IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGE (EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE ([ENTITY]), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. AC No.10/2009 FIR No.RC.02(A)/06/ACUVII Central Bureau of Investigation Versus [ENTITY] O R D E R
By this order, I shall decide the question to frame the charge against accused [ENTITY]. Accused [ENTITY] has been sent to the Court for facing the trial for the commission of offences punishable under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of [ACT] (in short the Act) in case FIR No.RC.02(A)/06/ACUVII. The accused has been charge sheeted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is pertinent to mention that in the presence FIR, three separate chargesheets have been filed. One is against the present accused [ENTITY], second one is against accused [ENTITY] and the third one is against [ENTITY] and others.
2 I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Special PP for [ENTITY] as well as Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the accused on the point of charge. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
3 The facts, as enumerated in the chargesheet, are that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [CASE NUMBER] passed an order dated 25.11.2003 whereby the investigation was entrusted to [ENTITY] to inquire into the matter of JBT Teachers Recruitment Scam pertaining to Haryana Government. During the course of investigation of that case, searches were conducted at the house of one Sh. [ENTITY], MLA of Haryana Assembly and several incriminating documents were recovered about the assets accumulated by Sh. [ENTITY] and is family members. The said documents contained a list of 43 alleged movable and immovable properties worth Rs.1467 crores. Thereafter, the investigation against the accused and his family members was entrusted to [ENTITY] and the instant FIR was registered. 4 Check in period in the present case has been taken as 7.6.2000 to 8.3.2005 i.e., during the period when accused [ENTITY] was MLA. Sh. [ENTITY], great grandfather of Sh. [ENTITY], father of the accused, migrated from Bikaner and settled a village namely Tejakhera. The property of Sh. [ENTITY] was inherited by his sons S/Sh. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Sh. [ENTITY] had two sons, namely, S/Sh. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] ws the son of [ENTITY] and his property was divided among two sons [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Sh. [ENTITY] is the eldest son of Late [ENTITY]. Sh. [ENTITY] had been the Chief Minister of Haryana during the period 2.12.1989 to 22.5.1990, 12.7.1990 to 17.7.1990, 22.3.1991 to 6.4.1991 and 23.7.1999 to April 2005. Accused [ENTITY] was married to Smt. [ENTITY] and has two minor sons, namely, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
5 [ENTITY] Memorial Trust was set up vide Trust Deed dated 6.6.2001. Accused is the founder President of the Trust and its bank account is solely operated by him. Trust is having several properties in its name, like [ENTITY] at Sirsa, Centre for Excellence at Chandigarh and plots at Rohtak, Jind, Narnol, Hisar, Kaithal and Jhajhar. M/s Karan Automobiles at [ENTITY] is a partnership firm of accused and his brother [ENTITY] having 50% share each. M/s Tara Automobiles at Abohar and Bhatinda is a partnership firm wherein accused is having 30% share. M/s Regent Holiday Home at Manali is a hotel wherein accused is having 50% share. M/s Regent International at New Delhi is a partnership firm in which accused is having 75% share. During investigation, accused had not produced any document about his acquisition of assets, construction of buildings, expenditure and income. The explanation of accused had been obtained wherein he explained only such assets which he had declared in his declarations filed along with nomination papers before the Election Commission.
6 Accused was having following assets at the beginning of the check period Property Sale Deed amount (1)Shop at New Anaz Mandi, Sirsa Rs.53,760/ (2)Agricultural land in Village Lambi, Sirsa Rs.1,79,000/ (3)Shop at Anaz Mandi, [ENTITY] Rs.84,375/ (4)Shop at [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Rs.1,50,000/ (5)Hotel land at Karol Bagh, New Delhi Rs.4,67,100/ (6)Agricultural land in Village [ENTITY] Rs.65,000/ (7)Agricultural land in Village [ENTITY] Rs.65,000/
(8)Hotel Parking Plot at Karol Bagh, New Delhi Rs.20,94,600/ (9)Farm House land at Udham Singh Nagar Rs.2,000/ (10)Plot at Gurgaon Rs.7,11,197/ Total Value (Family) : Rs.38,72,032/ 7 Accused was having following immovable assets at the end of check period : Property Sale Deed Amount (1)Hotel land at Karol Bagh, New Delhi Rs.1,13,000/ (2)Hotel Building Construction at Karol Bagh Rs.2,68,03,500/ (3)Agricultural land at Vill. Teja Khera Rs.0 (4)Net value of assets of M/s Regent Rs.3,40,89,405/ Holiday Home Pvt. Ltd.
(5)Residential house at Vill. Teja Khera Rs.1,99,86,00/ (6)M/s Tara Automobiles Rs.35,00,000/ (7)Land & Plinth in Vill. Shergarh Rs.12,75,600/ (8)Agricultural land & Plinth at Vill. [ENTITY] Rs.5,18,025/ (9)Commercial Building at [ENTITY] Rs.19,06,050/ (10)Residential house at Gurgaon Rs.19,70,700/ (11)Plinth at Vill. Shergarh Rs.1,36,867/ ([ENTITY] Rs.19,54,450/ (13)Shop at Anaz Mandi, Sirsa Rs.8,95,200/ (14)Commercial plot & building constructed Rs.5,41,000/ in 2005 at plot of house no.7/294, Sirsa (15)Pent House at Sector28, Gurgaon Rs.41,80,000/ (16)Abub Farm House at [ENTITY] Rs.60,00,000/ Total Value : Rs.10,38,70,097/ 8 Total immovable assets of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial
Trust and Society at the end of check period are worth Rs.1,12,6415,312/ of which accused [ENTITY] is the President. Total assets of the family of the accused and of [ENTITY] Memorial Trust and Society are worth Rs.16,69,85,525/. The [ENTITY] has alleged that the total assets of the accused at the end of check period are worth Rs.1,40,35,87,166/.
9 As per income tax return/salary details, accused and his family earned total income of Rs.2,78,30,068/ during the check period 2001 to 2005. Income and other receipts of [ENTITY] Memorial Trust are Rs.10,31,37,125/ and of [ENTITY] Memorial Society are Rs.9,79,91,275/. Total income of the family of the accused and of [ENTITY] Memorial Trust & Society is Rs.22,89,59,008/. Gross expenditure of family of the accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] Memorial Trust & Society is Rs.2,72,86,515/.
10 The family of the accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] Trust & Society were found to be possessing assets of Rs.1,40,25,27,144/ at the end of check period. The assets of the accused at the beginning of check period were worth Rs.38,72,032/. The income of family of the accused and Trust & Society from all sources during the period was Rs.22,89,59,008/. The expenditures incurred by them were worth Rs.2,72,86,515/. The accused was found to be possessing disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,19,69,82,619/ i.e. 522.79% of his income. 11 FIR (D1) was registered against the accused [ENTITY], his sons [ENTITY], present accused [ENTITY] and others. Investigation against [ENTITY] and others was conducted separately and three separate chargesheets were filed in the Court. Present chargesheet against accused [ENTITY] is the offshoot of one FIR (D1). 12 Document D2 is the complaint made by [ENTITY] against accused [ENTITY] and his family members for possessing disproportionate assets. Vide notification dated 13.12.2005 (D3), the Govt. of Haryana requested the Secretary to Govt. of India for conducting [ENTITY] enquiry against accused [ENTITY]. Vide Notification dated 22.2.2006 (D4), Directorate of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India ordered for conducting [ENTITY] enquiry against [ENTITY] and his family members. Vide letter dated 20.7.2005 (D5), [ENTITY] forwarded the copy of chargesheet against [ENTITY] to DGP of Haryana. Vide letter dated 29.10.2007 (D6), Amar Nath Aggarwal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. informed the [ENTITY] regarding receipt of payment of Rs.48,05,560/ against construction of [ENTITY] Memorial Trust Building at Chandigarh. Vide letter dated 24.6.2008 (D7), one of the partner of M/s Tara Automobiles informed the [ENTITY] that accused [ENTITY] is having 30% share in the same and he initially invested Rs.25 lacs. It was further informed that total capital of accused [ENTITY] in the said firm in the year 200506 came to Rs.37,20,782/. Document D8 is the report of auditor pertaining to [ENTITY], Sirsa. Document D9 is the balance sheet and Misc. papers of Sirsa School, Barnala Road, Sirsa. File D10 is with regard to papers pertaining to TDS filed on behalf of Ch. Devi Lal Momorial Trust, Sirsa. File D11 is with regard to audit reports of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust, balance sheet as on 31.3.2005 and income tax returns for different years. File D12 is containing misc. papers of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust i.e., loan papers, balance sheets, Jamabandi etc. Document D 13 is the inventory of movable articles of accused [ENTITY], recovered on 4.5.2006 during the search of Farm House at [ENTITY], Sirsa. Document D14 is the search list dated 4.5.2006 of house no.80, Sector9, Chandigarh which was in the occupation of accused. During search of the house arms, ammunitions, currency, jewellery and household items were recovered.
13 File D15 is with regard to construction of Lambi Farm House during 2003 and correspondences of plot of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Society. File D16 is with regard to sale deeds along with affidavits of [ENTITY], Sirsa. File D17 is with regard to sale deeds along with affidavits of Sirsa School. File D18 is with regard to construction of building at plot no.5, Sector8, Chandigarh. File D19 is with regard to construction of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust, done by Amarnath Construction Pvt. Ltd. during 200305. Document D20 is bunch of papers with regard to purchase of material by the family members of accused, school fee details and air tickets of accused and his family. Document D21 is ledger accounts of Kalraj Builders for construction of schools, colleges, hostels etc. for Jan Nayak Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust and cashbook of Kalraj Builders for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.4.2004 is document D22. Labour bills and material supply bills of Sirsa School is document D23. Document D24 is the original agreement between Kalraj Builders and [ENTITY] with regard to construction of [ENTITY] at a value of Rs.40,07,50,000/, letter dated 17.2.03 for construction of educational building at Sirsa and projected trading & profit loss account of Kalraj Builders. Several documents in the name of the accused were seized by the [ENTITY] from Regent Holiday Home, Farm House No.15, Vill. Gadaipur, Mehrauli vide search list (D25). Air tickets (D26), Card (D27) of DLF golf club, Icard of Iffco (D28) and Health Icard (D29) are in the name of accused. Registration certificates (D30 & D31) of vehicles are in the name of accused. Other Icards (D32 to D34) are also in the name of accused.
14 Document D35 is the attested copy of [ENTITY] (D35) of plot at Shivaji Colony, Sirsa in the name of accused. Original trust deed and copy of registration of society were seized vide memo dated 27.6.2006 (D36). Partnership deed and capital account of accused in Tara Automobiles were furnished vide letter dated 28.6.2006 (D37). File D37 is with regard to registration of Ch. Devi Lal Society and copies of income tax return. File D39 is with regard to allotment of plot to Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Society at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. File D40 is containing sale deeds of land of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust at Narnol, Kaithal and Jhajjar. Declaration (D41) was filed by the accused in 2004 before the election officer. Land and plot were alloted to Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust in Chandigarh vide documents D42 & D43. Affidavit (D44) was filed by accused along with nomination papers for election in 2004. Vide letter dated 19.10.07 (D45), M/s TF Architect Pvt. Ltd. Furnished copies of documents and details of payment to the [ENTITY] in respect of building located at plot no.5, Sector 28D, Chandigarh. Vide letter dated 27.3.2008 (D46), Collector of Stamps informed the [ENTITY] with regard to details and purpose of payment of Rs.44,34,912/ by Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Society. Vide letter dated 17.9.08 (D47), immovable properties of [ENTITY] and Sirsa School were informed to [ENTITY]. Vide letter dated 3.4.08 (D48), Secretary of Municipal Counsel, Narnol informed to [ENTITY] with regard to sale purchase of land. Vide letter dated 12.4.07 (D49), attested copies of agreements, gift deeds and sale deeds were given to [ENTITY] by Tehsildar of Sirsa. Vide letter dated 17.9.08 (D50), [ENTITY] of Village Halka Sirsa supplied the copies of sale deeds, jamabandi and mutation of the property at Sirsa to the [ENTITY]. Vide letter dated 28.3.07 (D51), copies of [ENTITY], mutation registers etc. of land belonging to Ct. Devilal Memorial Trust at Vill. Waidwala were supplied to [ENTITY]. Vide letter dated 26.3.07 (D52), copies of sale deeds of the land purchased by Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust upon which Ct. [ENTITY] and Sirsa School are situated, were supplied to the [ENTITY]. Vide letter dated 11.9.08 (D53), Dy. Commissioner of Kullu supplied the documents pertaining to [ENTITY] Farm House at Vill. Jarad, Kullu to the [ENTITY]. Vide letter dated 1.8.08 (D54) documents with regard to purchase of plot no.12, Shivaji Colony, Sirsa by accused were supplied to [ENTITY]. 15 Declaration (D56) was filed by the accused along with nomination papers for election from Kurukshetra Constituency in 2004. Vide letter dated 1.4.2008(D57), copy of sale deed with regard to land sold to Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust at Hisar was supplied to [ENTITY]. Copies of sale deeds of properties of Trust were furnished to [ENTITY] vide letter dated 7.8.2008(D58) by [ENTITY], CA, of Trust and Society of which accused was the President. Electricity bills of [ENTITY] Farm House at Sirsa, Village Tejakhera, shops at [ENTITY] and Lambi Farm House are D60 to D62. Vide letter dated 20.10.2007 (D63) payment received and returned to Regent Holiday Home, Manali were informed to [ENTITY]. Lease agreement of house of accused at Gurgaon was furnished to [ENTITY] vide document D64. Inquiry reports with regard to properties of [ENTITY] family were furnished to [ENTITY] vide letter dated 9.6.2006 (D65) by Dy. Commissioner, Kullu. Partnership deed of M/s Karan Automobiles along with auditor's report were furnished to [ENTITY] vide document D
66. [ENTITY], mutation register etc. (D68 & D69) of land in the name of accused and his family were furnished to [ENTITY] by [ENTITY] of village Halka, [ENTITY] vide letter dated 23.10.08(D70). 16 LIC informed the [ENTITY] with regard to payments of premium made by accused and his family members. Accused supplied the documents (D71 to D73) of ownership of properties, sale deeds, mutation registers, allotment letter etc. in his name and in the name of his family members. File (D74) of farm house at village Gadaipur was taken by the [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] of village Halka, Kherpur, Sirsa furnished [ENTITY] and mutation register to [ENTITY] vide letter dated 20.03.07 (D75). Sh. [ENTITY], CA, furnished the list of donors for the period 200102, 200203, 200304,200405, inflow/outflow of funds, income expenditure statement, balance sheet of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust to [ENTITY] vide memos (D76, D78, D 80, D82). He also furnished similar documents of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Society to the [ENTITY] vide memos (D77, D79, D81 and D
83). Income Tax returns (D84 to D87) for the period 20002005 of accused and his family members were furnished by Income Tax Department. Income Tax returns (D88, D89) of Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust and Society were also furnished by the Income Tax Department to [ENTITY]. Balance sheet of M/s Regent Holiday Home were furnished by Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar vide production memo dated 17.10.08 (D91).
17 Valuation report of cost of construction of property of [ENTITY] is D92, valuation report of Center for Excellence is D93, valuation report of cost of construction of Tejakhera Farm House, Sirsa is D94, valuation report of cost of construction of Hotel Raunak, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is D96, valuation report of cost of construction of Plinth at Khasra No 3536 Village [ENTITY], Sirsa is D96, valuation report of cost of construction of property Excise and Taxation, [ENTITY] Road, [ENTITY] is D97, valuation report of cost of construction of Karan Automobiles is D98, valuation report of cost of construction of Hotel Regent Holiday Home, Manali is D99, valuation report of cost of construction of property No. 28 C and D, Moulsri Avenue, Gurgaon is D100 and valuation report of cost of construction of farm House No. 15, [ENTITY] in the name of M/s Regent Holiday Home is D101.
18 Vide letter dated 14.09.07(D102), Dy. Secretary of Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat had given to [ENTITY] the details of allowances and bills drawn by accused from 7.6.2000 to 8.3.2005. Passport information of accused and his family members was supplied to [ENTITY] vide letter dated 3.10.2008 (D103). Documents with regard to rates of land have been supplied to [ENTITY] by SubRegistrar, Bajpur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand vide memo dated 30.9.08 (D104). Vide letter dated 27.02.07 (D105) Regional Passport Office, New Delhi supplied the details of passport of accused. Search list (D106) is the inventory of household items of farm house of [ENTITY] at village Tejakhera. Search list dated 4.5.06 (D
107) is with regard to search conducted at office of [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Sirsa. Search list (D108) is of Sapta Farm, P.O. Gular Bhoj, Udham Singh Nagar. Search was conducted in shop No. BS1415, New [ENTITY], [ENTITY] belonging to accused vide search list (D
109). Inventory (D110) was prepared while conducting search at 15, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli. Vide letters dated 11.0.07 (D111) and 21.6.07 (D112), the President of Haryana Janpratinidhi CGHS Ltd. provided details of payments made by accused towards purchase of flats. Search list D113 was prepared after conducting search at Kothi No. 100, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi.
19 Letter dated 7.11.08 (D114) was written from the office of BSNL, Hisar to the [ENTITY] vide which list of bills paid by the accused was provided. Photography and videography of movable and immovable properties of accused was conducted and photographs and cassettes were received by [ENTITY] vide receipt memo D115. Vide letter dated 18.09.08 (D116) Municipal Council of Sirsa provided the details of house tax to [ENTITY]. Vide letter dated 25.08.08 (D117), accused furnished details of income, expenditure and assets to [ENTITY]. Search was conducted in shop No.BS21/15, New [ENTITY], [ENTITY] belonging to accused vide search list (D118). Photographs of H.No.80, Sector 9, Chandigarh belonging to accused were forwarded to [ENTITY] vide letter D119 by DSP, ACB, [ENTITY], Chandigarh. Copy of Will of [ENTITY] (D120) was obtained by [ENTITY] vide which he sold his land to accused for Rs.60 lacs at village Abubsahar, Sirsa. Scrutiny of bank account of accused, family members, firms and trusts was conducted by Sh. [ENTITY], Manager of PNB and Sh. [ENTITY], Manager of OBC and their report is D121. Bank statement of accounts of accused and his family was supplied by SBI, [ENTITY], Sirsa vide letter dated 25.06.09 (D122). Bank Statement of account of accused maintained with SBI, ADB, Sirsa was taken by [ENTITY] vide production memo (D123). Vide letter dated 25.06.09 (D124), SBI, [ENTITY] Branch furnished the bank statement of account of accused. Vide letter dated 18.05.06 (D125), OBC, Sirsa furnished the details of FDRs of accused and others. Vide letter dated 1.12.07 (D126), OBC, Hisar furnished details of accounts of family members of accused. Details of account of accused and his family members were supplied by the banks vide letters D127 to D
133. Details of payment of fees made to Viveka School by the wife of accused was supplied to [ENTITY] vide letters dated 26.03.07 and 8.3.07 (D134) by Sh. [ENTITY], Manager of Haryana State Cooperative Bank. Details of payments made by accused towards Air Tickets were supplied by Travel Agents vide documents D135 to D139. Vide letter dated 17.10.07(D140) UCO Bank, Manali provided the bank statements of Regent Holiday Home, Manali. Vide letter dated 8.5.07 (D141), Corporation Bank, Chandigarh provided the bank statements of Regent Holiday Home, Manali.
20 During investigation into the matter, [ENTITY] recorded statements of witnesses. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that the notification (D3) was issued by the Government of Haryana for conducting [ENTITY] inquiry into the matter. Witness Sh. [ENTITY], the then MLA, Palwal identified the memo of chargesheet against [ENTITY] and his family members. Witness [ENTITY], [ENTITY] of village [ENTITY], Sirsa has given the details of land acquired by accused and his family members in the said village. Witness [ENTITY], [ENTITY] of village Tejakhera, [ENTITY], Sirsa has given the details of land acquired by accused and his family members in the said village. Witness [ENTITY], official of Income Tax Department has stated that Income Tax Returns (D85, D86, D88 and D89) of accused, his family members and of [ENTITY] Group were given to [ENTITY]. Witness Smt. [ENTITY] has stated that the Income Tax Returns of accused and of [ENTITY] Group were handed over to [ENTITY].
21 Witness [ENTITY], working as Chartered Accountant for the family of accused, has stated that he furnished the copies of Income Tax Returns, Bank Statements, Balance sheets, list of donors etc. of the Trust and Society to the [ENTITY]. He also furnished the documents of accused and his family members to the [ENTITY] (D58, D76 to D83). Witness [ENTITY], [ENTITY] of village Lambi, [ENTITY] furnished the documents of land owned by accused and his family members at said village. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that his travel agency had issued air tickets to the accused and his family members vide documents D138. Witnesses [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have furnished the details of payments made by accused and his family members towards consumption of electricity in their various properties situated in Sirsa vide documents D60 to D62. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that he supplied wooden material to the accused and Trust run by accused/ his family. Witness Miss [ENTITY], Director of M/s TF Architects has stated that her firm prepared the building plan of the properties of accused vide document D19. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that search at H.N.80, Sector 9, Chandigarh was conducted in his presence and in presence of witness [ENTITY]. During search, search list (D14) photographs and videography of the premises were prepared. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that said property is occupied by accused and his family members since 2005 on the basis of forged documents. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that as per record of Estate Officer, the said property is still in the name of [ENTITY]. Witness [ENTITY] furnished the documents (D75) to the [ENTITY] with regard to properties owned by accused. Similar statement has been made by witness [ENTITY]. Witness [ENTITY], official of Estate Officer, Chandigarh, has stated that plot No.5, Sector 28B, Chandigarh was allotted to Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust of which accused is the President.
22 Witness [ENTITY], Accounts Officer and [ENTITY], Project Manager, of M/s Amar Nath Aggarwal Construction Pvt. Ltd. has stated that their company constructed the building of trust and furnished the file in this regard to [ENTITY] vide letter dated 29.10.07 (D6). Witness [ENTITY], [ENTITY] of village Shergarh, has given the details of land owned by accused and his family members in village Shergarh which was supplied by him to [ENTITY] vide document D68. Details with regard to property of accused known as [ENTITY] House in Sirsa was supplied to [ENTITY] by witness [ENTITY] vide letter dated 18.09.08 (D116). Witness [ENTITY] has stated that shop No.14, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] was sold to the accused. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that property No.12, Shivaji Colony, Sirsa was sold to the accused for Rs.2 lacs. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that he sold the Hotel property No.4/70 Karol Bagh, New Delhi to [ENTITY]. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that he is running Hotel Raunak in the said property while entering into lease agreement with family members of accused. Witness [ENTITY], Zonal Inspector of MCD has stated that the said property is in the name of family members of accused. Witnesses [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], officials of the office of Sub Registrar III, New Delhi have stated that they furnished the copies of sale deed of the properties in the name of family members of accused to the [ENTITY] vide memo dated 1.8.06. Witness [ENTITY], proprietor of M/s Kalraj Builders has stated that he had done the designing and construction work of the properties of accused and his family members and he submitted documents D21 and D22 to the [ENTITY] in this regard.
23 Witness [ENTITY], [ENTITY] of Tehsil Manali, has stated that the documents of land in the name of M/s Regent Holiday Home were furnished to [ENTITY] vide letter dated 9.6.2006 (D65). Witness [ENTITY], Patwri of Manali has stated that M/s Regent Holiday Home, Manali was purchased for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/. Witness [ENTITY], GM of Hotel Regent Holiday Home, Manali has stated that said Hotel is owned by [ENTITY] brothers. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that he sold his land to Ch. Devi Lal Memorial Trust for Rs.18,63,400/. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that accused is the partner of M/s Karan Automobiles. Witness [ENTITY] has stated that accused [ENTITY] is 30% share holder in M/s Tara Automobiles and Capital invested by him is worth Rs.36.87 lacs. Witness [ENTITY], Dy. Manager of M/s DLF Ltd. has stated that plot No. MA28C, DLF City, Gurgaon was sold to accused for a sum of Rs.7,38,182. Witnesses [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have stated that their land at village Shergarh was sold to family members of accused. Witness [ENTITY], President of Haryana Janpratinidhi CGHS Ltd. Has stated that flat No. P2 was sold to accused for a sum of Rs.41.8 lacs and he supplied documents D111 and D112 to the [ENTITY] in this regard. Witness [ENTITY], official of SubRegistrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi has stated that M/s Regent Holiday Home purchased different lands for a total sum of Rs.39,96,000/ of which accused is the Director and documents in this regard were supplied to [ENTITY]. Bank officials in their statements have stated that they had given details of bank accounts maintained by accused and his family members to the [ENTITY] vide documents D121 to D134.
24 It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that investigation in the present case is without jurisdiction as consent of Government of Haryana State was not taken for conducting [ENTITY] inquiry against the accused [ENTITY]. As regards this contention, it is matter of record that the Governor of Haryana vide notification dated 13.12.2005 (D3), has given consent under [SECTION] of [ACT] for conducting [ENTITY] inquiry against accused [ENTITY]. Along with this notification, letter dated 13.12.2005 (D3) was sent to Govt. of India vide which Govt. of Haryana requested to conduct [ENTITY] inquiry into the matter. On the basis of request of State of Haryana, the Govt. of India vide notification dated 22.2.2006 (D
4), has given consent under [SECTION] of [ACT] for holding [ENTITY] inquiry into the matter of disproportionate assets acquired by [ENTITY] and his family members. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found either with the consent given by State of Haryana for [ENTITY] inquiry into the matter or with notification dated 22.2.2006 (D4) vide which powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment was extended to whole State of Haryana for the purpose of holding inquiry against accused also. Therefore, it cannot be said that consent of State of Haryana was not obtained before initiation of inquiry or that [ENTITY] came into motion without jurisdiction.
25 In the judgment reported as Dr. N. Nagambikadevi Vs. [ENTITY], Bangalore, 2002 Cri.L.J. 1334 (Karnataka High Court), it was held that if consent of the State Government was only for two suspects, it did not mean that if future investigation reveals involvement of more persons such consent would be bad or fresh consent would be required for those who came to be involved during the course of investigation. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case [PRECEDENT] (Reported in [PRECEDENT].
26 In the present case, complaint (D2) was made by [ENTITY] against [ENTITY] and his family members. The said complaint is running into 132 pages. It is matter of record that memo of chargesheet was filed against [ENTITY] only and after conducting inquiry into the matter, his family members including the present accused, came to be involved in acquiring assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. In this complaint, there are specific allegations against the accused, which is reproduced as under : "Properties declared by Mr. [ENTITY] in his affidavit, dated 21.04.2004, before Returning Officer for election to Lok Sabha.
Total value declared as assessed himself in the name of [ENTITY], his wife and minor sons, Rs.4,37,14,844/ (nearly 5 crore)."
27 In view of law of land in cases Dr. N. Nagambikadevi Vs. [ENTITY], Bangalore, (supra) and [PRECEDENT] (supra) and the above mentioned facts, I am of the considered opinion that no fresh sanction of the State of Haryana was required for [ENTITY] inquiry against his family members including the present accused.
28 It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the [ENTITY] has not taken the sanction of the competent authority for lodging prosecution against the accused, therefore, the accused is liable to be discharged. On the other hand, Ld. Special PP for [ENTITY] has argued that no previous sanction in the present case is required as the accused already ceased to hold the public office during the period when he acquired disproportionate assets. This matter of controversy has already been dealt by me while taking cognizance against the accused. Cognizance against the accused was taken on 2.2.2010. The accused preferred accused preferred petition in the Hon'ble High Court against the order of taking of cognizance. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8.7.2010, dismissed the said petition while holding as under : "After the Kerala judgment, Supreme Court delivered another judgment on the same point [PRECEDENT], and observed that no sanction for prosecution of a person alleged to have committed offences in the capacity of a public servant was necessary when cognizance of such offence is taken after he ceased to hold the office in question.
I find no infirmity in the order of learned Special Judge ([ENTITY]). The petition is hereby dismissed." 29 Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the accused that the prosecution is bad for the want of prior sanction. 30 The next contention raised by the accused is that in the present case investigation had not been carried out by order of the Competent Authority. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer was without any authorization. As per [SECTION] of the Act, no investigation can be carried out without the order of an officer not below the rank of SP. In support of the arguments advanced, Ld. Counsel for the accused has referred to a judgment in case titled [PRECEDENT] (Reported in [PRECEDENT]. In this authority, it was held that [SECTION] of the Act provides for investigation by a person authorized in this behalf. The second proviso appended to [SECTION] of the Act provides that an offence referred to in [SECTION], shall not be investigated without the order of a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. 31 Ld. PP for the [ENTITY] has argued that judgment referred by the accused is distinguishable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as after lodging of FIR in the present case, SP of [ENTITY] accorded permission in favour of Additional SP [ENTITY]. In support of its case, Ld. PP has relied upon an authority in case titled Rajinder Das Gupta Vs. [ENTITY] (Reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 2310 DHC). In the said judgment, it was held that where investigation was assigned to his deputy by the SP after scrutinizing the material before him, that was sufficient compliance of [SECTION]. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled [PRECEDENT].
32 In the present case also, perusal of FIR (D1) shows that it was lodged by the SP Sh. [ENTITY] and the investigation was assigned to Sh. [ENTITY], Dy. SP. Marking of the investigation by the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy SP [ENTITY] is itself authorization and the SP was authorized to do so. Therefore, I do not find any fault in the assignment of investigation to [ENTITY], Dy SP by the Superintendent of Police as he was duly authorized to do so as per second proviso appended to [SECTION] of the Act.
33 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that properties of Society and Trust and income therefrom is from known sources. It has further been argued that Income of Society and Trust was not taken into consideration. In the present case, the [ENTITY] has produced sufficient material on the record which shows that accused was the President/Director of the Society and Trust. It is also apparent from the record that Society and Trust have been formulated by the accused for accumulating wealth. Even otherwise, in case titled [PRECEDENT] it has been held that accused is not required to be afforded an opportunity of satisfactorily explaining about his assets and resources before registration of the case inasmuch as such opportunity is to be given to him before the court during the course of trial. Therefore, at this stage it would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the contention raised on behalf of the accused.
34 It has further been argued that properties at Sirsa were assessed excessively as assessment has been made on the basis of rates prevailing in Delhi. It is submitted that the valuation reports are inadmissible in evidence.
35 As per [SECTION] of [ACT], valuation officer can inspect any books of account, document or record relevant for the valuation of property. In the present case, valuation reports (D92 to D101) were prepared by the valuation officers/assessors. The accused would have ample opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses who prepared the valuation reports, during the course of trial. So, this is not the stage to comment on this contention of the accused.
36 It has further been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that income tax returns of the accused and his family members were not taken into consideration. On the other hand, case of [ENTITY] is that the accused accumulated huge wealth, but had not disclosed the same in his income tax returns. I am not agreeable with the arguments advanced by the ld. defence counsel, as the accused had not disclosed his earnings in his income tax returns accurately or concealed the same from Income Tax Department, as reflected from income tax returns and the details of assets accumulated by him, as demonstrated on the record. My this view gets strength from the judgment in case titled [PRECEDENT], in which it was held that concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars in income tax returns refer to a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee.
37 The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that no case is made out against the accused as the prosecution has failed to produce any convincing evidence against him. He has referred to an authority reported as [PRECEDENT], wherein it has been held that when the prosecution fails to establish the criminality of accused, he is entitled to acquittal. Next judgment referred is in case of [PRECEDENT] in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR while observing that allegations contained in the FIR do not disclose any offence allegedly committed by the accused. He has also relied upon the judgment in case titled [PRECEDENT] in which it was observed that where from the evidence adduced two views are possible, the view favourable to accused is to be adopted.
38 The judgment relied upon by accused in case [PRECEDENT] (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as the prosecution has produced enough material to show that accused accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The details of properties and the wealth recovered during the search of properties of accused, shows prima facie that the accused acquired assets more than his known sources of income.
39 The judgment referred by accused in case [PRECEDENT] (supra) is of no help to him as the evidence collected by the [ENTITY] during investigation of the case, clearly discloses that the accused acquired disproportionate assets. The learned counsel for the accused has failed to satisfy the court that the FIR and the evidence collected during investigation by the [ENTITY], do not disclose the commission of offence by the accused. In my considered view, the burden of proof regarding possession of disproportionate assets is on the prosecution and inability of the public servant to account for it, is on the accused. [ENTITY] has brought enough material on the record to establish prima facie that the accused has acquired disproportionate assets. The accused has failed to give any explanation with regard to same. The accused has not accounted the assets acquired by him.
40 The judgment referred on behalf of the accused in case [PRECEDENT] (supra) does not render any help to him. It is a settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the standard of proof is different than at the time of passing the final judgment. At the time of framing of charge, court can frame charge against the accused if there is grave suspicion against him, from the material available on record. My view gets strength from the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT]) (Reported in [CASE NUMBER]) in which it was held that the considerations which are relevant at time of framing of charges and those at time of conclusion of trial are entirely different. While grave suspicion would entitle Court to frame charges, grave suspicion alone would not entitle Court to convict a person in respect of said charges. If the Court has strong reasons to suspect that crime was committed by accused, then it would not be in error if it frames charges accordingly.
41 I have gone through the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled S.K. Lakhina And Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] Thru. State (Reported in 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 51) in which it was held that at the time of framing of charge, the Court need not to scrutinize the evidence cited by [ENTITY]. Relevant portion from para 6 of the judgment is quoted herebelow: "It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court need not scrutinize whether the evidence cited by [ENTITY] was credible or not. The charges are to be framed on the basis of material collected."
42 It is now well settled that at the time of framing of charge, only the material produced by the prosecution has to be looked into and the accused would get an opportunity to prove his case and to rebut the case of the prosecution during the course of trial. While dealing with similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bharat Parikh Vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. (Reported in (2008) 10 SCC
109)has held as under : "With regard to the second proposition regarding the High Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers under [SECTION] of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in [PRECEDENT], that a criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient material for charges to be framed. As observed in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents subsequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same cannot be relied upon to reopen the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT]."
43 It is matter of record that when the accused was examined by the [ENTITY] during the course of investigation, the accused has failed to give any explanation with regard to assets accumulated by him. The accused has failed to disclose the legal sources from which he acquired such assets. Therefore, I am of the view that the assets acquired by the accused remained unaccounted for. 44 In view of the aforementioned discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie case is made out against the accused [ENTITY] for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is therefore, ordered that charges under [SECTION] of the [ACT] be accordingly framed against the accused.
Announced in the open Court ( [ENTITY] ) Dated: 18.7.2011 District Judge (East) Special Judge ( [ENTITY] ) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGE (EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE ([ENTITY]), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. FIR No.RC.02(A)/06/ACUVII Central Bureau of Investigation Versus [ENTITY] CHARGE
I, [ENTITY], District Judge (East) cum Special Judge ([ENTITY]), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, do hereby charge you accused [ENTITY] as under:
That you accused [ENTITY], being MLA during the period 7.6.2000 to 8.3.2005 were found in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of your income and for which you could not satisfactorily account for and thereby you committed an offence under [SECTION] of [ACT], punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] and within my cognizance.
And I direct that you be tried by this court for the abovesaid offence.
( [ENTITY] ) District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East) Special Judge ([ENTITY]) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi 18.7.2011 The charge has been read over and explained to the accused who is questioned as under :
Q. Do you accused [ENTITY] plead guilty or claim trial?
Ans. I plead not guilty and claim trial.
RO & AC ( [ENTITY] ) District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East) Special Judge ([ENTITY]) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi 18.7.2011