Bangalore District Court
Cbi P S vs Tholasirama on 30 December, 2024
KABC010298292017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-4)
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 30th DECEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHAR GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.C.No.187/2014
Complainant : Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
No.36, Bellary Road,
Ganga Nagar,
BENGALURU.
(By Senior Public Prosecutor)
Vs
Accused 1: Tholasirama
S/o Late. Bodka Naik,
Aged about 52 years,
Senior Section Supervisor,
Subscriber Fault Control,
BSNL, CTSD Outdoor,
Basaveswaranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079,
R/at. No.91, 3rd Cross,
Telecom Layout,
K.P.Agrahara (Vijayanagar),
Bengaluru- 560 023
2: Smt. H.Sharada,
W/o. Tholasirama,
D/o. Late Hanuma Naik,
Aged about 42 years,
2 Spl.CC.187/2014
R/at. No.91, 3rd Cross,
Telecom Layout,
K.P.Agrahara (Vijayanagar),
Bengaluru-560 023.
(By Sri. Kiran S. Javali, Senior Counsel)
(By Sri. Chandrashekhara K, Advocate)
***
Date of commission of From 01.10.1998 to
offence 02.02.2012
Date of report of offence 31.01.2012
Date of arrest of accused 18.06.2014
Nos.1 & 2
Date of release of accused 18.06.2014
Nos.1 and 2 on bail
Total period of custody --
Name of the complainant Source Information
Date of commencement of 08.12.2014
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence 16.12.2019
Offences complained of Under Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(e) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and
under Section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Opinion of the Judge As per the final order.
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central
Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ in short), Anti Corruption
Branch (ACB in short), Bengaluru, has filed charge-sheet
against the accused No.1 for the offence under Section
13(1)(e) punishable under Section Sec.13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act‘ in short.)
and against accused No.2 for the abetment of the said
offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal
Code (‘IPC‘ in short).
3 Spl.CC.187/2014
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as
follows;
The accused No.1 was working as a Public Servant
in the capacity of Senior Section Supervisor, Customer
Service Center, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (‘BSNL’ in
short), Bengaluru. Accused No.1, during the check
period i.e., from 01.10.1998 to 02.02.2012 acquired
assets and pecuniary resources in his name and in the
name of his family members, disproportion to his known
source of income by corrupt or illegal means and by
abusing his official position. The assets of the accused
No.1 at the beginning of the check period was
Rs.17,79,965/- and the assets at the end of the check
period was Rs.2,51,83,833/-. The income of the accused
during the check period was Rs.83,03,061/- and
expenditure during the check period was
Rs.54,47,661/-. The accused No.1 was found in
possession of the property disproportionate to his known
source of income to the extent of 303.3% of his income,
for which, he could not give satisfactory accounts. The
accused No.2 being his wife, during the check period,
abetted the accused No.1 to acquire the assets by
corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official
position by purchasing immovable property in her name
as benami of her husband out of his ill-gotten income
and thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the
offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section
13(2) of the PC Act and under Section 109 of the IPC.
4 Spl.CC.187/2014
3. On the basis of the Source Information,
CW.76 Sri.R.Hithendra, the then DIG and Head of the
Branch, CBI/ACB/Bengaluru has registered the case
against the accused persons in Cr.No.RC1(A)/2012 on
31.01.2012 for the offences under Section 109 of the IPC
and Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act as
per Ex.P.255. Thereafter, passed an order dated
31.01.2012 as per Ex.P.256 appointing and authorizing
CW.77 Sri.T.P.Ananda Krishna, the Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB Bengaluru, to conduct the investigation.
Thereafter, CW.76 has conducted the investigation and
after completion of the investigation and on securing the
prosecution sanction against accused No.1, filed the
present charge sheet against the accused persons for the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Sec.13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the IPC.
4. After taking cognizance of the offence,
summons was issued to the accused Nos.1 and 2. In
response to the process of summons, the accused have
appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. They
were provided with copy of the charge sheet and its
enclosures as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.,
On hearing the prosecution as well as the accused before
framing charge, this court was pleased to reject the oral
contention of the accused for discharge, as found
sufficient materials to frame the charge against the
accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and
under Section 109 of the IPC. Accordingly, charge was
5 Spl.CC.187/2014
framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. Prosecution side evidence:
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has shown in all 77 witnesses as CW.1 to
CW.77 and examined 70 witnesses before this Court as
prosecution witnesses (PWs) except CW.4, 11, 27, 34, 61,
74 and 76. The prosecution has got marked 271
documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.271. The prosecution
evidence in gist is described as under;
Prosec Charge Person examined Evidence regarding Exhibits
ution Sheet marked.
Witnes witne-
s No. ss No.
PW.1 CW.6 Sri. P.Bhaskaran Valuation of four Ex.P1,
Valuation Officer immovable properties P1(a)
and Executive involved in this case. Ex.D.1 to
Engineer, Income D.4
Tax Department.
PW.2 CW.7 Sri. Prabhu Furnishing of account Ex.P2 to
Gowda N. Patil, opening form and Ex.P8,
Branch Manager, statement of account P2(a), 5(a)
Karnataka State relating to SB Accounts 8(a)
Co-operative Apex of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Bank Ltd.,
PW.3 CW.5 Sri. L. Gopi Agreement of Sale and Ex.P9 to
Sale Deed executed by Ex.P11,
his wife in favour of 9(a) to (c),
accused No.2 in respect 10(a) to (c)
of Plot No.30 measuring (e), 11(a)
15 feet x 45 feet at
Vijayanagara, Subbanna
Garden.
PW.4 CW.8 Sri. Hombalaiah, Production of documents Ex.P.12 to
Retd. Sub- and regarding payment P.24
Registrar of stamp duty and P.12(a),
registration fee. 14(a) to
18(a),
21(a) to
24(a)
6 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.5 CW.9 Sri. C.V. Formation of Layout and Ex.P25 to
Manjunatha, Retd. allotment of site P34, 32(a)
Chief General measuring 30 x 40 in to 32(k)
Manager, Telecom favour of accused No.1 33(a)
BSNL situated at Vijayanagara,
Kempapura Agrahara
Layout, for Rs.2,10,000/-
and mode of payment,
stamp duty and share
amount.
PW.6 CW.10 Smt. Jyothi Sale Agreement and Sale Ex.P35,
Balakrishna Deed executed in favour 35(a) and
of accused No.2 and sale 36,
consideration paid in
respect of site No.104
measuring 30 x 40 feet
PW.7 CW.1 Sri. V.S.Goudar, Furnishing of Service Ex.P37 to
Dy. Gen.Manager, Book and Personal File Ex.P39,
Vigilance, BSNL, relating to accused No.1 P.37(a).
Bengaluru. to IO.
PW.8 CW.12 Smt. L. Sale Agreement in Ex.P9(b)
Savithramma, respect of Plot No.30
PW.9 CW.2 Smt. Vedavathi, Submission of Ex.P40 to
Accounts Officer- documents relating to 51 and
GPF/ Medical, pay, bonus, GPF details, P.167,
BSNL, Bengaluru. arrears of payment and P.40(a) to
other payments received 43(a)
by accused No.1.
PW.10 CW.3 Sri. Arup Jyothi Search of the house of Ex.P52 to
Barthakur, accused No.1 and P.62.
Manager Credit seizing of documents and P.52(a),
Section Vijaya cash and inventories of 62(a)
Bank, the articles found.
Shantinagar,
Bengaluru.
PW.11 CW.15 Sri. Shivananje Furnishing of documents Ex.P63,
Gowda, regarding membership of 63(a) and
Secretary, accused Nos.1 and 2 in 64.
Kanaka Gruha the society and amount
Nirmana paid by accused No.2,
Sahakara Sangha Allotment of site No.17
Nigama, measuring 30 x 40 in
Bengaluru. Sy.No.6 of
Subramanyapura Village,
Uttarahalli Road,
Bengaluru South .
PW.12 CW.1 Sri.Samrat Furnishing of documents Ex.P65 to
Ashokan, as to purchase of Maruti P.69, 65(a)
Dy. General Zen Estillo by accused to 68(a)
Manager, Sales, No.1 and also insurance
7 Spl.CC.187/2014
Mandovi Motors amount paid.
Pvt. Ltd.,
PW.13 CW.16 Sri. N Mohan, Ex- Furnishing of documents Ex.P.70 to
commercial regarding Purchase of 74, 70(a) to
Manager, Khivraj Bajaj Avenger Motor 74(a)
Motors, Bengaluru Cycle by T. Sanjay, son
of A.1, its cost etc.,
PW.14 CW.17 Sri.Govardhan Furnishing of the Ex.P75 to
Bhat – Ex. documents relating to 78, 75(a)
Accounts Officer, purchase of Honda
Planet Honda, Activa by A.1 and his son
Bengaluru T. Sanjay, cost etc., paid
PW.15 CW.18 Sri.Sandeep Furnishing of Account Ex.P79 to
Gowda, Br. opening Form and 82, 79(a)
Manager, statement of account P82(a)
Karnataka Bank relating to the account of
Ltd., Magadi accused No.1 and his
son T. Sanjay
PW.16 CW.19 Sri. Ramesh R. Furnishing of account Ex.P83 to
Pulake- opening form and 97, 83(a),
Concurrent statement of account 84(a),
Auditor State pertaining to Accused 86(a),
Bank of No.2 and her son Sri. T. 87(a),
Hyderabad, J.C Sanjay, Balance 89(a),
Road, B’luru available, housing loan 90(a),
availed by accused No.2 94(a),
95(a)
PW.17 CW.22 Sri. Jitendra D.J – Production of document Ex.P98 to
Regional Head, relating to Car Loan 100 and
Sales, ICICI Bank Account of A.1. 100(a)
PW.18 CW.23 Sri. Production of documents Ex.P101 to
Subramanyam, regarding LIC Policies of 105,
Then Sr. Br. accused No.1 104(a),
Manager, LIC, 105(a)
Residency Road
Br, Mysore.
PW.19 CW.25 Sri. B.H Banerji, Rent agreement and Ex.P10,
brother of accused Payment of rent to D.10 to
No.2. accused No.2. D.22
PW.20 CW.14 Sri. Shashikiran N, Production of Certified Ex.P106,
SDA, Sub- copy of the sale deed, 107, 107(a)
Registrar Office, EC pertaining to the
Kengeri. property of A.2
PW.21 CW.26 Sri. Amar Magaji His tenancy in the Ex.P.108
premises of A.2, situated
at 2nd floor Vijayanagara
and payment of Rent and
advance
8 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.22 CW.28 Sri. R. Bhaskar His tenancy in the Ex.P109,
premises of A.2 situated 109(a) and
at Ground floor No.13, (b)
2nd Cross, Subbanna
Garden, behind BTS
Garage Vijayanagara
and payment of rent and
advance.
PW.23 CW.29 Sri. G. Kumara His tenancy in the Ex.P110,
Naik – Checking premises of A.2 situated 110(a),(b)
Inspector BTS, at No.30, 2nd Cross, 1st
Bengaluru. floor, Subbanna Garden,
behind BTS Garage
Vijayanagara, Bengaluru.
And payment of Rent and
advance
PW.24 CW.30 Sri. Raghavendra His tenancy in the
J.G premises of A.2 situated
at No.30, 2nd Cross, 2nd –
floor, Subbanna Garden,
behind BTS Garage
Vijayanagara, Bengaluru.
PW.25 CW.33 Sri. Jayakara His tenancy in the
Shetty premises of accused
No.2 situated at No.31,
1st Floor, 2nd Cross, -
Subbanna Garden,
behind BTS Garage
Vijayanagara, Bengaluru
and payment of rent and
advance.
PW.26 CW.35 Sri. B.V Kumar, Production of IT returns Ex.P111, to
Income Tax submitted by accused 115
Officer No.2.
PW.27 CW.36 Sri. B.S Krishna Preparing of statement of Ex.P116 to
Murthy, Tax account and Income Tax P122,
Practitioner Returns, submission to IT P122(a),
Department and Ex.D.5 to 9
producing income tax
verification returns form
to CBI relating to
accused No.2
PW.28 CW.22 Sri. Somasekar His tenancy under
Raju, Regional accused No.2 situated at
Sales Manager, Ground Floor of 31, 2nd
Shaki Bhog Foods Cross, Kumara Garden,
Ltd. Vijayanagara, Bengaluru-
40 and payment and rent
and security deposit.
9 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.29 CW.37 Sri. C. Srinisalu – Production of income tax Ex.P.123 to
Income Tax returns of A.1 126 and
Officer, Ward 126(a)
No.1(3), Hubballi
PW.30 CW.38 Smt. Sudha Non submission of Ex.P.127
Ranganath, returns by T. Sanjay till and 127(a)
Income Tax 2012
Officer,
PW.31 CW.31 Sri. D. Prabhakar His tenancy under Ex.P128,
accused No.2 in respect 128(a).
of 3rd floor of the
premises. Bearing No.30,
2nd Cross, Subbanna
Garden Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru-40, payment
of rent and security
deposit.
PW.32 CW.39 Sri.Sheshadri.N, Production of copy of the Ex.P.129 to
Retired Sr. Br. Policy bond of accused 135, 135(a)
Manager, LIC of No.2 and her son T.
India Sanjay and payment of
premium
PW.33 CW.40 Sri. V. Production of Policy Ex.P.136 to
Chandrashekar, documents of accused 138
Assistant Br. No.1 and payment of
Supervisor Bajaj premium.
Allianz Life
Insurance.
PW.34 CW.41 Sri. S.P. Harish, Production of policy Ex.P.139 to
Then Manager document pertaining to T. 143 and
Reliance Life Sanjay and premium 139(a),
Insurance paid. 140(a)
Company
PW.35 CW.42 Sri. M.T. Production of documents Ex.P.144 to
Manchaiah, Retd. pertaining to vehicles in 164.
ARTO the name of Sanjay.T and
accused No.1, tax
registration and smart
card paid.
PW.36 CW.43 Sri. Anantha Production of the Car Ex.P.165,
Chandran, policy details of accused 166 and
Divisional No.1 and premium paid. 166(a)
Manager, National
Insurance
Company
PW.37 CW.44 Sri. Prabhakara S. Production of Policy Ex.P.168 to
Bapat, Head of the details of accused No.1 172 and
Operation, Royal, and premium paid. 168(a).
Sundaram Allianz
Insurance Co. Ltd.
10 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.38 CW.45 Sri. A.N Kumara Production of Policy Ex.P.173 to
Swamy, Retd. Sr. details of two Wheeler in 175, 173(a)
Divisional the name of accused
Manager, Oriental No.1 and fire policy and
Insurance premium paid
Company
PW.39 CW.36 Sri. B. Nagaraja, Furnishing of policy Ex.176 to
Then Br. Manager, details of Honda Activa 179 and
United India two wheeler standing in 176(a)
Insurance the name of accused
Company. No.1 and payment of
premium
PW.40 CW.49 Sri. M. Production of documents Ex.P.180 to
Chandrasekhar, pertaining to membership 182 and
the then Joint of accused No.1 in 180(a)
Secretary, Regency Institute of
Regency Institute Sports and Culture A.D
of Sports and Halli, Bengaluru and
culture payment of membership
fee by accused No.1.
PW.41 CW.48 Sri. Mukunda Payment of Donation by Ex.P.183,
Naik. K, Honorary accused No.1 to 184 and
President, Devasthanam 183(a)
Mahishamardhini
Gadduge
Ammanavara
Devasthana,
Chamsaru,
Brahmavara,
Udupi
PW.42 CW.50 Sri. Anjanappa, Payment of fee by Sri. Ex.P.185,
Superintendent of Sanjay, son of accused 186 and
Bengaluru Nos.1 and 2, studying in 185(a)
Institute of that Institution
Technology, K.R.
Road, Bengaluru.
PW.43 CW.51 Sri. Rajendra Production of document Ex.P.187 to
Prasad - A/c pertaining to payment of 189 and
Officer, Allianz Tuition fee by Sri. Sanjay. Ex.P.187(a
Business T )
Academy,
Bengaluru
PW.44 CW.53 Sri. M.S Furnishing of documents Ex.P.190,
Raghunandan the and payment of fee by 191 and
then Showroom Sri. T. Sanjay, for 190(a)
Manager, studying music in
Reynolds INC., Reynolds INC and fees
Bengaluru. paid.
11 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.45 CW.52 Sri. Mohan Kumar. Production of documents Ex.P.192
T, the Then Admin with regard to study
Manager, Gowri course of Sri. Indrajeet T,
Educational Trust, son of accused persons
Chamarajpet, and payment of fee.
Bengaluru
PW.46 CW.54 Sri. P. Anjaneyalu, Payment of property tax Ex.P.193
Tax Inspector by accused No.1 and 2 and
for the period from 2008 P.193(a)
to 2013
PW.47 CW.55 Sri. M.R. Furnishing information Ex.P.194
Byregowda, Then regarding payment of and 194(a)
Asst. Revenue property tax in respect of
Officer, BBMP, the property PID 35-36-
Govindraraja 30-N and PID No.35-36-
Nagara, 31, situated at Subbanna
Bengaluru Garden,2nd Cross,
Marenahalli, Ward
No.136, Bengaluru by
accused Nos.1 and 2.
PW.48 CW.56 Sri. Basavanna, Furnishing of R.R. Ex.P.195 to
Then Asst. Numbers in the name of 200, 195(a)
Executive accused Nos.1 and A.2 to 199(a)
Engineer, and payment of
(Electrical) development charges
BESCOM and electricity
consumption charges.
PW.49 CW.57 Smt. Furnishing of details of Ex.P.201 to
Subbalakshmi RR Numbers in the name 207,
Then Asst. of accused No.2, deposit 201(a),
Accounts Officer, of Development charges 206(a),
BESCOM, and consumption 207(a)
Vijayanagar, charges.
Bengaluru
PW.50 CW.58 Sri. Mohammed Furnishing of the Ex.P.208 to
Javed Rabbani, documents regarding P.210,
then Deputy Chief approval of drawing and 208(a) to
Electrical amount paid in that 210(a)
Inspector, regard.
Bangalore North
PW.51 CW.59 Sri. H.P. Gopala Furnishing of documents Ex.P211 to
Gowda then Asst. regarding payment of P216,
Executive water charges, P211(a)
Engineer, development charges to
BWSSB. BWSSB by accused No.1
and accused No.2.
PW.52 CW.60 Sri. Sundara Availment of hand loan Ex.P.217
Murthy, Senior from accused No.1
Section
Supervisor,
12 Spl.CC.187/2014
Customer Service
Center, BSNL.
PW.53 CW.47 Sri. Pedda Furnishing of document Ex.P.218,
Manjunath, Senior towards donation paid by 219, and
Telegraph Master, accused No.1 to SC/ST 218(a)
Customer Service Employees Welfare
Center. Association of BSNL,
Bengaluru Telecom
District.
PW.54 CW.62 Sri. Krishnaiah, Availment of Rs.5,000/- Ex.P.220,
Regular Mazdoor, loan from accused No.1 220(a) and
BSNL, Bangalore and issuance of cheque P.221.
in that regard and
repayment of the said
amount.
PW.55 CW.64 Sri. Anil Kumar Availment of the Ex.P.223
Lakshman Rs.5,000/- hand loan
Gothekar, Chief from accused No.1 and
Section issuance of blank cheque
Supervisor, BSNL. in favour of accused
No.1.
PW.56 CW.65 Sri. Umesh. K, Production of document Ex.P.224
Senior Personal relating to fee paid by Mr. and 224(a)
Trainer, Snap Indrajeeth Tulasiram.
Fitness,
A & A Fitness
Training Center,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore.
PW.57 CW.66 Sri. Subrat Kumar Furnishing of Statement Ex.P.225,
Mahopathra, Chief of Account relating to 226, 227,
Manager, Vijaya Current Account Number 225(a) to
Bank, pertaining into SP (c), 226(a)
Ganganagar CBI/ACB, Bangalore. and (b)
Branch,
Bangalore.
PW.58 CW.67 Sri. M. Nagendra Preparing of the plan of
Naidu, Registered the building, estimation of
Pvt. Engineer, the work and valuation –
report, regarding property
No.91.
PW.59 CW.69 Sri. Lakshmi Lease and Tenancy of
Narasimhaiah, the accused No.1 and 2
Stenographer, under him and payment
Prosecution of Lease amount, -
Department. security deposit by them
and return of security
deposit by deducting the
painting charge.
13 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.60 CW.71 K.M. Vishwanath, Production of the Ex.P.228 to
Branch Manager accounts opening form P.231,
Pragathi Krishna and account statement 230(a) (b)
Gramina Bank, relating to account of 231(a) (b),
Harappanahalli, Pampa Naik (PW.70)
PW.61 CW.72 Sri. T.S. Furnishing of account Ex.P.233 to
Umapathy, Branch opening form statement P.234,
Manager, of account pertaining to 233(a),
Corporation Bank, the account of Sri. B. 234(a), (b).
Davanagere Pampa Naik.
Branch.
PW.62 CW.70 Sri. A. House search of accused Ex.P.52(b),
Inbazhagan, No.1 P.62(b) and
Inspector of 62(c)P.235,
Police, CBI,
PW.63 CW.24 Smt. Anitha Her tenancy under
Padam Kothari, accused No.1 in respect
Homeopathic of the property at Ground
Doctor. floor door No.91, –
Telecom Layout,
Vijayanagar and payment
of rent and security
deposit and repayment of
security deposit
PW.64 CW.63 Sri. M. Taking of hand loan of Ex.P.236,
Purushothaman, Rs.10,000/- during 2011 237,
Senior Section from accused No.1 and 236(a),
Supervisor, City issuance of two cheques 237(a)
Railway Station, in favour of accused
Telecom Sector, No.1.
Bangalore.
PW.65 CW.73 Sri. Gawli Preparing of profit and Ex.P.238 to
Basavaraju, loss account balance P.240,
Auditor and Tax sheet, ledger account for Ex.D.25 to
Consultant. sale of agriculture 27
proceeds from
01.04.2000 to 31.12.2011
pertaining to Pampa Naik
(PW.70).
PW.66 CW.21 Sri. B.M. Production of document Ex.P.241 to
Sudhakar, Asst. in respect of availing of P.248,
Chief Manager, Housing loan by accused P.241(a),
Canfin Homes , Nos.1 and 2 and its 248(a)
Vijayanagar disbursement on
Branch, 04.11.2003 and
Bangalore. 03.12.2003 in favour of
accused No.1 and
repayment of the housing
loan with accrued
interest.
14 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.67 CW.75 Sri. D. Issuance of Sanction P.249 to
Channabasappa, Order to prosecute the 252, and
DGM, BSNL, accused No.1. 249(a) to
Vijayanagar, 251(a),
Bangalore. Ex.D.28 to
D.30
PW.68 CW.68 Sri. T. Sanjay, Furnishing of explanation Ex.P.253,
to IO by accused No.2 P254,
and by himself. P253(a),
(b), 254(a).
D.31 to
D.34.
PW.69 CW.77 Sri. T.P. Registration of FIR, Ex.P.255,
Anandakrishnan search and seizure in the 256,
house of the accused 255(a),
No.1, entire investigation 256(a),
and filing of the charge P.52(c),
sheet. P.62(d),
P.257 to
P.262,
P.265 to
P.270
PW.70 CW.20 Sri. B. Pampa Paternal Family of Ex.P.271
Naik accused No.2, Education (a) to (h)
and occupation of
accused No.2, Property
owned by his family,
selling of 4 acres of land
in favour of P. Shivappa
etc.,
6. After prosecution side evidence, the statement
of the accused was recorded as provided under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the
incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses against them. In addition to that,
they have filed written statement under Section 313(5) of
the Cr.P.C.,
7. Defence Evidence:
In this case, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have not
opted to place any evidence on their behalf. However,
15 Spl.CC.187/2014they got marked 34 documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.34
during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
8. Arguments:
Heard the arguments of Smt. K.S.Hema, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri. Kiran S. Javali,
the learned Senior Counsel and also the learned counsel
Sri.Chandrashekar K for the accused.
9. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned
Sr. Public Prosecutor has filed written memorandum of
argument and so also, the learned counsel for the
accused has filed written arguments.
10. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has
relied upon following citations in support of her
arguments.
i. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs. A. Thirumal
Raj disposed of on 14.02.2022 on the file of
High Court of Judicature for the State of
Telangana in WP No.9450/2019.
ii. State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo
Ramachandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199
iii. P. Nallammal Vs. State, represented by
Inspector of Police, disposed on 09.08.1999
by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
iv. Order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttak
Bench, Cuttak in O.A.No.740/2013 (Suresh
Chandra Nayak Vs. Chairman cum Managing
Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and
others.
v. Rajendra Agricultural University Vs. Ashok
Kumar Prasad and Others AIR 2010, SC 259.
16 Spl.CC.187/2014
The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has also
produced the copies of the Gazette Publication of the
Resolution dated 23.01.2000, letter dated 10.10.2006,
issued by D.D.G. (WS & I Section) BSNL and Articles of
Association of BSNL, Chapter II of the Bureau of Public
Enterprises Guidelines.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
accused has relied upon the following judgments in
support of his arguments ;
i. (2016) 12 SCC 87 Devendra Singh and
Others Vs. State of Punjab through CBI.
ii. (2005) 8 SCC 370 State of Karnataka
through CBI Vs. Nagarajaswamy.
iii. Judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by our
Hon’ble High Court in Crl.A.No.933 C/w
835/2010.
iv. Order dated 03.11.2015 passed in
Crl.A.Nos.1872-1873/2014 on the file of
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
v. Unreported Judgment dated 24.11.2023,
passed in Crl.A.No.322/2012 on the file of
our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, at
Bengaluru.
vi. Order dated 02.02.2022 passed in
W.P.No.6659/2011 (GM-RES) on the file of
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru.
vii.1997(7) SCC 622 Mansukhlal Vithaldas
Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
viii.1979(1) SCC 535 S.P.Bhatnagar Vs. State of
Maharashtra
ix. 1977(1) SCC 816 Krishnanand Agnihothri
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
17 Spl.CC.187/2014
x. 1992(4) SCC 45 M. Krishna Reddy Vs. State
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Hyderabad.
xi. 2015(14) SCC 505 Kedari Lal Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others.
xii.1993 SCC Online Gau 52: 1994 Cri.L.J.12
Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India.
xiii.2017(6) SCC 628 State of AP Vs.
Satyanarayana.
xiv.2006(1) SCC 420 DSP Chennai Vs. K.
Inbasagaran
xv.2017(14) SCC 442 Vasant Rao Guhe Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
xvi.2000 SCC Online MP 423 Subhash Kharate
Vs. State of MP.
12. On hearing the arguments, bestowing careful
thought to the arguments canvassed, rulings relied and
carefully scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence
produced before this Court, the point that would arise for
consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution has secured
the valid sanction to prosecute the
accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(e)
R/w. Sec.13(2) of the PC Act ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused No.1, being the public
servant during the check period
commencing from 01.10.1998 to
02.02.2012 was found in possession
18 Spl.CC.187/2014
of the property of worth
Rs.2,51,83,833/- i.e., 303.3%
disproportionate to his known source
of income, for which he could not
satisfactorily account and thereby
committed the offence under Section
13(1)(e) punishable under Section
R/w. Sec.13(2) of PC Act?
3. Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that during the said check period, the
accused No.2, being the wife of
accused No.1, abetted him to acquire
assets by corrupt or illegal means, by
abusing his official position to the
tune of Rs.2,51,83,833/- by
purchasing immovable properties in
her name as benami purchaser for
him, out of his ill-gotten income and
thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 109 of the
IPC ?
4. What order ?
13. The above points are answered as under;
Point No.1 : In the affirmative.
Point No.2 : In the affirmative to the
extent of Rs.2,38,94,274/-
i.e., 282.79%.
Point No.3 : In the affirmative.
19 Spl.CC.187/2014
Point No.4 : As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
14. Point No.1 : It is not in dispute that as on the
date of registering the case and subsequent to it, the
accused No.1 Sri.Tholasiram, was working as Senior
Section Supervisor, Customer Service Center, BSNL,
Bengaluru and thereby he was the public servant as
defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The Service
Book and the personal file relating to accused No.1 is
produced before this court as per Ex.P.38 and P.39.
Ex.P.38 reveals service of accused No.1 in BSNL as on the
date of registration of the case and also on the date of
filing of the charge sheet. It is clear that the accused No.1
joined service on 15.07.1981 in Telegraphic Department
as a Temporary Telegraphic Assistant and thereafter he
was absorbed in the BSNL after establishment of the
BSNL. The Service Book contains the document regarding
permanent absorption of the accused No.1 in BSNL. It is
noticed that by order No.27-1/Karnataka/Bangalore/
5248/2001 dated 24.01.2002, the accused No.1 was
ordered to be absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000.
Therefore, it is clear that accused No.1 was the
permanent employee of the BSNL and thereby he was a
public servant. There is no dispute in that regard.
15. The Learned Sr. Public Prosecutor, relying on
the evidence of PW.67 and Ex.P249 sanction order and
P.252 attested copy of the schedule of appointing
Disciplinary, Appellate and Reviewing Authority in BSNL
20 Spl.CC.187/2014
for non-executives, vehemently argued that the accused
No.1 comes under the Group-C category of the BSNL and
PW.67, being the Deputy General Manager (‘DGM’ for
short) of BSNL is the competent person to grant the
prosecution sanction order against the accused No.1 and
his evidence clearly depicts as to due application of mind
on the documents and materials placed before him before
granting sanction. It is also submitted by her that just
because a draft model sanction order was furnished, that
does not mean that the sanctioning authority (PW.67) has
not applied his mind. Hence, the evidence of PW.67 and
Ex.P.249 clearly establish the valid sanction to prosecute
the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Sec.13(2) of PC Act.
16. Per contra, the sum and substance of the
argument of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.S.Javali,
for the accused in this regard is that, the sanction order
produced as per Ex.P.249 is bad in law and PW.67 had
no authority to grant the sanction as he was not the
competent authority to remove the accused No.1 from his
duty. There are Chairman and Managing Directors of the
Company and the ‘Competent Authority’ is the authority,
empowered by the Board of Directors by general or
special rule or order to discharge the function or use the
powers specified in the schedule to the rules. The Board
should have given sanction or authorized the person who
gave the sanction. PW.67 was not authorized by the
Board of Directors to grant the sanction and hence he
had no authority to grant the sanction to prosecute
21 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused No.1. Further, PW.67 has not applied his mind
while granting the sanction. Mechanically and casually
he had issued the sanction order based on the draft
model sanction order furnished by the investigation
agency. In this regard, he has drawn notice of this court
to Ex.D.29 file, wherein, Draft Model Sanction Order is
found and contended that the order passed by the
Sanctioning Authority as per Ex.P.249 is nothing but
replica of draft model sanction order furnished by CBI.
In this regard, he has also drawn notice of this court on
the evidence of PW.67, the Sanctioning Authority,
contending that his evidence reveals that he was not even
aware as to whether the accused No.1 was absorbed in
BSNL or not and he has not seen the absorption order.
Further, in Ex.D.29 and D.30 file, as admitted by PW.67
himself, there is no investigation records said to have
been forwarded by CBI and hence PW.67 has not applied
his mind and only signed the draft order sent by CBI and
thereby the sanction order issued by him is without
application of mind on investigation materials.
17. The Learned Senior Counsel further
vehemently argued that admittedly, the accused No.1
joined the service in the year 1981 and the check period
stated in the charge sheet starts from 01.10.1998 to till
02.02.2012. Hence the check period includes the working
period of accused No.1 prior to his absorption in BSNL
and also the period prior to the coming into force of BSNL
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 (‘CDA Rules’
for short), which is stated to be came into force from
22 Spl.CC.187/2014
10.10.2006. Therefore, the check period has to be
considered in three stages. First one is in between
01.10.1998 to 01.10.2000, on which the accused No.1
was absorbed in BSNL. The second stage from
01.10.2000 to 10.10.2006, during which there was a
vacuum as BSNL CDA Rules came into force only from
10.10.2006. The third stage is from 10.10.2006 to
02.02.2012. During the first period, the accused No.1
was the Central Government Employee, in Telegraphic
Department, for the second period, there was no
sanctioning authority, as no rule was passed and there
was a vacuum in that regard. The third period from
10.10.2006 to 02.12.2012 is concerned, the BSNL CDA
Rules, 2006 prescribed the sanctioning authority. Since
BSNL CDA Rules came into force w.e.f. 10.10.2006,
PW.67 had no authority to grant prosecution sanction for
the entire period commencing from 01.10.1998 to
02.02.2012. He cannot give retrospective effect to the
Rule of 2006 w.e.f. 01.10.1998. At the most, PW.67 could
have given sanction only to the period from 10.10.2006 to
02.02.2012 that too under the authorization of the Board
and not with regard to the earlier period. The IO should
have taken sanction from the Telecom Department for the
first period and for the second period is concerned, since
there was nobody to grant the sanction as there was no
rules, the IO could have taken sanction from Managing
Director of BSNL for the said period. Therefore, the
sanction order issued by PW.67 is without authority.
23 Spl.CC.187/2014
18. The learned senior counsel further
meticulously argued that for having given separate
definition for ‘Competent Authority’ and for ‘Disciplinary
Authority’ in the CDA Rules, the sanction should have
been given by the ‘Competent Authority’ and not by the
‘Disciplinary Authority’. It is further argued that the
BSNL has not come into existence in pursuance of any
Statute and it is only the Central Government established
Public Sector Company and the CDA Rules are not
supported with the Statute. Further, the BSNL CDA
Rules, 2006 were not published in the official Gazette
and as such, the said Rules have no legal sanctity and
the sanction granted by PW.67 on the basis of the said
Rules also has no legal sanctity and as such sanction
cannot be acted upon. Since the Resolution dated
23.01.2000 under which BSNL was formed was
published in the official Gazette, the subsequent rules
also required to be Gazetted. In this regard, he has also
referred the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.A.No.933 c/w. 835/2010, which is confirmed by the
Apex Court in Crl.A.Nos.1872-1873/2014 and the
decision of our Hon’ble High Court in Crl.A.No.322/2012
and W.P.No.6659/2011. It is also argued by him that the
validity of the sanction order could be raised at any stage
of the proceedings even after taking of cognizance
including the appellate stage. In that regard, he has
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
reported in (2016) 12 SCC 87 and (2005) 8 SCC 370.
Since the very sanction order itself was without authority
24 Spl.CC.187/2014
and bad in law, the prosecution against the accused will
not survive.
19. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, while
addressing the reply argument, vehemently argued that
BSNL is not formed under any Statute, there is neither
parent Statute or any subordinate Legislation. The BSNL
is formed as per Memorandum of Understanding entered
into between the President of India and BSNL and it is
Public Sector Undertaking. The Public Sector
Undertaking Companies have to follow the guidelines
promulgated by the Department/Bureau of Public
Enterprises. Even, as per the Government of India,
Allocation of Business Rules 1961, the President of India
delegates his power to formulate the general policies for
Public Sector Undertaking and under the general policy,
the formation of the Rules is permissible and accordingly,
Bureau of Public Enterprises formulate the guidelines for
making CDA Rules. The BSNL CDA Rules are formed as
per the guidelines of Bureau of Public Enterprises. The
activity of the BSNL is regulated as per the terms of its
Articles of Association. Neither the Articles of Association
nor the guidelines of Bureau of Public Enterprises
prescribed the publication of CDA Rules in the official
Gazette. Therefore, the publication in the official Gazette
is neither mandatory nor required. The learned Senior
Public Prosecutor has also furnished the copy of the
letter issued by D.D.G. (WS-I Section) of BSNL, to show
the circulation of BSNL CDA Rules to all the persons
concerned and the approval of the CDA Rules by the
25 Spl.CC.187/2014
Board of Directors in their 84 th meeting held on
18.09.2006. In this regard, she has also taken notice of
this court on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rajendra Agricultural University Case contending that if
the parental law is silent about the publication and if the
same does not prescribe the publication of the Rules in
the official Gazette as a mode of publication, then, there
is no need of publication of the CDA Rules in the official
Gazette. On the other hand, if the parental Act provides
for publication of the Rules in the official Gazette, then
the said requirement becomes mandatory. If the parental
Statute is silent and the subordinate Legislation
prescribes the mode of publication, which is reasonable
then such mode of publication may be sufficient. There
may be Subordinate Legislation which is concerned with
few individuals and or confined to small local areas and
in such cases, the publication or promulgation by other
means is sufficient. In the present case there is no
requirement of publication of the CDA Rules in the
official Gazette as per the Articles of Association of the
BSNL or even under guidelines of Bureau of Public
Enterprises, under which BSNL CDA Rules are enacted.
Therefore, the publication of the CDA Rules in the official
Gazette is not necessary. The BSNL CDA Rules are
circulated among the officials of the BSNL and concerned
Department as per letter dated 10.10.2006, issued by
D.D.G. (WS & I Section) BSNL and the said CDA Rules
are applicable only to the limited persons i.e., officers/
officials of the BSNL. Further, the said CDA Rule is also
approved by the Board of Directors of the BSNL.
26 Spl.CC.187/2014
Therefore, the publication of the CDA Rules in the official
Gazette is neither mandatory nor necessary.
20. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has also
taken notice of this court on the order passed by the High
Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana in WP
No.9450 of 2009 and also the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttak Bench, Cuttak
contending that the BSNL CDA Rules are valid and acted
upon by the Authorities. It is also argued by her that the
accused No.1 has claimed all the benefits under the
BSNL CDA Rules and only with regard to sanction is
concerned, he is disowning the BSNL CDA Rules, which
is not permissible. It is also submitted by the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor that the orders passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the relied cases
referred by the learned counsel for the accused are based
on the Parental Act i.e., Bihar Agricultural University’s
Act 1987, wherein, as per Section 36 of the said Act, all
the statutes made under the said Act shall be published
in the official Gazette and based on the said aspect, the
said decisions were rendered. But, that is not so in the
present case as publication of the CDA Rules is not
mandatory and circulation of the CDA Rule is sufficient
and hence, the said decisions are not applicable to the
facts of the present case.
21. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor further
vehemently submitted that since the offence is
continuing offence, the person who is competent to
remove the official on the last date of the offence is a
27 Spl.CC.187/2014
person competent to grant the sanction. The purpose of
sanction is to protect the interest of the public servant
against frivolous prosecution and when the public
servant is absorbed in another Department, the question
of granting sanction by the previous department does not
arise. Since PW.67 is the Disciplinary Authority under
the BSNL CDA Rules, who is authorized to impose the
major penalty, is the only competent person to grant the
sanction for entire period and the sanction granted by
him is valid and lawful. Further, since the BSNL CDA
Rules authorizes only Disciplinary Authority specified
under the said rules as found in the schedule to hold the
disciplinary action, the sanction accorded by the
Disciplinary Authority is valid. Since the Disciplinary
Authority is empowered to grant the sanction, the
granting of sanction by the competent authority does not
arise and that is not prescribed under the CDA Rules.
Further, since the CDA Rules are being approved by the
Board of Directors, there is no need of authorization of
the Board again to grant the sanction order by the
Disciplinary Authority, who is entitled to pass the major
penalties. Hence, the sanction accorded by the PW.67 is
valid.
22. It is noticed that in this case, much argument
is addressed on the issue of the sanction than any other
facts. In the light of the arguments addressed, the facts
of the present case are analysed, in this case, the
criminal prosecution is initiated against the accused No.1
by the CBI Police for the offence punishable under
28 Spl.CC.187/2014
Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the PC Act. Admittedly,
the accused No.1 was the public servant, serving in
BSNL, being a Senior Section Supervisor Customer
Service, BSNL. As provided under Section 19 of the PC
Act, court cannot take cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to
have been committed by the public servant except with
previous sanction of the concerned authority, as provided
under the said provision. Hence, it is for the prosecution
to show that the valid sanction to prosecute the accused
No.1 is obtained as required under Section 19 of the PC
Act, for the offence leveled against him. Similarly, it is
incumbent for the prosecution to prove that the valid
sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority
after having satisfied as to case of the prosecution as to
commission of the offence. This process can be
established by the prosecution by producing the original
sanction order, which contains the facts constituting the
offence and the grounds of satisfaction and also by
adducing the evidence of the author, who had issued
prosecution sanction order.
23. Before considering the facts and evidence with
regard to the validity of the sanction order to prosecute
the accused No.1, it is proper to refer the decision of the
Apex court, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 in the case
between State of Maharashtra Through CBI Vs. Mahesh
G Jain in that regard. In the said decision, the Apex
Court has held that regard;
29 Spl.CC.187/2014
“the adequacy of the material placed before the
sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the
court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction
order. An order of sanction should not be
construed in a pedantic manner and there should
not be a hyper technical approach to test its
validity. When there is an order of sanction by
the competent authority indicating the application
of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt
with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed
to become tools in the hands of the accused’.
In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
reported in 2014 (4) SCC 295 in the case between CBI Vs.
Ashok Kumar Agarwal, the Apex Court has held that ;
“the prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the
time of sending the matter for the grant of sanction
by the competent authority, adequate material for
such grant was made available to the said
authority. This may also be evident from the
sanction order, in case, it is not extremely
comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances
of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order.
However, in every individual case, the court has to
find out whether there has been an application of
mind on the part of the sanctioning authority
concerned on the material placed before it. It is
also necessary for the reason that there is an
obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge
30 Spl.CC.187/2014
its duty to give or to withhold sanction only after
having full knowledge of the material facts of the
case. The grant of sanction is not mere formality.
Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction
must be observed with complete strictness keeping
in mind the public interest and protection available
to the accused against whom the sanction is
sought’.
In the said decision, it is further held that;
“it is also to be kept in mind that sanction lifts
the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an
acrimonious excise but a swollen and sacrosanct
act which affords protection to the public servant
against the frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a
weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is
a safeguard for innocent though not a shield for the
guilty. It is further held that ‘consideration of the
material implies application of mind. Therefore, the
order of sanction must ex-facie disclose that the
sanctioning authority had considered the evidence
and other materials placed before it. In every
individual case, the prosecution has to establish
and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those
facts were placed before the sanctioning authority
and authority has applied its mind on the same. If
the sanction order on its fact indicates that all
relevant materials i.e., FIR, disclosure statement,
recovery memos, draft charge sheets and other
materials on record were placed before the
31 Spl.CC.187/2014
sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible
from the recital of the sanction order that the
sanctioning authority perused all the materials, an
inference may be drawn that the sanction had been
granted in accordance with law. This becomes
necessary in case the court is to examine the
validity of the order of sanction inter-alia on the
ground that the order suffers from the vice of total
non-application of mind”.
In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court further
held that,
“there is an obligation on the Sanctioning Authority
to discharge its duty to give or withhold the
sanction only after having full knowledge of the
material facts of the case. The prosecution must
therefore send the entire relevant records to the
sanctioning authority including FIR, Disclosure
Statements, Statements of the witnesses, Recovery
memos, Draft charge sheets and all other relevant
materials. The record so sent shall also contain the
material/ document if any, which may tilt the
balance in favour of the accused and on the basis
of which, the competent authority may refuse
action. The authority itself has to do complete and
conscious scrutiny of the whole record, so produced
by the prosecution independently by applying its
mind and taking into consideration of all relevant
facts before grant of sanction while discharging its
duty to give or withhold the sanction. The power to
32 Spl.CC.187/2014
grant the sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping
in the mind the public interest and protection
available to the accused against whom the sanction
is sought. The order of sanction should make it
evident that the authority had been aware of the
relevant facts/ materials and had applied its mind
to all relevant materials. In every individual case,
the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the
court by leading evidence that entire relevant facts
had been placed before the sanctioning authority
and the authority had applied its mind on the same
and that the sanction had been granted in
accordance with law”.
24. In another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 in the case of
Subramanya Swamy Vs. Dr. Man Mohan Singh in para
44, it was held that
“a grant or refusal of the sanction is not a quasi
judicial function. What is required to be seen by
the competent authority is whether the facts placed
before it by investigation agency prima-facie
disclose commission of the offence by a public
servant. If the competent authority is satisfied that
the material placed before it is sufficient for
prosecution of the public servant, then it is required
to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the
competent authority is otherwise, then, it can
refuse sanction. The competent authority cannot
undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or
33 Spl.CC.187/2014
not the allegations made against the public servant
are true”.
25. In another decision of the Apex Court, in the
matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Amir Jaan reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 273, it was held that; ‘the sanction order
must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been
proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority’. Further, in the decision reported in AIR 2005
SC 2790 C.S.Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka, in
Spl.(Crl) No.4330/2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that “the ratio is, sanction order should speak for
itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be
proved by leading evidence that all particulars were
placed before the sanctioning authority for due application
of mind. In case, the sanction speaks for itself, then
satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by
reading the order”. In a recent unreported judgment, in
Criminal Appeal No.4964/2024/@ SLP(Crl)
No.16978/2024 @ D.No.928818, disposed on
03.12.2024, between Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.
Jagatram, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, an
irregularity in obtaining the sanction to prosecute the
public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, does not justify an acquittal unless it causes
prejudice to the accused.
26. Therefore, in the light of the above decisions,
this Court, to examine the evidence produced by the
prosecution. In this context, in order to prove the factum
of valid sanction, the prosecution has relied upon the
34 Spl.CC.187/2014
evidence of PW.67, the Sanctioning Authority and
Ex.P249 and P.252. Ex.P249 is the Sanction Order dated
10.04.2014, issued by PW.67. Ex.P.252 is the Schedule
of Appointing Disciplinary, Appellate and Reviewing
Authority in BSNL for non-executives under CDA Rules.
In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the learned
counsel for the accused No.1 has tendered the attested
copy of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 during cross-
examination of PW.67 and the same is marked as
Ex.D.28. Further, the accused No.1 has also secured the
files relating to the Sanction Order and got marked the
same as per Ex.D.29 and D.30.
27. PW.67, being the author of the Sanction Order
in his examination in chief, has specifically stated that he
knows the accused No.1, who was serving as Senior
Section Supervisor, BSNL, Magadi Road Out Door Office.
The DGM is the appointing and removing authority for
Senior Section Supervisor i.e., accused No.1 in this case.
It is further stated by him that the CBI Investigation
Officer had sent the investigation records and documents
pertaining to this case to the Vigilance Department, BSNL
and in turn, the Vigilance Department of BSNL forwarded
the records to him for consideration. He took lot of time
to verify all the records and documents forwarded to him.
It is further deposed by him that he has gone through all
the records and documents forwarded by the IO and
came to the conclusion that there exists a prima-facie
case about the disproportionate assets to the known
source of income of accused No.1. After satisfying
35 Spl.CC.187/2014
himself, he accorded the sanction for prosecution of
accused No.1. He has also identified the Sanction Order,
letter issued by the Vigilance Department to the SP HOB
of CBI, letter written by him to AGM, Vigilance and
Schedule of Appointing Disciplinary Appellate and
Reviewing Authority in BSNL for non-executives as per
Ex.P.249 to P.252. His signature found in the Sanction
Order is marked as Ex.P249(a).
28. The above evidence of the PW.67 clearly
reveals that he had received investigation records and
documents pertaining to this case and after going
through all the records and documents forwarded to him,
having satisfied as to prima-facie case against the
accused No.1 for having disproportionate assets to his
known source of income, accorded the sanction as per
Ex.P.249. Though the learned counsel for the accused
has cross-examined the said witness, nothing much was
elicited from his mouth so as to disbelieve his evidence.
During cross-examination, the said witness has stated
that he cannot say as to the date of appointment of the
accused No.1 and whether the accused No.1 had opted
for absorption in BSNL and also stated that he does not
have knowledge whether Ex.D.28 Rules were published
in the Gazette of Government of India. Further, he has
also stated that in Ex.D.29 and D.30, there is no
investigation records said to have been forwarded by the
CBI in the said files. He has also stated that the Vigilance
sent the format of sanction order. But, only on the basis
of the said evidence, it cannot be said that PW.67 has not
36 Spl.CC.187/2014
applied his mind while granting the sanction. He has
specifically stated that the Vigilance Department of the
BSNL, which received the investigation documents
pertaining to this case, forwarded the same to him and he
took lot of time to verify all the records and documents
forwarded to him and prima-facie, after having satisfied
himself as to disproportionate assets to the known source
of income of the accused No.1, he had accorded sanction
for prosecution. Even during cross-examination also he
has specifically stated that after verifying the records and
satisfying himself, he got typed the sanction order in his
office. It is pertinent to note that, just because a model
format of the sanction order had been furnished and the
sanction order is in accordance with the said model
order, that does not mean that PW.67 has not applied his
mind at all. He has specifically denied the non-
application of mind while granting sanction order. If his
entire evidence, along with the contents of the sanction
order is analyzed, it is clear that he had perused the
documents and applied his mind and after verifying the
documents furnished, he has granted the sanction as per
Ex.P.249. In this regard, this court has also meticulously
considered the ruling relied by the learned counsel for
the accused reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 and found that
the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the
present case as the evidence placed before this court
reveals due application of mind by PW.67 in the matter of
granting prosecution sanction.
37 Spl.CC.187/2014
29. Along with the evidence of PW.67, the
provisions of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 are analyzed, it
gives the definition of Appointing Authority, Competent
Authority, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority
etc., Admittedly, the prosecution sanction against the
accused No.1 was taken from the Disciplinary Authority
defined under Rule 3(7) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006.
Now the authority of PW.67 to grant the prosecution
sanction against the accused No.1 is concerned, it is
appropriate to refer the schedule of Appointing,
Disciplinary, Appellate and Reviewing Authority in BSNL
for non-executes (Ex.P.252), it provides as to who is the
Appointing, Disciplinary, Appellate and Reviewing
Authority for Group-D and Group-C Employees. In the
present case on hand, admittedly, accused No.1, being
the Senior Section Supervisor is falling under Group-C
Employees. PW.67 specifically deposed in that regard.
Now, the schedule is analyzed, it is clear that DGM
concerned or equivalent officer is the Appointing
Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority for major
penalty and Appellate Authority for minor penalty. What
are the major penalties are stated in Rule 33-B of CDA
Rules, 2006, which includes removal/ dismissal of the
employees. Therefore, on going through the BSNL CDA
Rules, it is clear that DGM, being the Disciplinary
Authority is the competent authority to appoint and
remove/dismiss the Group-C Employees, whose
maximum scale upto Rs.12,245/-. Hence, PW.67 being
the DGM is the Appointing Authority as well as Removing
Authority of accused No.1 as per the BSNL CDA Rules,
38 Spl.CC.187/2014
2006. Such being the case, he is competent to accord the
sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act to prosecute
the accused No.1.
30. Therefore, on going through the evidence of
PW.67 as well as the provisions of BSNL CDA Rules,
there remains no doubt that as per the Rules, at the end
of the check period, as on the date of registration of the
case, filing of the charge sheet and as on the date of
taking cognizance, PW.67 being the DGM, BSNL
(Disciplinary Authority) is Competent Authority to grant
the prosecution sanction as against the accused No.1.
Though the learned counsel has vehemently argued by
classifying the service of accused No.1 under three
categories during the check period, it is pertinent to note
that at the end of the check period, as on the date of
registration of the case, filing of the charge sheet and as
on the date of taking cognizance, it was PW.67 who was
the competent authority to grant the sanction against
accused No.1 being the Disciplinary Authority. It is
needless to say that the granting of sanction to prosecute
the public servants is a protection given to them against
the frivolous and vexatious prosecution. When the
accused is absorbed in BSNL permanently, the BSNL
CDA Rule is applicable to him. When the accused No.1
became BSNL Employee, he has to be protected only by
the concerned authority of the BSNL only as against
frivolous prosecution. Just because the accused No.1
was the employee of Telegraphic Department of Central
Government previously and there was a vacuum for
39 Spl.CC.187/2014
certain period i.e., between 01.10.2000 to 10.10.2006
(date of absorption of accused No.1 and date of coming
into force of BSNL CDA Rules), it cannot be said that
PW.67 had no authority to grant the sanction order to
prosecute the accused for entire check period i.e., from
01.01.1998 to 02.02.2012.
31. Added to above aspects, even Rule 58 of the
BSNL CDA Rules relating to repeal and savings makes it
clear that the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 is applicable for the
previous mis-conduct committed prior to the coming into
force of the BSNL CDA Rules. Further, as submitted by
the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, since the offence
alleged is continuing offence from the date of
commencement of the check period till end of the check
period, the person who is competent to remove the
accused at the end of the check period is competent
person to accord the sanction. As per BSNL CDA Rules,
at the end of the check period, it was PW.67 being the
Disciplinary Authority, competent to grant the sanction.
It is also pertinent to note that just because the sanction
is granted for entire check period by PW.67, who is
competent to grant the sanction as per BSNL CDA Rules,
no prejudice is caused to the accused. Therefore, this
court did not find any grounds to accept the submission
of the learned counsel for the accused that PW.67 cannot
grant the sanction for the entire check period and
granting of the sanction for prosecution amounts to
applying the BSNL CDA Rules in the retrospectively.
40 Spl.CC.187/2014
32. The another limb of the argument of the
learned counsel for the accused No.1 as to publication of
the CDA Rules in the official Gazette is concerned, during
the course of evidence, the prosecution has produced
only Schedule portion of the CDA Rules and has not
produced entire BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. However, the
accused has produced entire Rule as per Ex.D.28 and the
same is not revealing as to whether it is published in the
Indian Gazette or not. But it is pertinent to note that, as
submitted by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the
BSNL CDA Rules is not published in the Gazette.
Therefore, in the light of the argument addressed, now
the question that would arise is, whether the non-
publication of BSNL CDA Rules in the official Gazette
makes the sanction granted by PW.67 as invalid in the
eye of law.
33. With regard to the above aspect, it is pertinent
to note that admittedly, the BSNL is the Public Sector
Undertaking of the Central Government which is not
formed under any Statute and it has no parental Statute.
The act of the BSNL is governed by its Articles of
Association. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has
furnished the copy of the Articles of Association of the
BSNL, which does not contemplate for publication of CDA
Rules in the official Gazette. It is also noticed that the
BSNL CDA Rules are formed as per the guidelines of
Bureau of Public Enterprises and in that regard, the copy
of the Chapter II of the DPE Guidelines is also provided
on behalf of the prosecution wherein, model of CDA Rules
41 Spl.CC.187/2014
is given. On going through the Articles of Association of
BSNL and also the DPE guidelines provided, it is clear
that there is no need of publication of BSNL CDA Rules
in the official Gazette and the publication of the CDA
Rules in the official Gazette is not mandatory. It is also
pertinent to note that the Resolution dated 23.01.2000,
entered into between The President of India, acting
through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Telecommunication
(DOT) and BSNL was published in the official Gazette
dated 17.03.2001. But that does not mean that the CDA
Rules is also required to be published in the official
Gazette as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for
the accused in the light of the contents of Articles of
Association of the BSNL.
34. This court is also being guided by the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Agricultural
University Case, relied by the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has considered as to whether the Statute made
under Section 36 of the Bihar Agricultural University Act,
1987, providing for a benefit to the Teaching Staff, for
which assent has been given by the Chancellor can be
enforced in the absence of publication in the official
Gazette. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that the Statute made under Section 36 of the
Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987, requires
publication in the official Gazette as Section 36 makes it
mandate that all the Statutes made under this Act, shall
42 Spl.CC.187/2014
be published in the official Gazette. In the said decision,
the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the Judgment passed
in B.K.Srinivasan Vs. State of Karnataka (1987) 1 SCC
658, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the
position, if the parent Act was silent about the
publication in the Gazette as under;
“Where the parent Statute is silent, but the
subordinate Legislation itself prescribes the
manner of publication such a mode of
publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If
the subordinate Legislation, does not
prescribe the mode of publication or if the
subordinate Legislation prescribes a plainly
unreasonable mode of publication it will take
effect only when it is published from the
customarily recognized official channel,
namely, the Official Gazette or some other
reasonable mode of publication. There may
be subordinate Legislation which is
concerned with a few individuals or is
confined to small local areas. In such cases
publication or promulgation by other means
may be sufficient. ”
35. On going through the above aspects, it is clear
that in this case, as already stated, there is no parental
Statute with regard to formation of BSNL and the Articles
of Association of the BSNL does not provide for
publication of the CDA Rules in the official Gazette. The
CDA Rules are found to be circulated among the persons
43 Spl.CC.187/2014
concerned of the Department as found in the letter dated
10.10.2006 issued by ADG (WS/O&M) BSNL. Under
these attending circumstances, this court is of the
considered view that just because the BSNL CDA Rules
are not published in the official Gazette, that will not take
away its effect in any manner. The order passed by the
High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttak Bench relied
by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor reveal that the
BSNL CDA Rules is relied, valid and acted upon.
Therefore, this court is of the considered view that just
because the BSNL CDA Rules under which, the sanction
is accorded to prosecute the accused No.1 is not
published in the official Gazette will not no way affect the
sanction accorded by PW.67 as per the said Rules.
Therefore, the contention of the accused that the BSNL
CDA Rules is not Gazetted, it has no sanctity in the eye of
law and thereby PW.67 is not authorized to grant the
sanction and the sanction granted by him is invalid
cannot be accepted. As argued by the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor, the rulings relied by the learned
counsel for the accused in this regard are found to be not
applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said
decisions, the publication of CDA Rules in the official
Gazette was mandatory in nature as per the parental Act
(Rajendra Agricultural University Case). In this regard,
this court is also being guided by the rulings of our
Hon’ble High Court relied by the learned counsel for the
accused, wherein, the sanction granted by the
Sanctioning Authority was negated as CDA Rules were
44 Spl.CC.187/2014
not published in the official Gazette relying on the
judgment of the Rajendra Agricultural University case
and the Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.933
c/w. 835/2010 which is affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1872-1873/2014. The
judgment passed in Crl.A.No.933 c/w. 835/2010 with
regard to the validity of the sanction was based on the
Rajendra Agricultural University Case. But, in the
present case on hand, since the publication of CDA Rules
in official Gazette is not mandatory, the rulings relied by
the learned counsel for the accused do not come to their
rescue and that cannot be made applicable to the present
case on hand.
36. So far as another contention of the learned
counsel for the accused with regard to granting of
sanction by the Competent Authority is concerned, no
doubt in BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, there is a separate
definition as to ‘Competent Authority’ and ‘Disciplinary
Authority’ as provided under Rule 3(6) and (7). But the
powers of the Disciplinary Authority as mentioned in
schedule is analyzed, the Disciplinary Authority is an
Authority, having power to appoint and impose major
penalty with regard to the Group-C employees of BSNL
with maximum scale of Rs.12,225/-. The Competent
Authority, as defined in the said Rule is not shown as
Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, in the present case on
hand, PW.67 being the Disciplinary Authority (DGM)
having power to impose major penalty has granted the
sanction order as against accused No.1. Therefore, the
45 Spl.CC.187/2014
argument of the learned counsel that the sanction should
have been given by the Competent Authority cannot be
accepted.
37. So far as the authority of the Disciplinary
Authority to grant the sanction is concerned, as argued
by the learned counsel for the accused, there is no need
of any authorization from the Board to grant the sanction
order as the CDA Rules itself confer such power on the
Disciplinary Authority and the CDA Rules are being
approved by the Board of Directors in their Meeting held
on 18.09.2006 as found in letter dated 10.10.2006,
issued by ADG (WS/O&M) BSNL. Therefore, there is no
need of any separate authorization by the Board to the
Disciplinary Authority to issue sanction order. Hence,
this court did not find substance in the submission that
the Sanctioning Authority should have been authorized
by the Board to grant the prosecution sanction.
38. Therefore, this court is of the considered view
that PW.67, being the Disciplinary Authority for accused
No.1 granted the prosecution sanction against accused
No.1 after verifying the materials made available to him.
There are no such grounds to hold that PW.67 has not
applied his mind while granting sanction as per Ex.P.249
and he had no authority to grant the sanction order
against accused No.1. On the other hand, the sanction
order reveals that the Authority i.e., PW.67 had been
aware of the relevant facts/ materials relating to the
present case, applied his mind to all the relevant
46 Spl.CC.187/2014
materials and accordingly granted the prosecution
sanction as against the accused No.1.
39. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel
for the accused, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 87 and (2005)
8 SCC 370, the public servant is entitled to question the
validity of the sanction at any stage of the proceedings
even at the appeal stage, though the cognizance was
taken by the court earlier on the basis of the said
sanction. However, in the present case, though the
accused No.1 has challenged the validity of the sanction
order on various grounds, the same cannot be accepted.
On the other hand, the sanction order granted by PW.67
is found to be valid and the same has been accorded after
due consideration of the prosecution materials placed
before him. Therefore, this court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has proved that it has
secured valid sanction order as per Ex.P.249 to prosecute
accused No.1. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the
Affirmative.
40. Point Nos.2 and 3: Since these two points are
inter-linked, to avoid repetition, they are taken up
together for consideration. As already stated, in this case,
the prosecution has alleged the offence against the
accused No.1 punishable under Section 13(2) R/w.
Sec.13(1)(e) of the PC Act, for having amassed
disproportionate assets to his known source of income
and against accused No.2 abetting the commission of the
offence by accused No.1, which is punishable under
47 Spl.CC.187/2014
Section 109 of the IPC. Before touching the matter, for
better understanding, it is appropriate to refer the
provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, which reads
as under;
Sec.13(1) A public servant is said to
commit the offence of criminal mis-conduct –
(a) …..
(b)…..
(c)….
(d)…..
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in
possession or has at any time during the
period of his office, been in possession for
which the public servant cannot satisfactorily
account of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known source of
income.
Explanation: For the purpose of this
Section, ‘known source of income’ means
income received from any lawful source and
such receipt has been intimated in accordance
with the provisions of any law, rules or orders
for the time being applicable to the public
servant (prior to 2018 amendment).
41. On going through the above provision, it is
clear that the prosecution must prove the following facts
in order to bring the case under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act.
48 Spl.CC.187/2014
i) The accused is a public servant.
ii) Nature and extent of the pecuniary
resources or property which were
found in his possession.
iii) What were his known source of income
which is known to the prosecution.
iv) Such resources or property found in
the possession of the accused, were
disproportionate to his known source
of income.
If these ingredients are established, the offence of
criminal mis-conduct under Section 13(1)(e) is complete,
unless the accused is able to account for such resources
or property. If these elements are established by the
prosecution, then, onus shifts on the accused to
satisfactorily account for his possession of
disproportionate asset. No doubt, the extent and nature
of burden of proof on the accused is preponderance of
probability. It is well settled principle of law that onus to
establish a particular fact on the accused is not as heavy
as on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it
suffice for the accused to offer an explanation in his
defence which is reasonable and probable. Therefore, the
initial burden is on the prosecution to establish the
ingredients of the offence of the criminal mis-conduct of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
42. In this regard, this court is being guided by
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
(1981) 3 SCC 199 State of Maharashtra Vs. Vasudeo
Ramachandra Kaidalwar, relied by the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
49 Spl.CC.187/2014
India has considered Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the PC
Act, 1947, which is similar to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act, 1988. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
considered the nature and extent of the burden of proof
of the prosecution and the accused in the criminal trial
with regard to the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the PC
Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held –
“The expression ‘burden of proof’ has two
distinct meanings, (1) the legal burden i.e., the
burden of establishing the guilt and (2) the
evidential burden i.e., the burden of leading
evidence. In the criminal trial, the burden of
proving everything essential to establish the
charge against the accused lies upon the
prosecution, and that burden never shifts.
Notwithstanding the general rule that burden
of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution,
in the case of certain offences, the burden of
proving particular fact in issue may be laid by
law upon the accused. The burden resting on
the accused in such cases is however not so
onerous as that of which lies on the
prosecution and is discharged by proof of
balance of probabilities.
Section 5(1)(e) is self contained provision.
The first part of it casts burden on the
prosecution and the second on the accused.
The onus on the accused is implicit in the
words “for which the public servant cannot
50 Spl.CC.187/2014
satisfactorily account” in section 5(1)(e). The
words “known source of incomes” in Section
5(1)(e) means, source known to the prosecution
and the prosecution is not required to disprove
all possible source of income”
The above proposition of law is concerned, again
this court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, reported in 1960 SCR (1) 461 in the case of
C.S.D. Swamy Vs. The State, (2004) 1 SCC 691, State of
MP Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others and also the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 14
SCC 442 Vasant Rao Guha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
43. In the decision reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189,
in the case between Babu Vs. State of Kerala, it is held
that, every accused is presumed to be innocent unless
the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a
human right. The burden of proof is always lies on the
prosecution. In the decision reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45
in the case between M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “it is not mere acquisition of the
property that constitute an offence under Section 5(1)(e),
but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such
possession that makes the possession objectionable as
offending the law. 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 of property which were
51 Spl.CC.187/2014
found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what
were his known source 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.”
44. This Court is also being guided by the decision
reported in (1999) SCC Cri.1133, in the case between P.
Nammallal Vs. State, wherein, it is held that “the two
postulates must combine together for crystallization into
the offence viz., possession of the property or resources
disproportionate to known sources of income of the
public servant and the inability of the public servant to
account for it / them. Burden of proof regarding first
limb is on the prosecution. Whereas, the onus is on the
public servant to prove the second limb”.
45. Thus, by keeping the above proposition of law
in mind, the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record are to be examined and find out as to whether the
prosecution has established that accused No.1 has
accumulated pecuniary resources disproportionate to his
52 Spl.CC.187/2014
known sources of income as required under Section 13(1)
(e) of the PC Act or not.
46. So far as the charge against accused No.2 is
concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the accused
No.2, being the wife of accused No.1 had abetted him to
acquire disproportionate assets to the known source of
income during the check period by purchasing
immovable property in her name as benami purchaser for
him, out of his ill-gotten income and thereby she is liable
to be punished under Section 109 of the IPC, for abetting
the commission of criminal mis-conduct by accused No.1.
47. Admittedly, in this case, in order to ascertain
the disproportionate assets held by the accused, the
prosecution has taken check period from 01.01.1998 to
02.02.2012. The prosecution has taken the assets
possessed by the accused No.1 at the beginning of the
check period as per Statement-A, assets possessed by
him at the end of the check period as per Statement-B,
income of the accused No.1 during the check period as
per Statement-C and his expenditure during the check
period as per Statement-D.
The details of the Statement A to D are as under;
Statement – A: Assets possessed by the accused No.1 at
the beginning of the check period.
Sl. Details of Property Amount No. (in Rs.) 1 Immovable property - Payment towards purchase of the 14,98,000.00
immovable property No.31, 2nd Cross, Subbanna(Rs.96,000.00 sale
Garden, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and the constructionconsideration +
cost of the building (Ground + 2 Floors) 14,02,000.00 construction
cost. )
53 Spl.CC.187/2014
2 Movable property –
a. Kitchen
One old mixer (electric) 500.00
b. Master Bed Room
Philips MP3 CD Player 2000.00
One Steel almirah 1500.00
One Gold long chain with pendent (15 grams) 6000.00
One Gold long chain 30 grams 12000.00
One Gold bracelet 10 grams 8000.00
Two Gold rings with stone (gifted) 0.00
One gold short chain 3 grams 1000.00
Two sets of ear rings 3 grams 1200.00
One long chain with black pearls with pendent 40 gms 16000.00
Ring and ear hangs (4 in Nos.) 2 grams 600.00
Gold ear ring with nose pin (5 grams) 1500.00
One gram gold chain (long) with pearls 1000.00
One Mens’ Citizen Watch 500.00
4 pairs of old silver anklet chain 2000.00
Another Bed Room (First Floor)
One wooden double cot with mattress 2000.00
Second Floor Main Hall
One old washing machine (TVS) 2000.00
Two silver plates (500 grams) (Gifted) 0.00
One small silver plate and one tumbler (20 grams)
(gifted) 0.00
Silver articles of various designs (2000 gms) (gifted) 0.00
Total 57,800.00
3 Bank Balance
SB Account No.1372 in Karnataka State Co-operative
Apex Bank Ltd., RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru in
the name of accused No.1. 1165.00
SB Account No.1591, Karnataka State State Co-
operative Apex Bank Ltd., RPC Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru in the name of accused No.2. 1000.00
Total 2165
4 Advance paid by accused No.1 for purchase of 2,10,000.00
immovable property No.91, KP Agrahara, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru, measuring 675 Sq.Ft.
5 Advance paid by accused No.1 for purchase of the site 12,000.00
No.17 measuring 30 x 40 sq. feet in Sy.No.6,
Subramanyapura Village, Maarasandra, Uttarahalli
Hobli.
Total 17,79,965.00
54 Spl.CC.187/2014
Statement – B :Assets possessed by the accused No.1 at
the end of the check period i.e., as on 02.02.2012.
Sl. Details of Property Amount No. (in Rs.) 1 Immovable property
1. Plot bearing No.31, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden,
Behind BTS Depot, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru,
measuring 675 Sq.Ft. purchased for Rs.96,000/- in
the name of accused No.1 and building constructed
to an extent of 178.82 Sq.Mtrs. (Ground + 2 Floors) at 14,98,000.00
the cost of Rs.14,02,000/-
2. Site No.91, KP Agrahara Layout, measuring 1200
Sq.Ft. Purchased by accused No.1 for Rs.2,10,000
and constructed building to the extent of 3472 sq.ft.
Including sit out, open balcony and car parking
(ground + 2 Floors with) at the cost of 27,45,500.00
Rs.25,35,500/-
3. Plot No.104, 3rd Cross, Telecom CHS Layout, KP
Agrahara, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, purchased in the
name of accused No.2 for Rs.39,00,000/-
(registered for Rs.12,60,000/-) and construction of 4
storeyed building in the area measuring 492.66
sq.mtrs including open balcony, sit out and parking 93,27,400.00
area at the cost of Rs.54,27,400/-
4. Plot No.30 measuring about 675 sq.ft. II Cross,
Subbanna Garden, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru,
purchased in the name of accused No.2 for
Rs.30,37,500/- (registered for Rs.14,85,000/-) and
accused No.1 constructed the building in the said plot
measuring 252.88 sq.mtrs (2721 sq.ft) including open
balcony and parking area at the cost of
Rs.29,49,500/- 59,87,000.00
5. Vacant site measuring 30 x 40 sq.ft. Bearing No.17 in
Sy.No.6 Subramanyapura Village, Maarasandra,
Uttarahalli, purchased in the name of accused No.2
for Rs.3,00,000/- 3,00,000.00
Total 1,98,57,900.00
2 Movable Property
Main Hall, (First Floor)
1. One wooden sofa set with 2 chairs. 5,000.00
2. One wooden sofa of 3 seats 3,000.00
3. One tea poy with granite top cleaner 2,000.00
4. One Sony Bravio TV with DVD player and speaker 90,850.00
5. Two wooden show case – wall fitted. 5,000.00
6. One dining table with six chairs 6,000.00
7. One Godrej double door refrigerator 10,000.00
55 Spl.CC.187/2014
Kitchen
1. One LG Micro oven (purchased along with LED TV
and amount included in that). 00
2. One old mixer (electric) 500.00
3. Kitchen utensils in all 10,000.00
4. One table top grinder (Vijayalakshmi) 3,000.00
5. Three LPG Cylinders 00.00
6. LPG Stove 00.00
Master Bed Room
1. Mens wear dresses
2. CDs and Albums etc., (20 in nos.) 5,000.00
3. Philips MP3 CD Player 2,000.00
4. One wooden double cot with mattress 2,000.00
5. One steel almirah 32,000.00
6. One wall painting frame 1,500.00
7. One Nokia N70 mobile 500.00
8. One Nokia E52 mobile 9,000.00
9. One Nokia X2 mobile 12,300.00
10. One Sony Ericsson mobile 8000.00
11. One Nokia E5 mobile 14,370.00
12. One Olympus flash camera (gift) 6,000.00
13. One Gold Long chain 00.00
14. One Gold long chain (30 grams) 6,000.00
15. One gold bracelet 12.000.00
16. Two gold rings with stone (gift) 8,000.00
17. Three gold rings with stone (12 grams) 00.00
18. Two gold rings (one with stone) (10 grams) 12,000.00
19. One gold long chain with rudraksha (4 grams) 8,000.00
20. 3 rings with 2 stones (6 gms) 4,000.00
21. One gold short chain ( 3 grams) 6,000.00
22. 2 sets of ear rings (3 grams) 1,000.00
23. One long chain with black pearls with pendant (4 gms) 1,200.00
24. One pair of gold ear rings (4 gms) 16,000.00
25. One set of ear rings with pearl and stone (2 gms) 4,000.00
26. Rings & ear hangs (4 Nos. – 2 gms) 2,000.00
27. Gold earring with nose pin ( 5 gms) 600.00
28. A one gram gold chain (long) with pearls. 1,500.00
29. One gold bangle – 6 gms. 1,000.00
30. One gold chain – 13 gms. 4,800.00
31. One long gold chain & one short necklace (30 gms) 26,000.00
32. One long gold chain with green stone and pendent 36,000.00
(20 gms)
33. One Rado watch (men) 16,000.00
34. Titan watch (men) 22,300.00
35. One watch (gifted) 2,200.00
36. One Titan watch (men) 00.00
37. One Citizen watch (men) 1,500.00
38. One pair of silver anklet (women) 50 gms. 500.00
39. 4 pair of old silver anklet chain. 2,000.00
40. One wooden teapoy 2,000.00
56 Spl.CC.187/2014
41. Silk and fancy sarees etc., of accused No.2. 8,000.00
42. One small work table 00.00
300.00
Another bedroom (1st Floor)
1. One wooden double cot with mattress
2. One reading table with chair 2,000.00
3. One Teapoy (mica/ steel) 1,500.00
4. One small dressing table 400.00
5. One gas geyser 800.00
6. 2 wooden seaters 1,200.00
7. 1 footwear stand 2,000.00
8. 2 plastic chairs 1,200.00
9. 1 wood / steel teapoy 850.00
10.Wooden cabins fitted with walls in with bedrooms in 1st 750.00
Floor. 80,000.00
11. One small showcase fitted with glass.
2,000.00
2nd Floor Main Hall
1. One LG LED (LW 57 series) TV with Philips speaker
vide Invoice No.3740
2. One wooden cutter 2,03,750.00
3. Two Guitars with Ronald amplifier 500.00
4. One HP laptop (Panasonic) (500 GB DV6 series) 64,650.00
5. One Sony make desktop (TFA) & UPS & CPU etc., 35,000.00
6. Two Computer Tables 24,000.00
7. One single wooden cot with mattress 3,000.00
8. One old washing machine (TVS) 1,500.00
9. One calculator (Engg) 2,000.00
10.One pair of steel dumbbells 500.00
11.One “Samsung” Galaxy Note N7000 tablet 600.00
12.One wooden double cot with mattress 32,700.00
13.One steel almirah 6,000.00
14.One glass & steel fitted teapoy 2,000.00
15.Wooden showcases & almirah in bedrooms and main 3,000.00
hall.
16.One leg size mirror 80,000.00
17.One “Ortem” sewing machine 2,000.00
18.One steel almirah 1,200.00
19.One wooden almirah & cub boards/ cabin with watch. 1,500.00
20.Two wooden stools 3,000.00
21.2 silver plates (500 gms) (gifted) 1,000.00
22.1 small silver plate & 1 tumbler (20 gms) (gifted) 00.00
23.One set of arathi plates (200 gms) (gifted) 00.00
24.Silver item/ articles of various design (2000 gms)(gifted) 00.00
25.One silver flower pot & different items (3 kgs) (gifted) 00.00
26.Cash of different denominations given to accused 00.00
No.1. 16,300.00
Terrace (top 2nd Floor)
1. Two “Solarizer” 51,200.00
2. 3 Pre over head water tanks. 4,500.00
3. One “Eureka Forbes” vacuum cleaner 6,790.00
57 Spl.CC.187/2014
4. One Kenstar mixer 2,000.00
5. One Suguna Motor pump 1.5 HP. 14,000.00
Total 10,88,310.00
3 Vehicles
1. Maruti Zen Car (KA02-MB-5769) in the name of
accused No.1. 3,71,491.00
2. Bajaj Motorcycle KA-02/HC2497 in the name of
T.Sanjay. 64,756.00
3. Honda Activa Scooter KA-02/HP-4139 in the name of
accused No.1. 47,260.00
4. Honda Activa Scooter KA-02/HN-8799 in the name of
T. Sanjay. 46,708.00
Total 5,30,715.00
4 Bank Balance
1. SB A/c. No.2011591(old No.1591) in the name of
accused No.2 in Karnataka State Co-op Apex Bank 4,54,239.00
Ltd.,
2. SB A/c. No.2011322 (Old No.SB A/c.No.1372) with 15,37,474.00
Apex Ltd., in the name of accused No.1.
3. SB A/c.No.1052500110869301 in the name of Sri.T. 18,204.00
Sanjay, in Karnataka Bank, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
4. SB A/c. No.52117070673 with State Bank of 2,23,972.00
Hyderabad, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, in the name of
accused No.2.
5. SB A/c. No.6212838332 with State Bank of 4,26,884.00
Hyderabad, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.
T.Sanjay.
Total 26,60,773.00
5 Cash Seized 56,82,000.00
Total 2,98,19,198.00
Statement-C :Income of the accused No.1 during the
check period.
Sl. Details of Income Amount
No.
c1 Net Salary of accused No.1 17,13,385.00
2 PF Withdrawal 3,52,919.00
3 Bonus 83,475.00
4 Scholarship for children education 3,800.00
5 Pay Commission Arrears 1,82,962.00
58 Spl.CC.187/2014
6 Loan from Thrift Society of BSNL. 70,550.00
7 HBA Availed 2,80,000.00
8 Housing Loan from Canfin Homes 3,00,000.00
9 Housing Loan from State Bank of Hyderabad 10,00,000.00
10 Vehicle Loan from ICICI Bank, Bengaluru 3,25,000.00
11 LIC Maturity amount received by accused No.1 1,00,192.00
12 Interest received during the check period
1. SB A/c.No.2011591 (Old No.1591) in the name of
accused No.2 in Karnataka State Co-op Apex Bank 58,236.00
Ltd.,
2. SB A/c.No.2011372 (Old No.1372) with Apex Bank
Ltd., in the name of accused No.1. 1,50,501.00
3. SB A/c.No.1052500110869301 with Karnataka Bank,
in the name of T. Sanjay. 141.00
4. SB A/c.No.52117070673 with State Bank of 54,762.00
Hyderabad, Bengaluru, in the name of accused No.2.
5. SB A/c. No.6212838332 with State Bank of
Hyderabad, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, in the name of 11,788.00
T.Sanjay.
Total 2,75,428.00 13 Rental Income
1. House No.91, 3rd Cross, Telecom Layout, KP
Agrahara, Bengaluru. 5,73,500
2. House No.104, 3rd Cross, Telecom Layout, KP
Agrahara, Bengaluru. 10,74,600,00
3. No.30, 2nd Cross, 3rd Floor, Subbanna Garden,
Behind BTS Garage, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. 5,35,700.00
4. No.31, 2nd Cross, 3rd Floor, Subbanna Garden,
Behind BTS Garage, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. 5,37,100.00
Total 27,20,900.00
14 Income of accused No.2 from business 8,94,450.00
Total 83,03,061.00
Statement-D: Expenditure of the accused No.1 during the
check period
Sl. Details of Expenditure Amount
No.
1 House hold expenditure 1/3rd of Gross salary 10,40,323.00
2 Stamp duty on registration charges for purchase of the five
immovable properties.
1. Plot No.91, 3rd Cross, Telecom Layout, KP Agrahara,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. 30,500.00
2. No.31, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden, Behind BTS Depot,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. 29,160.00
59 Spl.CC.187/2014
3. Plot No.104, 3rd Cross, Telecom Layout, KP Agrahara,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. 1,18,760.00
4. Plot No.17, 3rd State, Mayasandra, Subramanyapura
80,190.00
Village, Bengaluru
5. Plot No.30, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden, Behind BTS 1,40,170.00
Depot, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru
Total 3,98,780.00
3 Housing Loan repayment to Canfin Homes 3,59,205.00
4 Housing Loan repayment to State Bank of Hyderabad 2,68,941.00
5 House Building Allowance to Department. 4,30,000.00
6 Vehicle Loan repayment to ICICI Bank 3,34,923.00
7 Income Tax paid by accused No.2 74,360.00
8 Telephone and mobile charges. 82,486.00
9 Building maintenance. 9,08,130.00
10 Premium paid for LIC policies of accused No.2 and her son T. 79,135.00
Sanjay.
11 Premium paid for Bajaj Allianz Police of accused No.1 12,000.00
12 Premium paid for Reliance Life Insurance of Sri. T.Sanjay 25,000.00
13 Vehicle Road Tax.
1. Honda Activa Motorcycle KA-02/HN-8799 in the
name of Sri. T. Sanjay (Life Tax Rs.5185/- Fee and
smart Card Rs.197) 5,382.00
2. Bajaj Motorcycle Avenger KA-02/HC 2497 in the
name of Sri. T. Sanjay (Life Tax Rs.7,123/- and ‘B’
Challan Rs.60/-) 7,183.00
3. Maruti Suzuki Zen Car KA-02/MB 6759 in the name
of accused No.1. (Life Tax Rs.36,779/- + ‘B’ Challan
Rs.300/- and for registration Number Rs.6,000/-) 43,079.00
4. Honda Activa Motor Cycle KA-02 HP-4139 in the
name of accused No.1. (Life Tax Rs.5,246/-+ Fee
and Smart Card Rs.197/-) 5,443.00
5. Honda Activa Motorcycle KA-02/EH-6749 in the
name of accused No.1 (Life Tax Rs. /- + ‘B’ Challan 2,707.00
Rs.300/- and for registration Number Rs.6,000/-)
Total 63,794.00
14 Vehicle Insurance for Maruti Zen Car and Honda Scooter
Maruti Zen Car No. National Insurance Company 7,965.00
KA-02/MB 6759 of 14.01.2008
accused No.1.
Royal Sundaram 23.01.2009 5,887.00
Royal Sundaram 6,847.00
22.01.2010
Royal Sundaram 4,905.00
60 Spl.CC.187/2014
20.01.2011
Royal Sundaram 4,550.00
23.01.2012
Total 30,154.00
Honda Activa Oriental Insurance Dated 819.00
Motorcycle KA-02 25.04.2003
EH-6749 of
United India Insurance dated 500.00
accused No.1
04.01.2008
United India Insurance dated 386.00
02.06.2009
United India Insurance dated 386.00
18.06.2010
Total 2,091.00
Total 32,245.00
15 House Insurance Premium 1,134.00
16 Donations 70,000.00
17 Regency Club Membership 1,25,000.00
18 Education Expenditure 2,51,128.00
19 Guitar Class Fee 7,358.00
20 House Taxes for 4 houses
1. House No.91, 3rd Cross, Telecom Layout, KP Agrahara,
Bengaluru for 2009-2011. 24,250,00
2. House No.104 at 3rd Cross, Telecom Layout, KP Agrahara,
15,849.00
Bengaluru for 2011
3. House No.30, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden, Bengaluru for
8,631.00
2009 to 2011.
4. House No.31, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden, Marenahalli, 54,956.00
Bengaluru 2003-2011.
Total 1,03,686.00 21 Electric connection and consumption charges 1,35,066.00
1. House No.91, KP Agrahara, Bengaluru. (2009-2011)
Development Charges Rs.7500/-
Deposit Rs.7860/-
Electricity consumption charges Rs.71,036/- 86,396.00
2. House No.104, KP Agrahara, Bengaluru
for the year 2009.
Development Charges Rs.18,150/-
Deposit Rs.9,170/-
Electricity consumption charges -- 27,320.00
3. House No.30, Subbanna Garden, Bengaluru (2009 to
2011)
Development Charges Rs.14,850/-
61 Spl.CC.187/2014
Deposit Rs.2,480/-
Electricity consumption charges -- 17,330.00
4. House No.31, Subbanna Garden, Bengaluru (2003-
2011)
Development Charges Rs.--
Deposit Rs.4,020/-
Electricity consumption charges -- 4,020.00
Total 1,35,066.00
22 Electric Inspection charges 5,500.00
23 Water and sewage charges 82,487.00
24 Hand loan given to colleagues.
1. Sri. Sudhar Murthy in July, 2011 1,00,000.00
2. Sri. Krishnaiah in September, 2011 5,000.00
3. Sri. M. Purushottama November 2011 10,000.00
4. Sri. Anil Kumar Lakshman Gothekar, November,2011 5,000.00
Total 1,20,000.00
25 Vehicle Maintenance Charges 97,024.00
26 Gym Class charges paid 11,856.00
27 Payment for House Rent 3,28,100.00
Total 54,47,661.00
On the basis of the above statement A to D, the IO
has computed the disproportionate assets of the accused
as under;
I Statement A – Assets held prior to check period i.e., on 01.10.1998 17,79,965.00
II Statement B – Assets held at the end of check period as on 2,98,19,198.00
02.02.2012
III Statement C – Income during the check period (01.10.1998 to 83,03,061.00
02.02.2012)
IV Statement D – Expenditure during the check period 01.10.1998 to 54,47,661.00
02.02.2012
V Assets acquired during the check period (01.10.1998 to 2,80,39,233.00
02.02.2012) (B-A)
IV Likely savings (C-D) 28,55,400.00
V Extent of Disproportionate Assets = (B-A + D-C) 2,51,83,833.00
VI Percentage of DA = (E x 100/C) 303.30%
48. On going through above statements and
computation of the disproportionate assets, it is clear
that the prosecution is alleging that the accused No.1 has
62 Spl.CC.187/2014
amassed disproportionate assets to the extent of
303.30% to his known source of income during the check
period.
49. Per contra, the accused has given their own
chart of calculation of DA and the accused claims that
there was no disproportionate assets and they have
shown disproportionate asset in negative at (-)
10,97,404.00 i.e., (-) 9% DA.
50. As per the version of the accused, Statement A
is concerned, they are not disputing the assets shown in
the Statement A by the prosecution, but claim additional
amount of Rs.40,000.00 towards security deposit paid by
accused No.1 for hiring the residential house for them,
prior to the check period. Therefore, as per the
prosecution, the total assets at the beginning of the
check period was Rs.17,79,965.00, whereas, the accused
claim it at Rs.18,19,965.00 and thereby the difference is
Rs.40,000.00.
51. Statement B is concerned, the prosecution
has claimed assets at the end of the check period at
Rs.2,98,19,198.00, whereas, accused claims it at
Rs.97,36,049.00. The difference is Rs.2,00,83,149.00. So
far as the immovable properties are concerned, it is
noticed that the accused are not disputing the value of
the immovable properties shown in Sl.No.1 and 5 of
table. However, the accused are not admitting the value
of the other immovable properties shown by the
63 Spl.CC.187/2014
prosecution. The value shown by the prosecution and by
the accused is listed as under.
Sl. Details of Value shown by the Value shown by the
No. immovable property prosecution accused
1. House No.31, 2nd Value of Cost of Value of the Cost of
Cross, Subbanna the plot construction plot construction
Garden, (in Rs.) (in Rs.)
Vijayanagar,
96,000/- 14,02000/- 14,98,000/- 00.00
Bengaluru in the
name of accused
No.1.
(No dispute as to
total value)
Total 14,098,000/- 14,98,000.00
(Difference
NIL)
2. Plot No.91,
Telecom Layout, KP
Agrahara,
Vijayanagara, 2,10,000/- 25,35,500/- 2,10,000/- 6,00,000/-
Bengaluru, in the
Total 27,45,000/- Total 8,10,000/-
name of accused
Difference
No.1
19,35,000/-
3 Plot No.104, 3rd
Cross, Telecom
Layout, KP
Agrahara, 39,00,000/- 54,27,400/- 12,60,000/- 20,00,000/-
Vijayanagar,
Total 93,27,400/- Total 32,60,000/-
Bengaluru in the
Difference
name of accused
60,67,400/-
No.2.
4 Plot No.30, 2nd
Cross, Subbanna
Garden,
Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru, in the 30,37,500/- 29,49,500/- 14,85,000/- 10,00,000/-
name of accused
Total 59,87,000/- Total 24,85,000/-
No.2.
Difference
35,02,000/-
5 Site No.17 in 3,00,000/- 0 3,00,000/- 0
Sy.No.6,
Subramanyapura
Village,
Maarasandra,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South
Taluk, in the name
of accused No.2.
(No dispute)
Total 3,00,000/- Total 3,00,000
Difference
NIL
64 Spl.CC.187/2014
Therefore, the total value of the immovable property
shown by the prosecution is Rs.1,98,57,900.00 and
whereas, the total value shown by the accused is
Rs.83,53,000/-. The accused have claimed reduction of
Rs.1,15,04,900/- from the total amount of
Rs.1,98,57,900/-.
52. Sl.No.2 movable properties are concerned, the
accused have not disputed Item Nos.1 to 7 existing in the
main hall (in first floor), Item Nos.1 to 6 found in the
kitchen, Item Nos.1 to 9, 11 to 42 found in the master
bedroom, Item Nos.1 to 11 found in another bedroom in
(first floor), item Nos.1, 2, 6 to 10, 12 to 26 existing in the
2nd Floor Main Hall, Item Nos.1 to 5 found in terrace (top
2nd Floor) are not disputed by the accused persons)
However, Item No.10 in master bedroom, Item Nos.3 to 5
and 11 in 2nd Floor Main Hall are disputed by the
accused claiming that the value of the said movables are
to be deducted. The total value of the movables shown by
the prosecution is Rs.10,88,310/- whereas, the accused
claims the value of the movables at Rs.9,17,590/- and
thereby the accused is claiming reduction of
Rs.1,70,720/- from Rs.10,88,310/- calculated by the IO.
53. So far as Sl.No.3 vehicles are concerned, the
accused are not disputing the value of the Maruti Zen
Car bearing No.KA-02/MB 6759 and also item Nos.3 and
4 i.e., Honda Activa Scooters bearing No.KA-02/HP 4139
and KA-02/HN 8799. However, they have disputed item
No.2 of the vehicles i.e., Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No.KA-
65 Spl.CC.187/2014
02/HC 2447 standing in the name of Sri. T.Sanjay, the
value of which is Rs.64,756/- to be deducted. Therefore,
the prosecution claims the total value of the vehicles at
Rs.5,30,215/- and whereas, the accused claim the
reduction of Rs.64,756/- out of the said total value
shown by the IO.
54. Sl.No.4 Bank Balance in the account is
concerned, the prosecution has shown total amount of
Rs.26,60,773/- as per item Nos.1 to 5 and whereas, the
accused have claimed for counting the said amount as
NIL. Therefore, the amount standing in the bank account
is totally disputed by the accused persons.
55. Sl.No.5 cash seized is concerned, the
prosecution is claiming Rs.56,82,000/- seized from the
house of the accused belonging to the accused No.1 and
whereas, the accused claim the said amount as NIL as it
belongs to PW.70 Pampa Nayak. Therefore, the
prosecution has claimed total assets at the end of the
check period at Rs.2,98,19,198/- and whereas, the
accused have claimed at Rs.97,36,049/- and the
difference amount is Rs.2,00,83,149/- (It is noticed that
in one chart, the accused have valuated the Bank
Balance at Rs.4,26,884/- as against NIL).
56. Now, the Statement C i.e., income during the
check period is concerned, the accused have not disputed
Item Nos.2 to 12 and 14, but disputed Item No.1, 13 and
also claimed additional income under 5 heads. The
accused have disputed the net salary of accused No.1 as
66 Spl.CC.187/2014
shown in Item No.1 by the prosecution at
Rs.17,13,385/-, but have not stated what is the actual
amount to be considered. In Item No.13 rental income is
concerned, the prosecution has claimed it at
Rs.27,20,900/- but the accused have claimed the income
at Rs.33,52,950/- and thereby, there is a difference of
Rs.6,32,050/- under the said head. The accused have
added the rental advance received from the tenants at
Rs.9,15,000/-, value of the gift received by accused No.2
at Rs.8,50,000/-, loan availed by accused No.2 from
State Bank of Hyderabad at Rs.2,60,786/-, lease advance
returned by PW.59 during check period at Rs.1,00,000/-
and loan credits declared by accused No.2 at
Rs.11,50,000/-. Therefore, the IO has determined the
total income during the check period at Rs.83,03,061/-
and whereas, the accused claimed Rs.1,22,10,897/- and
thereby, the accused are claiming additional income of
Rs.39,07,836/- during check period.
57. So far as Statement D i.e., expenditure during
check period is concerned, the accused have not disputed
Item No.2 to 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 22, 25 and remaining
items i.e., Item No.1, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 to 19, 21, 23, 24,
26 and 27 are disputed. The IO has calculated the total
expenditure at Rs.54,47,661/- and whereas, the accused
have calculated at Rs.31,97,409/-. The accused are
seeking reduction of Rs.22,50,252/- under the said head.
67 Spl.CC.187/2014
58. The following comparative chart is placed for
analysis.
Statements Amount shown Amount shown Difference
by the by the accused
prosecution
Statement A 17,79,965.00 18,19,965.00 40000
Asset at the
beginning of the
check period.
Statement B 2,98,19,198.00 97,36,049.00 2,00,83,149.00
Asset at the end of
the check period
Asset acquired 2,80,39,233.00 79,16,084.00 2,01,23,149.00
during check
period (B-A)
Statement C 83,03,061.00 1,22,10,897.00 39,07,836.00
Income during the
check period
Statement D 54,47,661.00 31,97,409.00 22,50,252.00
Expenditure
during the check
period
Likely savings 28,55,400.00 90,13,488.00 -61,58,088.00
(C-D)
Disproportionate 2,51,83,833.00 -10,97,404.00 2,40,86,429
Assets
B-A + D-C
DA Percentage 303.30% -8.98
DA x 100/C
59. As stated above, since many of the items in
Statement A to D are being admitted by the accused,
there is no need of considering the evidence placed before
this Court with regard to the said items. Therefore, the
only aspect to be considered is disputed Items of
Statement A to D.
60. Now, the Statement A is concerned, as already
stated, the prosecution has claimed assets of the accused
68 Spl.CC.187/2014
No.1 at the beginning of the check period at
Rs.17,79,965.00 and whereas, the accused claims it at
Rs.18,19,965.00. On going through the chart submitted
by the accused, it is clear that the accused are seeking
addition of Rs.40,000/- towards security deposit made to
landlord, which was not considered by the IO. So far as
this claim of the accused is concerned, accused No.1 is
claiming Rs.40,000/- towards security deposit made by
him to the landlord, who is examined as PW.59. The
learned counsel for the accused in this regard referred
the evidence of PW.59 and contended that the security
deposit of Rs.40,000/- detained by the landlord to be
treated as asset of the accused No.1 at the beginning of
the check period as it was paid prior to the check period.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
has vehemently argued that the said amount cannot be
considered as asset at the beginning of the check period
as the said amount was paid at the time of vacating the
rented premises in the year 2003 after deducting
Rs.4,000/- towards painting charges and hence,
Rs.36,000/- only be considered as income during the
check period and same cannot be added as asset at the
beginning of the check period. She has also referred the
evidence of PW.59 as to deduction of Rs.4,000/- for
painting charges and payment of the balance amount.
61. In the light of the rival contention, now the
evidence of PW.59 Sri. Lakshminarasimhaiah is analyzed,
in his evidence, he has specifically stated that accused
Nos.1 and 2 were the tenants in his house from 1996 to
69 Spl.CC.187/2014
2003 and for initial period of two years, they had taken
his house on lease and paid lease amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- and thereafter, the lived as tenants from
1998 on monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- till 2003. Every
year, the rent was increased by 5%. The accused had
given deposit of Rs.40,000/- during the tenancy and paid
approximately Rs.2,00,000/- towards rent. At the time of
vacating the house, the security deposit was returned by
deducting the painting charges of Rs.4,000/-. On going
through the evidence of PW.59, it is clear that the
accused Nos.1 and 2 were initially occupied his house on
lease for a period of two years i.e., for 1996 and 1997 and
paid Rs.1,40,000/- as lease amount and thereafter, from
1998 to till 2003, they lived as monthly tenants and paid
monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- increasable by 5% for every
year and paid cash security of Rs.40,000/-. It is certain
from his evidence that in the year 2003, the accused
Nos.1 and 2 vacated the rented premises and received an
amount of Rs.36,000/- out of the cash security of
Rs.40,000/- after deducting the painting charges of
Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the cash security of
Rs.36,000/- was received by the accused in the year
2003 i.e., during the check period. Therefore, that
amount has to be considered as income during the check
period and cannot be regarded as asset in the hand of the
accused at the beginning of the check period. Therefore,
the claim of the accused for additional amount of
Rs.40,000/- as asset at the beginning of the check period
cannot be accepted. So far as the other assets are
concerned, there is no dispute. Therefore, Statement-A
70 Spl.CC.187/2014
as shown by the prosecution is required to be accepted
and the claim of the accused for Rs.40,000/- cannot be
accepted. Hence, the assets at the beginning of the check
period as assessed by the IO as per statement A at
Rs.17,79,965/- is requires to be accepted and
accordingly, the same is accepted.
62. So far as asset held by the accused at the end
of the check period as per Statement B is concerned, it is
categorized under 5 heads as shown in the table supra.
Serial No.1 immovable property is concerned, it consists
of 5 items. As already stated, Item No.1 i.e., House
No.31, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru purchased by accused No.1 in the year 2002
which was earlier purchased in the name of accused No.2
in the year 1993 and item No.5 i.e., site bearing No.17 in
Sy.No.6, Subramanyapura Village, Maarasandra,
Uttarahalli, Bengaluru South, purchased in the name of
accused No.2 in the year 2007 by accused No.1 are
concerned, there is no dispute and the valuation shown
by the prosecution is accepted by the accused also.
Therefore, there is no need of considering the evidence on
record with regard to Item No.1 and 5 of the immovable
property. So far as the Item Nos.2 to 4 are concerned,
there is difference in the value assessed.
63. So far as item No.2 i.e., Plot No.91, measuring
1200 sq.ft situated at KP Agrahara Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru is concerned, admittedly, the said property
was allotted to the accused No.1 by Telecom Employees
Housing Co-operative Society in the year 1997 for a total
71 Spl.CC.187/2014
amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and the said site was registered
in his name in October, 1998. In this regard, the
prosecution has produced copy of the Sale Deed,
Encumbrance Certificate, Provisional Allotment Letter,
Possession Certificate, Receipts for having paid the sale
consideration amount and other documents as per
Ex.P17, Ex.P23 to 31, 32(b) to (g) and the said documents
are not in dispute. After taking possession of the site,
accused No.1 had constructed building to the extent of
322.68 sq.mtrs. i.e., 3472 sq.ft including sit out, open
balconies and car parking (ground + 2 floors) during the
year 2002-2004. It is pertinent to note that the accused
have not disputed the value of the plot at Rs.2,10,000/-
and the construction of the building to the extent of 3472
sq.ft. (ground + 2 floors) during the year 2002 to 2004 as
put up by the prosecution. The prosecution has claimed
that the cost of construction of the building in the said
property at Rs.25,35,500/- and whereas, the accused
claimed the cost of construction at Rs.6,00,000/- only.
There is dispute only with regard to cost of construction
in the said property and nothing more. Therefore, only
cost of construction is to be determined in respect of this
property.
64. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, relying
on the evidence of PW.1 argued that, his evidence reveals
the cost of construction of the building is Rs.25,35,500/-
as calculated by him. There are no reasons to disbelieve
his evidence as to valuation of the building made by him.
Though the accused have claimed the cost of the
72 Spl.CC.187/2014
construction of the building at Rs.6,00,000/-, they have
not placed any materials before this court to accept the
same. On the other hand, the prosecution has proved
the valuation by examining PW.1, who is competent
person to assess the construction cost. Hence, the
building construction cost, as determined by the PW.1 is
required to be accepted. Per contra, the learned counsel
for the accused, relying on the evidence of PW.1
vehemently argued that PW.1 has not properly valued the
cost of construction and he had not secured the relevant
documents and information so as to assess the building
construction cost and erroneously fixed it at
Rs.25,35,500/- instead of Rs.6,00,000/- as stated by the
accused No.1 in Ex.P.268, the statement No.1 to 6
submitted by him and also stated by him in his Assets
and Liability Report. The cost of construction determined
at Rs.25,35,500/- is against the equity and natural
justice and accordingly, prayed for considering
Rs.6,00,000/- as cost of construction instead of
Rs.25,35,500/- as shown in the charge sheet.
65. In the light of the arguments addressed, now,
the evidence of PW.1 Sri. P.Bhaskaran, the Valuation
Officer and Executive Engineer, Income Tax Department
is analyzed, in his evidence, he has stated that since
1982, he had been evaluating the properties and thereby
got experience in the evaluation of the properties. At the
request of the CBI, he evaluated the four properties
involved in this case. His report is marked as Ex.P.1. So
far as the present property i.e., Plot No.91 is concerned,
73 Spl.CC.187/2014
in para 5 of his evidence stated that he has evaluated the
building at Rs.25,35,500/- and the said building has
been constructed in two phases. The ground floor and
first floor was constructed during November, 2001 and
July, 2002 and the second floor was constructed in
second phase during February and September, 2007. The
plinth area was about 300 sq.mtrs and the sit-out and
balcony plinth area was about 60 sq.mtrs. He further
stated that on the basis of the Central Government Public
Works Department Plinth Area Rates, he had evaluated
the property and the valuation of the property does not
include the movables found therein. He further stated
that for the first two years, there will not be any
maintenance charges and thereafter, maintenance
charges are to be included, but he has not included
maintenance charges of the building in his report.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is looked into, it is clear
that he has calculated the construction cost based on the
Central Government Public Works Department Plinth
Area Rates and he has not calculated maintenance
charge of the building.
66. The learned counsel for the accused has
cross-examined the said witness, but nothing much was
elicited from his mouth so as to disbelieve the cost of
construction determined by him. No doubt, during his
cross-examination, he has stated as to non-securing of
certain documents and also stated that if a person
constructs the building by using rejected, used, second
grade materials and only by engaging the labours or
74 Spl.CC.187/2014
giving on contract, the valuation of the construction
varies. It is also stated by him that if the details of the
measurement or square feet are taken wrongly, the
valuation differs. But on the basis of the said evidence, it
cannot be said that the valuation made by PW.1 is
incorrect. He has specifically stated that in the absence
of the details, he had adopted the normal rates. Even
during cross-examination he has specifically stated that
based on his physical and visual examination and by
taking actual measurement of all the properties, he
assessed the value of the properties. Even he has also
stated as to why he has adopted normal rates in
evaluating the cost of the building. Thus, on going
through the entire evidence of PW.1, this court did not
find any such grounds to disbelieve the valuation made
by him with regard to construction of the building.
67. Along with the oral evidence of PW.1, if his
report as per Ex.P.1 is analyzed, he has given clear
details as to his conclusion. It is clear that he had
adopted plinth area rate with cost index method and also
explained as to why he has adopted the said method
instead of other two methods. He has also given clear
abstract as to how he has arrived at the valuation of the
building shown in his report. It is also noticed that even,
PW.1 has given cost of construction in respect of item
No.1 i.e., in respect of Plot No.31, 2 nd Cross, Subbanna
Garden, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru involved in this case and
that valuation is not disputed by the accused persons.
Though the accused have claimed the cost of
75 Spl.CC.187/2014
construction at Rs.6,00,000/- they have not placed any
material before this court and even they have not elicited
anything in that regard from the mouth of PW.1. It is not
understood how and on what basis, the accused are
claiming the cost of construction at Rs.6,00,000/- as
contended by them. In this regard, even the Statement of
Annual Return of the Immovable Property submitted by
accused No.1 found in document No.D.38 page 11 in the
file is analyzed, the accused No.1 has not stated the value
of the property therein. Though in his Statement Form
No.1 to 6 i.e., Ex.P268, he has contended the cost of
construction of the building was Rs.6,00,000/-,
absolutely, there is no evidence to accept the same. On
the other hand, the cost of construction as put up by the
prosecution at Rs.25,35,500/- is supported with evidence
of independent expert witness along with his report. The
accused have neither placed any material before this
court to show that the cost of construction was only
Rs.6,00,000/- nor elicited anything from the mouth of
PW.1 in that regard.
68. It is noticed from the contents of Ex.P.267
that while giving details under Form No.I to VI as per
Ex.P.266, the accused No.1 had given detail estimate for
the construction of proposed building in site No.91 to the
tune of Rs.6,00,000/- with copy of the sketch and also
furnished copy of the Valuation Report given by Sri.
M.Nagendra Naidu. He has also produced copy of the
permission dated 08.01.2003 granted by the AGM (staff
to Bengaluru Telecom District) to construct the house in
76 Spl.CC.187/2014
the said site at the total cost of Rs.6,00,000/- and also
produced report submitted by him to the prescribed
authority after completion of the building at the cost of
Rs.6,00,000/-. But, only on that basis, without required
and acceptable evidence, one cannot accept the cost of
construction of the building as Rs.6,00,000/- as claimed
by the accused in the light of the evidence of PW.1 and
Ex.P.1 Report. Except assertion of the accused No.1,
absolutely there is no any other material in support of
the claim of the accused. In the light of the oral evidence
and the report of PW.1, this court is of the considered
view that the cost of construction as stated by PW.1 is
required to be accepted as against the imaginary value
stated by the accused. There are no reasons to disbelieve
the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, the cost of construction
of the building as taken by the IO based on the report of
PW.1 is required to be accepted. Hence, this court is of
the considered view that the valuation of Plot No.91 as
put up by the prosecution at Rs.27,45,500/- (inclusive of
purchase value and cost of construction) is to be
accepted as against the claim of the accused at
Rs.8,10,000/-.
69. Now, Item No.3 i.e., Plot No.104, 3 rd Cross,
Telecom Layout, KP Agrahara, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru is
concerned, the said property was purchased in the name
of accused No.2 on 11.12.2006 and four storeyed
building was constructed in an area of 492.66 sq.mtrs.
during 2009-10 including open balconies, sit-out and
parking area are not in dispute. However, as already
77 Spl.CC.187/2014
stated, there is dispute with regard to the value of the
property as well as the cost of construction. The
prosecution claims the purchase value of the site at
Rs.39,00,000/- and cost of construction at
Rs.54,27,400/- and on the other hand, the accused claim
the value of the site at Rs.12,60,000/- and cost of
construction at Rs.20,00,000/-.
70. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, relying
on the evidence of PW.1, PW.6, Ex.P.35 and admitted Sale
Deed dated 11.12.2006 of accused No.2, vehemently
argued with regard to the valuation made by the IO at
Rs.93,27,400/-. It is meticulously argued that Ex.P.35
Sale Agreement and the evidence of PW.6 reveal the
actual sale consideration paid, though the said amount is
shown very less in the registered Sale Deed in the light of
the prevailing guidance value. She has again relied on
Ex.P.1 and evidence of PW.1 to support the cost of
construction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the accused has vehemently submitted that the sale
consideration shown in the Sale Deed is to be taken into
consideration and in the Sale Deed, the sale
consideration is shown as Rs.12,60,000/- which is to be
accepted. So far as the cost of construction is concerned,
the learned counsel has addressed very similar argument
as addressed in connection with Item No.2 stated above.
71. In the light of the argument addressed, now
the evidence available on record with regard to the value
of the site is analyzed, the prosecution has examined the
previous owner of the site as PW.6 and also got marked
78 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P.35 and P.36. Further, the prosecution has also got
marked the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
11.12.2006 executed by PW.6 in favour of accused No.2
as per Ex.P.16 and the said Sale Deed is concerned, there
is no dispute and the accused are relying on the sale
consideration shown in the said Sale Deed. As argued by
the learned counsel for the accused, as per the said Sale
Deed, the accused No.2 had purchased Site No.104 for a
total sale consideration of Rs.12,60,000/- and also paid
registration fee and stamp duty. However, the
prosecution claims that the actual market value of the
said property is Rs.39,00,000/- and not Rs.12,60,000/-
as shown in the Sale Deed. In this regard, the evidence
of PW.6 Smt. Jyothi Balakrishna, the vendor of the
accused No.2 is analyzed, her evidence supports the case
of the prosecution.
72. PW.6 Smt. Jyothi Balakrishna, in her evidence
deposed that, she had purchased the site No.104
measuring 30 x 40 feet in the year 2001 from Smt.
Sujatha Vasudevan and thereafter sold the said site in
favour of accused No.2 Smt. Sharada in the year 2006. It
is her further evidence that both accused Nos.1 and 2
came and enquired her with regard to the site and she
sold the said site for Rs.39,00,000/-. Earlier, she had
entered into Agreement of Sale with accused No.2 and
had received cash of Rs.20 lakhs from accused No.2 as
part of the consideration amount for the purpose of
marriage of her daughter. The remaining amount was
agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the Sale
79 Spl.CC.187/2014
Deed and Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by means of DD and
another Rs.9,00,000/- was paid in cash at the time of
registration of the Sale Deed. The prosecution has got
marked the original Sale Agreement dated 26.11.2006
entered into between the said witness and accused No.2
as per Ex.P.35 and also got marked the xerox copy of the
Sale Deed dated 29.01.2001 under which, PW.6 had
purchased the site in question subject to objection of the
accused persons.
73. The evidence of PW.6 as stated above is
analyzed, it is clear that the site No.104 was sold for
Rs.39,00,000/- and not for Rs.12,60,000/- as shown in
the Sale Deed of the accused No.2. Though the learned
counsel for the accused cross-examined the said witness,
nothing much was elicited from her mouth so as to
disbelieve her evidence as to receipt of Rs.39,00,000/- as
sale consideration of the site. There is no dispute as to
execution of the Sale Agreement and suggestion put to
the mouth of PW.6 on behalf of the accused reveals that
the said agreement was executed for the purpose of
availing the loan as accused No.2 had financial difficulty.
But, the witness has denied that she had executed Sale
Agreement to help the accused No.2 to avail loan from
the Bank. Even, during cross-examination also, she has
specifically stated that she had received Rs.39,00,000/-
as sale consideration and denied the receipt of only
Rs.12,60,000/- towards sale consideration.
74. Along with the evidence of PW.6, the contents
of Ex.P.35 Sale Agreement are analyzed, it clearly reveals
80 Spl.CC.187/2014
that the site No.104 was agreed to be purchased by
accused No.2 for Rs.39,00,000/- and out of which, a sum
of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid by way of cash to PW.6 as on
the date of Sale Agreement. It is also clear that the
remaining amount of Rs.19,00,000/- was agreed to be
paid within 15.12.2006. Therefore, the conjoint reading
of evidence of PW.6 and the admitted Sale Agreement
make is very clear that the actual sale consideration of
the site was Rs.39,00,000/- and not Rs.12,60,000/- and
in fact, Rs.39,00,000/- was paid though the sale
consideration amount was shown as Rs.12,60,000/- in
the registered Sale Deed. Even during cross-examination,
PW.6 has stated that though she had purchased the said
site for Rs.12,00,000/- in her Sale Deed, it was shown as
Rs.3,60,000/- only. Therefore, as argued by the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor, it appears that in view of the
prevailing guidance value, in order to avoid the stamp
duty, the sale consideration amount in the Sale Deed was
shown as Rs.12,60,000/- though the actual sale
consideration paid was Rs.39,00,000/-. There are no
reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW.6 and contents
of Ex.P.35 Sale Agreement. Therefore, though in the
registered Sale Deed of accused No.2, sale consideration
was shown as Rs.12,60,000/- the evidence on record
reveals that the actual sale consideration paid was
Rs.39,00,000/-. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note
that in Ex.P.268, i.e., explanation given by accused No.1,
he has specifically admitted that the said property was
purchased for an amount of Rs.39,00,000/-. Hence, the
value of the site has to be taken at Rs.39,00,000/- and
81 Spl.CC.187/2014
not at Rs.12,60,000/- as shown in the registered Sale
Deed. Therefore, this court is of the firm opinion that the
value of the site as shown by the IO at Rs.39,00,000/- is
to be accepted.
75. So far as the value of the cost of construction
is concerned, again there is evidence of PW.1 and his
report Ex.P.1. PW.1 in his evidence specifically stated
that he had visited Plot No.104, 3rd Cross, Telecom CHS
Layout, KP Agrahara, Bengaluru-40 on 08.04.2013 in the
presence of the IO and accused Nos.1 and 2 and valued
the building at Rs.54,27,400/-. He further deposed that
the site was purchased during 2006, the approval for
construction was obtained during July, 2007, the said
building consists of ground + 2 floors. The part of the
ground floor is used for car parking. The period of
construction was July, 2007 to October, 2009. The
approximate plinth area is about 400 sq.mtrs and plinth
area of the sit-out portion is 60 sq.mtrs. Along with his
evidence, Ex.P.1 report is analyzed, it support the
evidence of PW.1. In Ex.P.1, he has specifically stated as
to the method of valuation adopted and reason for
adopting the said method. Even, he has given abstract
as to how he calculated the cost of construction at
Rs.54,27,400/-. Though the learned counsel for the
accused has cross-examined the said witness, he could
not elicit anything from his mouth so as to disbelieve his
evidence and the cost of construction of the building
shown in his report. Even during cross-examination, he
has specifically stated that based on his physical and
82 Spl.CC.187/2014
visual examination, by taking actual measurement of
properties, he assessed the valuation of the site.
Therefore, on going through his evidence, it is clear that
he assessed the cost of construction on physical and
visual examination by taking actual measurement and on
the basis of the Central Government Public Works
Department Plinth Area Rates. There are no reasons to
disbelieve the cost of construction determined by PW.1,
the Valuation Officer.
76. It is pertinent to note that though the accused
claimed the cost of construction of the building at
Rs.20,00,000/-, absolutely there is no any evidence to
support the same as against the valuation arrived by
PW.1. Though PW.1 was cross-examined, nothing was
elicited from his mouth to uphold the cost of construction
at Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed by the accused. Even, no
suggestion was put to his mouth in that regard.
Absolutely no material was placed before this court on
behalf of the accused to hold that the cost of construction
of the building at Rs.20,00,000/-. It is noticed from the
contents of Ex.P.267 that while giving details under Form
No.I to VI as per Ex.P.266, the accused No.1 had given
detail estimate for the construction of proposed building
in site No.104 to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- with copy of
the sketch. But, only on that basis, without required and
acceptable evidence, one cannot accept the cost of
construction of the building was only Rs.20,00,000/- as
claimed by the accused in the light of the evidence of
PW.1 and Ex.P.1 Report. Except assertion of the accused
83 Spl.CC.187/2014
No.1, absolutely there is no any other material in support
of the claim of the accused. Therefore, on analyzing entire
evidence made available before the court, this court is of
the considered opinion that the cost of construction of
the building existing in Site No.104 is to be accepted at
Rs.54,27,400/- as contended by the prosecution in the
absence of any material to support the cost of
construction claimed by the accused. Absolutely there
are no reasons to disbelieve the cost of construction of
the building stated by PW.1 in Ex.P.1. Therefore, the cost
of construction of building is accepted at Rs.54,27,400/-
as against Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the accused.
Hence, the total value of the site No.104 with existing
building amounts to Rs.93,27,400/- as put up by the
prosecution is to be accepted and the same is accepted.
77. It is also noticed from the contents of Ex.P.266
Statement of the accused No.1 in Form I to VI, relating to
immovable property given by the accused wherein, the
accused No.1 has contended that the Site No.104 was
purchased in the name of his wife out of her own
resource i.e., from rental and business income and
assistance from her brothers and the said property is not
connected with him. But, in this regard, it is pertinent to
note that the accused have not produced acceptable
evidence to show that the said property was acquired by
accused No.2 out of her own resources. Though the
financial assistance was stated to be given by her
brothers, there is no supporting evidence. Though the
brothers of accused No.2 were examined before this
84 Spl.CC.187/2014
court, as PW.19 and PW.70, they have not stated as to
payment made for purchasing this property. In the
evidence of PW.70, absolutely there is no evidence as to
payment of any amount for purchasing the property in
the name of accused No.2. Even, PW.19 has also not
stated anything as to payment of the amount to accused
No.2 for purchasing the property in her name. However,
during cross-examination, a suggestion was put to his
mouth to the effect that the consideration for purchasing
the property by accused No.2 was paid by his father and
the said suggestion was admitted. Therefore, the
suggestion reveals that it is not the brothers who had
given the money to purchase the property, but the father
of accused No.2. But absolutely there is no convincing
and acceptable evidence to show the amount paid by
either father of the accused No.2 or her brothers.
Therefore, the said contention of the accused cannot be
accepted. Nothing is placed before this court to show
that accused No.2 was having such business income so
as to purchase the property for such huge amount.
Thus, considering all these aspects, this court is of the
considered view that the value of the site and cost of
construction as put up by the prosecution is to be
accepted, with regard to the Site No.104 and the building
constructed thereon. Hence, the same is accepted.
78. So far as Item No.4 of the immovable property
i.e., Plot No.30 measuring 675 sq.ft, situated at 2 nd Cross,
Subbanna Garden, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru is concerned,
the prosecution has claimed value of the site at
85 Spl.CC.187/2014
Rs.30,37,500/- and cost of construction of the building
therein at Rs.29,49,500/- and in all Rs.59,87,000/-. On
the other hand, the accused claimed value of the site at
Rs.14,85,000/- and cost of construction of the building
at Rs.10,00,000/- and in all, Rs.24,85,000/-. Therefore,
it is clear that there is dispute with regard to the value of
the site as well as cost of construction of the building in
the said site.
79. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, relying
on the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.8, Ex.P.1, 9 and
10, argued with regard to the valuation made by the IO
at Rs.59,87,000/-. It is meticulously argued that Ex.P.9
Sale Agreement and the evidence of PW.3 and PW.8 reveal
the actual sale consideration paid, though the said
amount is shown very less in the registered Sale Deed
i.e., in Ex.P.10 in the light of the prevailing guidance
value. She has again relied on Ex.P.1 and evidence of
PW.1 to support the cost of construction. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the accused has
vehemently submitted the value of the site in the
registered Sale Deed is shown as Rs.14,85,000/- and
that has to be taken into consideration for value of the
site and not the amount mentioned in the Sale
Agreement, wherein inflated price is shown with an
intention to avail loan from the Bank. So far as the cost
of construction is concerned, the learned counsel has
addressed very similar argument as addressed in
connection with Item No.2 stated above.
86 Spl.CC.187/2014
80. In the light of the argument addressed, now
the evidence available on record with regard to the value
of the site is analyzed, the prosecution has examined the
previous owner of the site as PW.8 and her husband, who
is the witness to the Sale Agreement as well as to the
registered Sale Deed as PW.3. The prosecution has got
marked the Sale Agreement as per Ex.P.9 and original
registered Sale Deed as per Ex.P.10 and its certified copy
as per Ex.P.13. It is noticed that there is no dispute as to
execution of the Sale Agreement and Sale Deed as per
Ex.P.9 and P.10. It is noticed that for the purpose of
valuation of the site, the prosecution is relying on the
Sale Agreement and on the other hand, the accused is
relying on the sale consideration amount mentioned in
the registered Sale Deed. As argued by the learned
counsel for the accused, as per the Ex.P.10 Sale Deed,
the accused No.2 had purchased Site No.30 measuring in
all 675 sq.ft for a total sale consideration of
Rs.14,85,000/- and also paid registration fee and stamp
duty. However, the prosecution claims that the actual
market value of the said property was Rs.30,37,500/-
and not Rs.14,85,000/- as shown in the Sale Deed.
81. With regard to above facts, the evidence of
PW.3 Sri. L.Gopi, who is the husband of the owner of the
said property Smt. L.Savithramma (PW.8) is analyzed,
PW.3 in his evidence stated that the site bearing No.30
measuring 15 x 45 feet at Vijayanagar, Subbanna
Garden, Bengaluru was in the name of his wife and she
sold the said property in favour of accused No.2 in
87 Spl.CC.187/2014
December, 2008. An Agreement of Sale was entered into
at that time and he has signed the said agreement as
attesting witness and his wife and also the purchaser
signed the said agreement. He has also stated that
consideration amount was paid to him partly in cash and
partly through DD, but he does not remember the
amount. Through him, the prosecution got marked the
original Sale Agreement and original registered Sale Deed
as per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 in respect of the site in
question. He has also identified his signature and that of
his wife and accused No.2 found in the Sale Agreement
as well as the Sale Deed and also identified the signature
of his wife and her photographs found in the registered
Sale Deed. Therefore, on going through his examination-
in-chief, it is noticed that he has not supported the
prosecution case as to total amount received. However,
during cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he
has admitted that he stated before the CBI Officer that
the said plot was sold for Rs.30,37,500/- and out of the
same, they have received Rs.20,37,500/- in cash and
remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- through DDs.
Though the learned counsel for the accused has cross-
examined him, nothing was elicited from his mouth to
support the case of the accused persons. He has
specifically denied the suggestion put to his mouth that
Ex.P.9 was executed only with an intention to avail the
loan from the Bank and therefore, the figures shown
therein are inflated. Therefore, it is clear that whatever
sale consideration amount shown in the Sale Agreement
was not inflated one.
88 Spl.CC.187/2014
82. Along with the evidence of PW.3, the evidence
of his wife PW.8 Smt. L. Savithramma, is analyzed, in her
evidence she had stated that she had sold the plot in
favour of accused No.2 for Rs.30 lakhs and odd and at
that time, they entered into an Agreement of Sale. She
has also stated as to execution of Sale Deed as per
Ex.P.10. However, in her evidence, she has stated that
the entire sale consideration amount was paid to her in
cash and her husband was looking after all the
transactions and as such, she does not remember exactly
whether entire sale consideration amount was paid in
cash or by means of cheque or DD. It is also stated by
her that she does not remember how much sale
consideration amount has been mentioned in Ex.P.9.
PW.8 in her evidence specifically stated that she had sold
the plot for Rs.30 lakhs and odd and the said evidence
remained unchallenged as accused has not opted to
cross-examine the said witness.
83. Along with evidence of PW.3 and PW.8, Ex.P.9
admitted Sale Agreement is analyzed, it reveals that on
20.11.2008, PW.8 and accused No.2 entered into Sale
Agreement in respect of Plot No.30 and accused No.2 had
agreed to purchase the said plot for total amount of
Rs.30,37,500/- and also paid advance amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-. The remaining sale consideration of
Rs.20,37,500/- was agreed to be paid at the time of
registration. Therefore, the Sale Agreement entered into
between the accused No.2 and PW.8 clearly reveals that
the site No.30 measuring 675 sq.ft was agreed to be sold
89 Spl.CC.187/2014
for Rs.30,37,500/- as contended by the prosecution.
Therefore, on conjoint reading of evidence of PW.3 and
PW.8 and contents of Ex.P.9 Sale Agreement, it is clear
that the real sale value of the plot sold was
Rs.30,37,500/-. As argued by the learned counsel for the
accused, as found in Ex.P.10, the Sale consideration
amount was mentioned as Rs.14,85,000/-. But, the
evidence on record clinchingly establish that the actual
sale consideration paid was Rs.30,37,500/- and not
Rs.14,85,000/-. Therefore, as argued by the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor, it appears that in view of the
prevailing guidance value, in order to avoid the stamp
duty, the sale consideration amount in the Sale Deed was
shown as Rs.14,85,000/- though the actual sale
consideration paid was Rs.30,37,000/-. There are no
reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3 and PW.8 and
contents of Ex.P.9 Sale Agreement. There are no reasons
to hold that the inflated value is shown in the Sale
Agreement as contended by the accused. Apart from all
these aspects, it is pertinent to note that in the
explanation given by accused No.1 as per Ex.P.268, he
has specifically admitted that the said plot was
purchased in the name of his wife in the year 2008 for an
amount of Rs.30,37,500/- from Smt. L.Savithramma and
also mode of payment. Therefore, though in the
registered Sale Deed of accused No.2, sale consideration
was shown as Rs.14,85,000/- the evidence on record
reveals that the actual sale consideration paid was
Rs.30,37,500/-. Hence, the value of the site has to be
taken at Rs.30,37,500/- and not at Rs.14,85,000/- as
90 Spl.CC.187/2014
shown in the registered Sale Deed. Therefore, this court
is of the firm opinion that the value of the site as shown
by the IO at Rs.30,37,500/- is to be accepted.
84. So far as the value of the cost of construction
is concerned, again there is evidence of PW.1 and his
report Ex.P.1. PW.1 in para 4 of his evidence stated that
on 08.04.2013 he inspected Plot No.30, 2 nd Cross,
Subbanna Garden, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru in the
presence of the CBI Inspector and accused Nos.1 and 2.
The said building is evaluated at Rs.29,49,500/-. The
said building consists of ground + 3 floors. The part of
the ground floor is being used for car parking. The
approximate plinth area is about 208 sq.mtrs and
approximate plinth area of the balcony is about 45
sq.mtrs. The period of construction is April-2009 to May-
2010. Along with his evidence, Ex.P.1 report is analyzed,
it support the evidence of PW.1. In Ex.P.1, he has
specifically stated as to the method of valuation adopted
and reason for adopting the said method. Even, he has
given abstract as to how he calculated the cost of
construction at Rs.29,49,500/-. Though the learned
counsel for the accused has cross-examined the said
witness, he could not elicit anything from his mouth so
as to disbelieve his evidence and the cost of construction
of the building shown in his report. Even during cross-
examination, he has specifically stated that based on his
physical and visual examination, by taking actual
measurement of properties, he assessed the valuation of
the site. Therefore, on going through his evidence, it is
91 Spl.CC.187/2014
clear that he assessed the cost of construction on
physical and visual examination by taking actual
measurement and on the basis of the Central
Government Public Works Department Plinth Area Rates.
There are no reasons to disbelieve the cost of
construction determined by PW.1, the Valuation Officer.
85. It is pertinent to note that though the accused
claimed the cost of construction of the building at
Rs.10,00,000/-, absolutely there is no any evidence to
support the same as against the valuation arrived by
PW.1. Though PW.1 was cross-examined, nothing was
elicited from his mouth to uphold the cost of construction
at Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed by the accused. Even, no
suggestion was put to his mouth in that regard.
Absolutely no material was placed before this court on
behalf of the accused to hold that the cost of construction
of the building at Rs.10,00,000/-. It is not understood
how and on what basis, the accused are claiming the cost
of construction at Rs.10,00,000/- as contended by them.
Though in his Statement i.e., Ex.P268, accused No.1 has
contended that the cost of construction of the building
was Rs.10,00,000/-, absolutely there is no evidence to
accept the same. On the other hand, the cost of
construction as put up by the prosecution at
Rs.29,49,500/- is supported with evidence of
independent expert witness along with his report. The
accused have neither placed any material before this
court to show that the cost of construction was only
Rs.10,00,000/- nor elicited anything from the mouth of
92 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.1 in that regard. Except assertion of the accused
No.1, absolutely there is no any other material in support
of the claim of the accused. In the light of the oral
evidence and the report of PW.1, this court is of the
considered view that the cost of construction as stated by
PW.1 is required to be accepted as against the imaginary
value stated by the accused. Therefore, the cost of
construction of the building as taken by the IO based on
the report of PW.1 is required to be accepted. Hence, this
court is of the considered view that the valuation of Plot
No.30 as put up by the prosecution at Rs.29,49,500/- is
to be accepted as against the claim of the accused at
Rs.10,00,000/-. Absolutely there are no reasons to
disbelieve the cost of construction of the building stated
by PW.1 in Ex.P.1. Therefore, the cost of construction of
building is accepted at Rs.29,49,500/- as against
Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the accused. Hence, the total
value of the site No.30 with existing building amounts to
Rs.59,87,000/- as put up by the prosecution and the
same is accepted.
86. It is also noticed from the contents of Ex.P.266
Statement of the accused No.1 in Form No.I to VI relating
to immovable property given by the accused wherein, the
accused No.1 has contended that the Site No.30 was
purchased in the name of his wife by receiving the fund
from her brothers through cheques and DDs and the
building was constructed by his wife by availing loan/
financial assistance from the brothers. But, in this
regard, it is pertinent to note that the accused have not
93 Spl.CC.187/2014
produced acceptable evidence to show that the said
property was acquired by accused No.2 out of the
financial assistance provided by her brothers and
building was constructed by availing loan and financial
assistance from her brothers. Though the financial
assistance was stated to be given by her brothers, there
is no supporting evidence.
87. In the evidence of PW.70, absolutely there is
no evidence as to payment of any amount for purchasing
the property in the name of accused No.2 and
construction of the building. Even, PW.19 has also not
stated anything as to payment of the amount to accused
No.2 for purchasing the property in her name and
constructing the building. However, during cross-
examination, a general suggestion was put to the mouth
of PW.19 to the effect that the consideration for
purchasing the property by accused No.2 was paid by his
father and the said suggestion was admitted. But the
said suggestion is contrary to the contention taken by the
accused in this regard. Absolutely there is no convincing
and acceptable evidence to show the amount paid either
by father of the accused No.2 or by her brothers to
purchase the property and to construct the building.
Therefore, the said contention of the accused cannot be
accepted. Thus, considering all these aspects, this court
is of the considered view that the value of the site and
cost of construction as put up by the prosecution is to be
accepted, with regard to the Site No.30 and the building
constructed thereon. Hence, the same is accepted.
94 Spl.CC.187/2014
88. Therefore, on considering the entire oral and
documentary evidence, this court is of the considered
view that the valuation of the immovable properties
which includes value of the site as well as the building
constructed thereon, as shown by the prosecution at
Rs.1,98,57,900/- is to be accepted and accordingly the
amount shown in Statement B in respect of the
immovable properties as put up by the prosecution is
accepted.
89. Sl.No.2 of Statement B, is regarding movable
properties is concerned, the prosecution has claimed
total amount of the movable properties of the different
items as shown in the table at Rs.10,88,310/-. However,
the accused had contended the total value of the movable
properties should have been Rs.9,17,590/- as against
Rs.10,88,310/-. On going through the rival contention
and the chart provided, it is clear that the accused are
disputing only 5 items of the movable properties and
there is no dispute with regard to other movable
properties as shown by the IO. Therefore, the items which
are not disputed needs no further consideration. It is
pertinent to note that the accused have not disputed the
value of any of the movable properties as shown by the
IO. The accused have disputed the following items.
Item Nos. Particulars Amount
(In Rs.)
Item No.10 found in One Sony Ericsson 14,370/-
Master Bedroom Mobile
Item No.3 Guitar with Ronald 64,650/-
Amplifier and Guitar
Item No.4 One HP Laptop 35,000/-
Panasonic (500GB
95 Spl.CC.187/2014
DV6 Series
Item No.5 One Sony Make 24,000/-
Desktop (TFA and
UPS and CPU) etc.,
Item No.11 One Samsung 32,700/-
found in second Galaxy Note N 700
floor main hall.
Total 1,70,720/-
90. With regard to the above items, the accused
have contended that the said items were purchased by
Sri.T.Sanjay, son of the accused, out of his independent
income from the profession and also out of the gift money
received from his maternal uncles and grand-father and
the value of the said properties are to be deducted and
thereby the total value of the movables come to
Rs.9,17,590/- as against Rs.10,88,310/- as put up by
the prosecution.
91. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor in her
argument submitted that the accused have not produced
any evidence to show that these movable properties were
purchased from the earning of their son PW.68, who was
studying at the relevant point of time. On the other hand,
the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the
PW.68 was doing part time job in Real Estate business
and was getting commission. Out of the amount so
earned, he had purchased the said properties. Further,
he was also provided with financial assistance from his
maternal uncles. In this regard, he has also taken notice
of this court with regard to Ex.D.32 and some bills found
in Ex.P.57.
96 Spl.CC.187/2014
92. In the light of the argument addressed, now
the evidence on record is analyzed, the prosecution has
examined the son of the accused Sri.T.Sanjay, as PW.68,
who in his evidence stated that he completed Engineering
(Computer Science) Graduation during 2010 and
thereafter, he did MBA from Allianz Business Academy,
Bengaluru. He was doing part-time job during his study
of Graduation from 2009 to 2011. During his cross-
examination on behalf of the accused, with regard to the
above said movables are concerned, he has specifically
stated that he had purchased item No.3 to 5 and 11
stated in the above table by his own earnings from his
part-time job. He has also stated the amount spent for
purchase of the said movables. But he has not stated
anything as to item No.10 found in the Master Bedroom
i.e., Sony Ericsson Mobile.
93. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there
is no convincing and acceptable evidence to show that
Sri.T.Sanjay was doing either part-time job or real estate
business. No doubt, the letter is produced as per Ex.D.32
to shows that he had earned some amount in connection
with the real estate. But, only on that basis it cannot be
said that he was doing real estate business as contended
in the absence of required, acceptable and convincing
evidence. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that in
the details furnished under Form I to VI i.e., in Ex.P.266,
the accused No.1 has specifically stated that item No.10
i.e., one Sony Ericsson Mobile of the value of Rs.14,370/-
and item No.11 i.e., one Samsung Galaxy Tablet of
97 Spl.CC.187/2014
Rs.32,700/- were his self-acquired properties. Therefore,
the contents of Ex.P.266 reveal that both these two items
were acquired by accused No.1 himself and not by
PW.68. No doubt, the bills found in Ex.P.57 relating to
item No.10 and 11 are standing in the name of PW.68,
but in the light of contents of Ex.P.266, it is clear that
both the said items were purchased by accused No.1
himself, but in the name of his son, PW.68. The
remaining 3 items are concerned, though PW.68 has
stated that he acquired the said movables out of his own
earning, there is no convincing and acceptable evidence
except his oral assertion. Though there is bill relating to
the Guitar Ex.P.57 in the name of PW.68, the same is not
convincing and acceptable. In this regard, it is also
noticed that, in the evidence, PW.68 asserts that he had
earned the said movables by his own earning. But, in
the argument notes, it is stated that he earned the said
movables out of his independent income from his
profession and by the gifts given by his maternal uncles
and grand-father. The maternal uncles, who are
examined as PW.19 and PW.70 have not stated anything
in this regard. Therefore, in the light of the existing
evidence, it cannot be accepted that the said movable
properties were purchased by PW.68 out of his own
earnings as contended. Admittedly, he was pursuing his
education and there is no material to show that he was
doing any profession or the part-time job as contended.
Hence, the said movables have to be regarded as the
property acquired by accused No.1 himself. Therefore,
98 Spl.CC.187/2014
the value of the movables in Sl.No.2 of Statement B, as
determined by the IO is required to be accepted.
94. So far as the Sl.No.3 of the Statement B
relating to vehicles is concerned, it contains 4 vehicles
and the accused have not disputed purchase of the said
vehicles in the name of the accused No.1 and in the name
of Sri.T.Sanjay and also valuation of the said vehicles as
shown by the IO. It is noticed that out of the four
vehicles, the accused have not disputed three vehicles
i.e., Maruti Zen Car bearing No.KA-02/MB-6759, Honda
Activa Scooter bearing No.KA-02/HP-4139 standing in
the name of accused No.1 and Honda Activa Scooter
bearing No.KA-02/HN 8799 standing in the name of
Sri.T.Sanjay, son of the accused No.1 and 2. However, the
accused have contended that item No.2 vehicle i.e., Bajaj
Motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/HC-2497 is belonging to
their son Sri.T.Sanjay and that cannot be included as the
assets of the accused as it was purchased by their son
out of his own income from his profession i.e., by doing
part-time work in programming.
95. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor
vehemently contended that though the accused have
contended that their son PW.68 had purchased the said
vehicle out of his own income, the same has not been
proved and the evidence on record is also contrary to the
said contention. Hence, the said vehicle is also to be
considered as the asset of the accused No.1 himself. On
the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused,
relying on the evidence of PW.13 contended that the cost
99 Spl.CC.187/2014
of the said vehicle as well as road tax were being paid by
Sri.T.Sanjay out of his own earning by doing part-time
job and hence, that has to be excluded from the assets of
the accused for the purpose of computation of value of
the vehicles.
96. The prosecution has examined PW.13 and
PW.68 in this regard. PW.13 Sri.N.Mohan, Ex-
Commercial Manager, Khivraj Motors, Bengaluru, in his
evidence stated that Sri.T.Sanjay, son of Sri. Tholasiram
had purchased Bajaj Avenger Motorcycle and the total
cost of the said vehicle was Rs.74,020/-. He further
stated that T.Sanjay has paid Rs.9,264/- towards
insurance, registration and lifetime road tax and
Rs.64,756/- towards cost of the vehicle. In that regard,
even the prosecution has got marked documents as per
Ex.P.70 to 74 and the said documents are not in dispute.
PW.13 in his evidence stated that Sri.T.Sanjay had paid
Rs.74,020/- towards cost of the vehicle, registration
charges and insurance amount. As already stated, there
is no dispute as to cost of the vehicle and the said vehicle
was purchased in the name of Sri.T.Sanjay, son of the
accused Nos.1 and 2. But, the point for consideration is
only source for purchasing the said vehicle. As per the
prosecution, the said vehicle was purchased by accused
No.1 in the name of his son, but the contention of the
accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the said vehicle was
purchased by their son by his own earning. In this
regard, on going through the I to VI Statement given by
the accused No.1 as per Ex.P.266, it is noticed that
100 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused No.1 has not given any explanation with regard
to the said vehicle, though he has referred other three
vehicles as they were acquired by him out of his own
savings. However, in para 27 of his I to VI statement, he
has stated that his son has accounted for his earning in
accordance with law.
97. Now, the evidence of PW.68, the son of the
accused Nos.1 and 2, in whose name the said vehicles
stand, is looked into, in his examination-in-chief, the
prosecution has not brought out anything in this regard.
However, during the cross-examination on behalf of the
accused, he has stated that the amount for the purchase
of the Activa Honda as per Ex.P.78 for Rs.61,078/- and
for purchase of Bajaj Motorcycle as per Ex.P.70 to 74 for
Rs.74,020/- were paid by PW.19 and Pampanayaka
(PW.70). Therefore, the evidence of PW.68 in whose name,
the said vehicles stand is looked into, it is clear that he
claims that the said two vehicles were purchased out of
the amount paid by PW.19 and Pampanayaka-PW.70,
who are his maternal uncles. But it is pertinent to note
that, as already stated, in Ex.P.266, details furnished in
Form No.I to VI reveal that Honda Activa as per Ex.P.78
was purchased by accused No.1 himself by his own
savings and not either by PW.68 by his own earning or by
the the amount paid by his maternal uncles. Though,
PW.68 has stated that for purchase of the Bajaj
Motorcycle, a sum of Rs.74,020/- as found in Ex.P.70 to
74 was paid by PW.19 and PW.70, there is no any
acceptable evidence to show that they had paid the said
101 Spl.CC.187/2014
amount. Either PW.19 or PW.70 in their evidence stated
as to payment made for purchasing the said motorcycles
in the name of PW.68. During cross-examination, PW.19
has admitted a suggestion put to his mouth to the effect
that his brother has paid amount to Sri.Sanjay, to buy
the motorcycles. This suggestion reveals that PW.19 had
not paid any amount for purchasing the motorcycle in
the name of Sri.T.Sanjay. PW.70 Pampanayaka, in his
evidence has not stated anything as to payment made by
him towards purchase of the motorcycle in the name of
Sri.T.Sanjay. Therefore, it is clear that the motorcycle in
question was neither purchased out of the alleged own
earnings of the PW.68, nor the amount paid by PW.19 or
PW.70 as stated by PW.68. Under these attending
circumstances, it has to be considered that the said
vehicle was also purchased by accused No.1 in the name
of his son Sri.T.Sanjay. Such being the case, the
contention of the accused that the value of the Bajaj
Motorcycle standing in the name of Sri.T.Sanjay cannot
be included in computing the value of the vehicles,
cannot be accepted. Therefore, the value of the vehicles
as shown by the IO in Sl.No.2 of the Statement B is to be
accepted.
98. Sl.No.4 of the Statement B deals with Bank
Balance and table No.7 of the charge sheet gives details
of the accounts held by accused Nos.1 and 2 and their
son Sri.T.Sanjay. As already stated, the accused have
disputed the said amount and claimed that, it shall not
be included in the value of the assets of the accused as
102 Spl.CC.187/2014
the same includes the amount belonged to Hindu
Undivided Family of accused No.2 and also self-earning
of their son Sri.T.Sanjay. It is pertinent to note that the
accused have not disputed the existence of the accounts
in their names and in the name of their son and also the
total amount standing in the said accounts as put up by
the prosecution. Therefore, there is no need of
considering the evidence in that regard. As per the
prosecution, there was Rs.26,60,773/- in the Bank
Accounts standing in the name of accused No.1 and 2
and their son. However, the accused have contended
that the said amount does not belongs to accused, but it
belongs to Hindu Undivided Family of the accused No.2
and earnings of their son Sri.T.Sanjay. Therefore, the
only fact to be determined is, whether the amount
standing in the Bank Accounts of the accused Nos.1 and
2 and their son is belonging to the accused or the said
amount is belonging to Hindu Undivided Family of
accused No.2 and their son Sri.T.Sanjay.
99. Now, the accounts belonging to accused No.2
is concerned, admittedly, two accounts are standing in
her name. The first account bearing S.B. Account
No.2011591 (Old No.1591) is with Karnataka State Co-op
Apex Bank Ltd., RPC Layout, Bengaluru and there was
balance amount of Rs.4,54,239/- and another S.B.
Account No.52117070673 with State Bank of Hyderabad,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, with balance of Rs.2,23,972/-.
With regard to these two accounts, the details furnished
by the accused No.1 in Form No.I to VI i.e., Ex.P.266 is
103 Spl.CC.187/2014
looked into, it is contended by him that the balance
existing in the said accounts represent periodical
remittance made to the accounts from the agricultural/
farm income of Hindu Undivided Family of accused No.2.
But, to substantiate the same, there is no convincing and
acceptable evidence. It is not understood on what basis
the accused claim that the balance found in the said two
accounts are the periodical remittances made to the said
account from the agricultural income of the Hindu
Undivided Family. There is no clarity as to who has
deposited the said amount and for what purpose in the
name of accused No.2. In this regard, it is pertinent to
note that though in this case the brothers of accused
No.2 i.e., PW.19 and PW.70 were examined, they have not
stated anything as to depositing of the agricultural
income in the account of the accused No.2. No doubt,
the accused, during cross-examination of PW.19,
produced many documents to show the agricultural
income to the parental family of accused No.2. However,
only on the basis of the said documents, it cannot be said
that the amount standing in the name of accused No.2 is
the amount of the agricultural income of the Hindu
Undivided Family of her undivided family, as stated in
Ex.P.266. It is not the case of the accused that the said
amount is the self-earning of the accused No.2 and even
no documents are produced to show that the balance
amount standing in her Bank Account was earned by her
own. Such being the case, it has to be accepted that the
amount standing in the accounts of the accused No.2,
belongs to the accused No.1 himself.
104 Spl.CC.187/2014
100. So far as the S.B. Account No.2011372 (S.B.
A/c.No.1372-old) with Karnataka Co-op Apex Bank Ltd.,
RPC Layout, is concerned, it stands in the name of
accused No.1 and the balance amount is found to be
Rs.15,37,474/-. The accused in his Form I to VI
Statement (Ex.P.266) contended that it represents the
amount deposited on behalf of the brothers of his wife in
his name. But absolutely, there is no evidence of any
kind to accept that such huge amount was deposited in
the name of accused No.1 by his brothers-in-law. He has
not stated anything as to who, when, why, how much
and in what mode the said amount was being deposited.
Therefore, the contention of the accused that the balance
amount found in the said account was remitted by his
brothers-in-law cannot be accepted. Further, the
brothers-in-law of the accused No.1, who are examined
before this court have not stated anything as to deposit of
the amount. With regard to the amount deposited in the
Account, the prosecution has examined the Branch
Manager of the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank
Ltd., as PW.2 and through him, the account statement
relating to the accused Nos.1 and 2 maintained in the
said Bank got marked. At this stage itself, it is pertinent
to note that since the amount existing in the account is
admitted, there is no need of considering any other
evidence in that regard. Now, the evidence of PW.2 is
analyzed, during his cross-examination on behalf of the
accused, he has stated that the salaries of accused No.1
were being deposited in Ex.P.4 account through cheque.
Therefore, on going through the evidence on record,
105 Spl.CC.187/2014
viewed from any angle, it cannot be accepted that the
amount found in the Bank Account of the accused No.1
was the amount deposited by his brothers-in-law as
contended. Therefore, the amount standing in the said
account has to be considered as the asset of the accused
No.1 and accordingly, the said amount taken by the IO as
asset of the accused No.1 is accepted.
101. The other accounts i.e., S.B. A/c.
No.1052500110869301 with Karnataka Bank,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and S.B. A/c. No.6212838332
with State Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru
are in the name of Sri.T.Sanjay, who is the son of the
accused Nos.1 and 2. As already stated, there is no
dispute as to existence of the account and amount
existing therein. Therefore, there is no need of
considering any evidence in that regard. So far as this
amount is concerned, the IO has considered the said
amounts belong to the accused No.1 himself. On the
other hand, the contents of Ex.P.266 i.e., details
furnished under Form No.I to VI are analyzed, the
accused No.1 has contended that the balance amount
standing in S.B. A/c. No.6212838332 with State Bank of
Hyderabad is the financial assistance given to his son
Sri.T.Sanjay by his maternal uncle and the balance
amount standing in the S.B. A/c. No.1052500110869301
with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar, Bengaluru is the
self-earning and accumulated balance of Sri.T.Sanjay.
The balance amount stated in Ex.P.266 and in the charge
sheet are found to be varying to some extent. However,
106 Spl.CC.187/2014
the detail given by the accused in his chart as well as the
argument notes reveals that the amount standing in the
accounts as stated by the prosecution is correct.
102. So far as the amount standing in the account
of Sri.T.Sanjay, with State Bank of Hyderabad is
concerned, there is an amount of Rs.4,26,884/- in the
said account. The accused No.1 in his I to VI statement
contended that the said amount is the self-earning and
the financial assistance from the maternal uncles of his
son. In his statement he has not stated as to what is the
source for self-earning of his son. Absolutely there is no
convincing and acceptable evidence to accept the stand of
the accused that the said amount represents financial
assistance from the maternal uncles of his son. No
evidence is produced to show that such huge amount
was deposited by the maternal uncles of Sri.T.Sanjay, in
his Bank Account. Further, though the maternal uncles
of Sri.T.Sanjay are examined before the court, they have
not stated anything in that regard. Even, Sri.T.Sanjay,
who is examined as PW.68 has also not stated anything
as to the amount deposited by his maternal uncles to his
Bank Account. Therefore, the contention of the accused
that the amount in the said account of their son
represents the amount paid by his maternal uncles
cannot be accepted.
103. It is pertinent to note that during cross-
examination of PW.68 Sri.T.Sanjay, on behalf of the
accused, he has stated that he was doing real estate
broker business as his part-time job and depositing his
107 Spl.CC.187/2014
earning to his S.B. A/c in State Bank of Hyderabad,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. In this regard, the learned
counsel for the accused has taken notice of this court on
Ex.P.92, wherein, the entry dated 11.05.2010 is marked
as Ex.D.31, Ex.D.32 and entries dated 31.01.2011,
31.05.2011, 21.09.2011 which are collectively marked as
Ex.D.33 contending that the amount standing in the said
account is the self-earning of PW.68. The amount
deposited in the said account earned interest of
Rs.21,613/- and as such, the said amount has to be
considered as the self-earned amount of Sri.T.Sanjay and
not the asset of accused No.1. It is also submitted by him
that the the prosecution has not disputed his evidence in
that regard and his evidence remained un-challenged.
Now the contents of Ex.D.32 and Ex.D.31 and 33 found
in Ex.P.92 (A/c. Statement) are analyzed, they support
the version of the accused. It is clear from Ex.D.32 that
the cheque was issued in favour of Sri.T.Sanjay for
Rs.2,23,750/- vide cheque No.847079 dated 11.05.2010
towards commission for introducing the members for
purchase of the sites in the Layout, formed by Karnataka
Telecom Department Employees Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., and the said amount was deposited in his
account. Further, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was found to
be deposited in cash which he claims to be his self-
earning, which is not disputed by the prosecution. It is
also clear that a sum of Rs.21,613/- was credited to the
said account by way of interest. Therefore, in the light of
the unchallenged evidence of PW.68 and Ex.D.31 to D.33
and Ex.P.92, this court is of the considered view that
108 Spl.CC.187/2014
though the part-time job and income earned from the
said part-time job by Sri.T.Sanjay, is not proved, the
amount standing in his name in S.B. Account with State
Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru has to be
treated as amount belonging to him and not to the
accused. The contention of the accused in this regard
appears to be probable. Therefore, the amount of Rs.
4,26,884/- standing in the said account cannot be
considered as an asset of the accused No.1 and that has
to be deleted from computing the asset of the accused at
the end of the check period. Accordingly, the said amount
has to be treated as NIL as contended by the accused as
against the claim of the prosecution.
104. So far as another account of Sri.T.Sanjay,
maintained with Karnataka Bank, vide S.B.
A/c.No.1052500110869301 is concerned, in the said
account, there was balance of Rs.18,224/- as on the date
of end of the check period as found in Ex.P.81, the A/c.
Statement and the said A/c. Statement is not in dispute.
The accused No.1, in his I to VI statement, contended
that the said amount is the self-earning of his son and
accumulated balance. Though such assertion is made,
there is no convincing and acceptable evidence in that
regard. Even, PW.68 in whose name the said account
stands is examined before the court, he has not stated as
to depositing of the amount in the said account by his
own earning, though he has stated regarding the amount
deposited in another account. No material is placed
before this court to show the job and earning of the son
109 Spl.CC.187/2014
of the accused No.1, who was admittedly a student at the
relevant point of time. Therefore, the amount standing in
the said account of the son of the accused No.1 is to be
regarded as asset of the accused No.1 himself and it
cannot be treated as self-earned amount of the son of the
accused No.1 as stated by accused No.1 in Ex.P.226 I to
VI statement. Therefore, the IO has rightly included the
said amount in the asset of the accused at the end of the
check period. Therefore, considering the entire material
placed before this court, this court is of the considered
view that except the amount standing in the name of the
son of the accused Sri.T.Sanjay, in S.B. A/c.
No.6212838332 maintained with State Bank of
Hyderabad, the remaining amount found in the four
accounts are to be treated as the asset of the accused
No.1 at the end of the check period. Hence total amount
of Rs.22,33,889/- could be treated as an asset of the
accused No.1 at the end of the check period as against
Rs.26,60,773/-.
105. Sl.No.5 of Statement B consists cash of
Rs.56,82,000/- seized from the house of the accused
persons during house search on 02.02.2012. In this
regard, the prosecution has produced search list as per
Ex.P.52 and inventory made as per Ex.P.62. In this
regard, it is pertinent to note that the accused have not
disputed the search made and the amount and
denomination of the currency notes and other documents
seized as per Ex.P.52. Therefore, there is no need of
considering the matter in that regard. The prosecution
110 Spl.CC.187/2014
has contended that the seized amount of Rs.56,82,000/-
is the asset of the accused No.1. On the other hand, in I
to VI statement (Ex.P.266), the accused No.1 has
contended that out of the seized amount, Rs.12,20,000/-
(1220 x Rs.1,000/-) represents the agricultural income of
Sri. Pampanayaka, a sum of Rs.37,85,000/- (7570 x
Rs.500) represents the agricultural income of Hindu
Undivided Family headed by Sri. Pampanayaka and part
of the sale consideration of sale of 4 acres of the property
in Sy.No.97B held in the name of Dr. Banarji and cash of
Rs.6,77,000/-(6770 x Rs.100/-) represents the
agricultural income of Sri. Pampanayaka and the said
amount did not belong to him.
106. As already stated, there is no dispute that an
amount of Rs.56,82,000/- in cash was seized from the
house of the accused No.1 during the search as per
Ex.P.52. It is needless to say that when the cash is
seized from the custody of the accused, the said cash is
deemed to be considered as it belongs to him, unless the
contrary is established. In this case, it is pertinent to
note that, though the accused have taken the defence
that the said seized amount does not belong to them,
they have not placed any evidence on their behalf.
However, they tried to rely on the evidence of PW.19,
PW.68 and PW.70 examined by the prosecution and the
document marked during their cross-examination. In this
regard, the evidence of PW.19, 68 and 70 are looked into,
it is not in dispute that PW.19 and PW.70 are the
brothers of accused No.2 and brothers-in-law of accused
111 Spl.CC.187/2014
No.1 and PW.68 is none other than the son of the
accused. During cross-examination of PW.19, the
accused have got marked many documents. PW.19
himself has produced the documents and the same were
marked as per Ex.D.10 to D.22 to support the contention
of the accused in this regard. Ex.D.10 to 14 are the
affidavits of the PW.19 and his brothers B. Pampa Naik
(PW.70), H.Shanmuga Naik, Sri. Padavipathi Naik and
affidavit of one Sri. Talagere Shivappa. Ex.D.15 and 16
are the genealogy and list of property standing in the
name of family members of Pampa Naik, Ex.D.17
contains RTC and Crop Certificates, Ex.D.18 contains
bills for sale of agricultural produce, Ex.D.19 contains
bills regarding cane supply, selling of sheeps, receipt for
having received the amount from selling of the vehicle,
purchase bill of the seeds and some cash bills. Ex.D.20
contains the ledger account for the period from
01.04.2007 to 20.02.2012, Mutation Extract, certified
copy of the Sale Deed dated 17.01.2005 and Original
Agreement of Sale dated 10.02.2010, Ex.D.21 is the Profit
and Loss Account from 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2011 and
Ex.D.22 is the Sugar Cane Bill.
107. Now, the evidence of PW.19 is looked into,
during his cross-examination on behalf of the accused,
he has admitted the suggestion that his father was
owning 83 acres of land and 4 acres of land was sold by
his father to Sri.Shivappa, for Rs.26,50,000/- and the
sale consideration was given in the hands of accused
No.2. It is further admitted by him that the said amount
112 Spl.CC.187/2014
was given to accused No.2 to buy a property in the name
of himself and his brothers. He has further admitted the
suggestion put to his mouth that their family had
received income of Rs.1,29,07,671/- and accused No.2
was the eldest daughter in their family, his father was
having much affection towards her and her children, his
father borne the educational expenses of the children of
accused Nos.1 and 2. He has further admitted the
suggestion that an amount of Rs.56,82,000/- was kept
with accused as temporary custody.
108. The evidence of PW.68 Sri.T.Sanjay, who is the
son of accused Nos.1 and 2 is looked into, in his
evidence, he has stated that he is aware about the
seizure of the amount from the residence of his parents
amounting to Rs.56 lakhs by CBI officers and the said
amount is not belonging to him, but it belonged to his
maternal uncle Pampa Naik. Similarly, the evidence of
PW.70 Sri. B.Pampa Naik, the brother-in-law of accused
No.1 is looked into, in his evidence, he has stated that his
father had 6 sons and 3 sisters. In the year 1983, his
father was owning 83 acres 82 cents of land situated at
Panubhaghatta Tanda, Harapanahalli, Davanagere
District (Now Bellary District). Out of 6 brothers, 4 of
them are looking after the agricultural, his younger
brother Sri. Kuber Naik is working in APMC as Secretary
and his another brother Sri. Jagadish Naik is working as
Contractor in Mysuru and another brother Sri.H.Banarji
is the Doctor, practicing in Bengaluru. Accused No.2 has
studied upto 7th standard and she is the housewife.
113 Spl.CC.187/2014
109. In his evidence, he further stated that out of
the 83 acres held by their family, 4 acres was sold to one
Sri.T.Shivappa of Garaparalli, for a consideration of Rs.26
lakhs in the year 2011, initially, he had executed
Agreement of Sale in that regard. After payment of
Rs.25.50 lakhs by the purchaser Sri.T.Shivappa, no Sale
Deed was executed. Out of the total sale consideration
amount of Rs.26 lakhs, an amount of Rs.25.50 lakhs
consisting of 1000 and 500 currency notes, received by
him by way of cash from Sri.T.Shivappa was handed over
to his sister accused No.2 for the purpose of purchasing
house for his younger brother Sri.H.Banarji in
Bengaluru.
110. Therefore, on going through the evidence of
these three witnesses, it is noticed that they claim the
seized amount of Rs.56,82,000/- was given to accused
No.2 for temporary purpose to purchase the property at
Bengaluru and the said amount was collected by selling
the 4 acres of land to one Sri.Shivappa and out of the
agricultural produce. But, to substantiate the said
assertion, there is no convincing and acceptable
evidence. Admittedly, PW.19, 68 and 70 being the closest
relatives of the accused Nos.1 and 2, they are found to be
interested witnesses and it appears that they are trying to
safeguard and protect the accused persons.
111. It is noticed that, PW.68 has not stated
anything as to source of the said seized amount and the
purpose for which the said amount was given, except
stating that the same belongs to his maternal uncle
114 Spl.CC.187/2014
Pampa Naik. PW.19 and PW.70, though stated as to
payment of the said amount to their sister, the accused
No.2, for purchase of the property at Bengaluru, there is
no evidence to support the same. It is noticed that PW.19,
during his cross-examination admitted the suggestion
that 4 acres of land was sold by his father to
Sri.Shivappa, for Rs.26,50,000/-. On the other hand,
CW.70 Sri. Pampa Naik, who is the brother of PW.19,
deposed that he executed the Agreement of Sale in favour
of Sri.T.Shivappa and no Sale Deed was executed in that
regard. Therefore, there is clear contradiction in the
evidence of PW.19 and PW.70 regarding sale of 4 acres of
land. No where in the evidence, PW.19 has stated as to
execution of Sale Agreement in favour of T.Shivappa by
himself and his brothers. In fact, it is clear that the said
land was not at all sold in favour of Sri.T.Shivappa, under
the registered Sale Deed. It is also noticed that there is
inconsistency as to purpose of the alleged sale of the
property. PW.19 in his evidence stated that the said
property was sold for the purpose of purchasing the
property in his name and in the name of his other
brothers. Whereas, PW.70 in his evidence stated that it
was for purchasing the house for his younger brother
PW.19.
112. Along with their evidence, now, the original
Sale Agreement stated to be entered with Sri.T.Shivappa,
which is produced by PW.19 (found in Ex.D.20) is looked
into, it gives another version. As per the said document,
the stamp papers were taken in the name of PW.19 and
115 Spl.CC.187/2014
all the sons of Late.Sri.B.H.Hanuma Naik, executed the
un-registered Agreement on 10.02.2010 agreeing to sell
the 4 acres of land in Sy.No.97B of Shringrihalli Village,
Arasekere Village of Harapanahalli Taluk for
Rs.26,50,000/-. But, either PW.19 or PW.70 have stated
as to execution of the Sale Agreement by them along with
their other brothers. PW.19 has not even stated as to
purchase of the Stamp Paper by him for execution of the
Sale Agreement as the said Sale Agreement reveals the
name of PW.19 as purchaser of the Stamp Papers.
Further, it is also to be noted that the sale Agreement is
only unregistered Sale Agreement and in pursuance of
which, even, the registered Sale Deed was also not
executed. The reason for non-execution of the registered
Sale Deed in pursuance of the Sale Agreement is not
stated by them. It is also noticed that in the said Sale
Agreement, the possession was also stated to be given to
the proposed purchaser Sri.T.Shivappa, but the said
agreement itself is unregistered Sale Agreement.
Therefore, it appears that only for the purpose of this
case, such agreement has been created. Even, the
accused Nos.1 and 2 have not opted to examine
Sri.T.Shivappa in that regard. Therefore, the contention
of the accused that Sri. Pampa Naik, paid the part of the
sale consideration of the sale of the property in
Sy.No.94/B 4 acres held in the name of Dr.Banarjee
(PW.19) cannot be accepted.
113. So far as the payment of agricultural income
by Sri. Pampa Naik to accused No.2 as stated in I to VI
116 Spl.CC.187/2014
statement of accused No.1 is analyzed, again, there is no
any acceptable and convincing evidence. No doubt, the
documents produced before the court by PW.19 reveal
that the father of the accused No.2 had vast agricultural
land. But, the contents of genealogy, property list
standing in the name of the family members, RTCs and
bills produced are analyzed, it appears that the wife and
sons of Sri. Hanuma Naik are enjoying the property
separately as property stands in their names separately
and even, bills produced also reveal the said fact.
Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that Sri. Pampa
Naik had paid the agricultural income in favour of
accused No.2 for temporary purpose for purchasing the
property as stated by him. Even, accused No.1 in his I to
VI Statement had not stated the purpose for which his
brother-in-law Sri. Pampa Naik had paid the amount.
Though some documents viz., Profit and Loss Account
and Ledger Accounts are produced before the court, they
do not support the payment made by Sri. Pampa Naik as
stated.
114. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that
the brothers of accused No.2 contended that the said
amount was given to accused No.2 for temporary purpose
for purchasing the property. But they never revealed the
time of payment, mode of payment and amount paid with
clarity. It is also to be noted that the alleged Agreement
was dated 10.02.2010 under which a sum of Rs.10 lakhs
was stated to be paid in cash and the endorsement made
in the said Agreement also reveals that a sum of Rs.8
117 Spl.CC.187/2014
lakhs was paid on 22.01.2011 and Rs.8,50,000/- was
paid on 18.08.2011 by the proposed purchaser. Such a
huge amount was stated to be given to accused No.2 for
temporary purpose and the said amount is kept in cash.
It is unbelievable that such huge amount was kept in
cash that too having the Bank Account in their name. A
prudent person will not keep such huge amount in cash
for such a long period. It is needless to say that, even if
the said amount is kept in the Bank, that can be
withdrawn at any point of time when need arises.
Therefore, the keeping of such huge amount in cash is
also not acceptable. Absolutely, there is no convincing
and acceptable evidence to accept that such huge
amount was paid by Sri. Pampa Naik to accused No.2 to
keep the said amount in cash. Added to that, even, the
RTCs pertaining to the properties produced before the
court are looked into, some of the said properties are also
found to be mortgaged for huge amount. Such being the
case, if the agricultural produce are sold out, the amount
will be utilized for repayment of the loan and not for
keeping the cash in hand. Therefore, viewed from any
angles, it cannot be accepted that the seized amount of
Rs.56,82,000/- represents the agricultural income of
Hindu Undivided Family headed by Sri. Pampa Naik and
also the sale consideration of the sale of the property in
Sy.No.97B as stated in I to VI Statement filed by accused
No.1. It is also pertinent to note that though the accused
have contended they have received such huge amount
from the proposed purchaser, they have not opted to
118 Spl.CC.187/2014
examine him before the court to substantiate the source
of the said amount.
115. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that PW.70
Sri. Pampa Naik, has filed application seeking release of
the said amount in his favour as it belongs to him. But,
the said application was dismissed by this court by
detailed order dated 21.06.2013. Against the said order,
Sri. Pampa Naik has filed Criminal Revision Petition in
Crl.R.P.No.671/2013. But, he has withdrawn the said
Crl. Petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
Thereafter, he has not claimed the said amount. It is also
to be noted that the IO has filed petition under Section 3
of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 read
with Section 5(6) of the PC Act, 1988 as per Crl.
Misc.Petition No.463/2016 and in the said petition, this
court was pleased to pass an interim order of attachment
dated 23.11.2016 and in the said petition also, he has
not claimed the said amount. Therefore, there remains no
doubt that the said seized amount belongs to accused
No.1 himself and the accused persons have made all their
futile effort to escape from the ill-gotten money possessed
by them. Therefore, the seized amount of Rs.56,82,000/-
has to be considered as an asset of the accused No.1 and
the IO has rightly taken the said amount as asset of the
accused No.1 at the end of the check period, which is
liable to be accepted.
116. Therefore, considering all the above aspects in
detail meticulously, this court is of the considered view
119 Spl.CC.187/2014
that the value of the assets at the end of the check period
is accepted as under;
Sl.No. Particulars Value Accepted
1 Immovable Property 1,98,57,900.00
2 Movable Property 10,88,310.00
3 Vehicles 5,30,215.00
4 Bank Balance 22,33,889.00
5 Cash Seized 56,82,000.00
Total 2,93,92,314.00
117. Now, the Statement C i.e., income during
check period is analyzed, the prosecution has taken
Rs.83,03,061/- as total income of the accused No.1
during the check period under 14 heads including the
income of his wife the accused No.2 from her business,
as shown in the separate table described supra. On
hearing the argument and the chart produced on behalf
of the accused, it is clear that the income shown in Item
Nos.2 to 12 and 14 mentioned in the table are not
disputed by the accused and they accept the said income
as shown by the IO. Therefore, there is no need of
considering the evidence with regard to the said items.
However, the accused have disputed the income shown in
Item No.1 and 13 and they have also shown additional
income under 5 heads in addition to the various heads
shown by the prosecution and claimed total income of
Rs.1,22,10,897/- as against Rs.83,03,061/- as shown by
the prosecution. Hence, the accused are claiming
additional income of Rs.39,07,836/-.
118. It is also noticed that, though in the chart
submitted, the accused have disputed item No.1, the net
120 Spl.CC.187/2014
salary of accused No.1, contending that the amount of
bonus and other cash incentives earned by accused No.1
during check period has not been included, but during
the course of argument as well as in the written
arguments, they admitted the net salary of accused No.1
at Rs.17,13,385/- as put up by the prosecution and in
totaling the total income also, the same amount has been
considered by the accused themselves. Therefore, there is
no dispute as to net salary of accused No.1 during check
period at Rs.17,13,385/-. In that regard, even, there is
evidence of PW.9 and the certified copy of the salary
details of accused No.1 from October, 1998 to January,
2012 has been produced as per Ex.P.167 which reveal
the gross salary of accused No.1 at Rs.31,52,488/- and
net salary of Rs.17,13,385/- which is not disputed.
Therefore, the net salary of accused No.1 at
Rs.17,13,385/- is to be accepted.
119. The accused have disputed the rental income
as shown in Item No.13. The prosecution has shown the
rental income at Rs.27,20,900/- and whereas, the
accused claimed it at Rs.33,52,950/- and thereby the
accused are claiming additional rental income of
Rs.6,32,050/-. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
accused has given details in the written argument to
claim such additional income.
120. On going through the written argument, filed
on behalf of the accused, it is clear the basing on the
evidence of PW.31 Sri. Prabhakar, PW.28 Somashekhar
Raju, PW.25 Jayakar Shetty and PW.21 Amar Magaji, the
121 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused are claiming additional income of Rs.30,500/- as
additional rental and rent deposit income. Similarly, in
view of the tenancy of CW.34 Sri. Anand Swaroop and
CW.27 Sri.Somasundaram J, the accused are claiming
total rental and rental deposit income at Rs.9,57,550/-
as against the rent and rental income of Rs.3,56,000/-
calculated by the IO and thereby, the accused are
claiming additional income of Rs.6,01,550/-. Therefore,
the accused are claiming additional rental and rental
deposit income of Rs.6,32,050/- (Rs.30,500 +
Rs.6,01,550/-) and in all, claiming Rs.33,52,950/- as
against the income of Rs.27,20,900/- shown by the
prosecution. No other tenancy, the rental and rent
deposit income is disputed.
121. In the light of the said contention of the
accused, the materials available on record are analyzed,
the prosecution has examined Sri. Prabhakara, who was
the tenant under accused No.2 in respect of 3 rd Floor of
the premises bearing No.30, 2nd Cross, Subbanna
Garden, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as PW.31 and through
him, got marked the original rent agreement dated
03.03.2011 as per Ex.P.128. He in his evidence
specifically stated that he had paid security deposit of
Rs.60,000/- which is repayable at the time of vacating
and in the year 2010, the rent was Rs.4,000/-, in 2011 it
was Rs.4,300/- and in 2012 it was Rs.4,500/- and in all
he had paid Rs.91,000/- as rent from 2010 to 2012.
122. If the above evidence is analyzed, as
submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, it is
122 Spl.CC.187/2014
clear that PW.31 had paid deposit of Rs.60,000/- and
rent of Rs.91,000/- in all from 2010 to 2012 and in all,
Rs.1,51,000/-. In the written argument, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor has shown the said amount at
Rs.1,41,000/- including the advance amount. There is
no dispute that PW.31 was the tenant under the accused
No.2. The contents of Ex.P.128 is analyzed, the Rent
Agreement was entered into on 03.03.2011 and the
Rental Agreement was for 11 months from 10.02.2011.
The rent agreement is not in dispute. The rental
agreement reveals that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid as
rent deposit and monthly rent of Rs.4,300/- was fixed for
the year 2011 and the tenant has agreed to pay the
enhancement of Rs.300/- every year. The rent agreement
does not refer the tenancy for the year 2010. However,
the evidence of PW.31 reveals that he was tenant in the
year 2010 also and he was paying rent of Rs.4,000/-. If
we count the rent amount as per the rent agreement till
end of January, 2012, definitely, it amounts to more than
Rs.91,000/-. However, PW.31 has specifically stated that
he had paid Rs.91,000/- as rent amount. Such being the
case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the
accused, the rental and rent deposit income from PW.31
has to be calculated at Rs.1,51,000/- and not
Rs.1,41,000/- as calculated by the IO. Therefore, a sum
of Rs.10,000/- is to be added to the income of the
accused at the end of the check period.
123. Basing on the evidence of PW.28, the accused
are claiming additional income of Rs.16,000/- towards
123 Spl.CC.187/2014
rental income from PW.28 contending that the
prosecution has shown rental income and rent deposit at
Rs.2,62,000/- and whereas, the evidence of PW.28
reveals payment of total amount of Rs.2,78,000/- and
thereby, there is a difference of Rs.16,000/-. But in this
regard, the argument notes filed by the prosecution is
analyzed, the prosecution is not claiming Rs.2,62,000/-
as rental income from PW.28, but it is claiming
Rs.3,00,000/- towards rental and rent deposit income. It
is not understood on what basis the accused is claiming
that the prosecution is claiming rental income at
Rs.2,62,000/- as mentioned in the written argument so
as to claim additional income of Rs.16,000/-. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the accused could not
convince this court.
124. Now, the evidence of PW.28 Sri.Somashekhar
Raju, is looked into, in his evidence, he has stated that
from 2006 to 2011, he was a tenant under accused No.2
in respect of the Ground Floor of the premises No.31, 2 nd
Cross, Kumara Garden, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. It is
noticed that the xerox copy of the Rental Agreement
dated 26.09.2010 entered into between accused No.1 and
PW.28 was produced, but the same was not marked as
exhibit as it is only xerox copy. PW.28 further deposed
that he had paid security deposit of Rs.50,000/- which
was repaid at the time of vacating. In the year 2006, the
rent was Rs.3,200/-, in the year 2007, the rent was
Rs.3,300/-, in 2008, it was Rs.3,400/-, in 2009, it was
Rs.3,700, in 2010, it was Rs.4000, and in 2011, it was
124 Spl.CC.187/2014
Rs.4,200. In all, he had paid 2,28,000/- as rent from
2006 to 2011. During cross-examination on behalf of
the accused, he has stated that he vacated the premises
during 2013. Therefore, if we look into the evidence of
PW.28, it is clear that he had paid Rs.50,000/- as deposit
and Rs.2,28,000/- as rent from 2006 to 2011. Such
being the case, it is clear that PW.28 had paid in all
Rs.2,78,000/- but the prosecution has taken income at
Rs.3,00,000/- as rental income. Therefore, the IO has
taken income of Rs.22,000/- more than what was
actually stated by PW.28. Therefore, the contention of the
accused that Rs.16,000/- is to be added to the income
cannot be accepted.
125. The accused have claimed additional income
of Rs.4,100/- towards rental income from PW.25 basing
on his evidence contending that the prosecution has
shown rental and rent deposit at Rs.1,39,000/- and
whereas, the evidence of PW.25 reveals payment of total
amount of Rs.1,43,100/- and thereby, there is a
difference of Rs.4,100/- and that has to be added to the
income of the accused. But in this regard, the argument
notes filed by the prosecution is analyzed, the
prosecution is not claiming Rs.1,39,000/- as rental
income from PW.25, but it is claiming Rs.1,43,100/-
towards rental and rent deposit income. It is not
understood on what basis the accused is claiming that
the prosecution is claiming rental income at
Rs.1,39,000/- as mentioned in the written argument so
as to claim additional income of Rs.4,100/-.
125 Spl.CC.187/2014
126. Now, the evidence of PW.25 Sri. Jayakar
Shetty, is analyzed, in his evidence, he has stated that
since 2010 he was residing in the house of accused No.2
at No.31, First Floor, 2nd Cross, Subbanna Garden behind
BTS Garage, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. During 2010-2011,
he was paying Rs.4,300/- as rent per month. During
2011-12, he was paying rent of Rs.4,500/- per month.
During the said period, he had paid total rent of
Rs.83,100/- and paid advance money of Rs.60,000/-. It
is noticed that the xerox copy of the Rent Agreement
dated 16.06.2010 entered into between accused No.1 and
PW.25 was produced, but the same was not marked as
exhibit as it is only xerox copy. During cross-
examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that
still he is residing in the same premises and advance
money of Rs. 60,000/- shall have to be returned at the
time of vacating. Therefore, on going through the entire
evidence of PW.25, it is clear that he had paid
Rs.1,43,100/- towards rent and security deposit. The
very same income is found to be taken by the
prosecution. Therefore, the claim of the accused that
Rs.4,100/- has to be added to the income cannot be
accepted.
127. The accused have claimed additional income
of Rs.400/- towards rental income from PW.21 basing on
his evidence contending that the prosecution has shown
rental and rent deposit at Rs.3,39,000/- and whereas,
the evidence of PW.21 reveals payment of total amount of
Rs.3,39,400/- and thereby, there is a difference of
126 Spl.CC.187/2014
Rs.400/- and that has to be added to the income of the
accused. In this regard, the argument notes filed by the
prosecution is analyzed, it is clear that the prosecution
has shown Rs.3,39,000/- as rental income from PW.21 at
the end of the check period including the advance
amount.
128. Now, the evidence of PW.21 Sri. Amar Magaji,
is analyzed, in his evidence, he has stated that since
2009 he has been residing as a tenant in the premises of
accused No.2 situated at 2nd Floor No.104, 3rd Cross,
Telecom Layout, KP Agrahara, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru
and during 2009-10, he was paying rent of Rs.8,000/-
per month, during 2010-11, he was paying rent
Rs.8,400/- per month, during 2011-12 he was paying
rent of Rs.8,800/- per month. During the said period, he
had paid total rent of Rs.2,14,400/- and paid the
advance amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. The rent Agreement
dated 03.03.2011 entered into between accused No.2 and
PW.21 is produced as per Ex.P.108. During cross-
examination on behalf of the accused, the said witness
has admitted that advance money of Rs.1,25,000/- shall
have to be returned at the time of vacating. Therefore, on
going through the entire evidence of PW.21, it is clear
that he had paid Rs.3,39,400/- towards rent and security
deposit. Therefore, the said amount has to be considered
as income at the end of the check period. Therefore, the
contention of the accused that the income of Rs.400/- is
to be added is accepted and rental income is taken at
Rs.3,39,400/- as against Rs.3,39,000/-.
127 Spl.CC.187/2014
129. On going through the charts, argument notes
submitted on behalf of both the parties and material on
record, it is noticed that the prosecution has shown rent
and rental income of Rs.94,000/- in favour of accused
No.1 from CW.34 Sri.Anand Swaroop and Rs.2,62,000/-
from CW.27 Sri. Somasundar J. On the other hand, the
accused is claiming rent and rental deposit of
Rs.5,79,800/- and Rs.3,77,750/- respectively from them.
Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has shown rent
and rental deposit income from these two tenants at
Rs.3,56,000/- and the accused has claimed
Rs.9,57,500/- and thereby, the accused are claiming
additional income of Rs.6,01,550/- during the check
period.
130. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the
prosecution has shown the said two witnesses as CW.34
and CW.27, but has not opted to examine the said
witnesses before the Court. But, it is interesting to note
that just because the prosecution has not examined the
said witnesses on its behalf, it does not mean that the
additional income claimed by the accused is to be
accepted. Admittedly, CW.34 and CW.27 were the
tenants under the accused persons and according to
them, the prosecution has shown less income from them
and they are claiming more income. Therefore, one thing
is clear that whatever income shown by the prosecution
is the income known to the prosecution. Since the
accused is claiming more income, the burden is on the
accused to show that they have received more rental and
128 Spl.CC.187/2014
deposit income from the said tenants than what is shown
by the prosecution. If the accused did not establish the
said additional income which is known to them only, the
income shown by the prosecution known to it is to be
accepted. Therefore, when the accused have claimed
additional income than shown by the prosecution, the
burden is on the accused to establish the same as it is
within their personal knowledge and burden of proof lies
on them to establish the same. In this case, though the
prosecution has not examined the said witnesses, the
accused could have examined them to establish the
additional income as contended. Therefore, the claim of
the additional income of Rs.6,01,550/- of the accused in
respect of the rental income as stated by them cannot be
accepted as the said additional income known to them is
not proved by them.
131. Therefore, considering all the above aspects,
this court is of the considered view that the accused have
established the additional income of Rs.10,000/- from
PW.31 and Rs.400/- from PW.21 and that has to be
added to the rental income of Rs.27,20,900/- as
calculated by the IO and thereby, the rental income is to
be taken at Rs.27,31,300/-.
132. As already stated, the accused have claimed
additional income under 5 heads as under;
Sl. Particulars Additional
No. income claimed
1. Rental advance received from the 9,15,000.00
tenants during check period
129 Spl.CC.187/2014
2 Value of the Gifts received by the 8,50,000.00
accused No.2
3. Loan availed by accused No.2 2,60,786.00
from State Bank of Hyderabad
4. Lease Advance returned by PW.59 1,00,000.00
during check period.
5. Loan credits declared by accused 11,50,000.00
No.2 in her Income Tax Returns
Total 32,75,786.00
133. The accused in their written argument
contended that they had let out their properties
consisting of 13 portions to various tenants and these
details were furnished by the prosecution through PW.19,
21 to 25, 28, 31 and 63. The tenants had totally paid
Rs.9,55,000/- as security deposit to them. However, the
prosecution confirmed that the accused No.1 had
received Rs.9,15,000/- as advance from the tenants and
the said rent advance deposit was not taken in
computing the income as per statement C and that has to
be added as income during the check period. On the
other hand, the prosecution has contended that the said
rent advance amount is already included in the rental
income of Rs.27,20,900/- as shown in Item No.13 of the
Statement C. In this regard, on going through the
evidence of the tenants i.e., PW.19, 21 to 25, 28, 31, 63
and also the documents available on record, it is clear
that the rent advance/ security deposit paid by the
tenants is already included in the rental income shown
by the prosecution. Therefore, adding of the rental
advance of Rs.9,15,000/- again does not arise. Therefore,
since the security deposit is already included in the
130 Spl.CC.187/2014
rental income i.e., in item No.13, the contention of the
accused that security deposit of Rs.9,15,000/- to be
added cannot be accepted.
134. The accused have sought for adding
Rs.8,50,000/- as value of the gifts received by accused
No.2 as per her declaration in the income tax returns
filed by her and accepted by the Income Tax Department.
Relying on Ex.P.113, the accused have contended that
accused No.2 in her Income Tax Returns for the
assessment year 2007-08 on 24.02.2009 declared her
income from the sale of textiles, job work and stitching
charges. In the balance sheet enclosed along with said
return submitted, accused No.2 has declared the gift of
Rs.8,50,000/- received from her parents. The Income Tax
Department accepted her returns. However, the value of
the gift of Rs.8,50,000/- received by accused No.2 from
her parents which was declared in the Balance Sheet has
not been considered as income of accused No.2 during
the check period. Since the said gift has been declared
before the Income Tax Department, that has to be
accepted and to be considered as income during check
period. But, in this regard it is pertinent to note that
though such contention was taken by the accused, they
have not placed any evidence so as to take the said
amount as income of the accused during check period.
135. No doubt, as found from the Balance sheet
annexed to Ex.P.113, the accused No.2, in her Profit and
Loss A/c. for the year ended on 31.03.2007, had shown
Rs.8,50,000/- as gift from parents. But, only on that
131 Spl.CC.187/2014
basis, it cannot be accepted that the same is to be taken
as income of the accused during check period. The
accused have not given any details of the said gift what
are the gift item and when it was given. Burden is on the
accused persons to establish the same as it is within
their personal knowledge. Though they have taken such
positive contention, they have not opted to place any
evidence in that regard. Even, the brothers of accused
No.2 who were examined before the court have not stated
anything as to the alleged gift of worth Rs.8,50,000/-.
Just because the said amount is declared in the Profit &
Loss Account for the year ended on 31.03.2007 by
accused No.2 that cannot be considered as an income in
the absence of convincing and acceptable evidence. The
accused have to prove the same with clear and cogent
evidence so as to take the same as income for the
relevant years. But as already stated, absolutely there is
no convincing and acceptable evidence to show that on
amount of Rs.8,50,000/- as income of the accused
during the check period. No material is produced to
substantiate the said contention. The accused persons
have not entered into the witness box to substantiate the
same, though burden lies upon them to prove the said
additional income which is not known to the prosecution.
Therefore, under these attending circumstances, the
additional income of Rs.8,50,000/- as sought for by the
accused cannot be accepted.
136. So far as the loan advance availed by accused
No.2 from the State Bank of Hyderabad is concerned, the
132 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused have contended that Housing Loan of Rs.10
lakhs was availed by accused No.2 from State Bank of
Hyderabad and the same has been treated as income of
the accused during check period. Further, repayment of
the said housing loan by accused No.2 during the check
period was taken at Rs.2,68,921/- as expenses under
Statement D. By this type of computation, it is indirectly
computed the liability towards the said Housing Loan as
on 02.02.2012 at Rs.7,31,059/-. However, Ex.P.95
Housing Loan Statement produced by PW.16 shows the
Housing Loan Balance as on 02.02.2012 at
Rs.9.91,845/-. Even, PW.16 in his evidence deposed as
to due amount of Rs.9,91,845/- as on 02.02.2012.
Therefore, the prosecution has erroneously calculated the
liability at Rs.7,31,059/- instead of Rs.9,91,845/- and
therefore, the difference amount of Rs.2,60,786/- to be
treated as additional income of the accused. In this
regard, the prosecution has contended that the Housing
Loan availed by the accused at Rs.10 lakhs from State
Bank of Hyderabad is treated as income under Sl.No.9 of
the Statement C. Therefore, there is no question of
adding the said amount as additional income.
137. In the light of the rival contention, the
contents of Ex.P.95 and evidence of PW.16 are analyzed,
it is clear that the accused No.2 had availed Housing
Loan of Rs.10 lakhs on 10.06.2009 from State Bank of
Hyderabad and as on 02.02.2012, the outstanding due
was Rs.9,91,845/-. It also reveals that accused No.2 has
repaid Rs.2,68,941/- But, on the basis of this, one
133 Spl.CC.187/2014
cannot accept that Rs.2,60,786/- is to be added as
income of the accused No.2 in any angle. On the other
hand, the IO has rightly taken Housing Loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- as income and an amount of
Rs.2,68,941/- paid towards said loan as expenditure
during the said period. If the liability is more towards the
Bank, then, it becomes income of the Bank and not the
income of the accused No.2 in any angle. Therefore, the
contention of the accused that Rs.2,60,786/- is to be
added as additional income of the accused cannot be
accepted.
138. So far as the additional income towards lease
advance returned by PW.59 during check period is
concerned, the accused have contended that the
prosecution has considered rent paid by the accused
from 01.10.1998 to 31.12.2003 amounting to
Rs.3,28,100/- as expense incurred during the check
period in statement D. In that regard, the evidence of the
landlord PW.59 was also recorded. Relying on the
evidence of PW.59, the accused have claimed Rs.40,000/-
under Statement A and Rs. 1,00,000/- paid back by
PW.59 during the check period as income under
Statement C. In this regard, the argument notes filed on
behalf of the prosecution is concerned, there is no clarity
and the IO has not taken into count the amount paid by
PW.59 in favour of the accused during check period as
income.
139. With regard to the above aspects, now the
evidence of PW.59, who was previously landlord of
134 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused Nos.1 and 2, in his evidence has stated that the
accused Nos.1 and 2 were tenants in his house
consisting of two rooms situated at No.23, 2 nd Main, 4th
Cross, RPC Layout, Bengaluru-40 from 1996 to 2003. It
is his further evidence that in the initial period of 2 years,
the accused Nos.1 and 2 had taken his house on lease
and paid lease amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and thereafter
they lived as tenants from 1998 on monthly rent of
Rs.3000/- till 2003. Every year, the rent was increased
by 5%. It is clear that the accused had given
Rs.1,40,000/- as lease amount initially and out of the
said amount, Rs.40,000/- was treated as security deposit
subsequently towards their tenancy from 1998 to 2003.
Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.1,40,000/- paid
towards lease amount has to be treated as income of the
accused during the check period. Further, the evidence of
PW.59 also reveals that out of the security deposit, she
had deducted painting charge of Rs.4,000/- and thereby
returned Rs.36,000/- at the time of vacating the
premises in the year 2003. Therefore, the said amount of
Rs.36,000/- is also to be treated as income of the
accused. Therefore, total amount of Rs.1,36,000/- is to
be added as income of the accused during check period.
Therefore, the contention of the accused in this regard is
liable to be accepted. Though the accused have
contended that a sum of Rs.40,000/- to be added as
income at the beginning of the check period, since
Rs.36,000/- out of the said amount has been returned in
the year 2003, the same has to be treated as income
during the check period. Therefore, Rs.1,36,000/- is to
135 Spl.CC.187/2014
be added as income of the accused during the check
period and accordingly, the same is added.
140. The accused have claimed Rs.11,50,000/- as
additional income, which is not considered by the IO as
the said amount has been declared by accused No.2 in
her Income Tax Returns, submitted for the assessment
years 2007 to 2012 as loan liability and she has shown
Rs.11,50,000/- as loan liability in the returns, submitted
for the assessment year 2010-11 for the purpose of
investment in assets and the said amount was not taken
into count by the IO as income during the check period.
But in this regard, it is pertinent to note that again,
burden is on the accused to show the loan borrowed and
thereby income during the said period as it is within the
exclusive knowledge of the accused themselves. No
doubt, as found from Ex.D.6 which is the part of
Ex.P.117 i.e., Income Tax Returns submitted by accused
No.2 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 reveals that, in the
Profit and Loss Account for the year ended on
31.03.2010, the accused No.2 has shown Rs.11,50,000/-
as loan borrowed. But, it is needless to say that just
because the accused No.2 declared the said amount in
her Income Tax Returns, that cannot be considered as
income of the accused. Since the accused is claiming
this amount as additional income, the accused have to
prove the source of the said amount. But, the accused
have not stated as to from whom, when and how the said
loan was borrowed. Absolutely, no evidence was placed
by the accused persons to prove the said loan amount.
136 Spl.CC.187/2014
Therefore, the said loan amount as claimed by the
accused cannot be considered as additional income
during the check period in the absence of any convincing
and acceptable evidence. Only on the basis of Profit and
Loss Account submitted to the Income Tax Department,
cannot be a ground for considering the said amount as
income through loan as contended. Therefore, the said
claim of the accused to add the additional income to the
tune of Rs.11,50,000/- cannot be accepted.
141. Therefore, on analyzing the entire materials
placed before this court, this court found that the
additional amount of Rs.10,400/- have to be added to the
rental income and Rs.1,36,000/- to be added as
additional income during the check period. Therefore, a
sum of Rs.1,46,400/- to be added to the income of the
accused during the check period. Therefore, under
Statement C, a total income of Rs.84,49,461/- is to be
taken as against Rs.83,03,061/- as calculated by the IO.
The accused are able to establish only additional income
of Rs.1,46,400/- as against Rs.39,07,836/- claimed by
them. Hence, the total income during the check period
under Statement C is taken at Rs.84,49,461/-.
142. Now, the Statement D, i.e., expenditure
during check period is analyzed, the prosecution has
shown total amount of Rs.54,47,661/- as expenditure
during check period under 27 heads. On the other hand,
the accused having admitted the total expenditure of
Rs.31,97,409/- sought for deletion of Rs.22,50,252/-
under the said head. On hearing the argument and on
137 Spl.CC.187/2014
going through charts and written argument notes, it is
clear that the accused is not disputing the expenditure
stated in item No.2 to 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 22, 25 of the
table (Table 11 shown in the charge sheet) and therefore,
the oral and documentary evidence in that regard need
no much consideration. However, the accused have
disputed the expenditure shown in item No.1, 9, 11, 12,
14, 16 to 19, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 27 of the table and
sought for deduction of expenditure to the extent of
Rs.22,50,252/-.
143. Now the disputed item No.1 of the table with
regard to household expenditure is concerned, it is clear
that the prosecution has calculated the household
expenditure at Rs.10,40,323/- being 1/3rd of the gross
salary. On the other hand, the accused have claimed
that it should have been Rs.5,71,128/- being 1/3rd of
the net salary. It is contended on behalf of the accused
that the IO has wrongly calculated the said amount as
1/3rd of the gross salary which is even contrary to the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and it should have
been 1/3rd of the net salary. In this regard, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that
considering the number of family members, lifestyle of
the accused persons as revealed from inventory prepared
during search, make it clear that the lifestyle of the
accused persons required more money and hence, 1/3rd
of the gross salary has to be taken into consideration.
144. In this regard, the prosecution has examined
Smt.Vedavathi, the Accounts Officer of the BSNL
138 Spl.CC.187/2014
Bengaluru Telecom Exchange as PW.9 and in her
evidence, she has specifically stated that as per the
salary details of accused No.1, from October 1998 to
January-2012, he has drawn Gross Salary of
Rs.31,52,488/- and Net Salary of Rs.17,13,385/-. In
that regard, through the said witness, the prosecution
has got marked the certified copy of the salary details as
per Ex.P.167 which reveals the Gross Salary of
Rs.31,52,488/- and Net Salary of Rs.17,13,385/- from
October, 1998 to January, 2012 received by the accused
No.1. The accused has also not disputed the said
amount. However, the contention of the accused is that
1/3rd of the Net Salary should have been taken as
household expenditure and not 1/3rd of the Gross
Salary. In this regard, this court is being guided by the
decision of the Apex Court in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab 1964 AIR 464 and in the light of the said
decision, the contention of the accused that 1/3rd of the
Net Salary is to be taken into consideration towards
household expenditure is to be accepted. No doubt, as
submitted by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the
family of the accused consists of totally 4 members
(Accused Nos.1 and 2 + 2 sons) and the inventory
produced as per Ex.P.62 reveals many items. But, it is
pertinent to note that from the material placed before this
court, it is clear that the accused are having income not
only from the salary of the accused No.1, but also the
rental income and some income of accused No.2 and
their son Sri.T.Sanjay. Therefore, as per the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court and as contended by the accused,
139 Spl.CC.187/2014
the Net Salary is to be taken for determining the
household expenditure and not the Gross Salary.
Therefore, 1/3rd of the Net Salary is to be taken and not
1/3rd of the Gross Salary, as contended by the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the household
expenditure is to be taken at Rs.5,71,128/- being 1/3rd
of the Net Salary of Rs.17,13,385/- and accordingly, the
said amount is accepted towards household expenditure
as against Rs.10,40,323/- as taken by the IO. Hence, a
sum of Rs.4,69,195/- is to be deducted and
Rs.5,71,128/- only is accepted towards household
expenditure.
145. The disputed item No.9-Building Maintenance
Expense is analyzed, as per the charge sheet, the IO has
calculated the Building Maintenance Expenditure at
Rs.9,08,130/-. On the other hand, the accused has
contended that the said properties were given on rent and
as per the custom in Bengaluru, the maintenance of the
property have to be undertaken by the tenants. The
prosecution without making any enquiry with the tenants
have included maintenance expenses of the let out
building as expenses of accused on the basis of the report
of PW.1. But, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the building maintenance expenses has to
be borne out by the owner only and only painting
expenses would be borne by the tenants. Further,
nothing was brought out from the mouth of the tenants
who are examined before this court regarding payment of
the maintenance expenses by them.
140 Spl.CC.187/2014
146. In the light of the rival contention, the
evidence available on file is analyzed, the prosecution has
examined the tenants under accused persons as PW.19,
21 to 25, 28, 31 and 63 and also got marked the Rental
Agreement as per Ex.P.108 to 110 and some unmarked
xerox copies of the Rental Agreements were also placed
before this court. Now, the evidence of the tenants are
analyzed, they have not stated anything as to payment of
maintenance charges of the building by them except
payment of advance and monthly rent. Even during the
cross-examination also, no suggestion was put to them
regarding payment of the building maintenance by them.
Apart from that, even if the contents of the Rent
Agreement produced before this court are analyzed, there
is no term in the Rent Agreement regarding payment of
building maintenance charges by the tenants. As found
from the Rent Agreement, the tenants are liable for
painting charges and damages caused by them to the
structure and not for building maintenance charges.
Therefore, the contention of the accused that building
maintenance charges were borne by the tenants cannot
be accepted. It is pertinent to note that the accused have
not disputed the building maintenance charges shown by
the IO and they have not stated what was the building
maintenance charges incurred by them as it is within
their personal knowledge. Therefore, the contention of
the accused that the building maintenance charges were
being paid by the tenants cannot be accepted. Therefore,
the building maintenance charge of Rs.9,08,130/- as
141 Spl.CC.187/2014
calculated by the IO is to be treated as expenditure of the
accused persons during the check period.
147. The disputed item No.11 i.e., Rs.12,000/- paid
for Bajaj Allianz Policy, standing in the name of accused
No.1 is concerned, the prosecution has taken the said
payment as expenditure of the accused during the check
period. On the other hand, the accused has contented
that the said amount has been paid by Hindu Undivided
Family of accused No.2 and the said amount cannot be
treated as expenditure of the accused. In this regard, the
evidence is analyzed, the prosecution has examined
PW.33 Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, the then Assistant Branch
Supervisor in Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance and got marked
the Proposal Form for Life Insurance issued by Bajaj
Allianz along with Policy in favour of accused No.1 as per
Ex.P.136. In his evidence, he has deposed that the policy
holder has taken Unit Gain Policy and paid premium of
Rs.12,000/-. Though the accused have contented that
the said premium amount was paid by Hindu Undivided
Family of accused No.2, absolutely, there is no material
to support the said contention. Even, the brothers of
accused No.2 who are examined before the court as
PW.19 and PW.70 have not stated anything as to
payment of premium amount. Therefore, the contention
of the accused that the premium amount was paid by
Hindu Undivided Family of the accused No.2 cannot be
accepted. The IO has rightly taken the said amount as
expenditure of the accused during check period.
142 Spl.CC.187/2014
148. The accused have disputed item No.12 of the
expenditure table regarding payment of premium amount
of Rs.25,000/- for Reliance Life Insurance Policy standing
in the name of Sri.T.Sanjay. There is no dispute as to
premium amount paid, but the accused have contended
that the premium was paid by Hindu Undivided Family of
accused No.2 and hence the same cannot be considered
as expenditure of the accused during the check period.
In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW.34
Sri.S.P.Harish, the then Manager of Reliance Life
Insurance Company, Bengaluru and through him, got
marked the Reliance Life Insurance Police as per
Ex.P.138. The said witness in his evidence stated that
the policy holder had paid premium of Rs.25,000/- on
18.08.2008. Admittedly, the said policy stands in the
name of Sri.T.Sanjay, the son of the accused persons.
Absolutely, there is no material before this court to show
that the said amount was being paid by the Hindu
Undivided Family of accused No.2 as contended by the
accused. Even, Sri.T.Sanjay, who is examined before this
court as PW.68 has not deposed in that regard and
nothing was elicited from his mouth to support this
contention of the accused. PW.19 and PW.70, who are the
brothers of accused No.2, examined before this court
have also not stated anything in this regard. No doubt,
during cross-examination, PW.19 had admitted the
suggestion that PW.70 Sri.Pampa Naik is taking care of
family of accused No.2 and her children for education
and all other aspects. But, on the basis of the said
evidence, it cannot be accepted that premium amount
143 Spl.CC.187/2014
was paid by PW.70. Therefore, the contention of the
accused that the said premium amount has been paid by
Hindu Undivided Family of accused No.2 cannot be
accepted and the IO has rightly taken the said amount as
expenditure of the accused No.1 during the check period.
149. As per the charge sheet, under Expenditure
Table in Item No.14, the IO has taken Rs.32,245/- as
expenditure towards vehicle insurance for Maruti Zen
Car and Honda Scooter belongs to accused No.1. But,
the accused have contended that the IO should have
taken the said amount at Rs.21,864/- and not
Rs.32,245/-. It is contended by the accused that the
prosecution adopted the value of the Zen Car of accused
No.1 at Rs.4,44,724/- which includes purchase value of
Rs.3,71,491/-, Road Tax of Rs.43,079/- and Insurance
Premium of Rs.30,154/-. However, PW.12 has deposed
that the total amount paid by accused No.1 including
insurance amount for purchasing Zen Car was
Rs.4,25,105/-. Hence, out of Rs.4,44,724/-, an amount
of Rs.4,25,105/- has to be deducted. In the written
argument, it is wrongly calculated at Rs.10,381/- but it
should have been Rs.19,619/-. But the said contention
of the accused is found to be baseless as insurance
premium has to be paid every year with regard to the
vehicles. In this regard, the evidence of PW.36 to 39 and
Ex.P.165 to 169 and Ex.P.173, 176 to 179 are analyzed,
they clearly establish the total payment of Rs.32,245/-
towards vehicle insurance of Maruti Zen and Honda
Scooter as shown in Table 14 of the charge sheet.
144 Spl.CC.187/2014
Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be
accepted. The IO has rightly calculated expenditure of
Rs.32,245/- towards the vehicle insurance of Maruti Zen
and Honda scooter of accused No.1 during check period
and the same is liable to be accepted.
150. The IO has calculated donation amount of
Rs.70,000/- under item No.16 of the Expenditure Table.
The IO has taken donation of Rs.20,000/- by accused
No.1 to SC/ST Employee’s Welfare Association Bengaluru
on 13.01.2010 and Rs.50,000/- to Sri.Mahisha Mardhini
Gadduge Ammanavara Trust, Chamsharu, Brahmavara,
on 07.11.2007 and in all Rs.70,000/-. However, the
accused have denied the said expenditure and also
contended that the prosecution has produced only xerox
copy of the donation receipts as per Ex.P.219 and P.184,
which cannot be looked into. Hence, the said donation
amount has to be deleted from the expenditure column.
151. In support of the prosecution version in this
regard, the prosecution has examined PW.41 and PW.53
and got marked copy of two receipts as per Ex.P.184 and
219. PW.41 Sri.Mukund Nayak K., the Honorary
President, Sri. Mahisha Mardhini Gadduge Ammanavara
Devasthana, Chamsharu, Brahmavara, Udupi District, in
his evidence deposed that, accused No.1 has given
donation of Rs.50,000/- for renovation of the
Devasthanam and identified the copy of the receipt dated
07.11.2007 issued by the said temple authority as per
Ex.P.184. The said witness was cross-examined on
behalf of the accused and during cross-examination, he
145 Spl.CC.187/2014
has denied the suggestion put to his mouth that accused
No.1 had not made any donation and for the amount paid
by somebody, they have given receipt in the name of
accused No.1. He has also denied the suggestion that
without knowing anything, deposing false before the
court. No doubt, during the cross-examination, he has
stated that at the time of making payment, he was not
present and the person who has received the amount in
the office has put his signature on the receipt. It is also
noticed that only copy of the receipt is produced before
the court. However, if the entire evidence of PW.41 is
analyzed, it clearly support the version of the
prosecution. There are no reasons for PW.41 to depose
falsely before the court in that regard. The contention of
the accused that for somebody’s payment, the temple
authorities have given receipt in the name of the accused
cannot be accepted. The accused nowhere suggested in
clear terms that he has not donated the amount at all to
the renovation of the temple. Therefore, in the light of
evidence of PW.41, though original receipt is not
produced, it is clear as to payment of Rs.50,000/- as
donation by the accused towards renovation of the
temple. Therefore, the donation of Rs.50,000/- by the
accused as put up by the prosecution is accepted.
152. In order to prove the donation of Rs.20,000/-
to the SC/ST Employees’ Welfare Association, BSNL is
concerned, the prosecution has examined PW.53
Sri.Pedda Manjunath, the District President of SC/ST
Employees’ Welfare Association, Bengaluru Telecom
District, Bengaluru as PW.53, who in his evidence stated
146 Spl.CC.187/2014
that the accused No.1 has paid donation of Rs.20,000/-
to their Association. The copy of the receipt in that regard
is marked as Ex.P.290 subject to objection of the
accused. The said witness is cross-examined on behalf of
the accused and during cross-examination, he has
admitted that apart from furnishing the document, he
has no personal knowledge and specifically denied the
suggestion put to his mouth that with grudge against
accused No.1, he has created the receipt copy and
produced the same before the CBI and deposing falsely
before the court. He has also denied that he has no
knowledge about the receipt of the amount and from
whom it is received. His evidence during cross-
examination also reveals that the original receipt can be
produced before the court and it is maintained in their
Association. The entire evidence of PW.53 is analyzed, it
support the case of the prosecution as to donation of
Rs.20,000/- made by accused No.1. Though the accused
has denied the receipt, he has not contended that he has
not at all paid the said amount. There are no such
grounds made out by the accused so as to hold that
Ex.P.219 was created by the witness with grudge against
the accused No.1. The entire evidence of PW.53 is
analyzed, it inspires the confidence of the court as to
payment of Rs.20,000/- by the accused as donation to
the SC/ST Employees’ Welfare Association as put up by
the prosecution. Therefore, considering the evidence of
PW.41 and 53 and also the copy of the receipt produced,
this court is of the considered opinion that the accused
No.1 has paid donation of Rs.70,000/- in all as put up by
147 Spl.CC.187/2014
the prosecution and the same is accepted as expenditure
of the accused No.1 during the check period.
153. In item No.17 of the Expenditure Table, the
prosecution has taken Rs.1,25,000/- towards
expenditure of the accused No.1 to have Regency Club
Membership. In support of the said contention, the
prosecution has examined PW.40 Sri.M.Chandrashekar,
the then Joint Secretary, Regency Institute of Sports and
Culture and got marked the Membership Application of
accused No.1 and copy of the intimation sent to accused
No.1 as per Ex.P.181 and 182. The said witness in his
evidence deposed that accused No.1 has paid
Membership Fees of Rs.1,25,000/- through Cheque
No.278668 of Karnataka Bank dated 21.11.2011. The
evidence of the said witness support the case of the
prosecution.
154. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that on
going through the argument notes, it is noticed that the
accused No.1 has not denied his membership in the
Regency Club and also payment of Rs.1,25,000/- in that
regard. His only contention is that the said amount has
been paid by Hindu Undivided Family of accused No.2
and the prosecution has ignored the said fact and taken
the said amount as expenditure in Statement D. It is
also noticed that in the cross-examination, on behalf of
the accused, it is suggested that the persons of the
Regency Club have taken somebody’s cheque and used it
for membership of the accused No.1. The said contention
is not found in the argument. When accused No.1
148 Spl.CC.187/2014
admits the Membership, he himself has to pay the
Membership Fee also. Though the accused have
contended that the said amount has been paid out of the
income of the Hindu Undivided Family of accused No.2,
absolutely, there is no evidence to support the said
contention. The brothers of the accused No.2, who are
examined as PW.19 and PW.70 have also not stated
anything in this regard. Therefore, the contention of the
accused that the said amount has been paid by the
Hindu Undivided Family of accused No.2 cannot be
accepted. Hence, the amount spent by accused No.1 to
acquire the Membership of the Regency Club was rightly
taken as expenditure of the accused No.1 during the
check period and thereby, the same is accepted as put up
by the prosecution.
155. The prosecution has taken a sum of
Rs.2,51,128/- in item No.18 as expenditure of accused
No.1 towards education expenses of his children. To
substantiate the said expenses, the prosecution has
examined three witnesses as PW.42, 43 and 45 and got
marked Ex.P.185 to 189 and Ex.P.192. PW.42 Sri.
Anjanappa, the Superintendent of Bengaluru Institute of
Technology, K.R.Road, Bengaluru, in his evidence
deposed that as per Ex.P.185, Sri.T.Sanjay had paid Fee
of Rs.2,17,910/- and identified the ledger extract of the
payment of the year 2005-06 to 2008-09 as per Ex.P.186.
On going through the cross-examination of the said
witness on behalf of the accused, it is clear that the
payment of Rs.2,17,910/- as found in Ex.P.186 is not
149 Spl.CC.187/2014
disputed and the suggestion put to the mouth of the said
witness reveals that the said amount was paid by
Sri.T.Sanjay. Therefore, it is clear that there is no
dispute as to payment of educational expenses of
Rs.2,17,910/- during check period towards education of
the son of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
156. PW.43, Sri. Rajendra Prasad, the Accounts
Officer of the Allianz Business Academy, Bengaluru, in
his evidence deposed that the CBI Officer requested him
to produce the document pertaining to payment of tuition
fee by Sri. T.Sanjay and accordingly, he has produced the
document under his letter dated 02.03.2013 as per
Ex.P.187 and he has also identified copies of the receipts
dated 15.11.2011 and 20.01.2012 for Rs.4,948/-
Rs.2,270/- as per Ex.P.188 and P.189 and deposed that
as per Ex.P.188 and P.189, a total amount of Rs.7,218/-
was paid. Though the learned counsel for the accused
has cross-examined the said witness, nothing much was
elicited from his mouth. The accused have not disputed
the payment of the amount stated in Ex.P.188 and P.189.
Therefore, the conjoint reading of evidence of PW.43 and
Ex.P.187 to P.189, it is clear that an amount of
Rs.7,218/- was paid towards educational expenses of
Sri.T.Sanjay.
157. Now the evidence of PW.45 Sri. Mohan Kumar
T. the then Admin Manager, Gouri Educational Trust,
Chamarajapet, Bengaluru is looked into, the said witness
is being examined by the prosecution to prove the
educational expenses of Rs.26,000/- incurred towards
150 Spl.CC.187/2014
study of Sri.Indrajeet T, the son of accused Nos.1 and 2.
But the said witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution and the said witness is treated as hostile by
the prosecution. Even during cross-examination, he has
denied the statement given to the IO as per Ex.P.192.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.45 does not prove the
payment of fee of Rs.26,000/- as put up by the
prosecution. Be the things as it may, it is pertinent to
note that the accused have not disputed the educational
expenses of Rs.2,51,128/- as calculated by the IO. The
argument notes reveal that the only contention of the
accused is that the said amount has been paid by Hindu
Undivided Family of accused No.2 and the said fact has
been ignored by the prosecution while calculating the
expenditure. Therefore, it is clear that the only contention
of the accused is that the educational expenses of
Rs.2,51,128/- was being paid by Hindu Undivided Family
of accused No.2. But to substantiate the said contention,
absolutely, there is no convincing and acceptable
evidence. No doubt, during cross-examination of PW.19,
he has admitted the suggestion that his father had borne
out the educational expenses of the children of accused
Nos.1 and 2 and also admitted the suggestion that CW.20
Sri. Pampa Naik is taking care of family of accused No.2
and her children for education and all other aspects. But,
only on that account, it cannot be said that the
educational expenses were being paid by the Hindu
Undivided Family of accused No.2 as contended by the
accused in the absence of convincing and acceptable
evidence in that regard. As already stated, PW.19 and
151 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.70 are found to be interested witnesses and close
relatives of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and only on the
basis of the their assertion, the contention of the accused
cannot be accepted. Therefore, the educational expenses
of Rs.2,51,128/- incurred towards education of the
children of accused Nos.1 and 2 is rightly taken as
expenditure of the accused No.1 during the check period
and the same is accepted.
158. The item No.19 of the Expenditure Table is
regarding expenses incurred towards Guitar Class Fee of
the son of the accused Nos.1 and 2 Sri.T.Sanjay. The
prosecution has contended that the accused No.1 has
incurred expenditure of Rs.7,358/- towards Guitar Class
Fee of his son Sri.T.Sanjay. To substantiate the same, the
prosecution has examined PW.44 and got marked two
documents as per Ex.P.190 and P.191 through the said
witness. PW.44 Sri.M.S.Raghunandan, who was the
Showroom Manager of the Reynold’s INC Bengaluru, who
in his evidence deposed that the CBI Officer requested
him to furnish the documents and payment of fee by
Sri.T.Sanjay, for studying music in Reynold’s INC
Bengaluru and accordingly, he has submitted the
documents under covering letter dated 14.05.2012 as per
Ex.P.190. He has also identified 14 receipts from
02.07.2010 to 22.08.2011 and the said receipts
collectively marked as Ex.P.191. It is specifically deposed
by him that total fee of Rs.7,358/- was paid towards
learning to play Guitar. During cross-examination on
behalf of the accused, the witness has admitted the
152 Spl.CC.187/2014
suggestion that the said amount has been paid by
Sri.T.Sanjay for learning Guitar. Therefore, it is clear
that there is no dispute as to payment of Rs.7,358/-
towards Guitar learning by Sri.T.Sanjay. At this stage, it
is pertinent to note that the accused have contended that
the said amount was paid by Hindu Undivided Family of
accused No.2 and the said fact was ignored by computing
the expenditure during the check period and the said
amount cannot be considered as expenditure of accused
No.1. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is
no convincing and acceptable evidence to accept that the
said amount has been paid out of Hindu Undivided
Family of accused No.2 as contended except the assertion
of the accused. Therefore, the IO has rightly taken the
said amount as expenditure of accused No.1 during the
check period and the same is accepted.
159. Item No.21 of the Expenditure Table deals
with expenses incurred towards electrical connection and
consumption charges. The IO has taken Rs.1,35,066/-
towards electric connection and electric consumption
charges. On the other hand, the written argument
submitted on behalf of the accused reveals that the
accused are admitting expenditure of Rs.27,279/- only in
that regard and claiming that an amount of
Rs.1,07,787/- is to be deducted from the said
expenditure. In the written arguments, it is contended by
the accused that as per the prosecution, the expenses of
Rs.1,35,066/- is comprised of electricity consumption
charges of the accused at Rs.71,036/- and Rs.64,030/-
153 Spl.CC.187/2014
towards development charges and deposit paid in respect
of 4 residential house properties owned by the accused.
As per the evidence of PW.1, he has already valued the
property except movable assets found in the house
property and hence it is not correct on the part of the
prosecution to include Rs.64,030/- again towards
development charges and deposit paid to the Electricity
Department. Similarly, the electricity consumption
charges of Rs.64,030/- is concerned, there are five
connections and separate RR Numbers pertaining to
property No.91 shown in Ex.P.197 in the name of
accused No.1 and out of the 5 connections, one
connection W3PH 16714 relates to the house occupied by
accused No.1 and other connections relating to the
electricity meters used by the tenants. The electricity
charges paid for the house of the accused No.1 during
the check period comes to Rs.43,757/- only. Therefore,
the electrical consumption charges to be restricted to
Rs.43,757/- only. On going through the argument notes
submitted on behalf of the accused, it is noticed that
there is some ambiguity in this regard.
160. In order to prove the electrical connection and
consumption charges, the prosecution has examined the
witnesses as per PW.48 and PW.49 and got marked the
documents as per Ex.P.96, 97 and P.201 to 207. PW.48
Sri. Basavaraj, the then Assistant Executive Engineer
(Electrical) BESCOM W3 Sub-Division, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru, in his evidence deposed that, the CBI Police
Inspector requested him to furnish the documents
154 Spl.CC.187/2014
pertaining to RR Numbers in the name of accused Nos.1
and 2. Through him, the prosecution has got marked the
letter written by him as per P.195, the statement relating
to RR Numbers of accused No.2 as per 196. Further, the
statement pertaining to RR Numbers in the name of
accused No.1 is marked as Ex.P.197. It is deposed by
him that accused No.2 had paid deposit charges of
Rs.18,150/- on 05.09.2009 and she had paid total
deposit of Rs.4,019/- as per the payment details
mentioned in Ex.P.196. It is his further evidence that
accused No.1 has paid development charge of Rs.7,500/-
and total deposit of Rs.7,860/- and electricity charges of
Rs.1,35,732/- as per Ex.P.197.
161. Further, PW.49 Smt. Subbalakshmi, the
Assistant Accounts Officer, BESCOM, in her evidence
deposed that CBI Officer requested her to furnish the
details of the RR Numbers in the name of accused No.2
and she had submitted the documents under the letter
dated 14.06.2013 as per Ex.P.201. The said witness has
also identified copy of the Agreement as per Ex.P.202,
Sanction Letters as per Ex.P.203 and 204, Feasibility
Report as per Ex.P.205, Statement showing payment of
Electricity Charges etc., by accused No.2 as per Ex.P.206
and 207. It is further deposed by her that accused No.2
has paid total developmental charges of Rs.5,850/-
additional development charges of Rs.9,000/- deposit of
Rs.2,480/- electricity charges of Rs.2,056/-, Rs.17,241/-,
Rs.14,112/-, Rs.21,524/- and Rs.13,253/- in respect of
RR Number pertaining to Door No.30 and Rs.4,020/-
155 Spl.CC.187/2014
towards deposit, energy charges of Rs.32,637/-,
Rs.17,554/-, Rs.17,129/- and Rs.19,054/- in respect of
RR.Numbers pertaining to Door No.31. On going though
the evidence of the witnesses and the concerned
documents marked by them, this court found that the
expenditure of Rs.1,35,066/- could be accepted as
computed by the IO. The contention of the accused that a
sum of Rs.1,07,787/- to be reduced cannot be accepted
for the reason stated in the written argument. The
electric connection and consumption charges and deposit
cannot be included in the building expenses. Further,
though the accused have contended that they have paid
Rs.43,757/- only towards electricity consumption
charges during the check period, the same has not been
established. The oral and documentary evidence clearly
support the expenditure as put up by the prosecution.
Therefore, the expenditure of Rs.1,35,066/- towards
electric connection and consumption charges as
calculated by the IO, is to be accepted and accordingly,
the same is accepted.
162. Item No.23 of the Expenditure Table is
relating to water and sewage charges. The IO has taken
the expenditure of Rs.82,487/- under the said head
during the check period. On the other hand, the accused
have contended that the expenditure towards water and
sewage charges is only Rs.37,028/- and the IO has taken
excess amount of Rs.45,459/- under the said head. The
accused in this regard contended that the expenses of
Rs.82,487/- comprises of Rs.45,459/- towards water
156 Spl.CC.187/2014
connection charges for House Nos.114, 3rd Floor, KP
Agrahara, Telecom Layout Bengaluru and Rs.37,028/-
towards water consumption charges for the House No.91,
3rd Cross, KP Agrahara, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, relating to
them. It is further contended that since Rs.45,459/- is
included in the construction charges of the House
No.104, again, adding of the said amount as expenditure
is not correct and therefore, the said expenses of
Rs.45,459/- is to be deducted. Further, Ex.P.213 to
P.216 are not accompanied with the certificate under
Section 65-b of the Indian Evidence Act and thereby, the
same cannot be relied.
163. In order to prove the expenditure under this
head, the prosecution has examined PW.51 Sri. Gopala
Gowda, then Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB,
Bengaluru and got marked documents as per Ex.P.211 to
216. PW.51 in his evidence deposed that the CBI officer
had requested him to handover the documents regarding
payment of water charges to BWSSB by accused Nos.1
and 2 and accordingly, he had furnished information
under his letter dated 21.05.2012 as per Ex.P.211. He
further deposed that accused No.2 has paid Development
Charge of Rs.43,324/- and water charges of Rs.11,041/-
in respect of property No.104, 3 rd Cross, KP Agrahara,
Telecom Layout, Bengaluru, bearing RR Number
32272/H for the period from 22.08.2009 to 02.02.2012.
He further deposed that accused No.1 has paid water
charges of Rs.74,057/- in respect of property No.91, 3 rd
Cross, KP Agrahara, Telecom Layout, Bengaluru, bearing
157 Spl.CC.187/2014
RR No. 87247/H60-116 for the period from April, 2003 to
02.02.2012. Accused No.2 has paid water charges of
Rs.30,323/- in respect of property No.31, Subbanna
Garden, Bengaluru, bearing of RR No.98556/HC52-233
for the period from April, 2003 to 02.02.2012. He has
also identified the extract of the Sanction Register as per
Ex.P.212 and Ledger Reports as per Ex.P.213 to 216. The
evidence of PW.51 and the documents produced support
the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that
the expenses incurred towards water connection charges
cannot be considered in building expenses. Therefore,
the contention of the accused that Rs.45,459/- has to be
deducted from the expenditure as contended cannot be
accepted. No doubt, during cross-examination, PW.51
has stated that the office staff has taken the print out of
Ex.P.213 to P.216 from the system and he has not put up
certificate on Ex.P.213 to P.216, but only on the said
basis, the case of the prosecution cannot be negated.
There is clear evidence of PW.51 who is the officer of the
Department and furnished the document to the IO.
Even, no suggestion was made denying the payment of
the water and development charges made by accused
Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, considering the entire evidence
placed before this court by the prosecution in this regard,
this court is of the considered view that expenses of
Rs.83,487/- computed by the IO towards water and
sewage charges is to be accepted. This court did not find
any substance in the contention of the accused so as to
reduce Rs.45,459/- from the said expenses. Hence,
158 Spl.CC.187/2014
expenditure of Rs.83,487/- towards water and sewage
charges as calculated by the IO is accepted.
164. Item No.24 of the Expenditure Table deals
with hand loan given to the colleagues. The IO has
shown a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as expenditure incurred
by accused No.1 during the check period by giving hand
loan to his colleagues as described in Table 17 of the
charge sheet. As per the prosecution, the accused had
given Rs.1 lakh to one Sundara Murthy (PW.52),
Rs.5,000/- to Sri. Krishnaiah (PW.54), Rs.5,000/- to Sri.
Anil Kumar Lakshman Gothekar (PW.55) and
Rs.10,000/- to Sri.M.Purushotham, (PW.64) who were his
colleagues. On the other hand, the accused have denied
the said hand loan, but they have not denied that the
said persons are the colleagues of accused No.1. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the accused has taken the
notice of this court on the evidence of PW.52, 54, 55 and
64 contending that the said witnesses have not
supported the prosecution and their evidence does not
disclose hand loan stated to be given by accused No.1
and hence, the said expenditure has to be treated as NIL
and deserves to be deleted.
165. In order to prove this expenditure, the
prosecution has examined the above said four persons as
PW.52, 54, 55 and 64. But, on going through the
evidence of the said witnesses, it is noticed that the said
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.
PW.52 Sundara Murthy, in his evidence deposed that, he
knew accused No.1, during 2011, he approached the
159 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused No.1 for hand loan and he told that he was not
having amount and requested him to approach
Panduranga. Accordingly, he approached Panduranga
during July, 2011 and borrowed hand loan of Rs.1 lakh
from him. Since the said witness turned hostile, the
learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined the said
witness. During cross-examination, in one breath, the
witness has admitted the suggestion that during July,
2011, he borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh as hand loan from
the accused No.1 for his medical expenses and in another
breath, he has denied the same and even he has denied
the statement given to the IO as per Ex.P.217. If the
entire evidence is analyzed, it is not convincing as to the
case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that as per
the case of the prosecution, the land document and
blank cheque which were given by the witness were
seized from the house of the accused No.1. But the said
documents were not tendered to the witness during
cross-examination. Though the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor has cross-examined the said witness, he
could not elicit anything from his mouth so as to prove
the payment of Rs.1 lakh as hand loan by the accused.
Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the lending of
Rs.1 lakh to PW.52 as contended.
166. Further, evidence of PW.54 Sri. Krishnaiah, is
looked into, in his evidence, he has stated that he knew
accused No.1, during 2011, he had borrowed Rs.5,000/-
and the amount was paid by one Eraiah and he had
given the blank cheque to accused No.1 and identified the
160 Spl.CC.187/2014
cheque given by him as per Ex.P.220. He further
deposed that the accused No.1 had arranged the loan to
him from Eraiah and he had given the amount to
accused No.1. Since the said witness did not support the
prosecution case, the learned Public Prosecutor has
cross-examined the said witness and during cross-
examination also he has denied the case of the
prosecution as to lending of Rs.5,000/- by accused No.1
in his favour and also denied the statement given by him
to the IO, as per Ex.P.221. Though the learned Public
Prosecutor has cross-examined the said witness, nothing
was elicited from his mouth so as to prove the hand loan
stated to be given by accused No.1. During cross-
examination on behalf of the accused, he further stated
that he had borrowed loan from Eraiah and due to trust,
he had given cheque to accused No.1 and he retained it
to prevent the misuse. Therefore, on going through the
entire evidence of PW.54, it cannot be said that the
prosecution has proved the land loan of Rs.5,000/- given
by accused No.1 in favour of PW.54.
167. The prosecution has examined Sri.Anil Kumar
Lakshman Gothekar, as PW.55, who in his evidence
deposed that he knew the accused No.1, during 2011, he
requested accused No.1 to help him by giving hand loan
of Rs.5,000/- to meet out his urgent needs. On the next
date, the accused No.1 arranged the fund from Hemanth
Kumar and amount was paid by Hemanth Kumar. He
had given blank cheque to accused No.1 and identified
the said cheque as Ex.P.222. He further deposed that,
161 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused No.1 had arranged the loan from him from
Hemanth Kumar and he gave the amount back to
Hemanth Kumar only. Since the said witness has not
supported the prosecution case, the learned Public
Prosecutor has cross-examined the said witness. During
cross-examination also, he could not elicit anything from
his mouth so as to prove the land loan of Rs.5,000/- as
stated by the prosecution. During cross-examination, he
has denied the availment of Rs.5,000/- from the accused
No.1 and also statement given to the IO as per Ex.P.223.
During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, it is
elicited that he had borrowed the loan from Hemant
Kumar and due to trust, he had given cheque to the
accused No.1 and he retained it to prevent the misuse.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.55 is no way helpful to the
prosecution.
168. Similarly, the evidence of PW.64 Sri. M.
Purushottham, is analyzed, he in his evidence deposed
that he knew the accused No.1, who is his colleague, he
had not taken any personal loan from accused No.1 for
his necessity. He had given two blank cheques to accused
No.1, which he has not taken back from him. He
identified the said two blank cheques signed by him as
per Ex.P.236 and P.237. Since he did not support the
case of the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor
has cross-examined the said witness. During cross-
examination also, he has denied the availment of the land
loan of Rs. 10,000/- from accused No.1 and also
issuance of blank cheques in favour of accused No.1 in
162 Spl.CC.187/2014
that regard. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has
cross-examined the witness, he could not elicit anything
from his mouth to establish the hand loan as put up by
the prosecution.
169. Thus, on going through the evidence of PW.52,
54, 55 and 64, it is noticed that the prosecution has
failed to prove the hand loan stated to be given by
accused No.1 to his colleagues with clear and convincing
evidence. Though the said witnesses were cross-
examined, nothing was elicited to accept the hand loan
stated to be given by accused No.1 in their favour.
Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the alleged hand loan
given by accused No.1 to his colleagues as contended.
Therefore, the expenditure shown in item No.24 of the
Statement D cannot be considered as an expenditure of
accused No.1 during check period and that has to be
deleted.
170. In item No.26 of the Expenditure Table, the
prosecution has considered Rs.11,856/- as expenditure
of the accused No.1 towards Gym Class charges of his
son Sri.Indrajeet T. On the other hand, the accused have
denied the said expenditure contending that the said
amount has been paid by income of the Hindu Undivided
Family of accused No.2 and not by the accused No.1 and
the said fact was ignored by the prosecution in
computing the said expenditure and thereby, that has to
be deleted from Statement D.
163 Spl.CC.187/2014
171. In support of this expenditure, the
prosecution has examined one witness as PW.56 and got
marked one document as per Ex.P.224. PW.56 Sri.
Umesh K. the Senior Personal Trainer, SNAP Fitness, A &
A Fitness Training Center, deposed that the CBI asked
the Manager to produce the documents and the Manager
handed over the sealed cover and he handed over the
same to CBI Officer. He has identified the Fee details
paid by Sri. Indrajeet Tholasiram and the same is marked
as Ex.P.224. By looking into the said document, he
deposed that Sri. Indrajeet had paid fee of Rs.11,856/-
for using the gym. It is pertinent to note that the
accused have not denied the payment of the said amount
but their only contention is that the said amount was
paid by Hindu Undivided Family of accused No.2. But,
absolutely there is no convincing and acceptable evidence
to accept the said contention of the accused. Only on the
oral assertion of PW.19, who is interested in accused
persons, the contention of the accused cannot be
accepted. Therefore, the IO has rightly considered the
said expenditure as expenditure of the accused No.1
towards the gym class charges of his son. Hence, the
said expenditure is accepted.
172. Item No.27 of the Expenditure Table deals
with payment for House Rent. The prosecution has
contended that, the accused No.1 had spent a sum of
Rs.3,28,100/- towards payment for House Rent for the
period from 01.10.1998 to 31.12.2003 in respect of
House No.23, 2nd Main, 4th Cross, Hampi Nagar,
164 Spl.CC.187/2014
Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, where he stayed as
tenant. In this regard, the accused have contended that
they had paid only Rs.2,01,020/- and the IO has taken
excess amount of Rs.1,27,080/- under the said head. In
this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has
relied on the evidence of PW.59, under whom the accused
Nos.1 and 2 were the tenants. In this regard, the
evidence of PW.59 is analyzed, he has specifically stated
that the accused had given security deposit of
Rs.40,000/- during the tenancy and approximately, they
have given rent of Rs.2 lakhs. PW.1 in his evidence has
not stated as to payment of rent of Rs.3,28,100/- as
stated by the IO in the charge sheet. Even, during the
course of the argument, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the amount stated at
Rs.2,01,020/- may be accepted towards payment for
House Rent as against Rs.3,28,100/- in the light of the
evidence of PW59. Therefore, in the light of the evidence
of PW.59, the payment of rent at Rs.2,01,020/- is to be
accepted as against Rs.3,28,100/- as shown in the
charge sheet. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,27,080/- has to
be deducted from the expenditure towards payment of
house rent by accused No.1. Therefore, the expenditure
for payment of house rent at Rs.2,01,020/- is accepted as
against Rs.3,28,100/-.
173. Thus, for the reasons discussed above in
detail and findings given thereon, this court is of the
considered view that the expenditure during check period
as stated in statement D is to be accepted at
165 Spl.CC.187/2014
Rs.47,31,386/- as against Rs.54,47,661/- as computed
by the IO and Rs.31,97,409/- as stated by the accused.
174. Therefore, on analyzing the entire materials
placed before this court meticulously, this court has
come to the following conclusion with regard to
Statements A to D in reference to the computation made
by the prosecution as well as the accused.
Statements As per As per the As per the Court
prosecution accused Findings
Statement A Rs.17,79,965/- Rs.18,19,965/- Rs.17,79,965/-
Assets held at the
beginning of the
check period -
Statement B Rs.2,98,19,198/- Rs.97,36,049/- Rs.2,93,92,314/-
Assets held at the
end of the check
period
Statement C Rs.83,03,061/- Rs.1,22,10,897/- Rs.84,49,461/-
Receipt and
Income during the
check period
Statement D Rs.54,47,661/- Rs.31,97,409/- Rs.47,31,386/-
Expenditure during
the check period
Therefore,
1. Assets acquired Statement B (minus) Rs.2,76,12,349/-
during the check Statement A
period.
2. Total Assets and Assets acquired during Rs.3,23,43,735/-
Expenditure the check period +
during the check Statement D i.e.,
period Rs.2,76,12,349/-
+52,00,581/-
3. Likely Savings Statement C (minus) Rs.37,18,075/-
during check Statement D
period
4. Disproportionate Assets acquired during Rs.2,38,94,274/-
Asset of the the check period +
accused. Statement D
(Expenditure during
check period) - Income
during the check period
166 Spl.CC.187/2014
B - A + D - C i.e.,
Rs.2,76,12,349/- (+)
Rs.52,00,581/- (-)
Rs.84,49,461/-
5. In percentage DA x 100 / Income Rs.2,38,94,274/- x 100 /
during check period Rs.84,49,461/- =
(Statement C). 282.79%
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, this court is
of the considered view that the prosecution has
established that the accused No.1 has accumulated
disproportionate asset of Rs.2,38,94,274/- i.e., 282.79%
during the check period over and above the known
source of his income known to the prosecution.
Therefore, on going through the entire materials placed
before this court, this court is of the considered view that
the prosecution has proved the necessary ingredients to
constitute the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act, against the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the prosecution has discharged its initial
burden to establish the ingredients of the offence of the
criminal misconduct of the accused No.1 beyond
reasonable doubt. But, only on this account, it cannot
be held that the accused No.1 has committed the offence
of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act, unless he is failed to account for such property
found in excess. Therefore, the onus shifts on the
accused No.1 to establish the ‘known source of income’
for the disproportionate asset held by him to the extent of
Rs.2,38,94,274/-.
175. As already stated, the explanation appended
to Section 13(1) defines the term “known source of
167 Spl.CC.187/2014
income” as income received from any lawful source and
such receipt has been intimated in accordance with
provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being
applicable to the public servant. Therefore, the public
servant who is found in possession of disproportionate
asset to his known source of income has to show that (a)
he had received such excessive amount from lawful
source and (b) that the receipt of such excess income has
been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any
law/ rules or orders for the time being applicable to the
said public servant. Therefore, in the present case on
hand, as discussed above in detail, the accused No.1
found in possession of disproportionate asset of
Rs.2,38,94,274/-to his known source of income known to
the prosecution and hence, the accused No.1 has to show
the lawful source to receive the said amount and also
that he had reported receipt of the said amount to the
concerned authority as per law applicable to him. The
accused No.1 is bound to satisfy these twine test so as to
disprove the case of the prosecution.
176. Admittedly, the accused No.1 was the public
servant at the relevant point of time and therefore, he is
bound to submit the Annual Assets Report to the
authority as to acquisition of either movable or
immovable assets in his name or in the name of his
family members. But in this case, the accused No.1 has
not produced any material before this court to show that
he had reported the acquisition of movable and
immovable assets to his Department as required at the
168 Spl.CC.187/2014
relevant point of time. It is well settled principle of law
through catena of decisions that, the onus of proof
resting on the accused is not so onerous as that of the
prosecution and his onus will be discharged by proof of
balance of probabilities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CSD
Swamy’s Vs. The State, reported in 1960 SCR (1) 461
held that ; “Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
did not create a new offence, but only laid down a rule of
evidence that empowered the court to presume the guilt of
the accused in certain circumstances, contrary to the well
known principle of criminal law that the burden of proof
was always on the prosecution and never shifted on the
accused”. It is further held that “the legislature, by using
the expression “satisfactorily account” in Section 5(3) of the
Act, cast burden on the accused not only to offer plausible
explanation as to how he came by the large wealth
disproportionate to his known source of income but also to
satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of
credence. Consequently, cases under the General Law
where it had been held that the accused could be
exonerated if he offered a plausible explanation could have
no application. The expression “known source of income
used in that section referred to such sources of income as
become known to the prosecution as a result of
investigation and could not mean those that were within
the special knowledge of the accused and it was no part of
the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence in that regard.
Where the prosecution fulfilled the conditions laid down by
the earlier part of Section 5(3) of the Act, the Statutory
169 Spl.CC.187/2014
presumption had to be raised and it would be for the
accused to rebut the same by cogent evidence”.
177. Further, our Hon’ble High Court in the case
between Babappa Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police,
Gulbarga 2010(2) KLJ 1C has held that, expression
‘known source of income’ refers not to sources known to
the prosecution, but to sources known to the accused
himself for which, he alone can know all his source of
income. PC Act casts the burden on the accused not only
to offer plausible explanation as to how he acquired the
wealth but also to satisfy the court that his explanation is
worthy of acceptance. This burden, can be discharged by
the accused by establishing his case by preponderance of
probabilities.
178. In view of the principle held in the above
decision, now the facts of the present case are analyzed,
as discussed above, the prosecution has able to establish
the disproportionate asset held by the accused No.1 to
the tune of Rs.2,38,94,274/- i.e., 282.79% to his known
source of income. Therefore, the statutory presumption
has to be raised against the accused No.1 and it would be
for him to rebut the same by cogent evidence as to the
lawful source of income for the said additional amount
which is within his special knowledge and it is no part of
the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence in that
regard.
179. In this case, though the prosecution has
established the disproportionate assets held by accused
170 Spl.CC.187/2014
No.1, to his known source of income known to the
prosecution, he has not placed any evidence to prove the
lawful source of income for excess wealth possessed by
him during the check period. Though the accused No.1
has tried to take assistance of the evidence placed by the
prosecution itself, he could not succeed in his effort. The
accused No.1 is bound to offer plausible explanation as
to how he came by the large wealth disproportionate to
his known source of income and also to satisfy the court
that his explanation is trustworthy and worthy of
credence. But, in this case, the accused No.1 has even
failed to offer plausible explanation. The explanation
offered by the accused No.1 as to receipt of additional
income as put up by him is found to be baseless. Apart
from that, even he has not intimated the acquisition of
the said assets to the department as required under the
Rules applicable to him. Therefore, the accused No.1
could not comply the requirement of ‘known source of
income’ as provided under explanation to Sec.13(1)(e) of
the PC Act.
180. Added to the above aspects, it is also to be
noted that admittedly, the accused No.1 was in
possession of huge cash of Rs.56,82,000/- in his
residential premises on 02.02.2012 when his house was
searched by the CBI Police. It is highly un-imaginable to
keep such huge amount in cash in residence that too
without intimating the said amount to the Departmental
Authority as required under the Rule applicable. Apart
from that, there was no occasion to keep such huge
171 Spl.CC.187/2014
amount in the residence. If at all, the said income is
genuine and from the lawful source, the accused No.1
could have kept the same in the bank account which he
can withdraw at any time when exigencies arises and
that such huge amount also fetch huge interest. The
conduct of the accused No.1 keeping such huge amount
in cash in the residential premises is very strange and
contrary to the conduct of the prudent person. The
explanation offered by the accused as to acquisition of
additional amount is neither plausible nor satisfactory
nor inspiring the confidence of the court. On the other
hand, the same is found to be unworthy of credence,
totally untrustworthy and after thought.
181. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that
the PC Act was amended w.e.f. 26.07.2018 with regard to
various provisions of the said Act. The amendment was
also effected in respect of Section 13. Prior to the
amendment, under Section 13, there was sub-clause (a)
to (e) to clause 1 of Section 13 and there was one
explanation. However, after amendment, Section 13(1)
has contained only two sub-clauses and it also appended
with two explanations. In explanation 2, the expression
‘known source of income’ was defined as ‘income received
from any lawful source’. But earlier to the amendment,
the known source of income was defined as ‘income
received from lawful source and such receipt has been
intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law,
rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public
servant’. But, by virtue of the amendment, intimation of
172 Spl.CC.187/2014
the receipt of such income is departed with. Even if that
benefit has to be given to the accused No.1, then also, he
has failed to show the lawful sources for the
disproportionate assets possessed by him during the
check period by giving satisfactory account for the same.
182. Thus, considering entire oral and
documentary evidence meticulously under the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the accused No.1 has miserably
failed to establish that the additional asset possessed by
him to his known source of income is from the known
source of income received from lawful source. The
accused No.1 has totally failed to account for additional
amount amassed by him to his known source of income
and thereby failed to discharge his onus towards
disproportionate assets possessed by him. Therefore, it is
clear that the prosecution has established the criminal
misconduct of the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt
as required under law. Therefore, Point No.2 is required
to be answered in the affirmative.
183. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, she is
charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section
109 of the IPC as she being the wife of accused No.1
abetted him to acquire assets by corrupt or illegal means
by abusing his official position by purchasing the
immovable properties in her name from and out of his ill-
gotten income. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor,
relying on the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of
P.Nallammal Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police,
173 Spl.CC.187/2014
vehemently submitted that since the accused No.2 had
acquired the property in her name out of the ill-gotten
money of accused No.1, she is guilty of the abetment of
the commission of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of
the PC Act, by accused No.1 and thereby she is liable to
be punished under Section 109 of the IPC as abettor. In
this case, the evidence on record reveals that the
immovable property as well as movable property was
acquired in the name of accused No.2. It is specific case
of the prosecution that the plot No.104, 3 rd Cross,
Telecom CHS Layout, KP Agrahara, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru, measuring about 1200 sq.ft. was purchased
from Smt. Jyothi Balakrishna in the name of accused
No.2 by accused No.1 and also plot No.30, 2 nd Cross,
Subbanna Garden, Vijayanagar Bengaluru, measuring
675 sq. ft. was purchased from Smt. Savithramma, in the
name of accused No.2 by accused No.1 and thereafter,
the building was constructed in the said plot. Further,
the vacant site measuring 30 x 40 sq.ft. bearing No.17 in
Sy.No.6 of Subramanyapura Village, Maarasandra,
Uttarahalli, Bengaluru was purchased in the name of
accused No.2. So far as purchase of these properties are
concerned, the accused No.2 has not established any
source of income. The source for purchasing the said
property as contended by them are found to be baseless
and unacceptable. Further, it is not the case of the
accused No.2 that the said properties were acquired by
her out of her own income. Therefore, the said properties
are required to be considered as property earned in her
name by accused No.1 himself.
174 Spl.CC.187/2014
184. It is also noticed that accused No.2 was also
having Bank Accounts in Karnataka State Co-operative
Apex Bank Ltd., RPC Layout Bengaluru and in State
Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, wherein,
she was having an amount of Rs.4,54,239/- and
Rs.2,23,972/- and in all, Rs.6,78,211/-. For the said
amount also, the accused No.2 has not shown any source
of her own. As already stated, the source stated by them
is found to be not acceptable. It is pertinent to note that
accused No.2 was earning some amount from her
business and the same is shown as income in Statement
C Column and the benefit of said income was given
separately while calculating the disproportionate asset.
No doubt, the documents produced before the court
reveal that accused No.2 has filed her income-tax returns
as per Ex.P.111 to 113, P.116 to 119 and declared her
income. But, the said declared income is not sufficient to
acquire the said properties. As already stated, there is no
acceptable and convincing evidence to show that the
properties standing in her name were purchased
/acquired out of the funds provided by her parental
family. Therefore, under these attending circumstances,
it has to be accepted that the properties acquired in her
name are nothing but the properties acquired out of the
ill-gotten money of her husband. Therefore, by her
conduct, she has abetted the criminal mis-conduct of her
husband in the matter of acquiring disproportionate
assets. Hence, considering all these aspects and the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Nallamal‘s case,
this court is of the considered view that the prosecution
175 Spl.CC.187/2014
has proved the act of abetment on the part of accused
No.2 in commission of criminal misconduct by acquiring
disproportionate assets to the known source of income by
accused No.1.
185. At this stage, this court has also considered
other various decisions relied by the learned counsel for
the accused. In the decision reported in 1979(1) SCC
535 S.P.Bhatnagar Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has considered the meaning and ambit of the
pres ology ‘by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise
abusing his position as public servant’ used under
Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1947. But on going through
the said decision, along with the facts of the present case,
this court found that the said decision is not at all
applicable to the facts of the present case, so as to
uphold the contention of the accused in any angle.
186. Similarly, in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, in M. Krishna Reddy’s case and in Krishnanand
Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1997) 1 SCC 816,
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of showing
the particular transaction is benami always rest on the
person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be
strictly discharged by abusing legal evidence of the
definite character which would either directly prove the
facts of benami or establish the circumstances unerringly
and reasonably raising an inference of the said fact.
However, on going through the said decisions and facts of
the present case on hand, it is noticed that the said
decisions are no way helpful to the accused as the
176 Spl.CC.187/2014
evidence placed before this court and the circumstances
established thereby clearly establish that the property
purchased in the name of accused No.2 is out of the ill-
gotten money of accused No.1. Therefore, the said
decisions are of no assistance to the accused persons in
the case on hand.
187. This court is also being guided by another
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kedarilal Vs. State
of M.P. wherein, it is held, “expression ‘known source of
income’ has two elements: first, income must be received
from lawful source and secondly, receipt of such income
must have been intimated in accordance with the
provisions of law, rules or orders applicable to public
servant – Receipt by way of share in partition of ancestral
property or bequest under a Will, Marriage Gift or Gifts and
Advances from the close relatives would come within the
expression ‘known source of income’, provided that the
receipts were duly intimated to the authorities as
prescribed.” One cannot dispute this principle as to
‘known source of income’. However, on going through the
facts of the present case along with the said relied
decision, this court is of the considered view that the said
decision will not come to the assistance of the accused as
the Gift or the property acquired in the name of accused
No.2 as contended in the present case were not intimated
to the Government by accused No.1 as required under
law applicable to him. This court is also meticulously
considered the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Gauhati in Anand Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India and the
177 Spl.CC.187/2014
judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Bench in Suhash Kharate Vs. State of M.P. relied
by the learned counsel for the accused. However, on
going through the facts of the said case along with facts
of the present case, it is clear that the said decisions are
not applicable to the facts of the present case in the light
of the evidence on record and no assistance to the said
decisions could be given to the accused to accept their
contention.
188. This court has also considered the relied
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 6
SCC 628 State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. J.
Sathyanarayana. In the said case, it is observed that, “in
calculation of the income from the lawful source, the
evidence of Income Tax Returns and orders thereon can be
relied on”. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that
the declared income of the accused No.2 and housing
loan borrowed by her are considered by the IO as income
while computing the disproportionate assets of the
accused No.1. The benefit is given to the accused by
considering the same as income. Therefore, the said
decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case
in favour of the accused. This court is also being guided
by another relied decision reported in (2006) 1 SCC 420,
wherein the accused, on his part satisfactorily
established the money and assets recovered belonged to
his wife which she has amassed from the business run
by her separately. But in the present case on hand, the
accused has not established that the money and assets
178 Spl.CC.187/2014
recovered from him standing in the name of his wife is
acquired by her separate known source of income.
Hence, the said decision cannot be made applicable to
the facts of the present case in favour of the accused.
Further, this court has also considered the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Vasant Rao Guhe‘s case,
relied by the learned counsel for the accused. But once
again, this court found that the said decision is no way
helpful to the defence of the accused under the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as in this case, the
prosecution has proved the case against the accused
No.1 as to his possession of the disproportionate assets
to his known source of income.
189. Thus, considering all these aspects in detail
very meticulously, this court is of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused No.1 being the public servant, during
the check period commencing from 01.10.1998 to
02.02.2012 was found in possession of assets of worth
Rs.2,38,94,274/- i.e., 282.79% disproportionate to his
known source of income, for which he could not
satisfactorily account and thereby committed the offence
under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of
the PC Act and accused No.2 has abetted the commission
of the said offence for accused No.1 by acquiring property
in her name out of the ill-gotten money of her husband.
Accordingly, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the
affirmative.
179 Spl.CC.187/2014
190. Point No.4: For the reasons discussed in
connection with point Nos.1 to 3, this court proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
As accused No.1 Sri. Tholasirama, is
found guilty of the offence under Section
13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
accused No.2 Smt.H.Sharada, is found guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 109
of the Indian Penal Code, acting under
Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., they are
convicted for the said offences.
The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1
and 2 and that of their sureties stand
cancelled.
To hear regarding sentence,
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I directly on the
computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the
Open Court on this the day of 30th December, 2024)
(Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat)
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
& Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
180 Spl.CC.187/2014
31.12.2024
ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE
In the instant case, the accused No.1 is convicted
for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under
Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accused No.2 is
convicted for the offence under Section 109 of the IPC.
2. Heard the accused Nos.1 and 2 and their
learned counsel and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
regarding sentence.
3. The learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2
humbly submitted that the penal provisions of PC Act
applicable in this case is prior to 2014 amendment and
the discretion is given to the court in the matter of
imposing the sentence of imprisonment ranging from 1
year to 7 years and with fine. It is further submitted that
accused No.1 has completed unblemished service and
retired from the service. Departmental Enquiry was
conducted against him in connection with this matter
and 25% of the pension is also reduced. He is senior
citizen and suffering from severe health problems and he
had stroke in the year 2022. Further, accused No.2 is the
wife of accused No.1 and aged about 57 years. She is
also facing health issues. In this regard, the learned
counsel has filed a memo with medical records of
accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further argued by him that
accused Nos.1 and 2 are innocent poor persons and they
have to look after their family. Further, the accused have
faced long trial for 12 years, they have regularly appeared
181 Spl.CC.187/2014
before this court and abide by all the conditions imposed
by this court. Accordingly, prayed for lenient view in
favour of accused in the matter of sentencing them by
exercising judicial discretion in their favour.
4. The accused Nos.1 and 2, who are before the
court submitted in the same line as submitted by their
learned counsel and prayed for sympathetic approach in
their favour.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor submitted that the punishment to be imposed
shall not be plea bite sentence and it shall serve the
purpose for which the punishment to be imposed. The
prosecution has proved case against the accused persons
beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to consider
the conduct of the accused, gravity of the offence and
also its effect on the economic system of the society as
well as the society in general. By committing the offence
as found in the judgment passed by this court, the
accused No.1 and 2 in all accumulated assets of worth
Rs.2,38,94,274/- i.e., 282.72% disproportionate to
known source of income of accused No.1. The offence
committed by the accused requires stringent approach
and no lenient view could be taken in their favour as the
offence committed by them is having adverse effect on the
society. Further, accused No.1 being a public servant,
abused his official position, accumulated huge wealth.
The sentence to be imposed on the accused shall send a
message to the society to avoid the corruption in the
society and it shall be proportionate to the offence
182 Spl.CC.187/2014
committed by the accused. Accordingly, sought imposing
of the maximum sentence and also for imposing suitable
fine by taking into count the worth of the property
accumulated by them.
6. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
Vs. Parthiban (2006) AIR SCW 5267, in view of the
mandate contained in Section 18 of the Probation of
Offender’s Act, a convicted accused for the offence under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not entitled for
the benefit of probation.
7. The Apex Court in K.C.Suran Vs. CBI,
Chandigarh, (AIR 2001 SC, 3320) held that “corruption by
public servant has now reached a monstrous dimension in
India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the
institutions created for the protection of the republic.
Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from
the gripping, the normal and orderly functioning of the
public offices through strong legislative, executive as well
as judicial exercises the corrupt public servant could even
paralyze the functioning of such institutions and thereby
hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public
servant could garner momentum to cripple public
institutions. Hence, in corruption cases, the court must
take stringent view while awarding the sentence”.
8. Having said so, it is needless to say that in the
matter of imposing sentence on the accused, this court
has to hear the accused person on the sentence consider
the aggravating and mitigating factors, the purpose of the
183 Spl.CC.187/2014
punishment being imposed, effects of the offence
committed on the society, facts and circumstances of the
case under which the offence took place etc.,
9. As already stated, the accused No.1 is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(2)
of the PC Act. Since the check period is from 01.10.1998
to 02.02.2012, the penal provisions of Section 13
applicable to the accused No.1 is prior to the amendment
of 2014 to the PC Act. Prior to the amendment of 2014,
the offence under Section 13(a) to (e) was punishable
under Section 13(2) with an imprisonment for a term,
which shall not be less than 1 year but it may extend to 7
years and shall also be liable to fine. Accused No.2 is
convicted under Section 109 of the IPC, for abetting the
accused No.1 in committing the offence of criminal
misconduct under Section 13(2)(e) of the PC Act. As
provided under 109 of the IPC, the abettor shall be liable
for punishment provided for the offence, where no
express provision is made by the Code for punishment of
such abetment. Therefore, in this case, accused No.2 is
liable for punishment under Section 109 of the IPC, as
abettor. In this regard, this court is also being guided by
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.Nallammal
Vs. State – represented by Inspector of Police, disposed
on 09.08.1999. Hence, the accused No.2 is also liable to
be punished as that of the accused No.1.
10. The mitigating circumstances expressed by
the accused persons are that they are aged persons
having health issues, already 25% of the pension of
184 Spl.CC.187/2014
accused No.1 was reduced in the Departmental Enquiry,
they have to look after their family, they are innocents,
they have faced long trial and also that they appeared
before the court regularly without violating any of the
conditions. The accused have also produced the copy of
the medical records relating to them.
11. The aggravating circumstances are that
accused No.1 being a public servant, by abusing his
official position, accumulated huge assets to his known
source of income, which is affecting the society adversely.
The accused No.2, being the wife, abetted the accused
No.1 in accumulating the assets in her name from the ill-
gotten money of accused No.1.
12. On going through the penal provision of
Section 13, it is clear that minimum sentence of
imprisonment has been fixed by the Legislation itself.
Therefore, the said minimum sentence of imprisonment
has to be imposed on the convicted accused and it may
extend upto seven years as provided. So far as the fine is
concerned, the minimum or maximum fine amount is not
fixed and it is given to the discretion of the court.
However, Section 16 of the PC Act, specifies as to the
matters to be taken into consideration for fixing the fine.
As provided under Section 16 of the PC Act, this court
has to take into consideration the pecuniary resources or
the property for which the accused person is unable to
account satisfactorily. In other words, the fine to be
imposed should have nexus with the disproportionate
asset held by the accused. In this case, the accused No.1
185 Spl.CC.187/2014
is found to be in possession of the disproportionate asset
to the extent of Rs.2,38,94,274/- i.e., 282.79% to his
known source of income. Some of the immovable
properties and the amount in the Bank Account are
standing in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 and huge
cash was also seized from their residence. Various
movable properties were also found. All these facts to be
taken into consideration while imposing the fine. As
submitted by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, it is
true that the sentence to be imposed shall not be plea
bite in nature and it must serve the purpose of the
punishment. The offence committed by the accused is
also having its effect on the society. At the same time,
the mitigating circumstances are also required to be
taken into count.
13. After considering the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances found under the facts and
circumstances of this case, nature and gravity of the
offence, its effect on the society, the purpose of the
punishment etc., this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2) of the
Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 Sri. Tholasirama,
S/o. Bodka Naik, is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 4 years and
shall also pay a fine of Rs.80 lakhs/-
(Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) and in default of
payment of the fine amount, the accused
186 Spl.CC.187/2014
No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for
9 months for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Acting under Section 235(2) of the
Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 Smt.H.Sharada
W/o. Tholasirama, is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and
shall also pay a fine of Rs.1 Crore 65 lakhs
(Rupees One Crore Sixty Five Lakhs only)
and in default of payment of the fine
amount, the accused No.2 shall undergo
simple imprisonment for 9 months for the
offence punishable under Section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Free copy of this judgment be supplied
to the convicted forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I directly on the
computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the
Open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2024)
(Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat)
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
& Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 P. Bhaskaran
187 Spl.CC.187/2014
P.W.2 Prabhugowda N. Patil
P.W.3 L. Gopi
P.W.4 Hombalaiah
P.W.5 C.V. Manjunath
P.W.6 Smt. Jyothi Balakrishna
P.W.7 V.S. Goudar
P.W.8 Smt. Savithramma L
P.W.9 Smt. Vedavathi
PW.10 Arup Jyothi Bharat Kaur
PW.11 Shiva Nanje Gowda
PW.12 Samrat Ashokan
PW.13 N. Mohan
PW.14 Govardhan Bhat
PW.15 Sandeep Gowda
PW.16 Ramesh R. Pulake
PW.17 D.J. Jithendra
PW.18 S. Subramanyam
PW.19 B.H. Banarji
PW.20 Shashikiran M
PW.21 Amar Magaji
PW.22 R. Bhaskar
PW.23 G. Kumar Naik
PW.24 Raghavendra J.G.
PW.25 R. Jayakar Shetty
PW.26 B.V. Kumar
PW.27 B.S. Krishnamurthy
PW.28 Somashekhara Raju
PW.29 C. Srinivasulu
PW.30 Smt. Sudha Ranganath
PW.31 D. Prabhakar
PW.32 N. Sheshadri
PW.33 V. Chandrashekar
PW.34 S.P. Harish
PW.35 M.T. Manchaiah
PW.36 S. Anantha Chandran
PW.37 Prabhakar S. Bapat
PW.38 A.N. Kumaraswamy
PW.39 B. Nagaraja
PW.40 N. Chandrashekhar
PW.41 K. Mukunda Naik
PW.42 Anjanappa
188 Spl.CC.187/2014
PW.43 Rajendra Prasad
PW.44 M.S. Raghu Nandan
PW.45 T. Mohan Kumar
PW.46 P. Anjaneyalu
PW.47 M.R. Byregowda
PW.48 Basavanna
PW.49 Smt. Subbalakshmi
PW.50 Javid Rabbani
PW.51 H.P. Gopala Gowda
PW.52 Sundara Murthy
PW.53 Pedda Manjunath
PW.54 Krishnaiah
PW.55 Anil Kumar Laxman Goppekar
PW.56 Umesh K
PW.57 Subrath Kumar Mahapatra
PW.58 M. Nagendra Naidu
PW.59 Lakshminarasimhaiah
PW.60 K.M. Vishwanath
PW.61 T.S. Umapathy
PW.62 A. Inbuzhagan
PW.63 Smt. Anitha Padam Kothari
PW.64 M. Purushothaman
PW.65 Gowli Basavaraj
PW.66 B.M. Sudhakar
PW.67 D. Channabasappa
PW.68 T. Sanjay
PW.69 T.P. Ananda Krishnan
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Valuation Report dt. 8.5.2013 with Annexures
– 20 sheets
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Covering letter dt. 17.4.2012 of PW.2.
189 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3 Account Opening Form bearing A/c. No.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of statement of account in
respect of Ex.P3 – 9 sheets
Ex.P.5 Certificate under Banker’s Book of
Evidence Act – 9 sheets
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.6 Original account opening form A/c. No.
1591
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of Statement of account in
respect of Ex.P6 – 4 sheetsEx.P.8 Certificate under Banker’s Book of
Evidence Act – 1 sheet
Ex.P8(a) Signatures of PW.2
Ex.P9 Agreement to sell dt. 20.11.2008 (Page
No.37 to 41 of D15) in favour of A2
Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P9(b) Signature of CW-12 (Savithramma)
Ex.P9(c) Signature of A2 (H. Sharada)Ex.P10 Original Sale Deed
Ex.P10(a) Signature of A2 at last page
Ex.P10(b) Photograph of Savithramma
Ex.P10(c) Photograph of PW.3
Ex.P10(d) Photograph of son of PW.3Ex.P11 Original GPA dated 6.11.93 – 4 sheets
(page 2 to 5 of D6)
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW.3Ex.P12 Letter dt. 15.2.2013 of PW.4 to the
Investigating Officer – 2 sheets
Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW.14Ex.P13 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 4.12.2008
executed in favour of A2
Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW.4
190 Spl.CC.187/2014Ex.P14 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
27.3.2002 executed in favour of A1 by A2.
Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P15 Certified copy of GPA dt. 6.1.1993 in
favour of A2 – 6 sheets
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P16 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 11.2.2006
in favour of Smt. Sharada (A2) – 6 sheets
Ex.P17 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 14.10.1998
executed in favour of A1 for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P18 Encumbrance Certificate of Ex.P13
Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P19 Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate
(Manual)
Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P20 Encumbrance Certificate dated 15.2.2013
Ex.P20(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P21 Encumbrance Certificate for site No.104
(Manual)
Ex.P21(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P22 Encumbrance Certificate for site No.104
(Computerized)
Ex.P22(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P23 Certified copy of EC in the name of A1, Site
No.91
Ex.P23(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P24 Certified copy of EC in the name of A1, Site
No.91
Ex.P24(a) Signature of PW.4
191 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P25 Letter dt. 23.6.1997 of A1 – 1 sheet
Ex.P26 Xerox copy of 3 DDs – 1 sheet
Ex.P27 Letter dated 3.7.97 of A1 – 1 sheet
Ex.P28 Xerox copy of DD for Rs.1,10,000=00.
Ex.P29 Receipt for Rs.1,10,000=00 dt. 3.7.1997
Ex.P30 Receipt for Rs.1,00,000=00
Ex.P31 Certified copy of Possession Certificate
dt. 1.9.1999
Ex.P32 Letter dt. 4.7.2012 addressed to CBI
Ex.P32(a) Signature of G. Babu
Ex.P32(b) Provisional allotment letter
Ex.P32(c) Certified copy of sale deed dt. 14.10.98
Ex.P32(d) Certified copy of letter dt. 4.3.2009 of A1
Ex.P32(e) Possession Certificate 1.4.99 certified copy
Ex.P32(f) Certified copy of Ledger Extract
Ex.P32(g) Certified copy of receipt
Ex.P32(h) Certified copy of sale deed dt. 26.8.86
favouring Sujatha Vasudeva -3 sheets
Ex.P32(i) Certified copy of Possession Certificate
dated 22.1.1997
Ex.P32(j) Certified copy of letter dt. 22.1.2001 of
Smt. Sujatha Vasudeva
Ex.P32(k) Certified copy of letter dt. 22.1.2001 of
Smt. Sujatha Vasudeva
Ex.P33 Original sale deed dt. 14.10.1998 in favour
of A1- 10 sheets
Ex.P33(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P34 Original Possession Certificate of Site
No.91
Ex.P35 Original Sale Agreement dt. 26.11.2006 in
favour of Smt. Sharada – 2 sheets
Ex.P35(a) Signature of PW.6
192 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P36 Xerox copy of the sale deed dt. 29.1.2001
in favour of Smt. Jyothi Balakrishna – 3
sheets
Ex.P37 Letter dt. 28.5.2012 of AGM, Vigilance,
BSNL
Ex.P37(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P38 S.R. of A1
Ex.P39 Personal file of A1 (47 sheets)
Ex.P40 Letter dt. 22.3.2013 of AGM (Vig), BSNL to
the Investigating Officer – 1 sheet
Ex.P41 Letter dt. 19.3.2013 of BSNL to AGM (Vig)
reg. HBA – sanction details – 1 sheet
Ex.P41(a) Signature of Accounts Officer
Ex.P42 Letter dt. 19.2.2013 of BSNL to AGM (Vig)
in respect of Scholarship sanction to A1
Ex.P42(a) Signature of AGM (Welfare)
Ex.P43 Letter dt. 19.3.2013 regarding payment
arrears – 1 sheet
Ex.P43(a) Signature of Accounts officer
Ex.P44 Attested copies of Ledger Sheets of the P &
T Employees Credit Co-Op. Society – 4
sheets
Ex.P45 Letter dt. 7.3.2013 in respect of deposit
details of phone – 1 sheet
Ex.P46 Attested copies of Ledger sheets,
Karnataka Telecom Dept., Co-op. Society –
7 sheets
Ex.P47 Land Line Telephone Bill Payment details
Ex.P48 Mobile phone bill payment details – 1
sheet
Ex.P49 Letter dt. 21.3.2013 of BSNL with month
wise payment details – 3 sheets
193 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P50 Attested copy of Extract of BSNL CDA
documents – 3 sheets
Ex.P51 Letter dt. 22.3.2013 of BSNL with GPF
Ledger extract – 14 sheets
Ex.P52 Original Search List dt. 2.2.2012 – 3
sheets
Ex.P52(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P52(b) Signature of PW.62
Ex.P53 BBMP Tax paid receipt – 1 sheet
Ex.P54 Original Sale Deed dt. 27.3.2002 in favour
of A1 – 5 sheets
Ex.P55 The N.I.A.C.L. Policy Schedule – 2 sheets
Ex.P56 Immovable property documents such as
khata extract, khata certificate, copies of
BBMP Receipt, estimation letter, certified
copy of Sale Deed etc., – 7 sheets
Ex.P57 One bunch containing remittance slip, bill
of Griha Vaibhav and other bills – 15
sheets
Ex.P58 One bunch containing estimate bill of
M/s. Krishnaiah Setty & Sons – 20 sheets
Ex.P59 One bunch containing delivery challans,
tax invoices, insurance receipts etc.,
(totally 152 sheets)
Ex.P60 A bunch of sheets seized as item No.5 of
the search list containing Insurance
papers, original sale deed, blue prints etc.,
(35 sheets) (including Ex.P33 & 34)
Ex.P61 A bunch of sheets contains original sale
agreement, copy of sale, deed and other
documents seized as item No.4 of search
list (Ex.P52).
Ex.P62 Inventory dt. 02.02.2012 – 4 sheets.
194 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P62(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P62(b) Signature of PW.62
Ex.P62(c) Signature of A1
Ex.P63 Letter dt. 2.3.2013 of Kanaka Griha
Nirmana Sahakara Sangha – 1 sheet.
Ex.P63(a) Signature of PW.11
Ex.P64 Copy of the sale deed dt. 28.3.2007 in
favour
of A2 – 13 sheets
Ex.P65 Letter dt. 12.5.2012 of M/s. Mandovi
Motors.
Ex.P65(a) Signature of PW.11
Ex.P66 Mandovi Motors Receipt dt. 15.12.2006 for
Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.P66(a) Signature of one H.V. Ranjan
Ex.P67 Mandovi Motors Receipt dt. 16.1.2007 for
Rs.79,184/-
Ex.P67(a) Signature of Sri. Ranjan.
Ex.P68 Mandovi Motors receipt dt. 23.1.2007 for
Rs.2,95,921/-
Ex.P68(a) Signature of Ranjan
Ex.P69 Ledger Account Statement of A1 with
enclosures total 13 sheets
Ex.P70 Letter dt. 27.2.2003 of M/s. Khivraj Motors
addressed to the CBI
Ex.P70(a) Signature of PW.15
Ex.P71 Khivraj Motors Invoice dt. 28.4.2008 for
Rs.9264/-.
Ex.P71(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P72 Office copy of Khivraj Motors Invoice dt.
28.4.2008 for Rs.64,756/-.
Ex.P72(a) Signature of PW.13.
Ex.P73 Khivraj Motors receipt dt. 11.4.2008 for
Rs.50,000/-.
195 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P73(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P74 Khivraj Motors receipt dt. 15.4.2008 for
Rs.24,020/-.
Ex.P74(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P75 M/s. Planet Agencies Letter dated
30.6.2012 to CBI
Ex.P75(a) Signature of Manager
Ex.P76 3 Receipts for Rs.200/- Rs.56,958/- and
Rs.2,000/- with one invoice of M/s. Planet
Agencies – 6 sheets
Ex.P77 Receipt for Rs.1,000/- dt. 25.2.2003 and
Rs.39,551/- dt. 14.4.2003 with 2 invoices
total 5 sheets
Ex.P78 6 sheets containing Invoices for Rs.1,000/-
dt. 23.6.2011, Rs.56,953 dt. 12.9.2011,
Rs.125/- dt. 12.9.2011 with 2 invoices
Ex.P79 Karnataka Bank Letter dt. 20.4.2012
addressed to the CBI – 1 sheet
Ex.P79(a) Signature of Sr. Br. Manager.
Ex.P80 Original Account Opening Form in the
name of Sanjay.T. with enclosures – 4
sheets
Ex.P81 Statement of account for the period
8.2.2010 to 20.4.2012 – 2 sheets
Ex.P82 Certificate under Banker’s Book of
Evidence Act
Ex.P82(a) Signature of PW.15
Ex.P83 Letter dt. 12.4.2012 of S.B.H – 1 sheet
Ex.P83(a) Signature of the Branch Manager
Ex.P84 Another letter dt. 25.4.2012 of SBH
addressed to CBI – 1 sheet
196 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P84(a) Signature of Br. Manager
Ex.P85 Account opening form with enclosures of
A2 with SBH – 4 sheets
Ex.P86 Statement of account in respect of A2
Ex.P86(a) Signature of Branch Manager
Ex.P87 SBH statement of account in respect of A2
for the period 1.1.2005 to 2.2.2011 – 4
sheets
Ex.P87(a) Signature of Branch Manager
Ex.P88 SBH Statement of account for the period
31.1.2011 to 21.4.2012 – 2 sheets
Ex.P88(a) Signature of the Branch Manager.
Ex.P89 Interest accrual statement in respect of A2
of SBH – 1 sheet.
Ex.P89(a) Signature of the Branch Manager
Ex.P90 Certification u/s 2A of B.B.E. Act
Ex.P90(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P91 SBH Account opening form with
enclosures of Sri. T. Sanjay – 6 sheets
Ex.P92 SBH statement of account for the period
8.4.210 to 25.4.2012 in the name of T.
Sanjay – 3 sheets
Ex.P92(a) Signature of Branch Manager
Ex.P93 Certificate issued u/s 2A of B.B.E. Act
Ex.P93(a) Signature of PW16.
Ex.P94 SBH covering letter dated 10.2.2013
addressed to CBI.
Ex.P94(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P95 Statement of Housing Loan account of A2 –
4 sheets
Ex.P95(a) Signature of PW.16
197 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P96 Certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act
Ex.P96(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P97 SBH Housing Loan application form of A2
with enclosures - 49 sheets
Ex.P98 Car Loan application of A1 with ICICI Bank
- 4 sheets
Ex.P99 Statement of Loan account of ICICI Bank
Ex.P100 Seizure Memo dt. 13.3.13
Ex.P100(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P101 Policy Status Report of A1 showing
maturity amount of Rs.28,219/- Policy No.
73904020
Ex.P102 Policy Status Report of A1 for Policy
No. 61145288
Ex.P103 Policy Status Report for Policy No.
612810279 of A1
Ex.P104 Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act
Ex.P104(a) Signature of PW.18
Ex.P105 Letter dated 25.9.2013 of LIC to CBI
Ex.P105(a) Signature of PW.18
Ex.P106 Encumbrance Certificate for the period
1.4.2004 to 5.3.2013.
Ex.P107 Letter dt. 6.3.2013 of S.R.O. Kengeri to CBI
Ex.P107(a) Signature of Sub-Registrar B.M.
Shashikala
Ex.P108 Rental agreement dt. 3.3.2011 executed
between A2 & PW.21.
Ex.P109 Rental agreement dt. 3.3.2011 executed
between A2 & PW.22.
Ex.P109(a) Signature of PW.22
Ex.P109(b) Signature of A2
Ex.P110 Rental agreement dt. 3.3.2011 executed
between A2 & PW.23.
Ex.P110(a) Signature of PW.23
198 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P110(b) Signature of A2
Ex.P111 Certified copy of Income Tax returns of A2
for the year 2009-10 – 15 sheets
Ex.P112 Certified copy of I.T. returns of A2 for the
year 2008-09 – 13 sheets
Ex.P113 Certified copy of I.T. returns of A2 for the
year 2007-2008 – 15 sheets
Ex.P114 Letter dt. 20.4.2012 of I.T. Dept., to
Commissioner, IT-I, Bengaluru
Ex.P115 Letter dt. 10.5.2012 from the office of I.T.
addressed to CBI.
Ex.P116 I.T. return verification form of A2 for the
Annual Year 2011-12 – 6 sheets.
Ex.P117 I.T. return verification form of A2 for the
Annual Year 2010-11 – 6 sheets.
Ex.P118 I.T. Returns verification form of A2 for the
Annual Year 2090-10 – 4 sheets
Ex.P119 I.T. Returns verification form of A2 for the
Annual Year 2008-09 – 5 sheets
Ex.P120 I.T. Returns verification form of A2 for the
Annual Year 2007-08 – 13 sheets.
Ex.P121 I.T. Returns verification form of Sri. Sanjay
T for the A.Y. 2011-12.
Ex.P122 Letter dt. 18/5/2012 of PW.27 addressed
to CBI.
Ex.P122(a) Signature of PW.27
Ex.P123 Attested copy of I.T. returns of A1 for the
Annual Year 2010-11 – 2 sheets
Ex.P124 Attested copy of I.T. returns of A1 for the
Annual Year 2009-10
199 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P125 Computer Screen Print of returns in
respect of A1 for the year 2003-2008.
Ex.P126 Letter dt. 7.5.2012 of PW.29 to CBI
Ex.P126(a) Signature of PW.29
Ex.P127 Letter dt. 10.5.2012 of PW.30 to CBI
Ex.P127(a) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P128 Original Rental Agreement dt. 3.3.2011
executed between A2 & PW.31
Ex.P128(a) Signature of PW.93
Ex.P129 True copy of LIC Policy Bond in the name
of A2
Ex.P130 True Copy of LIC policy bond in the name
of Sanjay T
Ex.P131 Premium paid certificate in respect of A2
Ex.P132 Premium paid certificate in respect of A2
Ex.P133 Status Report of Policy of Sanjay T.
Ex.P134 Status Report of LIC Policy of A2
Ex.P135 Covering Letter dt. 2.5.2015 of PW.32 to CBI
Ex.P135(a) Signature of PW.32
Ex.P136 True Copy of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Application form and enclosure.
Ex.P137 Letter dt. 28.4.12 of PW.33 to CBI
Ex.P137(a) Signature of PW.33
Ex.P138 Reliance Life Insurance application and
enclosures
Ex.P139 Letter dt. 1.1.2012 of PW.34 to CBI
Ex.P139(a) Signature of PW.34
Ex.P140 Letter of Senior Regional Manager,
Reliance Life Insurance to CBI.
200 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P140(a) Signature of Sr. General Manager,
Reliance Life Insurance.
Ex.P141 Reliance Life Insurance Statement of
account in respect of Sanjay T
Ex.P142 & 143 Receipts
Ex.P144 ‘B’ Register extract of vehicle No. KA 02 HN
8799.
Ex.P145 Tax Challan for Rs.5185/-.
Ex.P146 Challan for registration fee and Smart
Card fee
Ex.P147 Invoice dt. 30.9.2011
Ex.P148 ‘B’ Register Extract in respect of vehicle
No. KA-02-HC-2497.
Ex.P149 Tax Challan for Rs.7123/-.
Ex.P150 Challan for Registration fee.
Ex.Pl51 Invoice dt. 24.8.2008.
Ex.P152 ‘B’ Registrar Extract for vehicle No. KA 02
MB 6759.
Ex.P153 Tax Challan for Rs.36,779/-
Ex.P154 Challan for registration & hypothecation
for Rs.300/-
Ex.P155 Challan for advance registration fee for
Rs.6,000/-
Ex.P156 Invoice for Rs.3,71,491/- dt. 25.1.2007.
Ex.P157 ‘B’ Register Extract for vehicle No. KA 02
HP 4139
Ex.P158 Tax Challan for Rs.5,246/-.
Ex.P159 Challan for registration fee and Smart
Card fee for Rs.197/-
Ex.P160 Invoice dt. 16.11.2011 of M/s. Planet
Agencies
201 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P161 ‘B’ Register extract for vehicle No. KA 02
EH 6749.
Ex.P162 Tax Challan for Rs.2,625/-
Ex.P163 Challan for New registration and Smart
Card fee of Rs.82/-.
Ex.P164 Invoice dt. 24.4.2003 of M/s. Planet
Agencies.
Ex.P165 Copy of Insurance Policy of National
Insurance Co., Ltd., in respect of Vehicle
No. KA 02 MB 6759 (Maruthi Zen Estilo
Car) etc.,
Ex.P166 Covering Letter dt. 14.5.2012 of PW.36 to
the Investigating Officer
Ex.P166(a) Signature of PW.36
Ex.P167 Certified copy of Salary Particulars of A1
from October 1998 to January 2012 – 5
sheets (Addl. Doct.)
Ex.P168 Letter dt. 7.3.2013 of PW.37 to the
Investigating Officer – 1 sheet
Ex.P168(a) Signature of PW.37
Ex.P169 Certificate of Insurance and Policy
to 172 Schedule
Ex.P173 Letter dt. 11.5.2012 of Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., to the CBI
Ex.P173(a) Signature of PW.38
Ex.P174 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., policy in
respect of two wheeler – 2 sheets
Ex.P175 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., fire policy in
respect of house property No.91 of A1 – 2
sheets
Ex.P176 Letter dt. 7.5.12 of Divisional Manager,
United India Assurance Co., Ltd., to the
Investigating Officer – 1 sheet
Ex.P176(a) Signature of one B.S. Mishra.
202 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P177 to 179Payment details i.e., receipt etc., in
respect of Vehicle No. KA-02-EH-6749 – (4
sheets each)
Ex.P180 Letter dt.15.5.12 of PW.40 to the CBI
Ex.P180(a) Signature of PW.40
Ex.P181 Membership Application dt.21.11.2011 of
A1
Ex.P182 Copy of Intimation dt. 2.4.2012 sent to A1
Ex.P183 Letter dated 20.5.2012 of Sree Mahisha
Mardhini Gadduge Ammanavara Trust to
the CBI
Ex.P183(a) Signature of Secretary.
Ex.P184 Copy of the receipt for Rs.50,000/-
Ex.P185 Letter dt. 17.5.2012 addressed to CBI
Ex.P185(a) Signature of the Principal
Ex.P186 Copy of Ledger extract – 1 sheet
Ex.P187 Letter dt. 2.3.2013 of Allianu Academy to
CBI
Ex.P187(a) Signature of PW.43
Ex.P188 Copy of the receipt dated 15.11.2011 for
Rs.4,948/-
Ex.P189 Copy of the receipt dt. 20.11.2013 for
Rs.2,270/-
Ex.P190 Letter dt. 14.5.2012 of Reynold’s Inc to CBI
Ex.P190(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P191 14 Receipts of M/s. Reynold’s Inc from
2.7.2010 to 22.8.2011 – 14 sheets
Ex.P192 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement
of PW.45 (CW-52).
Ex.P193 Letter dt. 14.5.2012 of Asst. Revenue
Officer, Vijayanagar Region, BBMP – 1
sheet
Ex.P193(a) Signature of Asst. Revenue Officer.
203 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P194 Letter dt. 26.03.2013 of Asst. Revenue
Officer, Chandra Layout Region, BBMP – 1
sheet.
Ex.P194(a) Signature of Asst. Revenue Officer.
Ex.P195 Letter dt. 19.7.13 of A.E.E. W-3 Sub-
Division, BESCOM to the Investigating
Officer – 1 sheet
Ex.P195(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P196 BESCOM Statement in respect of RR Nos.
of A2 – 1 sheet
Ex.P196(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P197 BESCOM Statement in respect of RR Nos.
of A1 – 1 sheet
Ex.P196(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P198 Letter dt. 19.6.2013 of PW.48 to the
Investigating Officer – 1 sheet
Ex.P198(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P199 Attested copy of work order of BESCOM
issued to A2 – 1 sheet
Ex.P199(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P200 Attested copy of the plan of site in 2 sheets
Ex.P200(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P201 Letter dt. 14.6.2013 of Sri. A.S.
Jayakumar, AEE, BESCOM, Vijayanagara,
B-79 to the CBI – 1 sheet
Ex.P201(a) Signature of A.S. Jayakumar
Ex.P202 Copy of power supply agreement
Ex.P203 Copy of Sanction Letter dt. 13.1.2010 – 1
sheet
Ex.P204 BESCOM sanction letter for multi-storied
building – 1 sheet
Ex.P205 Copy of BESCOM Feasibility Report – 9
sheets
204 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P206 BESCOM statement showing payment of
electricity charges etc., by A2
Ex.P206(a) Signature of AEE
Ex.P207 BESCOM Statement showing deposits and
energy charges pertaining to A2 – 1 sheet
Ex.P207(a) Signature of AEE
Ex.P208 Letter dt. 9.5.2012 of Dy. Chief Inspector
(E), Electrical Inspectorate, Bengaluru to
the Investigating Officer – 1 sheet
Ex.P208(a) Signature of Deputy Chief Inspector
Ex.P209 Approval Letter dt. 23.9.2009 of Deputy
Chief Electrical Inspectorate
Ex.P209(a) Signature of PW.50
Ex.P210 Attested Copy of O.M. dated 25.9.2009
Ex.P210(a) Signature of PW.50
Ex.P211 Letter dt. 21.5.2012 of PW.51 to the
Investigating Officer
Ex.P211(a) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P212 Extract of Sanction Register
Ex.P213 BWSSB Ledger Reports (3 sheets, 5 sheets
to 216 and 6 sheets respectively)
Ex.P217 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement
of PW.52/CW60
Ex.P218 Letter dt. 18.5.2012 of PW.53 to the
Investigating Officer
Ex.P218(a) Signature of PW.53
Ex.P219 Copy of Receipt dt. 13.1.2010 for
Rs.20,000/-
Ex.P220 One Blank cheque signed by PW.54
Ex.P220(a) Signature of PW.54
205 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P221 Relevant portion of 161 statement of
PW.54/CW62
Ex.P222 Blank Cheque signed by PW.55
Ex.P222(a) Signature on PW.55
Ex.P223 Relevant portion of 161 statement of
PW.55/CW64.
Ex.P224 A & A Fitness Training Centre Receipt for
Rs.11,856/-
Ex.P224(a) Signature of authorized signatory.
Ex.P225 Statement of Account of Vijaya Bank,
Ganganagar Branch, Bengaluru in respect
of A/c. No. … 812 in the name of S.P., with
Certificate u/s 2-A of B.B.E. Act – 2 Sheets
Ex.P225(a) Signature of PW.57
Ex.P225(b) Certificate u/s 2A of B.B.E. Act.
Ex.P225(c) Signature of Chief Manager in Ex.P225(b)
Ex.P226 Statement of A/c. of Vijaya Bank in the
name of S.P., CBI.
Ex.P226(a) Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act.
Ex.P226(b) Signature of Branch Manager in
Ex.P226(a)
Ex.P227 Original Pay-in-Slip for Rs.56,82,000/-
Ex.P228 True Copy of S.B. A/c. of the firm in the
name of B. Pampa Naik.
Ex.P229 Statement of Account in the name of
to 231 B. Pampa Naik
Ex.P230(a) & 231(a) Certificates u/s 2-A of B.B.E. Act
Ex.P230(b) & 231(b) Signature
Ex.P232 Letter dt. 8.10.13 of Corporation Bank,
Mandipet Branch, Davanagere to CBI
Ex.P232(a) Signature of PW.61
206 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P233 Attested Copy of SB A/c. of firm of B.
Pampa Naik, maintained in Corporation
Bank, Davanagere – 5 sheets
Ex.P234 Statement of Account with Certificate in
the name of B. Pampa Naik, SB A/c.
No.15384 maintained with Corporation
Bank, Davanagere Branch
Ex.P234(a) Certificate u/s 2-A of BBE Act.
Ex.P234(b) Signature.
Ex.P235 File containing documents seized from the
house of A1 & A2 (45 sheets)
Ex.P236 Two Blank Cheque Nos.063351 & 063352
of & 237 IOB, K.H. Road Branch,
Bengaluru-27.
Ex.P236(a)
& 237(a) Signatures of PW.64
Ex.P238 P & L Account for the period 1.4.2000 to
31.12.2011 prepared by Sri. Gowli
Basavaraj (PW.69) pertaining to the Pampa
Naik – 1 sheet
Ex.P239 Balance Sheet for the period 1.4.2000 to
31.12.2010 pertaining to Pampa Naik
prepared by PW.65 Gowli Basavaraj – 1
sheet
Ex.P240 Ledger Account for sale of agricultural
produces for the period 1.4.2000 to
31.12.2011 pertaining to Pampa Naik
prepared by Gowli Basavaraj (PW.65) – 6
sheets
Ex.P241 Letter dt. 8.5.2012 of Can Fin Homes to
CBI – 1 sheet
Ex.P241(a) Signature of PW.66
Ex.P242 Original Loan application of Tholasirama
207 Spl.CC.187/2014
submitted to Can Fin Homes (Joint
borrower – Smt. Sharada) – 4 sheets
Ex.P243 Original Loan Agreement submitted by A1
* A2
Ex.P244 Original Letter of Guarantee – 1 sheet
Ex.P245 Letter dt. 20.10.13 of BSNL for creation of
second charge
Ex.P246 Loan Sanction Letter of Canfin Homes Ltd.,
dt. 7.10.2003 – 3 sheets
Ex.P247 Letter dt. 19.4.2012 of Canfin Homes to
CBI Ex.P247(a) Signature of PW.66
Ex.P248 Statement of Housing Loan account
Ex.P248(a) Certificate issued under B.B.E. Act
Ex.P249 Original Sanction order
Ex.P249(a) Signature of PW.67
Ex.P250 Letter dt. 11.4.2014 of BSNL to CBI
Ex.P250(a) Signature of GM
Ex.P251 Letter dt. 10.4.2014 of PW.67 to AGM, Vig.
BSNL
Ex.P251(a) Signature of PW.67
Ex.P252 Attested copy of Schedule Powers
Ex.P253 Written explanation of A2
Ex.P253(a) Signature of A2
Ex.P253(b) Signature of PW.68
Ex.P254 Written Explanation of PW.68 – 1 sheet
Ex.P254(a) Signature of PW.68
Ex.P255 F.I.R.
Ex.P255(a) Signature of H.O.B. Sri. R. Hitendra
Ex.P256 Order of H.O.B. Sri. R. Hitendra dt.
31.1.12
Ex.P256(a) Signature of H.O.B. CBI
208 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.P257 One bunch of papers contains receipt – etc
Ex.P258 One bunch of papers containing Insurance
papers, Form No.29, 30, Bank Statements
etc., 81 sheets
Ex.P259 One file containing 50 sheets pertaining to
I.T. returns etc., 50 sheets
Ex.P260 One file containing LIC policies seized at
the residence of A1 during the search – 11
sheets
Ex.P261 One file containing LIC acceptance letters
etc., pertaining to A1 – 12 sheets.
Ex.P262 One file containing rental agreements – 12
sheets.
Ex.P263 True copy of the pay-in-slip dt. 3.2.2012
for Rs.56,82,000=00 at Vijaya Bank,
Ganganagar Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P264 True copy of the statement of account for
the transaction of Rs.56,82,000=00 of
Vijaya Bank
Ex.P265 Vijaya Bank, Ganganagar Branch,
Bengaluru dt. 7.2.2012 signed by the Chief
Manager
Ex.P266 One Spiral Binding Book contains copies of
Form No.01 to 06 and letter dt. 20.6.2012.
Ex.P267 One Spiral binded book contains
Annexure-I to VI
Ex.P268 Written Explanation of A1 dt. 2.3.2010 to
the Investigating Officer – 5 sheets
Ex.P269 Original Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Policy
document in the name of A1
Ex.P270 Letter from M/s. B.S. Krishna Murthy &
209 Spl.CC.187/2014
Associates, Auditors and Tax Consultants
to the CBI
LIST OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 Relevant sentence at page No.5 of Ex.P1
Ex.D2 Relevant sentence at page No.2 of 161
statement of PW.1
Ex.D3 Relevant sentence at page No.3 of 161
statement of PW.1
Ex.D4 Relevant sentence at page No.1 of 161
statement of PW.1
Ex.D5 Certificate on Profit & Loss Account in
Ex.P116
Ex.D6 to D9 Certificates with signature of PW.27 in
Ex.P117 to 120 respectively
Ex.D10 Affidavit of PW.19 – 5 sheets
Ex.D11 Affidavit of B. Pampa Naik – 4 sheets
Ex.D12 Affidavit of M. Shanmukha Naik – 4 sheets
Ex.D13 Affidavit of B.M. Padavipani Naik – 4
sheets
Ex.D14 Affidavit of Thelagare Shivappa – 2 sheets
Ex.D15 Genealogical Tree dt. 14.3.2012 – 1 sheet
Ex.D16 List of Members of family of PW.19 in
whose name properties are standing – 2
sheets.
Ex.D17 One bunch contains RTC and Crop
Certificate – 38 sheets
Ex.D18 One bunch of bills for sale of agricultural
produce – 62 sheets
Ex.D19 Cane supply and other bills – 38 sheets
Ex.D20 One bunch containing statement of
account, copy of sale deed etc., – 10
sheets.
210 Spl.CC.187/2014
Ex.D21 Profit & Loss account statement – 12
sheets
Ex.D22 Sugarcane purchase bill
Ex.D23 & 24 Salary slips of A1
Ex.D25 Ledger Account of sale of properties for the
period 1.4.2000 to 31.12.2011 prepared by
PW.65 Sri. Gowli Basavaraj – 1 sheet
(sheet No.314 of D8)
Ex.D26 Ledger account of sale of sheeps and goats
for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.12.2011
prepared by PW.65 Gowli Basavaraj – 1
sheet (sheet No.315 of D8).
Ex.D27 Ledger account of sale of sugarcane for the
period 1.4.2000 to 31.12.2011 prepared by
PW.65 Gowli Basavaraj – 2 sheets (sheet
No.316 of D8).
Ex.D28 Attested copy of BSNL C & A Rules, 2006
Ex.D29 & 30 Two Vigilance files for sanction
Ex.D31 Relevant entry in Ex.P92
Ex.D32 Letter dt. 16.10..2013 of KPTCL Employees
Co-operative society (produced by defence)
Ex.D33 Relevant entry in Ex.P92.
Ex.D34 Copy of the order dt. 10.9.2014 in Crl.R.P.
No. 745/13 (produced by the defence).
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED FOR
PROSECUTION
NIL
(Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat)
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
& Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link