher dated 23.04.85 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 18300/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/50 (deposit voucher dated 22.04.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 19700/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/51 (deposit voucher dated 11.05.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/52 (deposit voucher dated 20.06.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/53 (deposit voucher dated 07.04.86 for account no. 14442 of PNB, R.K. Puram branch, for a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, bearing initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/54 (copy of challan dated 26.01.86 for a sum of Rs. 23,498.95. It bears writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/55 (Pay in slip dated 28.09.81 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 697.62. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/56 (Pay in slip dated 28.09.81 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1450.73. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/57 (Pay in slip dated 03.08.81 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 664.43. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/58 (Pay in slip dated 27.03.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1629.85. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Page 11 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-21/59 (Pay in slip dated 02.11.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1359.60. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/60 (Pay in slip dated 04.09.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 2458.20. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/61 (Pay in slip dated 05.11.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs.5000/-. It bears initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/62 (Pay in slip dated 14.05.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1160.30. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/63 (Pay in slip dated 04.06.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 2911.55. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/64 (Pay in slip dated 28.12.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1282.15. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/65 (Pay in slip dated 16.03.82 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 776.87. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/66 (Pay in slip dated 17.08.83 for account no.2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs.633.70. It bears initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/67 (Pay in slip dated 08.04.83 for account no.2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs.2282. It bears initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/68 (Pay in slip dated 10.03.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1619.40. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/69 (Pay in slip dated 03.03.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 479.90. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/70 (Pay in slip dated 09.09.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 828.60. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/71 (Pay in slip dated 18.07.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 646/-. It bears initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/72 (Pay in slip dated 05.05.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 909.10. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/73 (Pay in slip dated 29.09.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 2683.30. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Page 12 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-21/74 (Pay in slip dated 05.12.83 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1788.40. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/75 (Pay in slip dated 30.01.84 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 551.10. It bears initial and writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/76 (Pay in slip dated 28.09.85 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 2894.75. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/77 (Pay in slip dated 31.01.85 for account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel for a sum of Rs. 1015.25. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/78 (Pay in slip dated 13.03.84 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 750/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/79 (Pay in slip dated 13.08.83 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 750/-. It bears writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/80 (Pay in slip dated 17.05.83 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/81 (Pay in slip dated 09.11.83 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 750/-. It bears writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/82 (Pay in slip dated 19.02.83 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears writing of accused); Ex.PW-21/83 (Pay in slip dated 13.11.82 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/84 (Pay in slip dated 18.01.83 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/85 (Pay in slip dated 16.04.83 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/86 (Pay in slip dated 13.12.82 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/87 (Pay in slip dated 21.09.82 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/88 (Pay in slip dated 20.08.82 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 1029/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Page 13 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex.PW-21/89 (Pay in slip dated 19.10.82 for account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jatinder Prasad for a sum of Rs. 725/-. It bears initial and writing of accused);
Ex.PW-21/D1 (Page 4 of DDA file (D-35) bearing initial of accused)); Ex.PW-21/D2 (Page 8 of correspondence side of the file (D-35) bearing initial of accused));
Ex.PW-21/D3 (Page 19 of correspondence side of the file (D-35) bearing initial of accused);
PW- Sh. Prakash He had remained landlord of accused during 1970 to 22 Chand 1972 and paid him rent of Rs. 50/- p.m. PW- Sh. He was the member of search Ex. PW23/1 (List of 23 Ganesha team and had joined the seized articles);
Verma search proceedings Ex. PW23/2 (Inventory
conducted at the house of of articles);
accused at Munirka alongwith
Insp. P.R. singh, who was the
incharge of this search team.
PW- Sh. Anil He has been shown as a Ex.PW-24/1 (death
24 Kumar witness to the specimen certificate of his father);
signature, handwriting etc. of Ex.PW-24/1 (statement accused. made to CBI by the witness);
PW- Sh. Deep He was the nephew of Ex.PW-25/A (sample of 25 Chand accused and proved his his signature and Goyal specimen signatures and handwriting);
handwritings on certain Ex.PW-25/B (cheque
documents. bearing No. 318521
dated 11.05.82 in favour of Guptaji Agency pertaining to A/c No. 23569 SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi);
Ex.PW-25/C (cheque no. 318522 dated 20.05.82 in favour of Guptaji Agency pertaining to A/c No. 23569 SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi); Ex.PW-25/D (cheque no. 318523 dated 27.05.82 in favour of Guptaji Agency pertaining to A/c No. 23569 SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi); Ex.PW-25/E (pay in slip for preparation of DD);
Page 14 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 PW- Sh. Jagdish He was the member of raiding Ex.PW-26/1 (memo of 26 Singh Malik team and joined the search ornaments seized proceedings conducted in the during house search); house of accused at DDA Ex.PW-26/2 (pass book Flats Munirka as well as of A/c no. 109161 in the search conducted at his office name of J.R Gupta); situated on the second floor, ISBT Kashmere Gate. He Ex.PW-26/3 (bunch of proved documents seized counter foils of cheque during the house search and bearing no. 154141 to office search of accused as 154149, with one leaf of the same were also signed by cheque of PNB R.K. him. He identified documents Puram, New Delhi of on the basis of his signature. A/c no. 14442 bearing no. 154150);
Ex.PW-26/4 to Ex.PW-26/28 (24 documents seized during search proceedings);
Ex.P-43 to Ex.P-68 (telephone bills admitted by accused); Ex.P-77 to Ex.P-104 (telephone bills further admitted by accused); PW- Sh. Ramesh He is the son of the accused Ex.PW-27/A (specimen 27 Gupta and deposed that he was a handwriting and partner in the medicine shop signature of witness);
being run by his grandfather
by the name and style of
Guptaji Agencies, which
partnership continued uptill
2003. His specimen
handwriting and signature
were taken by CBI. He further
explained about his service
and bank accounts.
PW- Sh. Suresh He was nephew of accused Ex.PW-28/A (specimen
28 Chand and proved his specimen handwriting and
Goyal handwriting and signatures as signature of witness);
Ex. PW-28/A. According to Ex.PW-28/D1 (account
him he never opened any opening form dated
bank account in Delhi at any 04.07.82 A/c No. CC-IX
point of time and he worked in the name of Guptaji
for accused 5-6 months in the Agencies);
shop being run as Guptaji
Agency. Ex.PW-28/D2
(specimen signature
He denied that several card of Guptaji
cheques or deposit slip shown Agencies in PNB Bank); to bear his signature, were Page 15 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 signed by him. He denied ever applying for being agent of any insurance company.
PW- Sh. Sridhar He was posted as Sub Ex.PW-29/A (carbon 29 Malik Inspector in ACU-IV and on copy of seizure memo the instructions of Insp. R.S. dated 28.11.87); chauhan, he had seized Ex.PW-29/B (seizure certain documents from memo dated 04.12.87); Branch Manager Mr. Chawla of PNB, Sector -4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and proved the documents seized by him through seizure memo which was signed by him and Mr. Chawla. This witness was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI.
PW- Sh. A.K. He was the part IO of the Ex.PW-30/A 30 Saini case and got verified (chargesheet);
addresses of prosecution Ex.PW-30/D1
witnesses, cited in previous (Assessment order of
two chargesheets and income tax department
thereafter he examined six pertaining to Sh. Laxmi
fresh witnesses. He also Chand Gupta for
collected attested copy of assessment year 1980-
superannuation order 81);
pertaining to retirement of
accused from DDA. He
prepared third chargesheet in
this case against accused and
filed the same in the court.
PW- Sh. R.K. He was posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police and
31 Bhakta had conducted search in the office of accused at DDA
accompanied by two independent witnesses. He prepared search report in his handwriting and delivered a copy of same to accused and thereafter, handed over his report alongwith seized items to IO of the case.
PW- Sh. G. He was posted as SI and Ex.PW-32/A (seizure
32 Prabhakaran assisted Insp. R.S. Chauhan, memo dated 03.12.87,
IO of this case in the vide which 60
investigation of the case. He documents from Sh.
himself and alongwith IO had Subhash Sethi of SBI,
collected and seized certain DDA Building, New
documents related to this Delhi) were seized.
case vide seizure memos.
Page 16 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
Ex.PW-32/B (seizure memo dated 08.12.87, vide which 38 documents from Sh. G.C. Chhokra, Branch Manager, SBI DDA Building, New Delhi) were seized.
Ex.PW-32/C (seizure memo dated 09.12.87, vide which one document from Sh. A.K. Seth, National Insurance Company Ltd. was collected. Ex.PW-32/D (seizure memo dated 10.12.87, vide which one cheque from S.K. Arora, Dy. Chief Manager, Bank of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi was collected.
5. Accused had admitted a number of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C, hence, formal proof of the same were dispensed with. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and later on, after additional examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused opted to lead defence evidence, but did not lead any evidence in his defence. PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
6. The relevant plea of accused are as follows :-
Q.No. Evidence Answer of accused
4 PW-2 proved attested copy of Amount of Rs. 426.75 in
ledger of SB A/c no. 2351220 SB A/c no. 2351220 in the
(Ex. PW2/1) of Indraprastha name of accused is
Post Office in the name of admitted by him.
accused
8 PW-3 purchased flat no. 4 DDA He denied the transaction
SFS Flat, Neeti Bagh in the for want of knowledge as
year 1984 for a sum of Rs. 2 the same did not take
lacs. place in his presence.
17 Vide seizure memo dated He denied the same to be
25.07.1986 (Ex. PW-6/1), one an evidence against him
file bearing no. and further stated that the
F33(338)82/SFS/NB/II file D-37 did not contain
regarding flat no. 4 of category any original document. II at Neeti Bagh was seized.
22 The file seized vide seizure He denied the same for memo (Ex. PW-6/1) dated want of knowledge.
25.07.1986 at page no.7
containing schedule of
installments in respect of flat
no. 4, Neeti Bagh.
Page 17 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
28 PW-13 proved search list (Ex. He denied the same and
PW-13/1) vide which took plea that same could
documents seized during office not be fully proved. search of accused were mentioned 29 to 33 PW-13 proved NSC, bearing no. He admitted NSCs as (Ex.
F-10-820256 of Rs.5,000/- (Ex. PW-13/2 to Ex. PW-13/6) PW-13/2), NSC, bearing no. F-11- 038156 of Rs. 5,000/- (Ex.PW-
13/3), NSC, no. F-11-037771 of Rs.5,000/- (Ex. PW-13/4), NSC, no. F-7-671179 of Rs.5,000/-
(Ex.PW13/5), NSC, no. E-7- 497758 to E-7- 497763 of Rs.1,000/- each (Ex.PW13/6) , vide search list (Ex.PW-13/1).
34 to 39 PW-13 proved SB Pass Book Accused denied (Ex.13/7
bearing no. 23569 of SBI to Ex.PW-13/11 & Ex. P4)
(Ex.PW-13/7), SB Pass Book to be an evidence against
bearing no. 3185 of SBI him.
(Ex.PW-13/8), SB Pass Book
bearing no. 2569 of SBI
(Ex.PW-13/9), SB Pass Book
bearing no. 14442 of PNB
(Ex.PW-13/10), SB Pass Book
bearing no. 1250 of Central
Bank of India (Ex.P4) and SB
Pass Book bearing no. 1611 of
Central Bank of India (Ex.PW-
13/11).
42 PW-14 proved search list Accused denied (Ex.14/1,
(Ex.14/1, colly 4 sheets), vide colly 4 sheets) to be an
which search of premises of evidence against him for
Guptaji Agencies, Shop no. want of any knowledge.
B/A-6, DDA Market, Shopping
Complex, Super Market,
Munirka, Delhi.
43 PW-14 proved seizure memo Accused denied it to be an
mentioning documents which evidence against him for were seized during the search. want of any knowledge.
Page 18 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 44 PW-14 proved passbook of SB Rakesh Kumar Gupta is A/c no. 4608 of Canara Bank his son, who was minor at in the name of Sh. Rakesh the relevant time and Kumar Gupta R/o A-38-D, amount of Rs. 4200.10 DDA Flats, Munirka, New was admitted by him, Delhi, wherein last balance which is Ex. P-3. was Rs. 4200.10.
45 PW-14 proved passbook of SB Vijay Kumar Gupta is his A/c no. 6775 of Canara Bank son, who was minor at the in the name of master Vijay relevant time and amount Kumar Gupta R/o A-38-D, of Rs. 200/- was admitted DDA Flats, Munirka, New by him, which is Ex. P-1. Delhi, wherein last balance was Rs. 200/-.
46 PW-14 proved passbook of SB Ajay Kumar Gupta is his A/c no. 6776 of Canara Bank son, who was minor at the in the name of master Ajay relevant time and amount Kumar Gupta R/o A-38-D, of Rs. 500/- was admitted DDA Flats, Munirka, New by him, which is Ex. P-2. Delhi, wherein last balance was Rs. 500.
47 PW-14 proved passbook of SB Accused denied it to be an A/c no. 16224 of PNB in the evidence against him by name of Sh. L.C. Gupta stating that the said (HUF) R/o A-38-D, DDA account was operated by Flats, Munirka, New Delhi, Sh. L.C. Gupta as Karta of wherein last balance was Rs. HUF.
24640.22.
48 PW-14 proved passbook of SB Accused denied it to be an A/c No. 3779 of Oriental Bank evidence against him and of Commerce, Connaught further pleaded that the Place, New Delhi, in the name said SB A/c belonged to of Sh. Ramesh Chander Gupta, R.C. Gupta, who was R/o 212-A/1, Munirka Village, major at the relevant New Delhi, wherein last period.
balance of this SB A/c was Rs.9117.90p Page 19 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 50 PW-16 proved search list Ex. Accused did not deny PW-13/1, wherein details of search and seizure of seized documents were documents.
mentioned.
51 PW-16 proved pass book of A/c Accused denied it to be an no. 3228, Canara Bank of Sh. evidence against him as R.C. Gupta (Ex. PW-16/1), pass book A/c no. 3228 in seized vide (Ex PW-13/1). Canara Bank was not of Sh. R.C. Gupta, rather it was 3288.
53 PW-17 stated that accused told Accused denied Mr. Mangi him that flat no. 4-SFS, Niti Lal to be his employee and Bagh, New Delhi was alloted to told him to be employee in Mr. Mangi Lal and accused the business firms of Sh.
introduced PW-17 to his L.C. Gupta. He pleaded
employee Mr. Mangi Lal and PW-17 has contradicted
witness asked accused to his chief.
finalize the deal.
54 PW-17 deposed that accused Accused denied the same
desired that the deal should be by stating that he had struck with minimum 3 lacs with never visited Flat no. 4, Smt. Shanta Vasudevan and SFS Neeti Bagh and PW- accused further provided 17 has contradicted his allotment papers of SFS flat-4, chief.
Niti Bagh, New Delhi to PW-17.
56 PW-17 deposed that accused Accused denied the same had brought the key of the SFS by stating that he had flat-4, Niti Bagh, New Delhi to never visited Flat no. 4, show the same to Smt. Shanta SFS Neeti Bagh and PW- Vasudevan from inside. 17 has contradicted his chief.
Page 20 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 58 & 59 PW-17 deposed that on Accused denied the same 06.01.84 he alongwith Sh. and stated that PW-17 had Deep Verma and Man Singh never visited him at his Chaudhary took Smt. Shanta residence and contradicted Vashudavan to the residence of his chief in cross- accused situated at DDA Flat examination by deposing Munirka, where accused met that deal was done at his them and Mr. Mangi Ram, office and the payment allottee of the said flat was also was made to Mr. Mangi Lal present at the residence of in his presence. Accused accused and Smt. Shanta further denied having any Vashudavan paid Rs. knowledge of the 1,45,000/- in the shape of transaction.
account payee bank of and Rs.
45,000/- in cash to accused and Mr. Mangi Ram in his presence.
78 PW-17 deposed that Accused admitted that genuineness of Sh. Mangi lal Mangi Lal got allotted and being allottee of the said flat sold the said flat on his was not suspected on account own and he was a genuine of accused as the accused was person.
a reputed and senior officer of the DDA.
80 PW-18 proved account opening Accused denied same to form and authority for Joint be an evidence against Hindu Family Account in him and stated that PW-18 respect of A/c no. 16224 in the admitted that the said HUF name of Sh. L.C. Gupta (HUF) account was opened by as Ex. PW-18/B. L.C. Gupta as Karta in the presence of PW-18 81 PW-19 Sh. D.P Gupta proved a Accused denied same to forwarding letter dated be an evidence against 12.03.1987 with regard to him and he stated that evaluation of H.No. 212-A at opinion of CBI official Village Munirka, New Delhi as contained no evidentiary Ex PW19/1. value.
82 PW-19 proved inspection report Accused denied the same of house of accused i.e. Plot and further submitted that no. 212-A, Village Munirka, the report is fabricated New Delhi as Ex PW19/2 under influence of CBI.
Page 21 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 86 PW-20 identified a seizure Accused denied the same memo dated 24.10.86 Ex. PW- as the same did not relate 20/A, vide which he handed to account in his name. over the documents mentioned in this list.
87 PW-20 proved a list of Accused denied the same documents bearing sr. no. 1 to as the same did not relate 60 as Ex. PW-20/B. to his account. He further stated that these documents relate to his wife Smt. Jagni Devi's account, who was having her own business and income and he did not have any link or there is no evidence to link him to her transactions.
88 PW-20 proved documents Accused denied the same
handed over by him to CBI as as the same did not relate
Ex. PW-20/C1 to Ex. PW- to his account. He further
20/C60. stated that these
documents relate to his
wife Smt. Jagni Devi's
account, who was having
her own business and
income and he did not
have any link or there is no
evidence to link him to her
transactions.
90 PW-20 deposed that he had Accused denied the same
signed statement of account of to be an evidence against Smt. Jagni Devi Gupta, SB A/c him and further stated that No. 1543 already Ex.P-32 at there was no evidence to points X, which showed attribute the said balance balance amount of Rs. 2089.02 on him.
as on 12.04.86.
91 PW-20 proved passbook of SB Accused denied the same A/c no. 1543 issued on to be an evidence against 09.02.79, in the name of wife of him.
accused Smt. Jagni Devi Gupta as Ex. PW-20/D. Page 22 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 94 PW-21 proved signature card Accused did not dispute pertaining to accused of Central the same and admitted the Bank of India bearing A/c No. same as Ex. P-76. 1611 as Ex. PW-21/1 (part of admitted document Ex. P-76).
95 PW-21 proved seizure memo Accused did not dispute dated 13.04.87 bearing the same. However stated signature of accused as Ex. that it is not evidence PW-21/2. against him. He further stated that the documents showing sale of village properties by his father were handed over by him to CBI.
96 PW-21 proved seizure memo Accused denied the same dated 14.08.87 bearing to be an evidence against signature of accused as Ex. him.
PW-21/3.
97 PW-21 proved cheque dated Accused did not dispute 18.05.83 (part of D-86) for the the same and denied the sum of Rs. 2500/- drawn in the same to be an evidence name of accused as Ex. PW- against him. He stated that 21/4. Ms. Geeta Devi was having shop no. BD-4 adjacent to the shop his father and on her request he used to collect payment of her cheques and used to hand over the amount to her.
Page 23 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 98, 99, PW-21 proved deposit Accused denied the same 100, 102, vouchers dated 10.03.83, and stated that PW-21 103, 104, 11.04.83, 10.03.83, 18.05.83, testified in his chief 105, 106, 19.08.83, 11.06.83, 07.09.83, examination under the 108, 110, 16.07.83, 05.10.83, 27.10.83, influence of CBI and CBI 111, 112, 25.02.84, 26.12.83, 25.01.84, did not confront him with 113, 115, 07.03.84, 15.4.84, 18.05.84, admitted handwritings of 116, 117, 04.07.84, 12.07.84, 30.10.84, accused. PW-21 did not 118, 119, 19.12.84, 20.02.85, prove the handwritings of 120, 121, 19/20.03.85, 16.01.85, accused. In cross- 122, 123, 10.05.85, 12.07.85, 08.07.85, examination, PW-21 124, 125, 28.06.85, 25.08.85, 19.09.85, contradicted his chief 126, 127, 17.10.85, 11.11.85, 18.12.85, examination and admitted 128, 129, 15.01.86, 12.02.86, 24.03.86, that the alleged 131, 132, 22.03.86, 10.03.86, 11.05.86, signature/initials of 133, 134, 20.06.86, 07.04.86, for account accused on first set of 135, 136, no. 14442 in the name of Smt. documents (Ex. PW-21/5 137, 138, Geeta Devi in PNB, R.K. Puram to Ex. PW-21/89) are 139, 141, branch, for Rs. 1500/-, Rs. entirely different from the 144, 145 1500/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1500/-, signature/initials appearing & 146 Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. on second set of 1500/, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, documents (Ex. PW-21/D1 Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. to D3). He denied his 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500, handwritings appearing at Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. marked portions. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs.
1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs.
1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs.
1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 9000/-, Rs.
9500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 1500/-, bearing initial of accused at point A. These vouchers also contained writings of accused from X to Y, X1 to Y1 and X2 to Y2 (as is applicable).
The same are Ex. PW-21/5 to 7; Ex. PW-21/9 to 13; Ex. PW-
21/15; Ex. PW-21/17 to 20;
Page 24 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Ex. PW-21/22 to 36; Ex. PW-
21/38 to 46; Ex. PW-21/48; Ex.
PW-21/51 to 53.
101, 107, PW-21 proved cheques dated Accused denied the same 109 & 08.06.83, 05.10.83, 25.07.83, to be an evidence against 104 25.11.83, drawn in favour of him. He stated that Ms. self on account no. 14442 in Geeta Devi was having the name of Smt. Geeta Devi in shop no. BD-4 adjacent to PNB, R.K. Puram, for the sum the shop his father and on of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 3400, Rs. her request he used to 3000/-, Rs. 3000/-, bearing collect payment of her signatures of accused at point cheques and used to hand A. These cheques also over the amount to her. He contained writings of accused further denied his from X to Y, X1 to Y1 and X2 to handwritings appearing at Y2 (as is applicable). marked portions.
130, 142, PW-21 proved cheque dated Accused denied the same 143 22.04.86 (Ex. PW-21/50). to be an evidence against drawn in favour of M/s Guptaji him. He further stated that Agencies on account no. 14442 Smt. Geeta Devi had in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi issued the account payee in PNB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi cheque to M/s Guptaji for the sum of Rs. 19,700/- Agencies to which he had bearing writing of accused from no concern. He further X to Y. denied his handwriting appearing at marked portion.
140 PW-21 proved cheque dated Accused denied the same 18.03.86 (Ex. PW-21/47) drawn to be an evidence against in favour of MCD Delhi on him. He further stated that account no. 14442 in the name Smt. Geeta Devi had of Smt. Geeta Devi in PNB, issued the account payee R.K. Puram, New Delhi for the cheque favouring MCD to sum of Rs. 4594/- bearing which he had no concern. writing of accused from X to Y. He further denied his handwriting appearing at marked portion.
Page 25 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 148, 149, PW-21 proved pay-in-slips Accused denied the same 150, 151, dated 28.09.81, 28.09.81, to be an evidence against 152, 153, 03.08.81, 27.03.82, 02.11.82, him. PW-21 testified in his 155, 156, 04.09.82, 14.05.82, 04.06.82, chief examination under 157, 158, 28.12.82, 16.03.82, 17.08.83, the influence of CBI and 159, 160, 08.04.83, 10.03.83, 03.03.83 CBI did not confront him 161, 162, 09.09.83, 18.07.83, 05.05.83, with admitted handwritings 163, 164, 29.09.83, 05.12.83, 30.01.84, of accused. PW-21 did not 165, 166, 28.09.85, 31.01.85., (Ex. PW- prove the handwritings of 167, 168, 21/55 to Ex. PW-21/60 & Ex. accused. In cross- 169, 170, PW-21/62) for account no. examination, PW-21 2569 in the name of S.C. Goel contradicted his chief in SBI, DDA Building, New examination and admitted Delhi for the sum of Rs. 697.62 that the alleged bearing initials encircled at signature/initials of point A of accused. These pay- accused on first set of in-slips bear writings of documents (Ex. PW-21/5 accused from X to Y and X1 to to Ex. PW-21/89) are Y1 (on the back, (as is entirely different from the applicable). signature/initials appearing on second set of documents (Ex. PW-21/D1 to D3). He denied his handwritings appearing at marked portions.
154 PW-21 proved cheque dated Accused denied the same 05.11.82 (Ex. PW-21/61) drawn to be an evidence against in favour of self on account of him. He further stated that 2569 in the name of S.C. Goel S.C. Goel had opened the in SBI, DDA Building, New account himself and it is on Delhi for the sum of Rs. 5000/-. record that Sh. S.C. Goel It bears signatures of accused had remained in Delhi and encircled at points A & B. Same worked as partner of M/s also bears writing from X to Y. Guptaji Agencies from 1980 to 1986. He further stated that he used to operate bank account of Guptaji Agencies singly on his own. He further stated that Sh. S.C. Goel had applied for plot on the basis of his income certificate given by Guptaji Agency and he used to support himself and his family at Chandigarh from the earning earned from Guptaji Agencies and invested money in booking DDA plot. He further stated that prosecution did not examine other bank officials deliberately as the same would have proved the opening/operating his personal bank account as well as the account of Sh. S.C. Goel. The cheque in question was issued by Sh. S.C. Gel as self cheque, which accused collected and handed over the amount to Sh. S.C. Goel on the same day.
Page 26 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 171, 172, PW-21 proved pay-in-slip dated Accused denied the same 173, 174, 13.08.83 (Ex. PW-21/78 to Ex. to be an evidence against 175, 176, PW-21/89) for account no. him. PW-21 testified in his 177, 178, 3185 in the name of Jatinder chief examination under 179, 180, Prasad in SBI, DDA Building, the influence of CBI and 181, 182, New Delhi for the sum of Rs. CBI did not confront him 750/-, Rs. 750/-, Rs. 725/-, Rs. with admitted handwritings 750/-, Rs. 725/-, Rs. 725/-, Rs. of accused. PW-21 did not 725/-, Rs. 725/-, Rs. 725/-, Rs. prove the handwritings of 725/-, Rs. 1029/-, Rs. 725 accused. In cross- bearing writings of accused examination, PW-21 from X to Y and X1 to Y1. contradicted his chief examination and admitted that the alleged signature/initials of accused on first set of documents (Ex. PW-21/5 to Ex. PW-21/89) are entirely different from the signature/initials appearing on second set of documents (Ex. PW-21/D1 to D3). He denied his handwritings appearing at marked portions.
147 PW-21 proved certified copy of Accused denied the same
a challan (part of D-37) for to be an evidence against
deposit of Rs. 23498.95 in him. PW-21 testified in his
DDA, bearing challan no. examination
22441 dated 26.01.86 and under influence of CBI and
bears handwritings of accused CBI did not confront him
from point X to Y. Same is Ex. with admitted handwritings
PW-21/54. of accused. PW-21 did not
prove handwritings of accused. In cross-examination, PW-21 contradicted his chief examination and admitted that the alleged signature/initials of accused on first set of documents (Ex. PW-21/5 to Ex. PW-21/89) are entirely different from the signature/initials appearing on second set of documents (Ex. PW-21/D1 to D3). He denied his handwritings appearing at marked portions.
186 PW-23 proved list of articles Accused denied the same seized during the raid to be an evidence against conducted at the house of him and further that PW-23 accused as Ex.PW23/1. did not identify/prove any of the alleged seized items, nor did prosecution produced any 75 items including cash of Rs.
29,267/- allegedly seized vide Ex. PW-23/1.
Page 27 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 187 PW-23 proved Inventory of Accused denied the same articles as Ex.PW23/2 seized to be an evidence against during house search conducted him. He further stated that in the presence of accused. it did not bear signature of PW-23 at page 7 & 11 (last page) and that the same was neither prepared in the presence of accused nor bore signature of accused on any page.
189 PW-25 deposed that he never Accused denied the same became partner in any to be an evidence against business with anyone in Delhi. him. He further stated that He never opened any account PW-25 acted under in any bank in Delhi at any prosecution influence to point of time. He further dispute his bank A/c no.
deposed that since he did not 23569 in SBI R.K. Puram
have any bank account in Branch and CBI
Delhi, therefore, he never deliberately did not
signed and issued any cheque examine bank officials in
drawn on any bank situated in whose presence PW-25
Delhi. had signed on the bank
account opening
form/specimen card in the
bank and verified the
signature of PW-25 on the
cheques while making
payments.
191 PW-25 identified his specimen Accused denied the same
signatures and handwritings, for want of knowledge. He
bearing his signatures at point further deposed that D-106 A on each sheet and contents contained nine sheets of the sheets were written by whereas, PW-25 proved him. These sheets are Ex. PW- only eight sheets as 25/A. allegedly written by him and the fact of bearing his handwriting on these eight sheets was not proved by (LW-56) Mr. O.S. Randhava and (LW-57) Mr. O.S. Sharma.
Page 28 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 192 PW-25 proved three cheques Accused denied the same bearing particulars as cheque to be an evidence against No. 318521 dated 11.05.82 in him. He further stated that favour of Guptaji Agency the cheques were issued pertaining to A/c No. 23569 by PW-25 in favour of M/s SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi; Guptaji Agencies, which Cheque no. 318522 dated were paid by the bank as 20.05.82 in favour of Guptaji per their norms. Accused Agency pertaining to A/c No. had no concern with the 23569 SBI, R.K. Puram, New account of PW-25, Delhi; Cheque no. 318523 moreover PW-25 did not dated 27.05.82 in favour of question the bank for his Guptaji Agency pertaining to account, if it was not A/c No. 23569 SBI, R.K. opened by him when on Puram, New Delhi, were not 28.01.1987, he allegedly issued by him. The signatures gave statement u/s 161 appearing at point A on all Cr.P.C. to CBI and these three cheques did not prosecution did not pertain to him as they were not examine the bank officials put by him. The cheques are for opening/operations in Ex. PW-25/B, Ex. PW-25/C & account and the amounts Ex. PW-25/D. are not the subject matter of any disproportionate assets attributed to the accused.
193 PW-25 deposed that pay in slip Accused denied the same for preparation of demand draft to be an evidence against was not filled in his handwriting him. He further stated that and he had not filled the same. PW-25 did not prove his This pay in slip is Ex. PW-25/E. writing on the pay in slip.
Moreover, the amount is
not subject matter of any
disproportionate assets
attributed to the accused.
Page 29 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
195, 196, PW-26 deposed that a search Accused denied the same
197 & was conducted at the house of to be an evidence against
198 accused in the presence of one him. He further stated that
public witness namely Mr. he was not present during
Dudlani and that time accused the search conducted at
was saving as accused was his residence.
having shaving brush in his
hand. PW-26 proved search list
Ex. PW-23/1 containing list of
articles, ornaments, etc lying in
the house of accused, which
was prepared by CBI in the
presence of PW-26 while
conducting search at the
residence of accused and
further proved inventory list Ex.
PW-23/2, which was having
description of articles found in
the flat of accused.
199 PW-26 proved memo of Accused denied the same
ornaments Ex. PW-26/1, to be an evidence against
bearing his signature at point A him. Accused further
which contained valuation, on stated that the jewellery
the basis of which this memo mentioned in the memo
was prepared. The ornaments were stridhan of wife of
were returned to accused. accused as her personal
property and prosecution
did not lead any evidence
to prove the same as asset
of accused.
201 PW-26 deposed that someone Accused denied the same
opened the lock of office of to be an evidence against
accused and accused was him. Accused further
leading them and they followed stated that he was in his
accused. Accused took them to office room when the CBI
his cabin and took out certain officials entered in his
passbooks from the drawer of room.
his table, which were taken by
the CBI officer.
Page 30 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
202 & PW-26 deposed that accused Accused denied the same
203 had taken out one khaki to be an evidence against
envelope from an almirah and him. Accused further
tried to throw it out from the stated that prosecution has
window of office, however CBI failed to produce and
officer had caught hold of his prove the alleged khaki
hand and he could not throw it. envelope and bundle of PW-26 further deposed that currency note allegedly thereafter, accused fainted and seized. He further stated he was given a glass of water that the alleged seizure list and CBI officer had prepared was fabricated in view of list of all the documents taken evidence of PW-26 one from his office including the CBI officer was present in bundle of currency notes in the both the raids conducted at denomination of Rs. 100/- and the residence and office PW26 signed the list, prepared premises, while Ex. PW- in the presence of PW-26. 13/1 and Ex. PW-23/1 that they do not bear signature of same one CBI official on them.
204 PW-26 proved search list Accused denied the same
already Ex. PW-13/1, which to be an evidence against
was prepared in the office of him. Accused further
accused. stated that the alleged
seizure list was fabricated
in view of evidence of PW-
26 one CBI officer was
present in both the raids
conducted at the residence
and office premises, while
Ex. PW-13/1 and Ex. PW-
23/1 that they do not bear
signature of same one CBI
official on them.
Page 31 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
206, 207 PW-26 identified his signature Accused denied the same
& 208 on the passbook passbook of to be an evidence against
SBI, DDA Building, New Delhi him. He further stated that
in the name of Sh. Jitender Sh. Jitender Prasad was
Prasad A/c No. 3185, in the working in the firms of his
name of Sh. S.C. Goel A/c no. father, Sh. Suresh Chand
2569 and the passbook of PNB, Goel was working as
R.K. Puram in the name of Smt. partner with his father in
Geeta Devi A/c No. 14442 as Guptaji Agencies and he
Ex. PW-13/8, Ex. PW-13/9 & was the sole signatory on
Ex. PW-13/10. These cheque books and Smt.
passbooks bear signature of Geeta Devi had a shop
witness at points A & B, which near his father's shop in
were seized from the office of the same market and his
accused. father had given him all the
passbooks for updating.
He further stated that
prosecution did not
examine Smt. Geeta Devi,
nor the bank officials to
attribute the same to him.
209 PW-26 proved passbook of Accused denied the same
SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in to be an evidence against the name of Sh. Deep Chand him. He further stated that Goel A/c No. 23569 (Ex. PW- the passbook belonged to 13/7) bearing signature of Deep Chand Goel and the witness at points B & C. said account was opened only after physical presence and after verification of account holder's signature by the bank officials. CBI deliberately did not examine the concerned bank officials for opening of the account.
Page 32 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 210, 211 PW-26 proved passbook of Accused stated that he had & 212 Central Bank of India, Vikas already admitted prior to Minar, New Delhi in the name the evidence of PW-26. of accused having A/c No. 1250, 1611 (Ex. P-4 & Ex. PW-
13/11). This passbook bears signature of witness at point B. This passbook is already Ex. P-
4. 213 PW-26 proved passbook of Genuineness of account of Smt. Jagni Devi Gupta, (wife of Smt. Jagni Devi (wife of accused) Ex. PW-20/D of accused), which was Central Bank of India, Vikas opened by her own funds Minar, New Delhi having A/c and operated by her, which No. 1543 bearing signature of fact already admitted prior witness at points A & B. to the evidence of PW-26.
214 PW-26 proved passbook of Accused stated that it is Canara Bank, Munirka, New not an evidence against Delhi in the name of Sh. R.C him and the same related Gupta having A/c No. 3288. to Sh. R.C. Gupta.
This passbook bears signature of witness at points A & C and same is Ex. PW-16/1.
215, 216 PW-26 proved passbooks of Accused stated that he had & 217 Post Office, I.P. Estate, New already admitted prior to Delhi having A/c No. 2351220, the evidence of PW-26. 109161 & 109161 pertaining to accused bearing signatures of witness at points A & B and same are already Ex. P-6, Ex.
P-7 and Ex. PW-26/2.
218 PW-26 proved bunch of counter Accused denied the same foils of cheque bearing no. to be an evidence against 154141 to 154149, with one him. He further stated that leaf of cheque of PNB R.K. the genuineness of A/c No. Puram, New Delhi of A/c no. 14442 of Smt. Geeta Devi 14442 bearing no. 154150 and the cheques issued by bearing signature of witness at her are not in dispute. points A & B. The same is Ex.
PW-26/3.
Page 33 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 221 PW-26 identified documents, Accused stated that he had which were seized from the already admitted prior to office of accused, on the basis the evidence of PW-26. of his signature. Document related to LIC i.e. Ex. P-16.
222 Accused admitted telephone Accused denied the same bills Ex. P-43 to Ex. P-68 and to be an evidence against Ex. P-77 to Ex. P-104. him. He further stated that he had admitted only genuineness of the telephone bills without admitting any liability. He further stated that the phone was neither in his name nor the factum of payment of bills by him was proved by prosecution. The same were paid by the firm of M/s Guptaji Agencies.
224 PW-27 deposed that he used to Accused denied the same sit in the shop of his to be an evidence against grandfather in the name of him.
Janta Shoes, since 1978 and he was not partner of his grandfather in that shop.
225 PW-27 deposed that in April Accused denied the same 1986, he became partner in the to be an evidence against shop by the name and style of him.
Guptaji Agencies, being run by his grandfather since 1980 and a partnership deed was prepared among himself, his mother and his grandfather in April 1986. This partnership continued upto death of his grandfather in the year 2003.
226 PW-27 identified copy of Accused denied the same partnership deed dated to be an evidence against 01.04.86 (Ex. PW-26/9), him.
prepared among them.
Page 34 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 227 PW-27 proved passbook Accused denied the same related to A/c no. 3779 Oriental to be an evidence against Bank of Commerce, Munirka him.
belonging to him.
228 PW-27 proved his passbook Accused denied the same bearing A/c No. 3288, Canara to be an evidence against Bank, Branch Munirka. him.
229, 230 PW-27 proved specimen Accused denied the same handwriting and signature to be an evidence against taken by CBI at his home. The him.
same are Ex. PW-27/A. 234, 235, PW-28 deposed that cheques Accused stated that these 236, 241, dated 12.10.81, 28.10.81, all are false and CBI did 244, 247, 25.11.81, 14.12.82, 05.11.82, not examine the bank 251, 252, 17.08.82, 7.09.82, 17.06.82, officials to disprove the 254, 263, 13.04.83, 06.12.83, 16.08.83, genuineness of bank 264, 265, 08.03.83, 14.07.83, 30.08.84, accounts, cheques in 266, 267, 10.12.84, 14.08.85, 25.01.85, question and signature of 277, 281, 25.01.85, 15.03.85 for Rs. PW-28. Accused denied 287, 289, 500/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1200, Rs. the same to be an 291, 800/-, Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 1000/-, evidence against him as Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1000/-, Rs. neither he signed these 1000/-, Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 3000/-, cheques nor received any Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 5000/, Rs. payment therefrom. 1000/-, Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 2000/-, In answer to question 244, Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 2000/-, Rs. accused stated that 1000/- all drawn on SBI, DDA alleged cheque was issued Building, New Delhi, bearing by PW-28 and accused no. 382201, 382202, 382203, had collected the payment 382201, 382213, 382210, from the bank and handed 382208, 382209, 382207, over the same to PW-28.
382214, 382220, 382217,
382212, 382216, 0654682,
0654683, 0654686, 0654684,
0654684, 0654685, all in favour
of self did not bear his
signatures at any place. The
signature appearing at point X
did not pertain to him.
Page 35 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
237, 238, PW-28 deposed that deposit Accused denied the same
239, 240, slips dated 28.09.81, 28.09.81, to be an evidence against
242, 243, 03.08.81, 27.03.82, 02.11.82, him. Accused further
245, 246, 04.09.82, 14.05.82, 04.06.82, stated that in evidence of
249, 250, 28.12.82, 16.03.82, 17.08.83, PW-28, PW-28 identified
253, 255, 08.04.83, 30.03.83, 03.03.83, initials of accused at Ex.
256, 257, 03.09.83, 18.07.83, PW-21/D-1 to D-3 and
258, 259, 05.05.198__, 29.09.83, further deposed that initials
260, 261, 05.12.83, 23.05.84, 04.05.84, appearing on Ex. PW-
262, 268, 28.03.84, 30.01.84, 17.09.84, 21/13, Ex. PW-21/15, Ex.
269, 270, 29.06.84, 27.09.84, 03.01.84, PW-21/17, Ex. PW-21/18,
271, 272, 01.12.84, 04.01.85, 28.09.85, Ex. PW-21/19 Ex. PW-
273, 274, 15.07.85, 21.08.85, 06.12.85, 21/20 to Ex. PW-21/36, Ex.
275, 276, 21.03.85, 04.04.85, 03.06.85, PW-21/38 to Ex. PW-
278, 279, 28.10.85, 28.10.85, 31.01.85, 21/48, Ex. PW-21/51 to Ex.
280, 282, 07.01.86, 03.03.86, 02.06.86 PW-21/89 are entirely
283, 284, for Rs.697.62, Rs.1450.73, Rs. different from his initials
285, 286, 664.43, Rs.1629.85, Rs. appearing on Ex. PW-
288, 290, 1359.60, Rs.2458.20, 21/D-1 to D-3. Accused 292, 293, Rs.1160.30, Rs.2911.55, further submitted that 294, 295, Rs.1282.15, Rs.776.87, Rs. some of the documents 633.70, Rs. 2282, Rs. 1619.40, were not got exhibited by Rs.479.90, Rs.828.60, Rs.646, CBI as prosecution Rs. 909.10, Rs. 2683.30, document in evidence. 1788.40, 1717.90, Rs. 1430.40, Rs. 551.10, Rs. 785/-, Rs.
1698/-, Rs. 1198.55/-, Rs.
889.80, Rs.887/-, Rs. 1333.45, Rs. 2894.75, Rs. 1709.92, Rs.
1603.20, Rs. 1409/-, Rs.
495.35, Rs. 1836.20, Rs.
937.10, Rs. 2171.50, Rs.
2171.50, Rs. 1015.25, Rs.
1984/-, Rs. 1563.13, Rs.
1491.45 drawn on SBI, DDA Building, New Delhi, for deposit in account no. 2569 & 13/2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel, did not bear his signatures at any place. These slips were not filled in his handwriting nor were filled at his instance.
Same are Ex. PW-21/60, Ex.
PW-21/62 to 76.
Page 36 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 248 PW-28 deposed that the Accused denied the same cheque dated 12.11.82, for Rs. to be an evidence against 5000/-, drawn on SBI, DDA him. He further stated that Building, New Delhi, bearing CBI did not examine the no. 382211, in favour of Guptaji bank officials to disprove Agency, did not bear his the genuineness of alleged signature at any place. This slip bank account, cheque and was not filled in his handwriting signature of PW-28. He nor it was filled by him or same denied the same to be an was filled at his instance. Same evidence against him as is already Ex. PW-21/64. neither he signed this cheque nor received any payment therefrom. This cheque was issued by PW-
28 in favour of M/s Guptaji Agencies, where PW-28 was a partner and it must be reflected in the books of firm and partner's capital accounts.
304 PW-31 deposed that he Accused stated it not to be conducted search in the office an evidence against him. of accused in June 1986 and recovered some files, NSCs, passbooks, etc. from almirah and table of accused.
305 PW-31 deposed that after Accused denied the same conducting search, a report to be an evidence against mentioning all the items seized him. He further stated that during that search was the items mentioned in the prepared, which was signed by seizure memo dated him and other witnesses and 27.06.86 at Sr. No. 13, 14, copy of same was also given to 15, 16 & 17 (cash of Rs.
accused. 10,000/-) were never
produced nor proved by
any prosecution witness.
Page 37 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
307 PW-32 deposed that certain Accused denied the same
documents related to this case to be an evidence against
were seized by him and he him. Accused further
prepared seizure stated that in cross-
memos/production memos. examination of PW-32, he
testified that Ex. PW-32/A,
Ex. PW-11/1, Ex. PW-32/B,
Ex. PW-32/C and Ex. PW-
32/D were not
prepared/seized by him
and there was no evidence
to link accused with these
documents.
309 PW-32 identified seizure memo Accused denied the same
dated 03.12.87, prepared by to be an evidence against
him for having collected 60 him. Accused further
documents from Sh. Subhash stated that in cross-
Sethi of SBI, DDA Building, examination of PW-32, he
Vikas Minar, New Delhi. The testified that Ex.PW-32/A,
seizure memo is Ex. PW-32/A. Ex. PW-11/1, Ex. PW-32/B,
Ex. PW-32/C and Ex. PW-
32/D were not
prepared/seized by him
and there was no evidence
to link accused with these
documents.
311 PW-32 proved seizure memo Accused denied the same
dated 08.12.87 for having to be an evidence against
collected 38 documents from him. Accused further
Sh. G.C. Chhokra, Branch stated that in cross-
Manager, SBI, DDA Building, examination of PW-32, he
Vikas Minar, New Delhi. Same testified that Ex.PW-32/A,
is Ex. PW-32/B (colly for three Ex. PW-11/1, Ex. PW-32/B, pages). Ex. PW-32/C and Ex. PW-
32/D were not
prepared/seized by him
and there was no evidence
to link accused with these
documents.
Page 38 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
313 PW-32 proved seizure memo Accused denied the same
dated 10.12.87 for having to be an evidence against
collected one cheque from Sh. him. Accused further
S.K. Arora, Dy. Chief Manager, stated that in cross-
Bank of India, Nehru Place, examination of PW-32, he
New Delhi. Same is Ex. PW- testified that Ex.PW-32/A,
32/D. Ex. PW-11/1, Ex. PW-32/B,
Ex. PW-32/C and Ex. PW-
32/D were not
prepared/seized by him
and there was no evidence
to link accused with these
documents.
318 Accused admitted a passbook Accused admitted the
of account no.6775, Canara same.
Bank, Munirka, maintained in
the name of his minor son
namely V.K. Gupta, which is
Ex.P.1. The last balance
amount on 06.10.1985 was
shown to be Rs.200/- in this
passbook, which is assumed to
be part of his assets.
319 Accused admitted a passbook Accused admitted the
of account no.6776, Canara same.
Bank, Munirka, maintained in
the name of his minor son
namely A.K. Gupta, which is
Ex.P2. On 06.10.1985 balance
amount of Rs.500/- is shown in
this passbook, which is
assumed to be part of his
assets.
320 Accused admitted a passbook Accused admitted the
of account no. 4608, Canara same.
Bank, Munirka, maintained in
the name of his minor son
namely Rakesh Gupta, which is
Ex.P3 as well as Ex.PW14/2.
On 01.03.1985 balance amount
of Rs.4200/- was shown in this
passbook, which is assumed to
be part of his assets.
Page 39 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
321 Accused admitted a passbook Accused stated it to be not
of account no.544, Central an evidence against him
Bank of India, Press Area, New as it is not the subject
Delhi, maintained in his name, matter of charge nor it is
which is Ex.P8. As per this added in his assets by
passbook an amount of prosecution. He further
Rs.750/- was deposited in this stated that prior to April
account from 01.01.1973 to 1979, he used to get salary
24.02.1975. in cash and RD A/c 544 of
Rs. 30 was opened on
11.02.1970 (prior to check
period), which was paid in
cash from his salary and thus Rs. 750/- paid in RD account for 25 months did not constitute separate income. The RD A/c was closed on 24.02.75 and proceeds were received by cheque and credited in his SB A/c no. 2351220, IP Estate post office. Ex. P-8 neither constitutes any income nor any asset. He further stated that he concur with the court that interest income of Rs. 327/- may be added in his legitimate income.
322 Accused admitted a passbook Accused stated it to be not of account no.727, Central an evidence against him Bank of India, Press Area, New as it is not the subject Delhi, maintained in his name, matter of charge nor it is which is Ex.P9. As per this added in his assets by passbook an amount of prosecution. He further Rs.1380/- was deposited in this stated that prior to April account from 01.01.1973 to 1979, he used to get salary 06.12.1976. in cash and RD A/c 727 of Rs. 30 was opened on 16.11.1971 (prior to check period), which was paid in cash from his salary and thus Rs. 1380/- paid in RD account for 46 months did not constitute separate income. The RD A/c was closed on 06.12.76 and proceeds of Rs. 2220.60 were received by cheque and credited in his SB A/c no. 2351220, IP Estate post office. Ex. P-8 neither constitutes any income nor any asset. He further stated that he concur with the court that interest income of Rs. 420/- may be added in his legitimate income.
Page 40 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 323 Accused admitted a passbook Accused stated it to be not of account no.59, Central Bank an evidence against him of India, Vikas Minar, New as it is not the subject Delhi, maintained in his name, matter of charge nor it is which is Ex.P10. As per this added in his assets by passbook since 18.02.1977 to prosecution. He further 01.03.1978, he was paid stated that prior to April Rs.273.50/- as interest on the 1979, he used to get salary deposit amount of Rs.1800/- as in cash and RD A/c 59 of part of your income. Rs. 50 was opened on 06.02.1975 which was paid from his salary and thus Rs. 1800/- paid in RD account for 36 months did not constitute separate income. The RD A/c was closed on 01.03.78 and proceeds of Rs. 2073.50 was credited in his SB A/c. Ex. P-9 neither constitutes any income nor any asset. He further stated that he concur with the court that interest income of Rs. 273.50 may be added in his legitimate income.
324 Accused admitted passbook of Accused stated it to be not account no.109161, maintained an evidence against him in Post Office, AGCR, in his as it is not the subject name, which is Ex.P7. As per matter of charge nor it is this passbook he had deposited added in his assets by Rs.10,800/- in this account, prosecution. He further which is assumed to be part of stated that he had opened his assets.
post office fixed deposit for Rs. 5000/- on 09.09.1979, being his saving from his salary and on 15.09.84 and maturity amount of Rs. 8100/- was deposited in his bank account no. 1611. He further stated that he concur with the court that interest income of Rs. 3100/- may be added in his legitimate income.
325 Accused admitted passbook of Accused stated it to be not account no.544, maintained in an evidence against him Central Bank of India, Press as it is not the subject Area, New Delhi, in his name, matter of charge nor it is which is Ex.P8. As per this added in his assets by passbook, from 01.01.1973 to prosecution. He further 24.02.1975 he had deposited stated that prior to April amount of Rs.750/- in this 1979, he used to get salary account, which is assumed to in cash and RD A/c 208 of be part of his assets. Rs. 100 p.m. were paid Page 41 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 from his salary and thus Rs. 2400/- paid in RD account for 24 months did not constitute separate income. The RD A/c was closed on 08.07.76 and proceeds of Rs. 2600 were credited in his SB A/c. Ex. P- 9 neither constitutes any income nor any asset. He further stated that he concur with the court that interest income of Rs. 200/- may be added in his legitimate income.
ARGUMENTS :-
7. During oral arguments, ld. counsel for accused challenged validity of present proceedings i.e. 3rd round of prosecution submitting that initially accused was discharged twice and the trial had already commenced when the initial charge sheets were filed by CBI. Therefore, even for the 3rd time sanction was required, but CBI did not obtain any such sanction on 3rd occasion. It was further argued that CBI had not made right calculation of assets before check period and had included certain articles in the inventory of goods i.e. Ex.PW23/2 (D-74), which were actually part of assets prior to check period. The description of such assets were pointed out as follows :-
Item nos. Period Amount (in Rs./-) 2 1970 50 21 1970-85 1500 26 1972 3600 29 1970 600 53 1962 250 63 1970-80 750 112 1970 150 113 1970 50 TOTAL Rs.8650/-
8. Ld. counsel submitted that total amount of Rs.8650/- should have been shown in the assets prior to check period. He further submitted that CBI did not prove various income as shown in Statement 'C' of the chargesheet. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the income from Guptaji Agency or income in the name of wife as well as Page 42 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 son and father of the accused were benami transactions and therefore, there is no merit in the calculation of income, expenditure as well as assets as pertaining to Sh. L.C. Gupta, Smt. Jugni Devi, Sh. R.C. Gupta and other persons as shown in the Statement 'C', Statement 'D' and Statement 'B' of the chargesheet. He further submitted that some witnesses examined by CBI i.e. PW3 and PW27 rather supported the case of accused.
9. Ld. counsel for accused further argued that items from serial no.1 to 10 mentioned in statement 'C' were neither proved nor admitted in any document. Ex.PW30/D1 (D40) contains ITR of various persons and documents of business of L.C Gupta. These documents rather show that L.C. Gupta, Jugni Devi and R.C. Gupta were having their independent income and accused has nothing to do with their income, expenditure and asset. He further argued that pay particulars i.e. D46, D47, D48 and D50 refer to pay for the period from March 1976 to June 1986 and pay for the period from January 1973 to February 1976 was not included in serial no.11 of statement 'C'. Ld. counsel further argued that income during the check period as mentioned in statement 'C' at serial no.16 is disputed and not proved. In fact, PW3 became hostile witness to this effect.
10.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that items mentioned in statement 'D' at serial no.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are in dispute and not proved. He further argued that property bearing no. A-38D was admitted, however, properties bearing no. A212A, BA-6 and BD-4 are in dispute in respect of their ownership. He further argued that item/asset mentioned at serial no.1 in statement 'B' was acquired by accused prior to check-in period (Rs.8650/-) (D-74). He further argued that items in (D-
74) at serial no.122, 124 and 125 referred for cash, whereas item at serial no.122 was shown as belonging to Guptaji Agency. In fact, PW27/ Sh. R.C. Gupta also confirmed it and he was signatory to D-74 Page 43 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 (Ex.PW23/1). While item at serial no.125 was shown as belonging to Smt. Jugni Devi (who was insurance agent and partner in Guptaji Agency). Therefore, two out of three cash are not of accused and third amount is also not proved to be of accused. PW27 was member of a joint family. Ld. counsel further argued that CBI did not prove that item mentioned at serial no.3 was belonging to accused. He further argued that items mentioned at serial no.6 and 15 were claimed by PW27 as his money. Ld. counsel also argued that item mentioned at serial no.9 was not proved to be of accused. Ld. counsel argued in respect of item mentioned at serial no.16 that PW28 did not say that accused opened this account for him. None from bank was called, in whose presence this account was opened and there is nothing to link accused with this account. Ld. counsel further argued that items mentioned at serial no. 17, 18 and 19 were not proved as even Sh. Jitender Prasad, Sh. Mangi Lal and Ms. Geeta Devi were not examined in this respect. Ld. counsel further argued that item mentioned at serial no.20 did not belong to accused and previous IO had examined Sh. Bal Kishan, who claimed this amount from CBI, which was given to accused for handing over to son of Sh. Bal Kishan.
11.Ld. counsel further argued in respect of immovable assets belonging to accused that personal file of accused (D25, Ex.P14) shows that accused had taken Rs.34,000/- towards advance for A-38/D, but same was not shown in his income. Ld. counsel further argued in respect of items mentioned at serial no.2 to 7 that there is no evidence to link accused with ownership of these items. Thus, DA is not proved. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS :-
12.Before I start appreciating the evidence and rival contentions, I would refer to the parameters for appreciation in this case, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Nand v. State of M.P (1977) 1 SCC 816, in Page 44 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 following terms:
"To substantiate a charge under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely, (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused."
13.The check in period set by CBI had been since 01.01.1973 to 26.06.1986. CBI came up with description of income, assets and expenditure of accused in the following manner :-
STATEMENT 'A' - (INCOME BEFORE CHECK PERIOD) Srl. DETAILS OF INCOME INCOME (in Rs./-) No.
1. Salary November 1963 to December 1972 23,020.45
2. Overtime Allowance 1,779.20
3. Bonus 1,764.90
4. Cycle advance in May, 1967 200.00
5. GPF advance in June, 1967 600.00
6. Scooter advance in Feb. 1972 2,850.00
7. Interest on RD A/c. No.154, Central Bank 218.00 of India, Press Area, New Delhi as matured on 28.12.1971.
Total 30,432.55
EXPENDITURE BEFORE THE CHECK PERIOD
Srl. DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE
No. (in Rs./-)
Page 45 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
1. House rent paid by the accused during his 3,640.00
stay in Bhopal area between November
1963 to December 1972.
2. Nov-Verifiable expenses before check 15,384.25
period i.e. (the family expenditure)
Total 19,024.25
ASSETS BEFORE THE CHECK PERIOD
Srl. DETAILS OF ASSETS VALUE (in Rs./-)
No.
1. Immovable -NIL-
2. Movable (Bajaj Scooter No.DHO4500) 3,232.75
3. Income before the check period 30,432.55
4. Expenditure before the check period 19,024.25
5. Likely savings before the check period 11,408.30
6. Less Assets before the check period 3,232.75
Net Savings/asset before the check period 8,175.55
STATEMENT 'C' (INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD) Srl. DETAILS OF INCOME DURING THE CHECK VALUE (in No. PERIOD Rs./-)
1. Sale proceeds of ancestral property of Shri L.C. 38,200 Gupta (1975-1980)
2. Income of Shri L.C. Gupta from Rationing Shop 17,600 No.18, DDA, Janta Kalkaji FPS N.4970 (January 1976 to January 1978)
3. Commission Income of M/s. Janta Shoe Store at 12,851 Shop No. BA-6, DDA Shopping Centre, Munrika between July 1978 to June 1980 of Shri L.C. Gupta.
4. Income of M/s. Guptaji Agencies from 1979 to 1986 84,805
5. Income of Smt. Jagni Devi from the General 32,199.02 Insurance between 01.03.1979 to 31.03.1981
6. Income of Shri R.C. Gupta from February 1983 to 61,550 March 1986
7. Income of rent from M/s. Vee En Aggarwal Chit Fund 60,000 (P) Ltd. at shop no.BD-4, DDA Shopping Centre, Munirka between March, 1983 to June 1986.Page 46 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
8. Rental Income from M/s. CAIRS (P) Ltd. tenant at 26,400 H.No.A-212A, Village, Munirka from 01.09.1984 to 30.06.1986
9. Rental Income from Smt. Manju Gupta a tenant at 38,600 H.No. A-212A, Village, Munirka between May 1983 to June 1986
10. Rental Income from M/s. AFCON Ltd. From 14,400 01.01.1983 to 31.12.1983 at H.No. A-212A, Village Munirka
11. Income from salary, honorarium, OTA, refund of 2,30,214.55 tuition fee & HBA of Shri J.R. Gupta, between 01.01.1973 to 30.06. 1986.
12. Interest income from various Bank/ Postal accounts. 13,625.77
13. Loan from Vaish Co-op Bank, Darya Gang, New 5,000 Delhi dated 07.08.1975.
14. Difference of the income & premium paid in the 2 35.12 LIC Policies upto June, 1986.
15. Income from Himachal Pradesh Lotteries in favour of 20,000 Shri Rakesh Kumar.
16. Income from the sale of flat No.4, SFS, DDA, Niti 2,00,000 Bagh, New Delhi to Smt. Shanta Vasudevan in January 1984.
Total Income 8,55,480.46 STATEMENT 'D' (EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD) Expenditure of the accused during check period are given below :-
Verifiable Expenses :
Srl. DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE DURING THE EXPENSES No. CHECK PERIOD (in Rs./-)
1. Rent paid to Shri Tara Chand Saini, R/o. 84, Church 1,200 Road, Bhogal, New Delhi w.e.f. January 1973 to December 1974 @ Rs.50/- per month.
2. Amount paid to Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal by 60,000 30.09.1983 for the transfer of business interests of M/s. VEE EN Aggarwal Chit Fund, Munirka Branch.
3. Children Education Expenses 13,680
4. Property tax of A-38/D, DDA, MIG Flat, Munirka in 3,280 the name of Sh. J.R. Gupta w.e.f. 01.05.1975.Page 47 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
5. Property tax of H.No.A-212A, Village Munirka in the 8,600 name of Sh. R.C. Gupta w.e.f. 01.12.1983.
6. Property tax of Shop No.BA-6, DDA, Munirka w.e.f. 3,040 13.02.1978 in the name of Sh. L.C. Gupta.
7. Property tax of Shop No.BD-4, DDA Munirka in the 4,360 name of Smt. Geeta Devi w.e.f. 13.02.1978.
8. Water charges of H.No.A-38/D, Village Munirka 165.25 w.e.f. 15.07.1978 in the name of Shri J.R. Gupta.
9. Water charges of H.No.A-212A, Village Munirka 81.9 w.e.f. 01.12.1983 in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta.
10. Total telephone expenses in respect of telephone 15,342.76 no.653330/664876 in the name of Smt. Jagni Devi up to June 1986.
11. Electricity charges in respect of H.No. A-38/D, DDA 3,018.85 Munirka up to June 1986.
12. Electricity charges in respect of H.No. A-212A, 2,445 Village Munirka up to May 1986.
13. Electricity charges of Shop No.BD-4, DDA Shopping 1,465.94 Centre, Munirka up to June 1986.
14. Electricity charges of Shop No.BA-6, DDA Shopping 1,751.58 Centre Munirka upto April, 1986.
15. Non-Verifiable Expenses. 45,041.1 Total Expenditure 1,63,472.38 STATEMENT 'B' (ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE CHECK PERIOD) Assets of the accused during the check period from 01.01.1973 to 26.06.1986.
Movable assets :
Srl. DETAILS OF MOVABLE ASSETS VALUE (in
No. Rs./-)
1. Household goods/requisites on the basis of inventory 66,505
prepared at the time of search.
2. Cash fund at H.No.A-38/D, DDA Munirka during 29,267
search.
3. Gold Jewellery fund at H.No.A38/D, DDA Munirka 11,800
during search (Cost at the time of acquisition).
4. National Savings Certificate. 26,000 Page 48 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
5. Last balance in A/c. No.6775 of Master Vijay Kumar 206.6 S/o Shri J.R. Gupta, Canara Bank, Munirka.
6. Last balance in A/c. No.3288 of Shri R.C. Gupta S/o 36,797.95 Shri J.R. Gupta, Canara Bank, Munirka.
7. Last balance in A/c No.4608 of Rakesh Kumar S/o 8.637.7 Shri J.R. Gupta, Canara Bank, Munirka.
8. Last balance in A/c No.6776 of Master Ajay S/o Shri 516.7 J.R. Gupta, Canara Bank, Munirka.
9. Last balance in A/c No.16224 of Shri L.C. Gupta 4,679.32 (HUF) at PNB, R.K. Puram.
10. Last balance in A/c No.1611, Central Bank of India, 20,982 Vikas Minar of Shri J.R. Gupta.
11. Last balance in A/c No.1543 of Smt. Jagni Devi, W/o 2,089.02 Shri J.R. Gupta at Central Bank of India, Vikas Minar.
12. Last balance in RD A/c No.1250 of Shri J.R. Gupta, 4,204 Central Bank of India, Vikas Minar.
13. Deposits in CTD A/c No.109161 of Shri J.R. Gupta, 12,750 AGCR Building, Post Office.
14. Last balance in SB A/c No.2351220 of Shri J.R. Gupta, 426.75 IP Estate Post Office.
15. Last balance in A/c No.3779 of Shri R.C. Gupta in 11,826 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka.
16. Last balance in benami A/c No.2596 in the name of 28,996.2 Shri Suresh Chand Goel, State Bank of India, DDA Building.
17. Last balance in benami A/c No.3185 in the name of 23,402.86 Shri Jitender Prasad, SBI DDA Building.
18. Last balance in the benami A/c No.14888 in the name 24,687.8 of Sh. Mangi Lal, PNB, R.K. Puram.
19. Last balance in the benami A/c No.14442 in the name 5,799.6 of Smt. Geeta Devi, PNB, R.K. Puram.
20. Cash of Rs.10,000/- found at the office of the accused 10,000 during search, which he claims to be of Shri Bal Kishan.
TOTAL OF MOVABLE ASSETS 3,29,574.5
Page 49 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
IMMOVABLE ASSETS :
Srl. DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS VALUE (in
No. Rs./-)
1. Flat No. A-38/D, DDA, Munirka in the name of Shri 44,200
J.R. Gupta.
2. Cost of land paid to Shri Bhagvan Singh in June, 46,000
1982 for plot No.A-212A, Village Munirka.
3. Construction cost of H.No.212A, Baba Gang Nath 2,17,120 Bazar, Munirka in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta during 1982-83.
4. Shop No.BA-6, DDA Shopping Centre, Munirka in 65,700 the name of Shri L.C. Gupta on 13.02.1978.
5. Shop No.BD-4, DDA Shopping Centre, Munirka 57,000 purchased in July, 1981 (a benami assets in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi).
6. Shop No.18, DDA Janta Flats Market, Kalkaji on 19,000 21.05.1975 in the name of Shri L.C. Gupta.
7. Flat No.4, SFS, DDA Niti Bag, New Delhi purchased 1,50,841 in the name of Shri Mangi Lal in December, 1983, a benami asset.
TOTAL OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS 5,99,861
14.Thus, the accused acquired assets worth Rs.3,29,574.5/- + 5,99,861.0 (movable + immovable) = Rs.9,29,435.5/- during the check period.
15.Accordingly, Sh. Jiwan Ram Gupta had been found in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.2,29,251.87/- to his known sources of income as on 26.06.1986 i.e. at the end of check period, as calculated below, which he could not satisfactorily explain :-
A Saving/Assets at the beginning of the check Rs.8,175.55 period B Assets at the end of check period i.e. on Rs.9,29,435.5 26.06. 1986 C Assets acquired during the check period (B- Rs.9,21,259.95 A) D Expenditure during the check period Rs.1,63,472.38 E Total assets and expenditures during the Rs.10,84,732.33 check period i.e. (C+D) Page 50 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 F Income during the check period Rs.8,55,480.46 G Extent of disproportionate assets (E-F) Rs.2,29,251.87
16.First of all, I shall deal with the arguments of defence against validity of present prosecution. Admittedly, this is the third round of the prosecution after failure of previous two chargesheets on the technical grounds of invalid sanctions. However, it is worth to mention that such issue was already raised by accused in this case and vide order dated 03.04.14, passed on the point of charge, this court had given a decision against such objection raised by the accused. The same issue was also taken to High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 08.02.2012, passed in Crl. M.C. No. 2183/2011, High Court of Delhi upheld the summoning of accused without fresh sanction order and confirmed that there was no merit in such objection of the accused. Since, this issue has already been determined by High Court of Delhi, therefore, the same issue cannot be agitated before this court, in view of finality of the same as attained in Crl. M.C. No. 2183/2011.
ASSETS BEFORE CHECK PERIOD:
17.As per CBI, accused had assets worth value in the sum of Rs. 8175.55 before the cheque period. However, accused challenged the projected value of the aforesaid assets. Ld. counsel referred to inventory list Ex. PW23/2 (D-74) to point out certain entries and to submit that some more articles pertaining to pre-check period were not taken into consideration by CBI.
18.Ex. PW-23/2 is the relevant inventory, which was prepared during search conducted on 27.06.86, at the residence of accused situated at A-38D, MIG Flats, Munirka, New Delhi. This inventory was prepared on the basis of articles found during the search proceedings and as per this inventory, the value of the items were assessed and mentioned with the help of inmates of the house and witnesses. This list was proved by PW23/Sh. Ganesh Verma, who was posted as Inspector in CBI during Page 51 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 relevant period. According to his testimony, he was part of this search team and Insp. P.R. Singh was the Incharge of the team. He had prepared the inventory of all household articles and he identified his signature on this document.
19.PW26/Sh. Jagdish Singh Malik was an independent witness, who was joined in this search proceedings as independent witness. He also vouched in his testimony that a search list and inventory was prepared by CBI officer on the basis of documents taken by them and the articles found in the flat of accused. In the cross-examination of PW23, defence suggested that valuation was not mentioned in the inventory list as per inputs given by the accused or his family members, but this suggestion was denied by PW23. At the same time, it is worth noting that accused did not dispute the fact that the search list and inventory lists were prepared as per documents seized by CBI official and the articles found at his residence. It is further worth mentioning that PW27/Sh. Ramesh Gupta was also examined in this case, who is son of the accused. Defence in cross-examination of this witness, confronted him with Ex. PW-23/1 (wrongly written as PW-23/A) and this witness identified his signature appearing at point X on the same. He also testified that this search was conducted in his presence and around Rs. 29,000/- were recovered by CBI officer. Defence did not dispute the fact that this search was conducted nor did ask this witness if valuation of articles found during this search were done by CBI officer on the basis of inputs given by him or other family members or through any other person. Even during arguments, veracity of the inventory i.e. Ex. PW-23/2 as well as valuations were not challenged. As far as valuation of articles found during search is concerned, since all these articles were in possession of accused, therefore, even otherwise in order to challenge given valuation of any particular article, he was supposed to produce and prove the relevant evidence in the form of invoice, bills, etc., to dispute the given Page 52 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 valuation. Since, these articles belonged to him and his family (accused claimed that certain articles belonged to his family members), he was in possession of relevant evidence and CBI was not supposed to produce such invoice/bills. It had not been plea of the accused that the relevant invoice or bills were taken away by the CBI. Therefore, the given valuation of the articles have to be accepted, to be based on inputs given by inmates of that house. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the given valuations.
20.In Ex. PW-23/2 (D-74), at Sr. no. 2, there is mention of one wooden cot, showing its value to be Rs. 50/- and year of acquisition as 1970; At Sr. no. 21, there is mention of ground mattresses, 3 blanket woolen, 8 Gaddas, 4 pillows and 6 air pillows, showing its value to be Rs. 1,500/- and year of acquisition from 1970 to 1985; At Sr. No. 26, there is mention of one Godrej Fridge with voltage stabilizer 165, showing its value to be Rs. 3,600/- and year of acquisition as 1972; At Sr. No. 29, there is mention of one mixer/grinder, showing its value to be Rs. 600/- and year of acquisition as 1970; At Sr. No. 53, there is mention of one sewing machine with cabinet, showing its value to be Rs. 250/- and year of acquisition as 1962; At Sr. No. 63, there is mention of 6 steel boxes (3 big & 3 small), showing its value to be Rs. 750/- and year of acquisition from 1970 to 1980; At Sr. No. 112, there is mention of one holder, showing its value to be Rs. 50/- and year of acquisition as 1970; at Sr. No. 113, there is mention of one suit case, showing its value to be Rs. 150/- and year of acquisition as 1970; and at Sr. No. 131, there is mention of one Bajaj Scooter no. DHO 4500, having value of Rs. 3,400/- and year of acquisition as 1972.
21.It is worth to mention that Bajaj Scooter No. DHO 4500 has been taken as part of asset prior to check period. The other articles pointed out by the ld. defence counsel, were though mentioned in inventory Ex. PW23/2, but after making calculation of valuations given in this Page 53 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 inventory, I find that probably valuation of all the disputed as well as above-mentioned articles were not taken into account, while projecting value of assets acquired during check period (statement B). Accused sought addition of Rs. 8,800/-in the valuation of asset before the check period, taking plea that aforesaid articles were shown to be acquired prior to check period, hence their value should have been added in the assets before the check period. The description of the assets before the check period as given in the chargesheet, does not refer to any movable property. However, the articles mentioned herein above except for Bajaj Scooter, were movable properties acquired prior to check period. In that situation, one would expect such asset to be counted as assets acquired before the check period. But, in such situation the valuation of such assets would also require to be added in the value of total assets. Since, their value was not added in the value of total assets (in Statement B), therefore, I do not find any prejudice being caused to the accused on account of omission to add value of above-mentioned movable properties in the assets before the check period. Hence, there is no requirement to make any changes in the valuation of assets before the check period i.e. Rs. 8,175/-.
STATEMENT C (INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD):
22.Though, a number of entries showing income of accused during check period were mentioned under this statement by CBI, but ld. Sr. PP during arguments fairly conceded that the income from known sources of the accused only should have been mentioned in this statement. Therefore, not all the incomes as mentioned in this statement should be taken as income of accused. Actually, while preparing chargesheet, IO projected income of accused from those sources/properties, which are alleged to be benami/illegal/undisclosed sources of the income. Such description of income were mentioned at Sr. no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 16. In fact, even accused did not claim that such income as shown at aforesaid Page 54 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 serial numbers pertained to him. It is to be noted that projection of income is favorable to the accused in such cases and it appears to be an outcome of misconception of the IO, when he opted to project aforesaid income as income of the accused. It is settled law that known sources of income means sources known to the prosecution and being a government servant, it is for the accused to account for his additional income, if any. Therefore, I shall omit to consider the incomes mentioned at above serial numbers in Statement C.
23.At Sr. No. 11, in the chargesheet CBI projected income of accused from his office during the check period. CBI had placed on record complete file of statement of pay particulars as well as recoveries and deductions, as furnished by the department of the accused. These records were not disputed by the accused. However, ld. defence counsel pointed out that salary particulars from January 1973 to March 1973 and September 1981 to March 1982 were not reflected in these documents. Though, CBI projected Rs. 2,30,214.55 as the amount received by the accused during check period from his department, however, accused projected amount of Rs. 2,41,498.05. On perusal of these documents, I do find that salary for aforesaid period was not mentioned in the statement obtained by CBI. It is not the case of CBI that no salary was paid to accused during aforesaid period. Accused has given two figures of his salary in the written arguments. One is net salary received by him and another is gross salary. On perusal of the chargesheet, I can find that IO has not included the deductions from gross salary of accused in the statement of expenditure, nor has he included assets of accused in the form of balance in GPF account in the statement of assets, though, the salary statements of the accused show that there had been consistent deductions on account of LIC premium, GPF, HBA, etc. Even premiums paid for LIC have not been included in the statement of expenditure. More over, the salary statements do mention about the additional Page 55 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 payments made to the accused on account of honorarium, OTA, reimbursement of tuition fee, arrears, etc., which are duly included in the net income. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to take into account the net income of the accused from his department.
24.There are some differences in the net income of the accused as projected by CBI and the accused. Therefore, I have carefully made calculations of the net income of the accused on the basis of undisputed salary statements. For the period from January 1973 to March 1973 and September 1981 to March 1982, the projected net income by the accused is being considered and taken into account. The final figure of net income of the accused from his department on account of salary and other payments, are as follows :-
Period (Month/ Amount Remarks Year) (Rs.) 01/1973 to 02/1974 3081.75 Including computation @ 184.25 i.e. the amount claimed by accused for period from 01/1973 to 03/1973.
03/1974 to 02/1975 3982.6 03/1975 to 02/1976 4052.35 03/1976 to 02/1977 7198.25 03/1977 to 02/1978 9074.1 03/1978 to 02/1979 10768.4 03/1979 to 02/1980 12238.6 03/1980 to 02/1981 15192.1 03/1981 to 08/1981 16176.90 09/1981 to 03/1982 9727.27 Computed @ 1389.61 i.e. the amount claimed by accused.
04/1982 to 02/1984 40773.97 03/1984 to 09/1984 14743 10/1984 to 06/1986 56025.65 Total gross income was 82427.15 including all the arrears, OTA, etc. There was total deduction in the sum of Rs.
26401.5.
Total 203034.94 Page 56 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
25.There was no dispute between both the parties regarding income mentioned at serial no.12 of Statement 'C', which is on account of interest from various banks/postal accounts and similarly, there was no dispute between the parties in respect of income shown at serial no.14 and 15 in Statement 'C', which are on account of difference in income and premium paid for two LIC policies and as income from Himachal Pradesh Lotteries in favour of son of accused namely Rakesh Kumar. In respect of income mentioned at serial no.13 of Statement 'C', ld. Sr. PP for CBI submitted that there is no evidence of the same. On the contrary, ld. defence counsel submitted that it was so taken into account by IO on the basis of some documents itself, which have not been placed on the record with chargesheet. In my opinion, this income could not have been shown in Statement 'C' without having such document/record in hand by IO. Therefore, this income should be taken into account as income of the accused.
26.During arguments, ld. defence counsel submitted that the IO did not take into account the payments received by accused from LIC during check period. On perusal of file D30, which was admitted by accused and is Ex.P16, on page no.8 and 10 I do find documents thereby suggesting that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid to the accused vide communication of LIC dated 03.07.1984 in policy no. 24407503 on account of survival benefit. Similarly, document D-56 exhibited as Ex.P38 i.e. the communication from LIC dated 28.10.1986 as sent to SP, CBI, establishes that another policy no. 6236270 of the accused was matured on 20.03.1985 and maturity amount in the sum of Rs.7,742/- was paid to the accused. Both these amounts were not mentioned by IO in Statement 'C', though they are to be treated as income of accused during check period. Hence, additional amount of Rs.8,742/- is to be also taken into consideration as income of the accused. It was also conceded by ld. PP that accused had obtained HBA in the sum of Rs. 34,125/-.
Page 57 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 There are no other incomes of the accused projected by accused and thus, the total amount of income of the accused is settled at Rs. 2,03,034.94 + 13,625.77 + 5,000 + 35.12 + 20,000 + 8,742 + 34,125 = 2,84,562.83.
STATEMENT D (EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD):
27.Before taking up various expenditures as mentioned in Statement D, I would like to clarify in respect of deductions from the salary of accused on account of repayment of HBA and payment of LIC premium. As regards repayment of HBA, it has to be appreciated that these deductions have already been taken care of by only considering the net amount received by accused every month during the check period. Therefore, there is no requirement to mention the deductions additionally in the statement of expenditure. As regards payment of LIC premium as well, same logic applies as applicable to repayment of HBA and hence, they are not to be considered under the head of expenditure.
28.Under the head of expenditure also, though a number of entries were shown in the Statement D by CBI, however, during arguments ld. PP conceded that the expenditures shown at Sr. No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 & 14, have not been proved on the record. At the same time, in the written arguments, CBI has referred to testimony of PW22 in respect of expenditure mentioned at Sr. No. 1. However, on perusal of testimony of PW22, I find that he only vouched about receiving rent from the accused during period between 1970-1972. Apparently, such period is not covered in the check period and hence, such payment even if made by accused, cannot be considered under the head of expenditure during check period. In respect of entry at Sr. no. 2, no particular evidence has been pointed out in the written arguments and hence, this entry also cannot be considered. Regarding expenditure mentioned at Sr. No. 3, ld. defence counsel submitted that only an amount of Rs. 2,190/- was proved by CBI and therefore, the given amount of Rs. 13,680/- cannot Page 58 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 be considered. CBI has referred to Ex. P28 as the relevant document, which relates to this particular expenditure on account of education of the children of the accused. As per this document (which is not disputed by the accused), four sons of the accused had studied in Kendriya Vidalaya New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi and the total amount of fee including other charges were paid as per following description:-
Sr. Name Rate of fee Total fee
no.
1 Ramesh Chand Gupta For class 1 to 8 Rs. 5 p.m. Rs. 5 X12X8 = 480/-
For class 9 & 10 Rs. 15 p.m. as Rs. 20 X 12 X 2 =480/-
tuition fee & Rs.
5 p.m. as P.F.
2 Rakesh Kumar Gupta For class 1 to 8 Rs. 5 p.m. Rs. 5 X12X8 = 480/-
3 Ajay Kumar Gupta No period Rs. 5 p.m. as
mentioned P.F.
4 Vijay Kumar Gupta No period Rs. 5 p.m. as
mentioned P.F.
As against amount of Rs. 13,680/- mentioned in the chargesheet, accused projected expenditure of Rs. 2,190/- in his written arguments. On the other hand, CBI projected amount of Rs. 12,240/- in the written arguments.
29.From the above-mentioned description of information given in Ex. P28, it is well apparent that complete period of payment of fee in respect of three sons, were not given therein. If total amount of fee paid for the first son namely Ramesh Chand Gupta is made basis to calculate total fee paid for remaining three sons as well, then the total amount of fee paid comes to be Rs. 3,840/-. However, as per same document, Master Ajay Kumar Gupta was admitted in this school in class 4 and CBI has not obtained any other record regarding fee paid for him in any other school. It was obviously duty of the IO to place on the record the relevant documents regarding complete expenditure on account of education of Page 59 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 children. But not all the documents have been placed on the record, to point out the exact amount of fee paid by accused in clear cut terms. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to accept the amount as projected by the accused in his written arguments i.e. the sum of Rs. 2,190/-.
30.There is no dispute between both the parties in respect of entry at Sr. no. 4, 8, 11 & 15. Therefore, there is no need to deliberate upon these particular entries of Statement D. CBI has conceded in the written arguments only about entries mentioned at Sr. No. 5 & 6 as not proved. However, as already observed herein above, during arguments ld. PP had conceded that other entries mentioned at Sr. No. 7, 9, 12, 13 & 14 also have not been proved. Still for the sake of clarity, I would take up these disputed entries for discussion.
31.At Sr. No. 7, there is entry regarding property tax of shop no. BD 4, DDA Munirka in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi. In the written argument the relevant document is referred as D-36/4. I find that this particular document is simplicitor a photocopy of fixation of property tax in respect of BA/6, DDA Munirka, which is in the name of Sh. L.C. Gupta. Thus, apparently, this document has no connection with the aforesaid entry. Further more, I fail to understand that how CBI can refer to an unproved document as a piece of evidence, so as to show a particular expenditure. Similarly, the entry at Sr. No. 9 relates to water charges of H. No. A-212A, Village Munirka and in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta. D- 36/1 mark was given by CBI to a particular file, wherein several communications between MCD and CBI alongwith photocopies of certain documents are placed. However, none of these documents were proved and tendered in evidence by CBI. There has to be a concrete evidence to show that a particular payment was made by accused, so as to treat it as expenditure on his part. On the basis of unproved documents, no such presumption can be raised. Same logic applies to Page 60 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 entry at Sr. no. 12. In respect of this entry, which relates to electricity charges in respect of same house i.e. H. No. A-212A, CBI has pointed out to Ex. P36. However, P36 actually relates to property no. 38A DDA Munirka, New Delhi. Similar statement in respect of property no. 212A was not tendered in evidence at all, which is document D-52/1. This document shows name of the consumer as Sh. R.C. Gupta. This document is in nature of statement of dues against the electricity connection and such document in no manner suggests that the payment of electricity bills were made by the accused. Same document (P36) has been referred by CBI in respect of entry at Sr. No. 13 & 14. However, it is misconceived argument of CBI to refer to this document because Sr. No. 13 referred to electricity charges related to shop no. BD4, DDA Centre, Munirka and Sr. No. 14 related to shop no. BA6, in the same complex. The relevant statement of dues for these two electricity connections are different documents i.e. D52/2 and D52/3 respectively. These documents were also not proved, nor these documents could establish that the payments were actually made by the accused. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the written arguments filed by CBI related to such entries.
32.Now, I shall deal with last disputed entry, which appears at Sr. No. 10 in Statement D. This entry relates to expenses on account of telephone bills having no. 653330 & 664876. Accused has disputed the contention of CBI that such expenses were incurred by accused. Accused had admitted the telephone bills u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel submitted that by admitting these documents, accused simply dispensed with the formal proof of these telephone bills. However, accused never admitted that he had actually paid these bills. He referred to testimony of PW27 who deposed that telephone bills were paid by Guptaji Agencies. On the other hand, CBI has simply referred to telephone bills from P43 to P104 to submit that these documents prove this entry. I am in agreement with contention that merely by admitting telephone bills, accused did not Page 61 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 admit making payments of these bills.
33.The telephone bills placed on the record relate to above-mentioned two numbers. On perusal of these bills, one can find that the telephone was installed at different premises and in different name during different period. The telephone no. 653330 remained installed at premises no. A- 38, DDA, Munirka in the name of accused for certain period and bills for such period are from Ex.P51 to Ex.P68. Some of the remaining bills show that the same number was installed in the name of Jagni Devi at different premises i.e. M/s Guptaji Agencies, BA6, Munirka, during different period and these bills are Ex.P43 to Ex. P50 and Ex. P77. Remaining bills show that the telephone number was changed from 653330 to 664876 and it remained in the name of Jagni Devi. The premises also remained the same i.e. Guptaji Agencies, BA6, Munirka. In these circumstances, the bills, which were raised in the name of Jagni Devi at a different premises, cannot be assumed to have been paid by accused. It was duty of CBI to produce other evidence to show that payment of all these bills in the name of Jagni Devi C/o M/s Guptaji Agencies and installed at BA6, Munirka, were actually made by accused from his fund.
34.However, the telephone bills raised in the name of accused at premises no. A38, Munirka are on different footings. This property admittedly belongs to the accused (so admitted by accused in respect of such asset shown at Sr. No. 1 in Statement B related to immovable properties). Thus, this connection was in the name of accused installed at his property and in that situation, if the payment of these bills were not made by the accused and were actually made by some different person, then it was onus of the accused to prove the same. By virtue of these bills being raised in the name of accused and payments of the same being reflected from the bills itself, it has to be presumed that such payments were made by the accused. Thus, an amount of Rs. 6282.6 is to be Page 62 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 taken as expenditure on the part of accused, in respect of payment of telephone bills (which are placed on record and are Ex. P51 to Ex. P68) in his name.
35.There is no dispute in respect of last entry mentioned at Sr. No. 15 related to non verifiable expenses in the sum of Rs. 45041.10. Thus, the total expenses established on the record comes to be Rs. 2190 + 3280 + 165.25 + 6282.6 + 3018.85 + 45041.00 = Rs. 59977.70. STATEMENT B (ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE CHECK PERIOD) MOVABLE ASSETS:
36.The first entry at Sr. No. 1 in Statement B relates to valuation of household goods. This valuation is on the basis of articles found in the house of accused during search conducted on 27.06.1986. An inventory of the articles found at the residence of the accused at A-38, Munirka, New Delhi was prepared which is Ex. PW-23/2.
37.In the preceding paragraph related to assets acquired prior to check period, I have already discussed about validity of the valuation of articles found during house search of the accused. On perusal of inventory Ex.
PW23/2 and on calculation of given valuation of all the articles mentioned therein, the total value of all the articles comes to be Rs. 1,26,352/-. In the list itself, remarks were noted besides some of the items i.e. items mentioned at Sr. No. 17, 26, 75, 122 & 125. In the inventory list, it was further mentioned that item nos. 122 & 125 were claimed to be of M/s Guptaji Agencies and wife of accused. If the items which are shown to be acquired either prior to check period or partly prior to check period and partly during check period, are excluded from the purview of valuation, then the total value of remaining articles comes to be Rs. 1,26,352 - 8,800 = Rs. 1,17,552/-. Out of this valuation, the total valuation of jewelleries as mentioned in the inventory list comes out to be Rs. 11,800/-. Accused in his written arguments also claimed deduction of value of a colour T.V allegedly purchased in the name of his Page 63 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 father (Rs. 10,000/-). After making such deductions from the projected value in the statement, the amount comes out to be Rs. 1,17,552 - 10,000 = 1,07,552/-. The value of cash amount found during search is separately mentioned at Sr. No. 2 of the statement and hence, this amount is also to be deducted from the aforesaid value. The value after deduction would be Rs. 1,07,552 - 29,267 = Rs. 78,285/-. The item mentioned at Sr. No. 75 was claimed to be gifted item, which was so mentioned in the remarks given beside that entry, so this amount is also deducted from the given value and the figure comes out to be Rs. 78,285 - 300 = Rs. 77,985/-.
38.Accused projected value of household articles at Rs. 47,705/-. On the contrary, on the basis of same inventory list, in the written argument CBI has modified the valuation of household articles at Rs. 69,893/-. However, it was not explained by CBI as to what was the basis of giving this valuation. The accused has made calculation so as to deduct amount of Rs. 8800/- and Rs. 10,000/- from the projected value in the chargesheet i.e. Rs. 66,505/-. However, even this formula is not correct because, as already mentioned herein above, sum total of total valuation as given in the inventory list is 126352. Therefore, these amounts were to be deducted from the total valuation given in the list. It cannot be assumed that the projected valuation in the chargesheet included aforesaid amounts and it is so apparent from the calculations explained herein above.
39.On perusal of inventory list Ex. PW-23/A, I find that at Sr. No. 126, description of several jewellery/ornaments were given and it was also remarked that these jewelleries were said to be 100 years old. For such reasons their valuation was not taken at all. The other jewelleries were mentioned from Sr. No. 127 to 130 and their year of acquisition was mentioned to be during check period i.e. from 1981-1992. Ld. defence counsel had claimed that the jewelleries mentioned in the inventory list Page 64 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 were part of stridhan of wife of the accused and hence, they cannot be taken into consideration. However, it is worth noting that accused did not bring any evidence on the record to show that what particular jewelleries were part of stridhan of his wife. As a Government Servant, accused was supposed to inform his department about his assets at the time of joining the services. After his marriage, he was under duty to declare all the assets in his name as well as belonging to his wife. Accused had the means to prove on the record at least on the basis of aforesaid declaration that what jewelleries formed part of stridhan of his wife, but he did not do so. P14 i.e. D25 are the files related to communication of accused to his department and these files are admitted documents. In these files, I could find intimation given by accused to his department regarding purchase of a refrigerator on 15.01.75 by his wife, out of her stridhan, meaning thereby accused was conscious of such obligation upon him to inform his department about any asset being acquired by him or his wife and he had been doing so. There was a declaration/property return related to the year 1983-84, which was part of this file but placed in different file i.e. B3 alongwith other documents, which were sent to GEQD. This further shows that accused had filed property return to his department and in that situation, it could be easily established by the accused that what particular jewelleries were received by his wife, which formed part of her stridhan. As already noted herein above, CBI had already omitted to take into consideration several jewelleries found at the residence of the accused on the basis of claim made by the inmates of house that they were more than 100 years old, which could be part of stridhan (i.e. gifted to wife of accused during his marriage). Apart from that, Mangalsutra as mentioned at serial no.128 may be also excluded from the consideration, taking a favorable view for the accused that it might be part of stridhan as well. However, for want of any other evidence produced by accused to rebut the presumptions that Page 65 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 remaining jewelleries were found in his possession and were reported to be acquired during check period. I conclude that valuation of other jewelleries should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, out of Rs 77,985/-, if given value of Mangalsutra in the sum of Rs.2,200/- is deducted, the figure comes at Rs. 75,785/-. This valuation would take care of valuation mentioned at Sr. No. 3 of the statement as well. It is also worth to mention here that the scooter number DHO4500 had not been taken into consideration as assets acquired during check period separately and it's given value in the inventory list has already been deducted. Thus, I do not find any reason for giving further deduction to the accused on account of value of household goods. Thus, the total valuation of household goods and the jewelleries found at the residence of accused is fixed at Rs. 75,785/-.
40.The second item in this statement relates to cash found at the residence of accused during the search conducted on 27.06.86. As per search list Ex. PW-23/1, an amount of Rs. 29,267/- was found in western bedroom of the house. This amount has been taken as the asset of the accused by the CBI. On the part of accused, argument was made that prosecution did not lead evidence to prove that this cash amount was asset of the accused, nor this cash amount was produced before the court. It was further argued that no seizure witness deposed about recovery of this cash amount. In the written arguments, another set of argument was that as per inventory list, cash amount of Rs. 19,894/- and Rs. 3,588/- were recovered from steel almirah belonging to M/s Guptaji Agencies and PW27 testified that such amount was sale amount of M/s Guptaji Agencies. Similarly, amount of Rs. 5,785/- belonged to Jagni Devi, which was recovered from her bed room and such cash amount was not seized from the possession or person of the accused. Even PW27 deposed that accused was not present during this search.
Page 66 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
41.It is to be noted that after conducting the aforesaid search proceedings, two lists were prepared by CBI officer. One was search list which is Ex. PW23/1 and another was inventory which is Ex. PW23/2. PW27 is son of accused, who was admittedly present during search proceedings. There is dispute raised in respect of presence of accused during such search proceedings. PW27 supported the plea of accused about his absence, though, other witnesses of this search proceedings i.e. PW23 Sh. Ganesh Verma and PW26 Sh. Jagdish Singh Malik vouched about presence of accused at his residence during this search proceedings. PW23 could not identify accused in the court initially, but when he was so pointed out then he deposed that the accused present in the court was the similar person with some changes. He said that there was hair loss and that accused had become older. On the other hand, PW26 could identify accused at first instance itself and he further deposed that when the team had raided his residence, accused was actually shaving and he was having shaving brush while opening the door of his flat. Both of these witnesses vouched that the CBI team had conducted search and prepared list of all the articles in their presence. They identified their respective signatures on these two lists. Both of these witnesses were suggested by defence during their cross-examination that accused was not present during search at his residence, but they denied such suggestion. Though, PW27 had reason to support his father, but at least for PW26, I do not find any reason to falsely identify the accused and to vouch for his presence.
42.It was contention of accused that the seized cash amount was material object, which should have been produced before the court and should have been proved before the court. In this regard, accused also relied upon a case law titled as Jitender v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 (10) SCC 562. In this case Supreme Court was dealing with situation of non-production of 'ganja and charas' during trial of the case and in that Page 67 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 context it was observed that "the best evidence would have been the seized material which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their feature and production of panchnama does not discharges the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act. In this case, we noticed that Panchas have turned hostile so the panchnama is nothing, but a document written by the concerned police officer. The suggestion made by the defence in cross-examination is worthy of notice. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses that the landlady of the house in collusion with police had lodged a false case only for evicting the accused from the house in which they were living."
43.In the present case, the scenario and the evidence are totally different. Accused himself has referred and relied upon the testimony of PW27, who is son of the accused. This witness had not supported the case of prosecution in all respects and was cross-examined by ld. Prosecutor for CBI as well. From his testimony, it can be seen that ld. defence counsel had suggested various facts to him, which were not so connected with his examination in chief and which suggestions were favorable to the accused. This witness had supported the accused by admitting all those suggestions. Therefore, it cannot be said that this witness was hostile for the accused. Even this witness during his cross-examination by defence counsel deposed that search was conducted in his presence and around Rs. 29,000/- in cash was recovered by CBI officer. He also deposed that sale amount in cash of Guptaji Agencies for last day, was also kept in the almirah, which was also seized by CBI officer and this amount would be around Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 23,000/-. Thus, what this witness wanted to project, was that out of around Rs. 29,000/- recovered by CBI officer, around Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 23,000/- belonged to Guptaji Agencies. This Page 68 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 witness was not further cross-examined on this aspect by defence counsel, nor any further suggestions were given to him regarding owner of remaining amount. In that situation, even if testimony of PW27 is to be relied upon, then at least Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/- did not belong to Guptaji Agencies.
44.Thus, even on the basis of testimony of PW27, there remains no dispute to the fact that amount of around Rs. 29,000/- was found and recovered by CBI officer from the residence of the accused. Therefore, there cannot be any scope of raising dispute regarding recovery of such amount, especially, when even defence did not challenge such fact during cross-examination of PW27. In such situation, non-production of the cash amount before the court does not affect the case of the prosecution. The observations made in the cited case, hence, are not applicable to the facts and evidence of this case. Though, accused should have established the ownership over such cash amount as per claim made during search proceedings and the plea taken by him during this trial, but accused did not lead any evidence in this regard. Such amount was found in his residence, therefore, presumption is that he was owner of the same. It was his onus to rebut this presumption. Accused could have summoned and proved respective cash register of Guptaji Agencies for the relevant day/period, in order to show that so much of amount actually belonged to Guptaji Agencies. Still, realising a probability being in favour of plea of accused, I would take into consideration a sum of Rs. 7,000/- only as part of assets of the accused. This amount has been taken on the basis of inference raised out of cross-examination of PW27 as conducted by defence counsel i.e. Rs. 29,000 - Rs. 22,000 = 7,000/-.
45.There had not been any dispute between both the parties regarding items mentioned at Sr. No. 4 i.e. NSCs in the sum of Rs. 26,000/- during oral arguments. However, in the written arguments accused had pleaded Page 69 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 that this item may be held as not proved, though, even in the argument, accused admitted having purchased these NSCs on the basis of cheque issued from his bank A/c no. 1611. In these circumstances, I do not find any basis for accused to raise this dispute and hence, these NSCs are to be treated as part of assets of the accused.
46.In respect of entry no. 5 in the sum of Rs. 206.6, entry no. 7 in the sum of Rs. 8637.7, entry no. 8 in the sum of Rs. 516.7, entry no. 10 in the sum of Rs. 20,982/- , entry no. 12 in the sum of Rs. 4204, entry no. 13 in the sum of Rs. 12,750 and entry no. 14 in the sum of Rs. 426.75, accused has not raised any dispute and has admitted them to be part of his assets.
47.The next item under dispute is at Sr. No. 6 of the statement, which relates to last balance in A/c no. 3288 in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta. CBI has referred and relied upon testimony of PW16 and Ex. PW16/1 to say that this amount was part of benami asset of the accused. On the other hand, accused has argued that there is no evidence to prove this amount to be asset of accused. Accused has further relied upon testimony of PW27, who was the account holder of this account and who claimed to be owner of such amount on the basis of his business and income. Accused has also referred to ITR of PW27.
48.In this respect, it is to be seen that ld. prosecutor for CBI had proved partnership deed of M/s Guptaji Agencies through PW27, which is Ex. PW26/9. This document was found and recovered from the residence of the accused. In his examination in chief, PW27 deposed that he was having two saving accounts bearing no. 3779 OBC Munirka and 3288 Canara Bank, Munirka. He deposed that these accounts were being maintained by him and the passbooks were taken by the CBI officer. He further deposed that in the year 1983-84, he worked as Manager in V.N. Aggarwal Chit Fund and he had been also partner of M/s Guptaji Agencies since April 1986. Though, he was cross-examined by ld.
Page 70 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 Prosecutor but nothing came out of the same to show that this witness had no independent income at all or that the amounts were being deposited in his account by the accused. Even ld. Prosecutor did not suggest that PW27 was not partner of the firm or that deed was bogus document. In the past prosecution relied upon this deed and proved it through PW27.
49.There was another argument of ld. Sr. PP that Sh. R.C. Gupta was minor son of accused, therefore, it is assumed that the accounts in his name were being maintained by the accused himself. PW27 deposed that his date of birth is 27.02.67. A/c no. 3779 came into existence since August 1984 and A/c no. 3288 came into existence since February 1983. As per given date of birth, PW27 would have attained majority in the February 1985. However, it has to be appreciated if it can be assumed that no minor person can have his independent income. I am afraid if any law would support such presumption. Mr. R.C. Gupta might have his independent income either from any job or gifts being received by him or business interest. Law recognizes a minor being beneficiary of a partnership firm as well. In these circumstances, I do not find any evidence to assume that the last balance in the bank accounts in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta as mentioned at Sr. No. 6 as well as Sr. No. 15 of Statement, are part of assets of accused.
50.The next item in dispute is at Sr. No. 9 of the Statement, which relates to last balance in A/c no. 16224 in the name of Sh. L.C. Gupta (HUF). Sh. L.C. Gupta was father of the accused and accused has taken plea that his father was having his own business and income. He was having interest in M/s Guptaji Agencies as partner and therefore, accused has no relation with his account. CBI has simply referred to Ex.P34 as the relevant piece of evidence to say that this account was also benami account of the accused. Ex.P-34 is nothing but a statement of this account. This statement of account in no manner can suggest that it was Page 71 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 being operated and maintained by accused rather than Sh. L.C. Gupta. Before I look into similar contentions of CBI in respect of alleged benami assets of the accused, it is appropriate to remember that the burden of proof to prove such allegations lies upon the prosecution. It was so held in the case titled as M. Krishnareddy v. State, 1922 4 SCC 45.
51.The relevant observations made by the court are as follows:-
"19. Needless to say that this Court in a series of decisions has laid down the guidelines in finding out the benami nature of a transaction. Though it is not necessary to cite all those decisions, it will suffice to refer to the rule laid down by Bhagwati, J. as he then was in Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 816 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 190 : AIR 1977 SC 796] In that case, it was contended that the amounts lying in fixed deposit in the name of one Shanti Devi was an asset belonging to the appellant and that Shanti Devi was a benamidar of the appellant. The learned Judge speaking for the Bench has disposed of that contention holding thus: (SCC pp. 830-31, para 26) "It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof."
52.I would also like to reproduce analysis of certain contentions related to benami transactions in the case of In Krishna Nand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977, SC 796, by a three judges bench of Supreme Court:-
"The burden would be on the prosecution to show that the sum of Rs.4,850/- in respect of the premium on the policy of insurance of Sheela Devi was paid not by her but by the appellant. This, we are afraid, the prosecution has failed to Page 72 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 establish by leading any cogent and satisfactory evidence. The first item challenged on behalf of the appellant was Rs.486/-, which was made up of three sums of Rs.210/-, Rs.116/- and Rs.160/- paid to Sheela Devi. The explanation of the appellant in his evidence was that these three amounts had been paid by him to Sheela Devi in repayment of small loans taken from her. It is no doubt true that there is no documentary evidence to support this story of small loans having been taken by the appellant from Sheela Devi, but in the absence of any positive evidence on the side of the prosecution, which would disprove the claim of the appellant, we do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the appellant on this point.
The last item of expenditure was in connection with the marriage of the sister of the appellant and under this head, the prosecution claimed that the appellant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.7,895.75/-, but there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the appellant had incurred any expenditure in connection with the marriage of his sister. The only circumstance on which reliance was placed on behalf of the prosecution in this connection was that a note book containing an account of the marriage expenses was found from the residence of the appellant when a search of his premises was carried out in 1962. But that by itself cannot possibly lead to an inference that the expenditure shown in the account must have been incurred by the appellant.
The next item of assets to which we must refer is the land at Varansi which was purchased for Rs.2,500/- in 1956. The sale deed of this land was in the name of Shanti Devi and hence, it must be presumed, unless the contrary is shown by the prosecution, that the land belonged to Shanti Devi in whose name it was purchased and it stood in the records of the Municipal authorities. The case of the appellant was that this land was purchased by the father of Shanti Devi for her benefit and the consideration for the sale was also provided by the father of Shanti Devi. Ramadhar Avasthi D.W. 22, the father of the first husband of Shanti Devi, clearly stated in his evidence that Anant Ram, the father of Shanti Devi had purchased a plot of land for Shanti Devi for Rs.2,500/- and this was supported by Bachhalal D.W. 11 who was one of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed. It is indeed difficult to see how this evidence led on behalf of the appellant could be brushed aside and without any evidence Page 73 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 whatsoever led on behalf of the prosecution, it could be concluded that the purchase price of the land was paid by the appellant and that the land was purchased by the appellant in the name of Shanti Devi. We must, therefore, exclude this land in computing the total assets belonging to the appellant.
It must be remembered that the fixed deposit stood in the name of Shanti Devi and the burden, therefore, lay on the prosecution to show that Shanti Devi was a benamidar of the appellant. It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burben has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on MM, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. (Vide Jayadayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra, MANU/SC/0332/1973) : [1974]2SCR90. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion, because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. Here, in the present case, no evidence at all was led on the side of the prosecution to show that the monies lying in fixed deposit in Shanti Devi's name were provided by the appellant and howsoever strong may be the suspicion of the court in this connection, it cannot take the place of proof. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution has failed to show that the sum of Rs.11,180/- lying in fixed deposit in Shanti Devi's name belonged to the appellant."
53.Coming back to the facts and evidence of this case, I find that there is no positive evidence on the record to show that the account mentioned at Sr. no. 9 in the name of father of accused and the account mentioned at Sr. no. 11 in the name of wife of accused were benami assets of the accused. In respect of account in the name of wife of accused, once Page 74 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 again CBI relied upon statement of account and testimony of PW24. However, neither statement of account can prove that this account was actually operated or maintained by the accused, nor testimony of PW24 Sh. Anil Kumar Singh helps the case of CBI in any manner. PW24 was simply a witness shown to be witness to specimen signature and handwriting taken from accused and he had not even supported such plea of the prosecution.
54.The next disputed assets of accused are mentioned at Sr. No. 16, 17, 18 & 19 of the Statement B, which relate to A/c No. 2569 in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goel, A/c no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jitender Prasad, A/c no. 14888 in the name of Sh. Mangi Lal and A/c No. 14442 in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi. Once again accused has disputed this allegation that these accounts were part of his benami assets. CBI produced PW21/Sh. Narender Kumar and PW28/Sh. Suresh Chand Goel to prove such allegations. PW28/Sh. Suresh Chand Goel was the person in whose name one of such accounts was maintained. He deposed that he never opened such account nor did he operate this account. He worked for accused for 5-6 months in his shop being run in the name of M/s Guptaji Agencies. After going thorough various cheques issued from this account, this witness deposed that the same did not bear his signature. Similarly, after going through some deposit slips related to this account, he deposed that same were not filled by him nor the same were filled at his instance. Thus, this witness supported the case of prosecution to say that this account was neither opened by him nor operated by him. In his cross-examination by defence counsel, it came up that he was nephew of the accused (accused being Fufaji). He denied that signatures appearing on account opening form and specimen signature card in the name of M/s Guptaji Agencies pertained to him. He further denied the suggestion that he signed bank account opening form for M/s Guptaji Agencies in the capacity of partner of this Page 75 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 firm.
55.Accused argued that prosecution did not confront this witness with bank account opening form and other documents of this account, nor did prosecution examine the concerned officers of the bank, who verified physical appearance of the account holder.
56.The background of such allegations is that the CBI team had also conducted a raid at the office of accused situated at ISBT Kashmere Gate on 27.06.1986 and during such raid in his chamber, which had admittedly taken place in his presence, CBI team had recovered various documents including NSCs in the name of accused and several passbooks of different bank accounts. All these documents were seized vide search memo Ex.PW13/1. The passbooks which were seized pertained to A/c no. 23569 of SBI, A/c no. 3185 of SBI, A/c no. 2569 of SBI, A/c no. 14442 of PNB, A/c no. 1250 of Central Bank of India and A/c no. 1611 of Central Bank of India. This witness deposed that he had signed on the top of all the documents, which were seized and he identified accordingly all the seized documents before the court. In his cross-examination by defence, he reiterated that search list Ex. PW-13/1 was prepared in his presence and documents were seized in the office of accused. It was not disputed by defence that such search was conducted and these documents were so recovered and seized from the office chamber of the accused. PW16 also reiterated the same fact and identified his signature on search list Ex. PW13/1. His statement was also not disputed by the defence.
57.This background assumes importance because among the passbooks recovered from the office of accused, one was pertaining to account mentioned at Sr. No. 16, another was pertaining to the account mentioned at Sr. No. 17 and the account mentioned at Sr. no. 19 of Statement B. All these accounts are alleged to be part of benami assets of the accused. In the background of such allegations, undisputed Page 76 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 recovery of passbooks of such accounts, being maintained in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goyal, Sh. Jitender Prasad and Smt. Geeta Devi assumes importance and creates an adverse circumstance against the accused.
58. Another relevant background in respect of such accounts had been that during investigation after recovery of such materials in this case and on the basis of further investigation carried out by CBI, CBI registered separate cases bearing RC 3/87, wherein two separate chargesheets were filed with no. 382/2/88 and 504/2 and RC no. 4/87, wherein chargesheet was filed with CC no. 116/01/08. Trial was conducted in all these three cases.
59.The allegations made in the chargesheet 382/2 in RC 3/87 ACU were that accused herein had prepared false bank documents in respect of A/c no. 2569 SBI in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goyal, A/c No. 3185 SBI in the name of Sh. Jitender Prasad and A/c no. 14442 PNB in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi. It was further alleged that accused had opened these accounts after preparing false documents in the shape of account opening form, specimen signature card, pay-in-slips, cheques, etc. for operation of such accounts in the name of given persons as mentioned herein above. It was mentioned that investigation in respect of A/c no. 2569 in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goyal was pending, for which separate chargesheet if necessary would be filed. It was further alleged that opinion from handwriting experts were obtained and accused was found culprit of forging bank documents related to other two accounts i.e. A/c no. 3185 and A/c no. 14442 and accordingly he was prosecuted for offence u/s 467/468/471 IPC. Charges were framed against accused in the trial court and thereafter trial was conducted. During the course of trial, accused filed application seeking permission to plead his guilt and accordingly his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement accused herein admitted that he had opened the Page 77 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 account no. 3185 in the name of Sh. Jitender Prasad and A/c no. 14442 in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi. He also admitted his signatures on pay- in-slips and cheques related to these accounts. Accordingly, he was convicted in the chargesheet bearing no. 382/2 under RC 3/87.
60.Another chargesheet was filed with case no. 504/2 in same RC no. 3/87, wherein CBI alleged against the accused that he had prepared false document in order to open account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goyal and he forged signature of Mr. Goyal on the said documents, pay-in-slips, cheques etc. It was also reported that handwriting experts had confirmed handwriting and signature of accused on such forged documents and accordingly he was prosecuted for the offence u/s 467/468/471 IPC. Once again charges were framed against accused in this chargesheet as well and trial was conducted. After examination of certain prosecution witnesses, accused had filed same kind of application in this case also to plead guilty. Once again his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he admitted his signatures on pay-in-slips and cheques of this account and the fact that he had opened this account in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goyal. He was accordingly convicted in this chargesheet as well.
61.In the same sequence, accused was chargesheeted in RC. 4/87, with allegations that Sh. Mangi Lal remained in employment of accused at his shop, who was not a man of means. Accused booked a DDA flat in the year 1979, under Scheduled Caste quota in the name of Sh. Mangi Lal under signatures of Sh. Mangi Lal. Though, Mangi Lal did not belong to Scheduled Caste. Said Sh. Mangi Lal left employment of accused in 1980 and thereafter, he never came in contact with accused nor did he make any payment in connection with allotment of aforesaid DDA flat. Accused deposited amount of three installments for this flat in the sum of Rs. 56,700/-. In February 1983, accused received final demand letter for balance payment of this flat. Thereafter, accused used one Sh. Rati Ram Page 78 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 to impersonate as Mangi Lal and to sign various documents as Mangi Lal. Said Sh. Rati Ram was also a poor man, who accepted offer of accused. Thereafter, accused deposited a sum of Rs. 94,186.95/- through two challans which were signed by Sh. Rati Ram at the instance of accused in the name of Mangi Lal. This flat was accordingly taken possession of, using Rati Ram as Mangi Lal and all the papers were delivered to the accused by Rati Ram. After taking possession of this flat in Neeti Bagh, the flat was sold to Smt. Shanta Vasudevan for a sum of Rs. 2 lac. For this purpose also said Rati Ram was used as Mangi Lal to sign the documents and to impersonate as Mangi Lal before purchaser. Thereafter, accused took Rati Ram to Punjab National Bank and Rati Ram signed as Mangi Lal on various documents for A/c no. 14888. Accused himself filled the papers and signed as Geeta Devi in the column of introducer. Accused procured the passbook and cheque book of this account, which was opened in the name of Sh. Mangi Lal. He obtained signature of Sh. Rati Ram as Mangi Lal on the blank cheques and using those cheques accused withdrew several amount from this account for his own use.
62.CBI further reported that handwriting expert had given positive opinion regarding handwriting and signature of accused as well as Rati Ram on the respective documents. Said Sh. Rati Ram had given a confessional statement before ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and thus, accused alongwith Rati Ram were chargesheeted and prosecuted for criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of such conspiracy offence of cheating, forgery of documents, etc. i.e. u/s 120B and Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC. Rati Ram was granted conditional pardon u/s 306 Cr.P.C. in that case and he had become approver. In the said case also charges were framed against accused for offence u/s 420/467/468/471 read with 120B IPC and accused herein voluntarily pleaded guilty. Consequently, he was convicted in this case as well on the basis of his plea of guilt.
Page 79 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
63.Accused has not disputed the facts that aforesaid cases were registered against him and that above mentioned proceedings had taken place resulting into his conviction in each of three chargesheets as referred herein above. Ld. counsel for accused argued that accused was suffering from old age ailments and he found that there was no likely end of these cases in near future. Under these circumstances, accused met officials of CBI to put an end to his ordeal and accordingly, he filed applications to plead guilty. He further submitted that order passed by court in those cases were not based on full trial and the judgment passed in these cases cannot be taken as evidence or proof of guilt for the purpose of offence in this case.
64.The next limb of argument has been made that these documents were neither relied upon by the CBI in the list of documents nor it was relied upon by prosecution in the examination of any witness. These documents (certified copies of chargesheet, order on charge, charges framed against the accused, statement of accused, statement of some witnesses and final order/judgment of all three cases) were taken on record at the stage of proceedings u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and same cannot be read in evidence against the accused. Another argument was that no judgment passed in other case for other offences can be relied upon and accepted as conclusive evidence of guilt of the accused in this case. In this respect, accused relied upon two case laws i.e. Anil Bihari Ghosh v. Latika Bala (1955) 2 SCR 270 and Chandrakant Jha v. State, 2016 (228) DLT 81.
65.Accused has come up with another set of argument also, to say that all the documents related to aforesaid two cases i.e. RC. No. 3/87 and RC. no. 4/87 were collected during investigation of this case and if the investigating agency found that the accused had committed other offences as well, then accused should have been tried for all such offences in single trial. He has argued that alleged acts of opening Page 80 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 accounts in the name of four persons and attributing the balances therein as disproportionate assets of accused were so connected together as to form same transaction, for which he should have been tried in one trial. Therefore, separate trial of accused in aforesaid three chargesheets/cases under RC 3/87 and RC 4/87 was illegal and hit by Section 220 (1) Cr.P.C. as well as section 300 Cr.P.C. In this respect accused has relied upon judgments passed in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. G.Venkateshwara Rao, 2011 (2) SCC 703 and State v. Nalini, 1999 (5) SCC 253. There are no counter arguments for aforesaid submissions of accused from the side of CBI.
66.I have gone through the cited case laws. In the case of Anil Bihari (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with appeal against revoking and annulling the probate granted in respect of last Will of one Binod Lal Ghosh and accused has relied upon the observations as under:-
"On this question, the court below have assumed on the basis of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court in the Sessions Trial that Charu was the murderer. Though, that judgment is relevant only to show that there was such a trial resulting in the conviction and sentence of Charu to transportation for life, it is not evidence of the fact that Charu was the murderer. That question has to be decided on evidence."
67.On perusal of this judgment, I do not find much elaboration over this legal issue. However, there are detailed elaboration over this issue in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chandrakant Jha v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi [2016(228) DLT 81], wherein following relevant observations from another judgment passed in a connected case were reproduced:-
"17. Generally, the law precludes evidence of previous offences or convictions and such evidence is inadmissible. Similar facts are, therefore, ordinarily inadmissible to prove the main fact, a part of the transaction, or the identity or Page 81 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 connection with the accused, as they would only show a general disposition or habit. However, Sections 14 & 15 of the Evidence Act do stipulate and covenant exceptions to this axiom. 'Similar fact evidence' is admissible if it bears on the question whether the acts alleged to constitute a crime were designed or mere accidents and thereby to rebut defences alleging an innocent state of mind. This rule applies when mental condition of the person with reference to a particular act is in issue.
18. 'Similar fact evidence' can be led when there is a nexus between the similar fact and the main fact in issue. Apposite, when several distinct offences demonstrate a continuity of action, evidence of previous or subsequent acts would, common sense states, become relevant. For in such cases, proof of cumulative facts may aid in proving the main fact in a case. A series of transactions or acts are relevant when they seek to bring about a certain result and obtain certain object. The best way to apply the 'similar evidence test' is to ascertain the facts to be proved (factum probus) and ascertain whether there is sufficient and reasonable connection or a common link with the evidentiary fact. When there is a significant and particular connection of the facts to be proved with the evidentiary fact, i.e., factum probandum, 'similar fact evidence' is admissible. Mere similarity is not sufficient and is not a common link, but a pre-existing plan or design and where one transaction forms a part of a series designed to bring about certain result with a certain object, the connection envisaged above exists. For example, when A is required to prove that B has committed a fraud, it is neither sufficient nor relevant to prove that B had committed fraud on others, but it may become relevant if it is to be shown that the fraud committed on B was a part of series of other transaction having common features.
19. Section 7 of the Evidence Act states that facts which tend to prove or disprove the acts under enquiry, immediate or otherwise, or constitute the state of things under which they happened, which afford an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction are relevant. 'Similar fact evidence' principle would therefore apply when the earlier and post wrongful acts are a part of systematic pursuit with the same criminal objective. As per Section 8 of the Evidence Act, exculpatory statements are relevant. We accept and acknowledge that the prosecution, to secure Page 82 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 conviction is required to rule out the possibility of innocence and another person being the perpetrator. Hence, it can rely upon evidence to establish animus of the act to rebut by anticipation defences of ignorance, accident or any other assertions regarding innocent state of mind.
20. The 'striking similarity' test could be applied and accepted as permissible within the ambit and scope of Sections 7, 8, 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act. This test negates and repels any chance of misuse or over evaluation for it does not dilute the principle that admission of a mere general disposition or tendencies is impetuous and dangerous being conjectural and remote. 'Striking similarity' test finds recognition and can be discerned from the illustrations to Section 14, specially (a) to (d) quoted above. 'Similar fact evidence' in such cases may be given to prove and establish, the identity of the perpetrator when it relates to and has a definite and precise reference to a particular matter in question. Strange, exceptional or atypical nature of acts on two or more occasions on a particular matter, could make it safe to rely upon, for interpreting the conduct in question. It is this nexus and link which helps to draw the distinction between a general or particular act. This stringent requirement would satisfy the touchstone and criterion of a particular matter and not a mere general disposition".
68.In the same case, High Court also observed that "for the purpose of the present case, we would hold that the recitals and findings in our judgment in the criminal appeal no. 216/2015, Crl. No. 655/2013 and death reference no. 2/2013 and death reference no. 3/2013 should not be read as evidence in this case, on the issue and findings recorded therein, i.e. correctness or the truth of the contents. However, the said judgments are relevant as to show their existence, date and legal effect. In other words, the pronouncement of the said judgments would be conclusive in the chargesheet relating to FIR no. 609/2006 as to the fact that it was pronounced and the result i.e. conviction of the appellant Chandrakant Jha but not accuracy of the said decision."
69.In the present case, it is true that CBI did not bother to bring on the record certified copies of chargesheets and proceedings before the court Page 83 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 in the above mentioned three cases. It was a direction given by this court exercising powers u/s 165 Evidence Act read with section 311 Cr.P.C. to place such documents on the record. Thereafter, the documents were put to the accused for the purpose of admission and denial and accused admitted these documents, for obvious reasons that he never disputed aforesaid proceedings. In these circumstances, these documents were not required to be tendered in evidence by any particular witness. Response of accused was taken in respect of these documents u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused was prejudiced in any manner.
70.It has to be appreciated that these documents are not merely judgments passed in other three cases. Besides judgments, there are chargesheets, order on charge, charge and statement of accused as pertaining to those proceedings. All these documents are relevant in this case because, they tend to show prosecution of accused on the basis of a set of facts/allegations and plea of accused taken therein as well as final result of those cases. In this proceeding, this court does not have to look into the correctness of the judgments passed in those three cases. The alleged facts in aforesaid three cases regarding opening of four bank accounts in the name of different persons on the basis of forged signatures by the accused and the alleged facts regarding acquiring a flat in Neeti Bagh, New Delhi from DDA by making payment of the same and using a different person's name for the purpose of allotment of such flat, constitute a chain of facts in support of allegations in this case regarding holding benami properties by the accused. Hence, chargesheets and charges framed in those cases are relevant facts for this case. This court is obviously entitled to look into the plea of accused as taken in those cases and there is no dispute from the side of accused that he had actually taken such plea before the court in those cases. This is relevant so as to show the conduct of the accused, in addition to Page 84 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 the final result of those proceedings.
71.Superior courts have recognized principle of estoppel in criminal proceedings as well and I find that it is useful to refer to such observations as made by superior courts in different cases. Same are as follows.
72.In the case of Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0129/1969, three judges bench of Supreme Court observed that :-
"It should be stated that the principle of issue-estoppel is different from the principle of double jeopardy or; autrefois acquit as embodied in Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The principle of issue- estoppel is a different principle, viz. where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by the terms of Section 403(2) Cr.P.C."
73.In the aforesaid case, Supreme Court referred with approval to the observations made in the case of King v. Wilkesi, 77 C.L.R. 511, wherein it was observed that :-
"Issue-estoppel is concerned with the judicial establishment of a proposition of law or fact between parties. It depends upon well-known doctrines which control the relitigation of issues which are settled by prior litigation."
74.Similarly, Supreme Court also referred with approval to the observations made in the case of Marz v. The Queen (1956) 96 C.L.R. 62 Dixon, wherein it was observed that :-
"The law which gives effect to issue-estoppels is not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the finding which amounts to an estoppel still less with the processes of reasoning by which the finding was reached in fact....... It is enough that an issue or issues have been directly raised and found. Once that is done, then, so long Page 85 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 as the finding stands, if there by any subsequent litigation between the same parties, no allegations legally inconsistent with the finding may be made by one of them against the other."
75.In the case of Pritam Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415, again a three judge bench of Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against conviction of appellant and sentence of death as passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Amtritsar and so confirmed by High Court of Punjab. As per facts of that case, appellant Pritam Singh Lohara had faced trial in two different chargesheets. One trial related to offence u/s 302 IPC, while the other trial related to possession of firm arm and for offence u/s 19(f) Arms Act. Fire arm alleged to be in possession of Mr. Pritam Singh was allegedly used in the murder case as well. The appellant was acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge for offence u/s 19(f) Arms Act, though, he was convicted in another trial for offence u/s 302 IPC. Dealing with the aforesaid facts and situations, Supreme Court made following observations:-
"15....... The High Court, on the other hand, relied upon the observations of Lord MacDermott at p. 479 in Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federal of Malaya, 1950 A.C. 458:-
The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication.
The maxim 'res judicata pro veritate accipitur' is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. Here, the appellant having been acquitted at the first trial on the charge of having ammunition in his possession, the prosecution was bound to accept the correctness of that verdict and was precluded from taking any steps to challenge it at the second trial".Page 86 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 "20..... The acquittal of Pritam Singh Lohara of that charge was tantamount to a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the possession of the revolver Ex.P-56 by him. The possession of that revolver was a fact in issue which had to be established by the prosecution before he could be convicted of the offence with which he had been charged. That fact was found against the prosecution and having regard to the observations of Lord MacDermott quoted above, could not be proved against Pritam Singh Lohara in any further proceedings between the Crown and him. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right in rejecting the evidence regarding the recovery of Ex. P-56 against Pritam Singh Lohara and the evidence against him would have to be considered regardless of the alleged recovery of Ex. P-56 at his instance".
76.Thus, on the basis of aforesaid case laws, the legal position also emerges as that once a particular decision has attained finality in respect of certain facts, then any of the parties to such decision is stopped from taking a contrary stand from such decision. Therefore, the decisions given in aforesaid cases against the accused assume importance in this proceeding, because by virtue of principle of estoppel, accused is stopped from taking a contrary plea as taken by the court in aforesaid three cases. The net result remains that accused admitted that he had opened and operated four bank accounts (as per description given herein above) in the name of Sh. Suresh Chand Goya, Sh. Jitender Prasad, Sh. Mangi Lal and Smt. Geeta Devi, on the basis of forged documents under his signatures and handwriting and that he acquired a flat in Neeti Bagh, New Delhi from DDA by making payment of the same and using name of Sh. Mangi Lal, for the purpose of allotment of such flat.
77.In addition to aforesaid circumstances, testimony of PW21 also assumes importance in this case, which is related to same aspect. PW21 Sh. Narender Kumar testified that he worked with accused for around two and half years in same office and accused was his boss. He had seen Page 87 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 his handwriting and signatures. He after having seen signature card of the account no. 1611 in the name of accused, deposed that it bore signature of accused. Such identification by him was a kind of test regarding his ability to identify the signature of accused. This was admitted account of the accused and obviously it is not the plea of the accused that signature card did not bear his signature. Thereafter, this witness had seen a number of cheques, deposit vouchers and pay-in- slips related to aforesaid accounts in the name of Sh. S.C. Goyal, Sh. Jitender Prasad and in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi. He confirmed that all these banking instruments bear handwriting and signature/initial of accused. In his cross-examination, ld. defence counsel confronted him with three additional documents containing initial of accused and it was suggested that initials in these three documents were different from the other documents, on which the witness had identified signature/initial of accused. Witness admitted that the initials on the three documents i.e. Ex. PW-21/D1, Ex. PW-21/D2 & Ex. PW-21/D3 were different from the initials of the accused on the other documents. However, at the same time, he also added that even the initials on the documents identified by him were not altogether same. Thus, the witness while being firm over his identification, made it clear that all initials of accused were not alike. Interestingly, it was not even suggested to him that the handwritings, signatures and initials of the accused were wrongly identified by him on various banking instruments.
78.Thus, in addition to aforesaid adverse circumstances appearing against the accused, evidence of PW21 further confirms that accused had been running three of aforesaid four accounts in the name of four different persons, but for his own benefit by depositing the amounts and withdrawing the same.
79.It is also worth to refer to some of the responses given by accused in response to the questions put to him u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of Page 88 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 identification of his signature on the cheques as well as deposit vouchers related to A/c no. 14442 in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi. Accused in response to such questions appearing on Sr. No. 97, 101, 107, 109 and 114 took plea that such cheques and deposit vouchers were not evidence against him. At the same time, he further took plea that Smt. Geeta Devi had a shop adjacent to the shop of his father in Munirka and on her request, he used to collect payment of her cheques and handed over the amount to her. Similarly, while being confronted with a cheque issued out of account no. 2569 in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel in question no. 154, though, accused pleaded it to be a false evidence, but at the same time, he also pleaded that cheque in question was issued by Sh. S.C. Goel as self cheque, which he had collected and handed over the amount to Sh. Goel on same day.
80.In his response u/s 313 Cr.P.C, though, accused took plea that identification of his signature and initial on various deposit vouchers as well as cheques related to three accounts in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel, Sh. Jitender Kumar and Smt. Geeta Devi, were false, but, it has to be seen that during cross-examination of PW21, accused did not raise any dispute regarding correctness of the identification made by PW21. Moreover, it is wrongly pleaded by accused that prosecution did not confront PW21 with undisputed handwriting and signature of accused. In fact, PW21 first of all, identified signature of accused on the signature card of admitted account of the accused and on admitted signature of accused on memos. Further more, accused himself came up with a kind of admission regarding his signatures/initials on some of the cheques and vouchers, on selective basis, but the given plea by him that he withdrew such amount for Geeta Devi and S.C. Goel and handed over the same to them, was not proved by the accused. He did not suggest Sh. S.C. Goel/PW27 about such fact during his cross-examination. Therefore, such plea of the accused is not convincing.
Page 89 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
81.Thus, on the basis of circumstance arising out of possession of passbooks of the account in the name of Sh. S.C. Goel, Sh. Jitender Kumar and Smt. Geeta Devi, seen alongwith evidence of PW21 and PW27, the above-mentioned plea taken by the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in response to some cheques and deposit vouchers, plea taken by accused during his trial in three cases arising out of RC no. 3/87 and RC no. 4/87 and estoppel on the basis of final result in these three cases, the irresistible inference shows that all these four accounts were opened and being operated by accused for his own benefits. Therefore, these accounts are to be treated as part of benami assets of the accused.
82.As far as bar by virtue of Section 220 and Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. is concerned, I do not find any merit in this contention of the accused. Even the cited case laws are not helpful for the accused, for simple reason that the prosecution of accused for offences u/s 467/468/471 IPC and u/s 120B IPC in aforesaid three cases, were based on the limited allegations of forging the documents and using the same for the purpose of cheating. Those facts are simply a part of the facts involved in this case, which relates to acquiring disproportionate assets during the check period. Therefore, it cannot be said that separate prosecution of accused for aforesaid offences under IPC could not be conducted. Hence, principle of double jeopardy cannot be applied in this case. Moreover, accused himself pleaded guilty in aforesaid three cases and he was left with minimal sentence. After availing such lenient approach of the court, accused cannot challenge the validity of those proceedings before this court. Accused was already chargesheeted in this case as well, when he had been participating in the proceedings of aforesaid three cases. He had option to raise such legal issue before High Court, so as to seek quashing of such proceeding or to seek clubbing of all the cases together. He apparently did not do so. He did not suffer any prejudice in any of the cases and therefore, such contention of the accused is Page 90 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 nothing but an attempt to get rid of this prosecution at any cost. Same cannot be accepted and hence, such argument is also rejected.
83.In the Statement 'B', CBI has mentioned the last balance in the aforesaid benami accounts. However, in the evidence of PW21, various deposits made by accused in three of the aforesaid four accounts, were proved. In these circumstances, the appropriate approach would be to take the deposited amount in consideration as part of benami asset of the accused. The reason behind this approach is that if accused deposited his unaccounted money in such benami accounts, then such deposited amount has to be treated as part of his benami assets, irrespective of withdrawals made by him. Thus, on the basis of proved pay-in-slips in respect of benami A/c no. 2569 (Ex. PW21/55 to Ex. PW21/60 & Ex. PW21/62 to Ex. PW21/77), the total deposited amount proved on the record comes out to be Rs. 30,714.79. Though, not all deposit vouchers related to A/c no. 3185 were proved on record, however, as per proved pay-in-slips from Ex. PW-21/78 to Ex. PW-21/89 amount of Rs. 9079/- stands proved to be deposited in this account under signature/initial of the accused. In respect of benami A/c no. 14888 in the name of Sh. Mangi Lal, CBI did not prove any deposit vouchers or pay-in-slips, nor the statement of this account was proved on the record, though same was placed bearing no. D-61/3. It is a major lapse on the part of CBI so as not to prove such documents. For such reason, I am unable to count any money, if deposited and lying in this benami account. In respect of benami A/c no. 14442 in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, PW21 proved deposit slips from Ex. PW21/5 to Ex. PW21/54, which were under signature/initial of the accused. The total amount deposited vide aforesaid deposit slips comes out to be Rs. 74,500/-, which is to be taken into account as assets of the accused.
84.Item no. 20 in Statement B, refers to an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which was recovered by CBI officer from the office of accused during search Page 91 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 proceedings. Accused has taken plea that this amount belonged to one Sh. Bal Kishan Jain, who had given it to him, so as to hand over to his son Sh. Ram Niwas. CBI has considered this amount against accused because, this amount was recovered from his office. Normally, it was duty of the accused to prove that this amount did not belong to him and that it belonged to Sh. Bal Kishan Jain. However, during arguments, it was informed that Mr. Jain was not alive during the stage of defence evidence. At the same time, some letters written by Mr. Jain to SP CBI, New Delhi for refund of this amount were pointed out, to say that this is not an after though plea of accused. Accused had filed copies of two such letters on the record, which were addressed to SP CBI, New Delhi and DIG, CBI, New Delhi by Sh. Bal Kishan Jain on 20.03.87 and 11.04.87 respectively. On behalf of CBI, documents were admitted and they are Ex.DA5 and DA5 respectively. Since, these letters were sent to CBI and it was also argued by the accused that IO had in fact recorded statement of Mr. Bal Kishan Jain, the court has to look into such plea of accused. In the aforesaid two letters, Mr. Bal Kishan Jain had stated that he had handed over amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused for handing over the same to his son and later on, he came to know that this amount was seized by CBI from the office of accused. Mr. Jain had requested for return of that amount to him. Insp. P.R. Singh of CBI was the officer at the helms of affairs related to this case. He had conducted the aforesaid search. The letter refers to Insp. P.R. Singh and states that he had called Mr. Jain to his office and had assured to return amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Mr. Jain. The second letter was written by Mr. Jain in reference to first letter, stating that he had neither received the amount, nor reply from the CBI. Insp. P.R. Singh was not examined in this case by CBI. Therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to put relevant questions to him during his examination. In these circumstances, in my opinion the benefit should be given to the accused, so as to omit to take into account the Page 92 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 aforesaid amount from consideration.
85.Besides various items mentioned in Statement B, I could find that there were some more passbooks related to account in the name of accused, which were not considered by IO as asset of the accused. IO has taken into account only four bank/postal accounts of accused into consideration. These passbooks were otherwise admitted by the accused and accordingly, the amount deposited during check period in such accounts were put to the accused for his response u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not deny that these were the accounts maintained by him. He took plea that these were not evidence against him because they were not subject matter of chargesheet and prosecution had not included them in his assets. He further pleaded that prior to April 1979, DDA used to pay salary in cash to him and accordingly, he had opened such account and used to deposit monthly installments, out of his salary.
86.I have already observed herein above that some more accounts in the name of accused were not taken into consideration by IO in the chargesheet, though, passbooks of those accounts were placed on the record and in fact, accused had admitted them during the process of admission and denial. Just because IO did not include them in the chargesheet, it cannot be said that these piece of evidence cannot be looked into by the court or they cannot be taken into account to make assessment of assets of the accused during check period. For any lapse on the part of IO or the prosecution, case cannot suffer. The court has to take a safeguard that accused should not be prejudiced in any manner. However, these pieces of evidence (admitted documents) were put to the accused for his response u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and thus, the accused had sufficient opportunity to lead any evidence to rebut the presumptions arising out of such piece of evidence against him. However, accused did not opt to lead any evidence or to even examine himself in his defence.
Page 93 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986
87.Another plea of the accused is to the effect that he used to get salary in cash prior to April, 1979 and accordingly, he had opened and maintained such accounts. Therefore, these accounts should not be treated as part of his assets. I do not find any merit in such contentions because it is not the case of accused that he used to deposit amount in his other accounts (which have been taken into consideration in the chargesheet) through cheque or in any other manner. The given logic by the accused, in fact, applies to all the accounts maintained by him. Still, such accounts are taken into consideration, so as to make assessment of assets acquired by the accused during the check period, on the basis of minimum balance in the same. Therefore, I find that it is appropriate to take into account even other accounts in the name of accused and the deposits made therein during check period, into consideration while making assessment of movable assets of the accused.
88.In account no. 544, Central Bank of India (Ex. P8), amount of Rs. 750/- was deposited from 01.01.73 to 24.02.75. In account no. 727, Central Bank of India (Ex. P9), amount of Rs. 1380/- was deposited from 01.01.73 to 06.12.76. In account no. 59, Central Bank of India (Ex. P10), amount of Rs. 1800/- was paid to accused against deposit since 18.02.77 to 01.03.78, which included interest of Rs. 273.50. Therefore, the net amount after deduction of interest comes out to be Rs. 1526.50. In account no. 55035, Post Office IP Estate (Ex. P11), amount of Rs. 5000/- was deposited from 24.09.77 to 15.09.84 and amount of Rs. 3100/- accrued as interest. Therefore, the net amount after deduction of interest comes out to be Rs. 1900/-. In account no. 208, Punjab & Sindh Bank (Ex. P12), amount of Rs. 2400/- was paid to the accused against deposit from 13.05.74 to 08.07.76 and amount of Rs. 200/- accrued as interest. Hence, the net income after deduction comes out to be Rs. 2200/-. In account no. 3132, SBI (Ex. P27), amount of Rs. 202.21 was the balance amount. The account statement shows that the account was Page 94 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 opened in April 1973 and was closed in June 1977 i.e. within check period. For the purpose of clarity, it is mentioned herein that I have deducted the amount of interest accrued out of sum deposited/paid to accused, therefore, the net calculated amount takes care of interest of accused, in the terms that if interest component is not added in the income and still same stands adjusted.
89.Thus, on the basis of foregoing discussions and calculations, the final figure of value of movable assets acquired by accused during check period would be Rs. 75,785 + 7000 + 26,000 + 206.60 + 8637.70 + 516.70 + 20,982 + 4204 + 12,750 + 426.75 + 30,714.79 + 9079 + 74,500 + 750 + 1380 + 1526.50 + 1900 + 2200 + 202.21 = Rs. 2,78,761.25. IMMOVABLE ASSETS:
90. At Sr. No.1 of the Statement B, there is reference to value of flat no. A-
38/D, Munirka in the name of the accused, in the sum of Rs. 44,200/-. There is no dispute between the parties in respect of the same. However, accused has disputed all remaining items given in the statement i.e. from Sr. No. 2 to 7, as being part of his immovable properties. CBI has alleged that all these properties were benami properties of the accused.
91.Sr. No. 2 refers to cost of land for plot no. A212, Village Munirka. Sr. No. 3 refers to construction cost of house over plot no. A212, Village Munirka in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta. Both these properties were admittedly in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta, who is son of the accused. Accused argued that this plot was purchased by his father in the name of Sh. R.C. Gupta, from his own fund and he had nothing to do with this property. He further argued that construction was also raised by his father from his funds. On the other hand, CBI has referred to Ex. PW19/1 to Ex. PW19/3 as evidence to support the allegations that these are benami properties of the accused. I have already discussed herein above in respect of onus of prosecution to prove a property being benami property of the accused.
Page 95 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 On the record, there is no evidence at all to even suggest that the purchase amount of the land or the expenses for construction of the house over plot no. 212A, Munirka had come from the funds of accused. PW15 and PW27 deposed against such allegations of the prosecution. PW1 also did not support such allegations of the prosecution. Thus, instead of there being any positive evidence to show that such property was benami property of the accused, I find contrary evidence on the record in the form of testimony of PW1, PW15 and PW27. Therefore, these properties cannot be treated as benami assets of the accused.
92.Similarly, prosecution alleged that shop no. BA6, DDA Shopping Centre, Munirka, Shop No. BD4, in the same complex, in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi and Shop no. 18, DDA Janta Flats, Market, Kalkaji in the name of Sh. L.C. Gupta, were benami assets of the accused. However, CBI has conceded in the arguments that such allegations could not be proved by them.
93.The last entry at Sr. No. 7, refers to flat no. 4, SFS, DDA Neeti Bagh, New Delhi, which was allegedly purchased by accused in the name of Sh. Mangi Lal. I have already given my decision in respect of this issue, while dealing with benami accounts in the name of Sh. Mangi Lal alongwith benami accounts in the name of three other persons, thereby holding that by virtue of principle of estoppel, since this issue was already settled in a previous proceeding before the court arising out of RC No. 4/87, a contrary plea of the accused cannot be accepted. This property has to be treated as benami property of the accused for which accused paid Rs. 56,700 + 94,186.95 = Rs. 1,50,886.95/- to DDA. Hence, this value is to be considered under the head of immovable assets of the accused.
94.Thus, the total value of immovable assets acquired by the accused during check period would be 44,200 + 1,50,886.95 = Rs. 1,95,086.95/-.
Page 96 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/14/2016, RC No. 2A/1986 CALCULATION:
95.Before I proceed further to finalise the calculation, it is worth to mention here again that Statement B relating to assets of the accused, as discussed in this case, dealt with purely those assets, which were acquired by accused during check period. Therefore, there is no occasion to look into the assets at the beginning of the check period, for the purpose of finding out the assets acquired during check period. Assets acquired during Value of movable assets + value of check period immovable assets i.e. Rs. 2,78,761.25 + 1,95,086.95 = Rs. 4,73,848.20.
Income during check Rs. 284562.83. period Savings during check Income - Expenditure i.e. Rs. 284562.83 - period Rs. 59,977.70 = 2,24,585.13
Disproportionate Assets Assets acquired during check period -
Savings i.e. Rs. 4,73,848.20 - Rs.
2,24,585.13 = 2,49,263.07
DA percentage DA X 100 / Income i.e. 2,49,263.07 X 100 /
2,84,562.83. = 87.59 %
96.In view of aforesaid calculations, it is found that accused acquired disproportionate assets during the check period. The percentage of disproportionate assets is much more than 10 % of his known income. Therefore, there is no scope of giving any benefit to the accused, in the background of higher percentage of DA. He has failed to account for such disproportionate assets. Hence, he is found guilty for offence u/s 5 (1) (e) punishable u/s 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and is convicted accordingly. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.07.21 17:30:03 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 21.07.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 97 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 97 of 97 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi