Judgement-Sukh Ram DA Case

1

IN THE COURT OF V .K .MAHESHWARI SPECIALJUDGE: TIS HAZARI: DELHI

Corruption Case No.44/97

CB I Vs. Sukh Ram S/o Late Sh. Bhav Dev, r/o , 12, Safdarjung Lane, new Delhi.

(Formerly Minister of State Communication), Govt. of India, Presently Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)

Date of Institution 9.6.1997

R.C No. 4 (A)/96/CBI/ACU-IV/N. Delhi

Under Section U/s 13( 2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P C Act of 1988.

Arguments concluded on 17.2.2009

Date of order 20.2.2009

JUDGMENT:

Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that a

case vide RC No. 4 (A)/96/CBI/ACU-IV/N. Delhi was registered

on 27.8.96 against Shri Sukh Ram, Formerly Minister of State

Communication), Govt. of India, the then Member of Parliament

(Lok Sabha) on the written complaint of Sh .B S Jakhar, Dy. S P,

CBI, ACU-IV, New Delhi alleging that Sh. Sukh Ram in his

capacity as public servant during the period from 20.6.91 to

1/150

2

16.8.96 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his

official position as a public servant amassed huge assets including

one palatial house at D-42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, luxuriously

built farm house in his orchard at Surath. Besides this, he was also

alleged to have been in possession of cash of Rs. 3,61,80,364/-,

jewellery items worth Rs.10,29,404/-, bank balances in various

banks of Rs.4,92,739/- and household articles amounting to

Rs.10,30,000/- such as imported electronic gadgets like Star

Typewriter, FAX Machine, Video Camera (Panasonic), Sony

Colour TV, VCR, Microwave oven and fully Automatic Washing

Machine etc. The known sources of income of Sh. Sukh Ram and

Smt. Ram Devi for the period from 1992 onwards were allegedly

not worth more than Rs.30.78 lacs. The sources of income prior

to that period would have been even lesser. He was thus alleged

to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources

of income.

2 Sh. Sukh Ram was elected Member of Parliament for

the first time in 1985 and subsequently became Minister in the

Centre Govt. Sh Sukh Ram lost his Lok Sabha Election in

Dec.1989 but was again elected Member of Parliament on 20.6.91.

On 2.7.92 he became Minister of State for Planning and

Programme Implementation and held this position till 18.1.93. He

became Minister of State for Communications and remained as

such till 16.5.96 as the Congress Government was defeated in the

2/150

3

elections. He was again elected as Member of Parliament on

16.5.96

3 Sh. Sukh Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Devi were

having joint properties i.e. orchard at Surath, house at Samkhetar

(Mandi) and joint bank accounts in their names. Sh. Sukh Ram

has started construction of farm house in the orchard in Mid 1991

and constructed palatial building D-42, Kaushambi from early

1993 till early 1996. From Jan. 1993 onwards Sh. Sukh Ram was

holding portfolio of Minister of State for Communications, the

Ministry which was taking care of the vast expansion of

Telecommunication in India. Keeping in view the acquisitive

tendency of the accused and his continued position as public

servant, the check period in the case has been taken from 20.6.91

to 16.8.96.

4 Sh. Sukh Ram was having movable assets worth

Rs.26,13,010/- at the beginning of check period. He was also

having immovable assets at the beginning of check period.

Details of immovable and movable assets at the beginning of

check period are as follows:

Immovable Assets

1 Orchard measuring 35 bighas, 8 biswa and 19 biswansi in

the name of Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi acquired by them

during 1961 to 1969.

3/150

4

2 Residential house at Samkhetar, Mandi in the name of Sh.

Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi constructed on a plot of land

measuring 359.34 sq. metres around 1981 -82.

3 Ancestral land measuring 3 bighas in native place Kotli

Distt. Mandi in the name of Sukh Ram.

4 Orchard measuring 10 bighas at Kullu Math, Akhara

Bazaar, Kullu, in the name of Smt. Ram Devi given to

her by her mother around 1972.

Movable Asset

Rs.

1 Amount deposited for D42, Kaushambi Plot 2,58,755.00

2 Loan given to Anil Sharma by Ram Devi 4,37,500.00

3 Loan given to Anil Sharma by Sukh Ram 1,92,000.00

4 House hold items 2,80,900.00

5 Jewellery 5,72,373.00

6 Deposited in Nav Sansad Vihar Society 80,004.00

7 Bank Balance 6,41,478.00

8. Three FDRS of Rs. 50,000/- each in PNB

Shimla 1,50,000.00

TOTAL 26,13,010.00

5 The total income of Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram

Devi from different known source i.e. income from salary, income

from interest on loans, agriculture income from orchard accrued to

them during the check period i.e. from 20.6.91 to 16.8.96 comes to

4/150

5

Rs.84,98,180/-. The details of total income are as under:

Rs.

1 Salary as a Member of Parliament 65,105.00

from 20.6.91 to June 1992

2 Salary as MOS (P) 7/92 to 18.1.93 62,655.00

3 Salary as MOS ( C) from 18.1.93

to16.5.96 3,28,975.00

4 Income of Sh. Sukh Ram from Orchard 9,94,373.00

5 Income of Sh. Sukh Ram from interest

(from Anil Sharma) 1,84,436.00

6 Income of Smt. Ram Devi from

Sh. Anil Sharma 4,46,897.00

7 Income of Smt. Ram Devi from

Orchard 18,88,900.00

8 Loan for construction of D-42

Kaushambi 27,37,500.00

9 Income from Libel Suit 3,45,933.00

5/150

6

10 Interest income from 3 FDRs

(PNB) 40,800.00

11 Income from FDRs of Shivali

1993-94 and 1994-95 40,800.00

12 TA DA as MP from 7/91 to

8/92 56,071.00

13 TA DA as MOS ( P) from 7/92 to

12/92 5,335.00

14 TADA as MOS ( C) from 10/93 to

6/93 3,08,859.00

15 TA DA as MP from 5/96 to 8/96 32,341.00

TOTAL 84,98,180.00

6 Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi have incurred

expenditure to the tune of Rs. 46,87,960/- approximately thereby

resulting in the likely saving of Rs.38,10,220/-. The expenditure

incurred by Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi during the check

period are detailed below:

6/150

7

1 Electricity Charges, Kaushambi 38,520.00

2 Water charges of Orchard 11,19.00

3 Electricity charges, Orchard 11,68.00

4 Electricity charges, Samkhetar Mandi 27,361.00

5 Water charges, Samkhetar Mandi 1749.00

6 Mamla Payment Orchard, Surat Mandi 215.00

7 Payment to servant Orchard, Surat Mandi 1,24,390.00

8 LPG (Sukh Ram) for daily residence 6,498.0

9 LPG Sh. Anoop Sharma for daily residents 6,865.00

10 Air Journey to USA in 8/96 by Sh. Sukh

Ram and Smt. Ram Devi 1,28,870,00

11 Payment to Sh. N Goel Architect 30,000.00

12 Service Connection of D-42, Kaushambi 10,000.00

13 Electric Wiring Charges for D-42, Kaushambi 15,000.00

14 To gardener, D-42, Kaushambi 9,000.00

15 Repayment of Loan 4,90,098.00

16 L T Payments 3,12,595.00

17 Agriculture Expenses 2,30,117.00

18 To Bhav Dev Trust 14,00,000.00

19 Transfer from SB a/c of Sh. Sukh Ram to Trust 1,00,000.00

20 To duffdun Education Trust 10,00,000.00

21 Payment to Driver (Sh. Shamsher Singh) 19,200.00

22 Kavia's marriage Reception 1,50,000.00

23 Marriage of Kavita 1,00,000.00

7/150

8

24 Anup's Marriage 1,00,000.00

25 IFB, Washing Machine 17.995.00

26 Rent of Locker No. N-6 Syndicate Bank 1,200.00

27 Household Expenses 3,66,000.00

TOTAL 46,87,960.00

7 Against the aforesaid likely savings of Rs.

38,10,220/- approximately, Shri Sukh Ram has acquired assets

during check period to the tune of Rs. 5,74,77,355/- which are

substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income.

These assets include the farm house constructed in the orchard

valued at Rs.41,30,000/- and a bungalow No D-42, Kaushambi

valued for Rs.29,45,416/- and the investment made towards

renovation of Samkhetar House worth Rs. 5,69,000.00 during the

check period. The cost of these two houses and the amount of

investment for the renovation of the house are based on the

valuation done by the Executive Engineer, Technical Division,

CBI.

8 Accused Sukh Ram was found in possession of hard

cash amounting to Rs. 3,61,80,364/- which was recovered from

his residential premises at 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi and at

Samkhetar Mandi (HP).

9 During the searches conducted in connection with

8/150

9

another case RC-3(A)96-ACU-IV on 16/17.8.96 it transpired that

Sh. Sukh Ram had also given a loan of Rs.1,05,00,000/- to one

Shri Chander Kant Khemka (C K Khemka) in March/April, 1995

who has surrendered this amount to CBI during investigation.

10 Besides this, several bank accounts of Sh.Sukh Ram

and Smt. Ram Devi maintained in different banks in Delhi, Shimla

and Mandi were having cash balances worth Rs.19,13,562.00 at

the end of check period. The details of these immovable and

movable assets including cash balances at the end of check period

are as under:

1 Purchase of orchard land by Smt. Ram Devi 65,000.00

2 Farm House in Surath Orchard 41,30,000.00

3 Renovation of Samkhetar House 5,69,000.00

4 Value of D-42 Kaushambi 29,45,416.00

5 deposited with Nav Sansad Vihar Society 7,35,000.00

6 S.B A/c No.6906 in OBC 49,751.00

7 FDR in OBC, SJ Enclave, N.Delhi 3,50,000.00

8 S.B A/c No. 107735, SBI, main building 42,023.00

9 S.B A/c No. 1873 Canara Bank, Mandi 2,94,953.00

10 S.B A/c No. 25495 Canara Bank,

Parliament Street 7,620.00

11 S.B A/c No. 11495, Syndicate Bank,

New Delhi 2,58,736.00

12 S.B A/c No. 1402, Canara Bank, Mandi 11,35,797.00

9/150

10

13 S.B A/c No. 4053, H P Coop. Bank Shimla 50,929.00

14 S.B A/c No.27008, PNB Shimla 73,753.00

15 Matured Value of three FDRs (PNB) 4,95,933.00

16 FDR in SBI Main, New Delhi 20,000.00

17 Cash and Jewellary in Locker No.6, 4,00,000.00

18 Syndicate Bank Locker (Cash & Jewellery) 4,50,000.00

19 Cash from 12 Safdarjung Lane 2,45,28,844.00

20 Cash from Mandi (House of Sukh Ram) 1,13,51,520.00

21 Money surrendered by Sh. C K Khemka 1,05,00,000.00

22 Household items 64,090.00

23 Electronic items at D-42, Kaushambi 6,23,300.00

24 Antenna 4,400.00

25 Household items 3,14,800.00

26 Outstanding Loan of Sh.Sukh Ram with Anil 1,92,000.00

27 Outstanding Loan of Smt. Ram Devi with Anil 4,37,500.00

TOTAL 6,00,90,365.00

11 All the immovable assets available at the beginning

of check period also continued with Sh. Sukh Ram at the end of

check period. From the aforesaid facts the final position has

emerged as under:

A Assets at the beginning of check period 26,13,010.00

B Assets at the end of Check period 6,00,90,365.00

Assets acquired during the check

period (B-A) 5,74,77,355.00

10/150

11

C Income During Check period 84,98,180.00

D Expenditure during check period 46,87,960.00

Likely saving during the check period

(C-D) 38,10,220.00

Disproportionate Assets:

5.74.77,355 (-) 38,10,220 = 5,36,67,135.00

12 Thus, taking into account the total income of Sh.

Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi, Shri Sukh Ram has been in

possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of

income to the tune of Rs.5,36,67,135/- at the end of check period.

He could not offer any satisfactory explanation inspite of granting

sufficient opportunities.

13 Sh.Sukh Ram ceased to be a Minister of Union Govt.

w.e.f. 16.5.96, although he continued to be a member of

Parliament (Lok Sabha),

14 Copies required U/S 207 Cr P C supplied to accused.

My Ld. Predecessor after hearing both the parties on 10.7.2001

has framed a charge against accused for the offence punishable

U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P C Act, 1988. Accused pleaded not

guilty to the charge and claimed trial, hence, this trial.

11/150

12

15 Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced

following witnesses:

16 PW 1 Sh. P Kailasham, Executive Engineer, PW2

Janardan Agnihotri, Head Clerk, GDA, Ghaziabad, PW3 Sunil

Dutt, Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, PW4 Sh. Vinod Kumar

Sinha, Section Officer ( Pay Bill), PW5 Sh. Pardeep kumar

Gupta, Assistant Regional Manager, OBC, 4/65 WEA, Karol

Bagh, New Delhi, PW6 S C Khurana, PW7 J N Behl, Official

Incharge, SBI, Parliament House, New Delhi, PW8 Manoj Kumar

M. Naik, PW9 Sh. T Bhattacharya,Asstt. Enforcement Officer,

PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar, Senior Manager, OBC, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi, PW11 Anand Gupta, PW12 Y P Sharma, Chief

Manager, Canara Bank, PW13 Reeta Jailkhani, Committee

Officer, Lok Sabha, Secretariat, New Delhi, PW14 Puneet

Sharma, PW15 Vinod Kumar Nayyar, PW16 Sh. Rajendra

Mahajan, PW17 Sh. Hari Simrat Singh Dua, PW18 Durga Singh

Thakur, PW19 Sh. S Z Khan, PW20 Sh. Basant Ram, PW21 A

N Sharma, PW22 Sh. Munshi Ram, PW23 Sh. Harish Mohan,

PW24 Sh. Shamsher Singh, PW25 Munshi Ram, PW26 Sh.

Vasudev, PW27 Shobha Ram Kanoonago, PW28 Inderbhan

Tomar, PW29 Sh. P V Narshima Rao, PW30 Sh. Dinesh Gupta,

PW31 Raj Kishan Gaur, PW32 Sh. Ram Saran Mehra, PW33

Pratap Chand Sharma, PW34 Sh. Devender Kapur, PW35

12/150

13

Somesh Chander, PW36 Manish Duggal, PW37 Besar Singh,

PW38 Sadhu Ram, PW39 R S Malik, PW40 Sh. P K Kedia,

PW41 Bimi Devi, PW42 Ram Bahadur, PW43 R D Sharma,

PW44 Pravin Kumar, PW45 K K Goel, PW46 Sh. Amitabj

Shukla, PW47 Sh. lekh Ram Sharma, PW 48 P N Khanna,

PW49 R K Khurana, PW50 Sh. Anil Kumar, PW51 Urguyandorje,

PW52 Niranjan Lal Goel, PW53 Chottey Lal, PW54 A V

Ramarao, PW55 V Sridhar, PW56 Sh. Rishi Prakash, PW57 Smt.

Bimla, PW58 Sh. Mahesh Chander Arora, PW59 Sunil Mukhija,

PW60 B S Jakhar, PW61 Shashank Mishra, PW62 Sh. KP S

Dhaka and PW63 Mr. H S Sandhu,

17 PW1 Sh. P Kailasham Executive Engineer BSNL has

proved his report Ex PW-1/A in respect of property No. D42

Kaushambi, annexure Ex PW1/A-1, and another report Ex PW1

/B in respect of Apple Orchard at Mandi and annexures Ex

PW1/B-1, another report in respect of building at Sumkhetar,

Mandi, HP Ex PW1/C and annexure Ex PW1/C-1 all bearing his

signatures at points A.

18 PW2 Janardan Agnihotri Head Clerk, GDA,

Ghaziabad has proved allotment letter Ex PW2/A and details of

payment given in statement Ex PW2/B.

19 PW3 Sh. Sunil Dutt Joint Commissioner Income Tax

13/150

14

Range IV, Amritsar has proved letter Ex PW3/A, proceedings

Ex PW3/B and an inventory of currency notes ExPW3/C, letter Ex

PW3/D and receipt ExPW3/E.

20 PW4 Vinod Kumar Sinha has prepared and given

detail of pay and allowances drawn by accused Sukh Ram vide Ex

PW4/A to Ex.PW4/D and he submitted the statement to CBI vide

letter Ex PW4/E.

21 PW5 Pardeep Kumar Gupta, Assistant Regional

Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karol Bagh has proved

specimen signature card of accused Sukh Ram Ex PW5/A,

attested copy of statement of account Ex PW5/B and Ex PW5/C,

account opening form ExPW5/D and statement of account Ex

PW5/E, account opening form ExPW5/F, statement of account Ex

PW5/G, attested copy of computerised statement of account Ex

PW5/H and Credit transfer voucher ExPW5/I.

22 PW6 S C Khurana has proved statement of accused

Ex. PW6/A,

23 PW7 J N Behl has proved statement of account in

respect of account No. 10775 in SBI, Parliament house New Delhi

Ex PW7/A and ExPW7/B.

14/150

15

24 PW8 Manoj Kumar M. Naik has proved sanction

order Ex PW8/A, acceptance letter Ex PW8/B, carbon copy of

second sanction ExPW8/C and acceptance letter Ex PW8/D.

25 PW9 T Bhattacharya Asstt. Enforcement

Officer,Govt. of India, Calcutta has proved Observation Memo Ex

PW9/A, seizure memo Ex PW9/B, Panchnama Ex PW9/C, and

seizure memo of three keys of lockers Ex PW9/D.

26 PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar, Senior Manager, Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Vasant Kunj has proved TPO ExPW10A.

27 PW11 Sh. Anand Gupta has proved vouchers Ex

PW11/A and Ex PW11/B.

28 PW12 Sh. Y P Sharma has proved the statement of

accused of account No. 25495, Canara Bank, Parliament Street,

Ex PW12/A.

29 PW13 Mr. Reeta Jailkhani, Committee Officer Lok

Sabha has proved the details of salary and allowances Ex

PW13/A, details of TS and DA Ex PW13/B, salary and

allowances for another period Ex PW13/C, details of TA/A for

another period ExPW13/D which were sent by him to CBI under

the cover of letter Ex PW13/E.

15/150

16

30 PW14 Puneet Sharma, Manager, Kiran Gas service

has proved letter Ex PW14/A mentioned details in respect of

connection in the name of Anup Sharma.

31 PW15 Vinod Kumar Nayyar,Section Officer,

Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi has proved

letter Ex PW15/A regarding pay & allowances paid to Mr. Sukh

Ram, as Minister of State for Planning for the period 2.7.92 to

January, 1993 and the details are mentioned in three sheets Ex

PW15/A1 to A3.

32 PW16 Sh. Rajendra Mahajan has proved copy of bill

Ex PW16/A.

33 PW17 Hari Simrat Singh Dua has proved the

statement Ex PW17/A given by him to CBI.

34 PW18 Sh. Durga Singh Thakur has proved letter Ex

PW18/A.

35 PW19 Sh. S Z Khan, has proved details of amount

paid by Sukh Ram towards electricity charges Ex PW19/A.

36 PW20 Sh. Basant Ram has proved certified copy of

16/150

17

the Intkal Ex PW20/A.

37 PW21 Sh. A N Sharma has proved details of

electricity charges paid by Ram Devi Ex PW21/A.

38 PW22 Sh. Munshi Ram has proved the copy of

Jamabandi Ex PW22/A in respect of an Orchard in Surat and

Jamabandi Ex PW22/B in respect of the portion of land in the

name of Smt. Ram Devi, wife of Sh. Sukh Ram.

39 PW23 Sh. Harish Mohan has proved cash memo No.

31525 Ex PW23/A.

40 PW 24 is Sh. Shamsher Singh, PW25 is Munshi Ram

PW26 is Sh. Vasudev, PW 27 is Shobha Ram Kanoongo , PW28

is Sh. Inderbhan Tomar and PW29 is Sh. P V Narsimha Rao.

41 PW30 Sh. Dinesh Gupta has proved letter Ex

PW30/A and documents Ex P-9 and Ex PW30/B

42 PW31is Raj Kishan Gaur and PW32 is Ram Saran

Mehra

43 PW33 Pratap Chand Sharma has proved his letter Ex

PW33/A and chart Ex PW33/B.

17/150

18

44 PW34Sh. Devender Kapur has proved letter Ex

PW34/A, file for the financial year 1992-93 Ex PW34/C. copy of

return acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/C1, copy of

return Ex PW34/C2, statement of income Ex PW34/C3, file for

the financial year 1993-94 Ex PW34/D. copy of return

acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/D1, copy of return

Ex PW34/D2, statement of income Ex PW34/D3, file for the

financial year 1994-95 Ex PW34/E. copy of return acknowledged

by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/E1, copy of return Ex PW34/E2,

statement of income Ex PW34/E3, file for the financial year 1994-

95 Ex PW34/F. copy of return acknowledged by income tax

deptt. Ex PW34/F1, copy of return Ex PW34/F2, statement of

income Ex PW34/F3, file for the financial year 1991-92 Ex

PW34/G. copy of return acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex

PW34/G1, copy of return Ex PW34/G2, statement of income Ex

PW34/G3, file Ex PW34/H. copy of return acknowledged by

income tax deptt. Ex PW34/H1, copy of return Ex PW34/H2,

statement of income Ex PW34/H3, file Ex PW34/I. copy of return

acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/I-1, copy of return

Ex PW34/I-2, statement of income Ex PW34/I-3, file Ex PW34/J.

copy of return acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/J-1,

copy of return Ex PW34/J-2, statement of income Ex PW34/J-3,

file Ex PW34/K. copy of return acknowledged by income tax

deptt. Ex PW34/K-1, copy of return Ex PW34/K-2, statement of

income Ex PW34/K-3 and his letter ExPW34/L.

18/150

19

45 PW35 is Somesh Chander, PW36 is Manish Duggal,

PW37 is Besar Singh and PW38 is Sadhu Ram

46 PW39 Sh. R S Malik has proved letter ex PW39/A

and details of cheques vide Annexure II Ex PW39/A1.

47 PW40 is Sh. P K Kedia, PW41 is Smt. Bimi Devi,

PW42 is Sh. Ram Bahadur, PW43 is R D Sharma and PW44 is

Pravin Kumar.

48 PW45 K K Goel has proved Seizure memo Ex

PW45/A, seizure list Ex PW45/B and Observation Memo Ex PW

45/C.

49 PW46 Sh. Amitabj Shukla, Addl. Commissioner,

Income Tax has proved document ExPW46/A, , statement Ex

PW46/B and Ex PW46/C and also various other documents

already proved by PW9 and PW40.

50 PW47 is Lekh Ram Sharma.

51 PW48 P N Sharma has proved seizure memo Ex.

PW48/A and valuation report Ex PW46/B.

52 PW49 Sh. R K Khurana has proved Observation

19/150

20

Memo Ex PW49/A and search list ExPW49/B.

53 PW50 is Sh. Anil Kumar.

54 PW51 Urgyandorjee has proved letter Ex PW51/A

and certified copies of statement Ex P14, P15 and Ex PW51/B.

55 PW52 is Niranjan Lal Goel, PW53 is Chhotey Lal

and PW54 is A V Ramarao.

56 PW55 V Sridhar has proved seizure memo Ex

PW55/A, cheque Ex PW55/B, Pay in counter foils Ex PW55/C.

57 PW56 Rishi Prakash Addl. S P CBI has proved FIR

Ex PW56/A, complaint Ex PW56B, production memo Ex

PW56/C, Receipt Ex PW56/D, production memo Ex PW56/E,

receipt Ex PW56/F, pay in slip Ex PW56/F-1, documents Ex

PW56/G,Ex PW56/H, ExPW56/I, Ex PW56/J, Ex PW56/K, Ex

PW56/L, and Ex PW56/M seizure memo ExPW56/N, documents

Ex PW56/O, Pass book Ex PW 56/P and various other documents

already proved by other witnesses.

58 PW57 is Smt. Bimla, PW58 is Mahesh Chander,

PW59 is Sunil Mukhija, PW60 is B S Jakhar, PW 61 is Sh.

Shashank Mishra, PW62 is Sh. K P S Dhaka and PW63 is H S

20/150

21

Sandhu.

59 Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr PC was

recorded wherein he has denied all the allegations made against

him and evidence produced by the prosecution against them.

60 He has stated that he has been a victim of

conspiracies by some state leader in Congress Party under the

misapprehension that he was potential danger to their positions in

the State. The Ist conspiracy was started when an article under

heading “Scandle Gods Indian Telecom” in a widely circulated

magazine namely “Communication International” was published

and its copies were managed to be circulated to the editors of

important dailies in Bombay and Delhi. On the basis of that

article front page news in all most, all the newspapers was

published accusing him of corruption. He was abroad at that time

to attend international conference in Kyota in Japan.

On arrival from foreign tour he filed Libel Suit in the Court

of “Queen Bench London” against the defendants since defendant

could not substantiate the allegations, the Queen Bench London

awarded him compensation amounting to 50,000/- pounds which

is equal to Rs. 27,37,500/- which was transferred to account no.

6906 (D46) and seized by the CBI during the raid. The

compensation amount awarded to him has been shown in charge

sheet as item No.9 of movable assets as income from Libel Suit.

21/150

22

Conversion of pound 50,000 and its being credited in his

account is proved by document D-46 page4 and also clarified by

PW5 Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta in his statement dt. 5.2.02.

After the decision of the Libel Suit filed in Queen Bench,

London, UK and on publication of “An Apology to Sh. Sukh

Ram” at front page in the said communication International, he

served notice to all the editors, publishers and correspondent for

publishing a false corruption story against him, the then MOS ( C)

in Communication International, he demanded compensation to

the tune of Rs. One crore failing of which criminal case was told

to be filed against them. Some editors and publishers express

regret and explained that they could not contact him for his

version as he was out of country at that time Having failed to

malign him in the first attempt, the second attempt was made

when the then opposition parties headed by BJP made serious

charge of corruption for showing favour to a company known as

HFCL whose head quarter has been in Solan Distt. Himachal

Pradesh. All the opposition parties did not allow parliament to

function for 13 days which was unparallel in the history of

parliament upto that time. Their one of the demand was that

unless Pt. Sukh Ram, the then MOS (Congress) was removed from

the council of Ministers they would not allow Parliament to

function. When the then Prime Minister, Sh. P V Narsimha Rao

did not concede to their demand they filed writ petition in

Supreme Court opposing the private sector to enter in the field of

22/150

23

communication and one of their complaints was that he (The then

MOSC) showed favor to HFCL. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

rejected their petition of showing favour to HFCL and held that

Govt. implemented the policy and did not show any favour to any

company.

Third attempt was made when M.Ps wrote to the then PM

Sh. Narsimha Rao alleging huge corruption in the Ministry of

Communication and demanded enquiry by Parliamentary

Committee in corruption cases. According to his information CBI

did not investigate the complaint against him as they did not find

any substance in the allegations. However, after the fall of

congress Govt. in the election of 1996 immediately CBI swung

into action on the instigation of Devgoda Govt. due to political

reason.

Sh. B P Morya, the then General Secretary, Incharge of

Himachal Pradesh arranged his meeting with Sh. Sita Ram

Kesari, the then Treasurer of AICC probably in the last week of

July, 1996 and secured his consent for setting up election office in

a part of his official residence at 12 Safdarjung Lane, in Delhi and

at his house at Mandi for election to be held for UP and J & K

Assemblies respectively in September/October, 1996. When he

left in Aug.1996, in connection with his heart ailment, search

order of his houses was obtained by the CBI at the behest of the

Central Govt. in August, 1996 and carried out searches in his

absence as there was nobody at his Delhi Officials residence

23/150

24

except his daughter who was temporarily staying over there in two

rooms with her husband Col. S K Sharma, who could not get his

official accommodation on his transfer to Delhi.

His house at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh was under

repair/renovation with the contractor, his son Sh. Anil Sharma

who was then MOS in Himachal Government was staying with

his family in his official residence at Shimla. There was Election

Office in last two rooms at the first floor being run by the

Congress Party, at his residence at Mandi.

The main apprehension of Sh. Sita Ram Kesri was that

managing election from AICC would not be advisable on account

of strained relation with/between Central Government headed by

Sh. Dev Gauda and Sh. P V Narshima Rao the then Congress

Party president which fact has been admitted by Sh. L R Sharma,

PW47 in his statement. The election of UP and J & K were to be

held in September/October, 1996. Having regard to the difficulty

of the party, he gave his consent to Sh. Sita Ram Kesri, since no

family member was residing at Mandi and in official residence at

Delhi.

Sh. Sita Ram Kesri, the then treasurer, Congress Party, sent

some election funds and election material to his official residence

at Delhi and Mandi House in Himachal Pradesh and when these

funds was recovered by CBI during raid conducted at his aforesaid

residence at Delhi and his house at Mandi, HP his opponents

within the party in HP and in the Centre got suitable opportunity

24/150

25

for maligning him in the media both print and electronic and the

press which was annoyed with him on his legal notices sent to

them as mentioned above and they started compagning against

him and since he was out of India, one sided version continued to

be published within the country to make it a media trial in

connivance with his political opponents. During his police

custody he was subjected to all sort of physical and mental torture

by CBI at the instance of the then High UPs in the Government to

compel him to make a statement that the alleged recovery

belonged to Sh. Narsima Rao, the then President of the party and

not to the congress Party. He was taken to office of Mr. Sandhu

SP where the then Director, CBI happened to be present and he

was asked by them that he should made a statement to CBI to the

above extent. So much so CBI foisted a false case against his son

Anil Sharma to put pressure upon him to make the above

statement that case, was lateron found to be false/baseless and CBI

got the cancellation of the same.

Some leaders of the Congress Party in HP who were

apprehensive of his becoming danger to their positions managed

to write a letter to Special Judge, CBI in which they emphasised

CBI was showing favour to him whereas position was otherwise.

This was a clear proof of conspiracy by some leaders in Himachal.

CBI gave highly exaggerated estimated cost of his

properties in Himachal and outside Himachal Pradesh in Media

for instance Hotel May Fair at Mandi in H P shown in his name

25/150

26

and its cost was shown to be Rs. 50 lacs, that Hotel actually

belongs to his son Anil Sharma and later on CBI Engineer gave its

cost to Rs, 20/- lacs. Similarly his house at Kaushambi was

estimated to the value of one crores at that time which was false

even to their Engineers Report. On knowing about the alleged

recovery of money from his residence at Delhi and his house at

Mandi he immediately issued a statement to the Press in London

that the alleged recoveries belongs to Congress Party, that report

was published in UK Press.

He is a Pawn in Power Politics. He made it clear to the

Investigating Authorities that the alleged recovered amount did

not belong to him. It was specifically told to Mr. H S Sandhu,

Incharge of the case that a part of his premises at his official

residence at Delhi and his house at Mandi was in possession of

Congress Party to run the election office for the election to be held

in UP and J K and the alleged recoveries if any, were of the

Congress Party but the prosecuting agencies instead of making

investigation on these lines tried to conceal this fact and concocted

stories of its own. Even the then General Secretary of AICC Sh. B

P Morya who was incharge of Himachal Pradesh also made a

particular statement to the electronic Media to this effect.

It is in knowledge of every body in this country that Dev

Gowada Govt. came to power on the outside support of Congress

Party in the Parliament but Mr. Dev Gowada, the then Prime

Minister wanted Congress Party to share power in the Central

26/150

27

Govt. for which Sh. P V Narshima Rao did not agree and relation

between Mr. Dev Gowada , the then Prime Minister, Sh. P V

Narshima Rao, the then Congress President (AICC) became

strained. Mr. Dev Gowada wanted to discredit Sh. P V Narshima

Rao and keeping in view this fact a case was instituted against him

in which he was acquitted later on. This paved the way for Mr.

Sita Ram Kesri, the then treasurer to step into the shoes of Mr.P V

Narshima Rao as a Congress President in which he succeeded and

he assumed the charge of Presidentship of Congress Party on

23.9.1996 with a view to please him, Mr. Dev Gowada used the

offices of CBI for putting pressure on him while he was in the

detention of CBI that the recovered money did not belong to Sita

Ram Kesri but it belongs to Sh. Narshima Rao. He did not scumb

to the pressure of CBI, he was mentally and physically tortured

even a false case was instituted against his son Anil Sharma who

was MOS in H M Govt. This case was later on withdrawn by the

CBI as the allegation against him proved to be false during

investigation.

The assets of his family members including his married

daughters were added in his assets by CBI regarding which the

income Tax Tribunal has now given final findings, order of which

have been filed on the record with the application for release of

such assets and on the basis of the same this court has passed

order dt. 18.5.07. It is a false case.

27/150

28

61 In his defence accused has examined DW1 HC

Pawan Kumar who has proved photo copy of letter Ex DW1/A,

photo copy of draft sanction order Ex DW1/B and photocopy of

the noting Ex DW1/C.

62 DW2 Constable Narinder Kumar, Asst. Malkahan

CBI, ACB, Delhi has stated that at page no. 36 of the seizure

property register, no case property has been deposited on 19.8.02

or 20.8.02 in respect of the present case.

63 DW3 Vinod Kumar has proved D D Ex DW3/1.

64 DW-4 is Shailash Ranjan.

65 DW5 Jaswant has proved Press Releases Ex DW5/A

and letter Ex DW5/B.

66 DW6 Sh. P C Gupta has proved his report ex DW6/A

about house no. D42, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Circular Ex

DW6/B, his report Ex DW6/C about renovation of house situated

in Mohalla Shamkhetra, Mandi and his report Ex DW6/D about

Farm House at Saurath.

67 DW7 Kamlesh Thakur has proved attested true copies

of documents Ex DW7/A.

28/150

29

68 DW8 is Deepak Chaurasia

69 DW9 Madhav Prasad Sharma has proved sanction of

five trees to Smt. Ram Devi Ex DW9/A and permit book Ex

DW9/B.

70 DW10 Shiv Kumar Mishra has proved card Ex

DW10/A, DW11 is Ritu Sharma, DW12 is Chander Sharma,

DW13 is Tirath Ram Shrama and DW14 is Neearj Kansal.

71 DW15 A K Dhar has proved the report Ex DW15/A.

72 DW16 Anil Sharma has proved certified copy of

No objection Certificate and order of Special Judge,Shimla dt.

30.6.99 Ex DW16/A and Ex. DW16/B.

73 Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S P Minocha argued that

prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts while

accused has to prove his defence by mere preponderance of

probabilities. He has further argued that accused is entitle for

benefits of all the doubts. Wherever two views are possible in a

criminal case view favourable to accused should be taken.

74 Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S P Minocha argued that

accused Sukh Ram on 16.8.96 when the raid was conducted on his

29/150

30

residence, was a public servant being Member of Parliament. On

9.6.97 when the charge sheet in this case has been filed against

him, was also a public servant being Member of Parliament,

however prosecution has filed this charge sheet against accused

without obtaining sanction or permission from the speaker of Lok

Sabha as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P V Narsimha Rao

Vs. State, 1998 (2) CCC 71, hence his prosecution in this case is

bad, therefore, accused may be acquitted on this ground alone. In

this regard, he has also placed reliance on P V Narsimha Rao Vs.

State, 1998 (2) CCC 108.

75 It is argued that according to proviso of Section 17 of

P C Act, 1988, a case U/s 13 (1) (e) of P C Act, shall not be

investigated without the order of a Police Officer not below the

rank of Superintendent of Police, however in this case, Dy. S P Sh.

B S Jakhar who had conducted raid on 16.8.96, started

investigation, which is clear from his statement recorded as

PW60 in this case, wherein he has stated as follows:

“Searches were conducted in connection with the

ivnestigation of case FIR No.3 A/96/ACU/IV at different places

after obtaining search warrant from court of Sessions Judge and

during the searches lot of assets were observed which on

verification were found to be disproportionate to the known

sources of income of Sh. Sukh Ram.”

30/150

31

76 Ld. Defence Counsel referring Section 2 (h) of Cr P

C wherein investigation has been defined, argued that collecting of

evidence amounts to investigating the case, thus, verifying of the

information amounts to collection of evidence which Mr. Jakhar

had started without any order of S P, hence the investigation

conducted in this case is bad and the evidence collected thereto

cannot be read in evidence. The entire investigation was

conducted in contravention of Section 17 of P C Act, hence the

same is bad, therefore, charge sheet filed against accused on the

basis of such evidence is also bad, hence accused may be

acquitted.

77 Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi filed written

submissions and also addressed his oral arguments. He has argued

that examination in chief of P V Narsimha Rao, statements of Sh.

Sita Ram Kesari and Mr. C K Khemka recorded U/s 161 Cr PC

are neither relevant nor admissible u/s 33 of Evidence Act as

accused had no right or opportunity to cross examine them. In this

regard he has placed reliance on Shashi Jena Vs. Khadal Swain,

(2004) 4 SCC 236 and V M Mathew Vs. V S Sharma, (1995) 6

SCC 122.

78 Ld. Senior Counsel argued that essential ingredient of

offence punishable U/s 13 (1) (e) of PC Act is possession of

property or resources which a public servant cannot satisfactorily

31/150

32

account for. Word possession has been held to mean possession

of resources of which public servant must have “knowledge” to

bring in the mental element of “conscious possession” as well as

“custody and control” over the property and resources. It is

argued that in this case accused Sukh Ram and his wife were out

of India on 16.8.96 when the searches were conducted at their

premises, prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the cash

recovered from their premises was in their conscious possession.

Ld. Senior Counsel in support of his arguments has placed

reliance on Sanjay Dutt V. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410, Avtar Singh

Vs. State of Punjab (2002) 7 SCC 419, Gurmail Singh V. State of

Punjab (2002) 3 SCC 748 and Gunwantlal V. State of MP, AIR

1972 SC1756 and DSP Chennai Vs. K Inbasgaran , AIR 2006 SC

552.

79 It is argued that even if there is some ambiguity in the

meaning of word possession in relation to Section 13 (1) (e) of P

C Act, 1988 this court must adopt that construction which is more

lenient and lean towards the construction which exempts the

accused from penalty. In this regard Ld. Senior Counsel has

placed reliance on following authorities:

Bijaya Kumar Aggarwala Vs. State of Orissa, (1966) 5 SCC

1 (Para 17-18), Sanjay Dutt. Vs. State (1994) 5 SCC 410,

constitutional Bench (Para 16), Niranjan Singh Karam Singh

Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 (Para 8)

32/150

33

and Tola Ram Relu Mal Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496

(Para 9).

80 Ld. Senior Counsel further argued that “conscious

Possession” is an essential ingredient of the offence, and burden of

proving it beyond reasonable doubt, is on the prosecution. In this

regard he has placed reliance on following authorities:

G M Tank Vs. State of Gujrat, (2005) 5 SCC 446 (para 30),

HP Administration Vs. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 (para 4 &

7), T Subramanium Vs. State of TN, (2006) 1 SCC 401 (Para 12-

15, 17), Punjab Rao (2002) 10 SCC 371 ( para 3), State of TN V.

Krishnan (2002) 9 SCC 521 (para 5 & 6), Kali Ram V. State of

Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 (Para 25 & 28).

81 Ld. Senior Counsel argued that if two views are

possible, view favourable to accused should be adopted.

82 Sh. T B Bhattacharya, PW9, who has joined as an

independent witness at the time of raid and recovery, does not

deny if the CBI was told by Smt. Ritu Sharma, DW-11, that some

portion of the house was being used by the Congress Party for

election purposes.

83 Sh. Munshi Ram, PW25 specifically admitted that

Smt. Ritu Sharma, told the CBI officials in his presence that the

33/150

34

keys of the small store and puja Room attached with the guest

room was with Mr. Mishra. Yet Mr. Mishra was not called and

the locks of store and puja room were broken, from where the

currency was recovered.

84 It is argued that Mr. L R Sharma, PW47, has deposed

as under:

“Mr. Maurya, General Secretary AICC introduced him to

Sh. Sita Ram Kesari, Congress President.

He had discussions with Mr. Maurya with regard to

elections in UP and J & K.

Dewe Gowda had strained relations with Mr. Narsimha

Rao.

Suggested to Mr. Maurya that residence of Mr. Sukh Ram at

Delhi and Mandi can be utilized as election offices as Mr. /Sukh

Ram and wife were going abroad.

Mr. T R Sharma, Sh. S K Mishra were appointed in charge

of Mandi and Delhi offices respectively.

In August 1996, he brought election material in gunny bags

and suitcases from residence of Sh. Sita Ram Kesari to 12,

Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi.

Handed over the material to Mr. S K Mishra.

Mr. Maurya asked Chander Sharma to go to Mandi and

handover the material to Mr. T R Sharma.”

34/150

35

85 The statement of Mr. L R Sharma, with respect to his

conversation with Mr. B P Maurya is also admissible in view of

the fact that Mr. Maurya expired and therefore could not be

produced as a witness. Secondary evidence of a witness who

cannot be produced is relevant under the Evidence Act.

86 In this regard Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi has

relied upon Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 6, SCC

671 (Para 5)

87 PW-33 Mr. Pratap Chand Sharma, himself admitted

that at the time of raid at Mandi house of the accused, 2-3 persons

were sitting, one of them was Mr. T R Sharma – who told that he

had been sent by Mr. Sita Ram Kesari for election work.

88 PW42 Ram Bahadur, stated that Mr. T R Sharma had

a party office in the house of the top floor. Out of the two rooms

one was used as office and one for keeping goods.

89 PW45 K K Goyal, an independent witness to the raid,

stated that 6-7 person were sitting in the compound. He cannot

deny that they informed CBI that they were to take election

material to J & K. They were asked by CBI to leave, on the first

floor last two rooms were locked; attendant informed keys of

rooms were with Mr. T R Sharma

35/150

36

90 PW20 Basant Ram, a Patwari of Mandi, who has

appeared as a prosecution witness to prove the land ownership of

the accused and his wife, has admitted in his cross examination

that he knew Tirath Ram Sharma, General Secretary of Congress.

He had met Mr. Tirath Ram Sharma at that house. He however

told him that he was there in connection with the election.

91 Cash of Rs.2,45,28,844/- recovered from Delhi

residence and Rs.1,16,51,520/- recovered from Mandi residence,

were from the camp offices of Congress Party set up with regard

to impending elections in UP & J & K from locked rooms and

locked suit cases cannot be said to have recovered from the

“possession” of accused and is liable to be excluded while

computing the assets of accused.

92 Prosecution has failed to prove that a cash of

Rs.1,05,00,000/-, was given to C K Khemka as loan by Sukh Ram.

It is argued that if this amount of Rs.4,66,80.364/- excluded,

remaining assets cannot be said to be disproportionate, hence

accused is liable to be acquitted.

MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS HELD BYACCUSED AND HIS WIFE AT THE BEGINNING OFCHECK PERIOD

36/150

37

93 Prosecution vide document Ex PW22/A and PW22/B

(D-10) and from the statement of PW 22 Munshi Ram has proved

that Orchard measuring 35 bigha, 8 biswas and 19 biswansi was

acquire in the name of Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi during the

period 1961 to 1969 as shown at serial No.1 of immovable assets

held by accused prior to the beginning of check period in the

charge sheet.

94 Prosecution vide document Ex PW20/A and PW20/B

(D-8) and PW 20 Basant Ram has proved that residential house at

Samkhetra Mandi constructed on a plot measuring 359.34 sq.

metre in the name of Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi around the

year 1981-82 as shown at serial No.2 of immovable assets held by

accused prior to the beginning of check period in the charge

sheet.

95 Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove

the ancestral land measuring 3 bighas owned by Sh. Sukh Ram in

his native village Kotli, Distt. Mandi and Orchard measuring 10

bighas at village Kullumath, Akhara Bazaar, Kullu in the name of

Smt. Ram Devi given to her by her mother around the year 1972

as shown at serial No.3 and 4 of immovable assets held by

accused and his wife prior to the beginning of check period in the

charge sheet, however, as it is admitted by the prosecution in the

37/150

38

charge sheet that accused and his wife were owning these

properties prior to the check period hence this court is of opinion

that accused is entitle for this benefit.

96 Prosecution vide Ex PW2/A and Ex PW2/B (D-25)

and from the statement of PW2 Janardan Agnihotri has proved

that accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.2,58,755/-

for plot No. D42 Kaushambi as shown at serial No.1 of movable

assets held by accused prior to the check period in the charge

sheet.

97 Prosecution vide Ex PW34/G (D-34) and PW34

Devender Kapoor has proved that Smt. Ram Devi wife of

accused Sukh Ram had given a loan of Rs. 4,37,500/- to her son

Sh. Anil Sharma as shown at serial No.2 of movable assets held

by accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.

98 Prosecution vide Ex PW34/G (D-34) and from the

statement of PW34 Devender Kapoor has proved that accused

Sukh Ram had given a loan of Rs. 1,92,000/- to his son Sh. Anil

Sharma as shown at serial No.3 of movable assets held by

accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.

99 Prosecution vide Ex PW9/A, PW45/C, Ex PW49/A

(D-13, D18 and D-23) and from the statement of PW 9 T

38/150

39

Bhattacharya. PW45 K K Goel and PW49 R K Khurana has

proved that accused Sukh Ram was having house hold items

valuing about Rs.2,80,900/- as shown at serial No.4 of movable


sheet.

100 Prosecution vide Ex PW9/E, (D-15) and . and from

the statement of PW 9 T Bhattacharya and PW 32 Ram Saran

Mehra has proved that accused Sukh Ram was having jewellery

valuing about Rs.5,72,373/- as shown at serial No.5 of movable


sheet.

101 Prosecution vide Ex PW17/A (D-26) and from the

statement of PW17 Hari Simrath Singh Dua has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs. 80,004/- with

Nav Sansad Vihar Society as shown at serial No.6 of movable


sheet.

102 Prosecution vide Ex PW7/A, ExPW7/B, Ex PW6/A

and Ex P-9, P-14, P-15 (admitted) ( D-41, 43, 49 and 52), and

from the statement of PW7 Sh. J N Behal and PW6 Sh. S C

Khurana has proved that accused Sukh Ram had a bank balance

of Rs.6,41,478/- as shown at serial No.7 of movable assets held

39/150

40

by accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.

103 Prosecution vide Ex P10, P11 and P13 (admitted) (

D-50) has proved that accused Sukh Ram was having three FDRs

of Rs. 50,000/- each, total amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- in PNB,

Shimla as shown at serial No.8 of movable assets held by

accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.

104 It is argued by Ld. Sr. Counsel Sh. Tulsi that

calculation of assets by the prosecution at the beginning of check

period is at variance with the income tax returns of accused Sukh

Ram Ex PW34/DA and his wife Smt. Ram Devi Ex PW34/DB.

It is argued that balance sheet w.e.f. 1.4.91 to 31.3.92 of Mrs. Ram

Devi w/o Sukh Ram indicates opening balance of Rs.31,46,604/-

on 1.4.91 i.e. just before the check period, as this amount is as per

the document of prosecution itself hence the same ought to have

taken in account while calculating her assets at the beginning of

check period since her individual assets has also been clubbed to

that of accused Sukh Ram. Similarly, balance sheet of accused

Sukh Ram for the period w.e.f. 1.4.91 to 31.3.92 shows opening

balance of Rs7,45,662/-, however this amount has not been taken

in consideration while calculating the assets held by accused at the

end of pre check period.

40/150

41

105 I have carefully considered this argument of Ld. Sr.

Counsel, first of all, documents Ex PW34/DA and Ex PW34/DB

are not the documents of prosecution. These are the Block Period

Returns filed by accused Sukh Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Devi

which is clear from the following portion of the statement of

PW34.:

“ I have no knowledge if any block period returns of Sh.

Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi were filed through my office. I

have seen the block period returns of Shri Sukh Ram, summoned

from the Income tax Department. Copy of the same is Ex

PW34/DA. I can identify the signatures of Shri Sukh Ram on the

original return which is mark 'A' on the copy.

I have also seen block period return of Smt. Ram Devi,

(the original return brought from the Income Tax, Deptt.). I

can identify signature of Smt. Ram Devi on the original return

at point A. Copy of the return is Ex PW34/DB. (Original

income tax returns brought by Shri Ram Kumar, Tech.

Assistant, Ward No.31 (1), Income Tax Department, New

Delhi. (Originals seen & returned).”

106 Accused and his wife have filed their Block Returns

for the period w.e.f 1986 to 1996 after the raid was conducted and

this case was registered, therefore, these documents are not

reliable.

41/150

42

107 Prosecution has proved income tax return of Smt.

Ram Devi w/o Sukh Ram for the financial year 1991-92,

assessment year 1992-93 Ex PW34/G-1, file Ex PW34/G (D-34

VI). Alongwith this income tax return no balance sheet showing

any opening balance has been filed. Prosecution has proved

income tax return of Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sukh Ram for the

financial year 1992-93, assessment year 1993-94 Ex PW34/H-1,

file Ex PW34/H (D-34 VII). Alongwith this income tax return no

balance sheet showing any opening balance has been filed.



assessment year 1994-95 Ex PW34/I-1, file Ex PW34/I (D-34

VIII). Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been

filed showing opening balance of Rs. 20,52,288/-, gross balance

amount has been shown as Rs. 26,31,408/- and after showing a

withdrawal of Rs.2,85,147/-, net closing balance has been as

Rs.23,46,261/- . Nothing has been shown in this balance sheet as

to how the figure of opening balance of Rs. 20,52,288/- has been

arrived at. According to accused opening balance as per Ex

PW 34/DB as on 31.3.92 was Rs. 31,46,604/-, how can it be

possible when according to the balance sheet filed alongwith

income tax return Ex.PW34/I-I, opening balance was

Rs.20,52,288/- on 31.3.94, thus, this argument appears to be

42/150

43

vague and unreliable.



assessment year 1995-96 Ex PW34/J-1, file Ex PW34/J (D-34 IX).

Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been filed

showing opening balance of Rs. 23,46,261/-, an addition of Rs.

4,67,992/- has been shown in the financial year ended upto

31.3.95 and after showing a withdrawal of Rs. 1,77,548/- net

closing balance of Rs. 26,35,655/- has been shown as on 31.3.95.



assessment year 1996-97 Ex PW34/K-1, file Ex PW34/K (D-34

X). Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been filed

showing opening balance of Rs. 26,36,655/-, an addition of Rs.

5,95,190/- has been shown in the financial year ended upto

31.3.96 and after showing a withdrawal of Rs. 1,23,493/- net

closing balance of Rs.3,108,352/- has been shown as on 31.3.96.

In all these three balance sheets an amount of Rs. 1,89,937/- has

been shown invested on the construction of farm house which is

stated to be under construction. No amount has been shown to be

spent on the renovation work on the house situated in Mohalla

Shamkhetra, Mandi. Thus, from the above discussion it is clear

that various figures shown in the income tax returns of Smt.

43/150

44

Ram Devi are conflicting, hence no reliance can be placed on

the same to hold that her opening balance was Rs.31,46,604/-

at the beginning of check period.

111 Prosecution has proved income tax return of accused

Sukh Ram for the financial year 1990-91, assessment year 1991-

92 Ex PW34/B-2, file Ex PW34/B (D-34 I). Alongwith this

income tax return no balance sheet showing any opening balance

has been filed.



94 Ex PW34/C-1, file Ex PW34/C (D-34 II). Alongwith this


has been filed.



95 Ex PW34/D-1, file Ex PW34/D (D-34-III). Alongwith this


has been filed.

114 Prosecution has proved income tax return of Accused


96 Ex PW34/E-1, file Ex PW34/E (D-34 IV). Alongwith this

44/150

45

income tax return balance sheet has been filed showing opening

balance of Rs. 8,30,931/-. it is not disclosed as to how this figure

has been arrived at. An amount of Rs.10,22,021/- has been shown

as loan received from Canfin Home Ltd. and a loan of Rs.

2,68,303/- has been shown received from Smt. Ram Devi. A total

capital of Rs.21,21,255/- has been shown as on 31.3.95, out of

which an amount of Rs.11,12,488/- has been shown to be spent on

construction of house No. D-42, Kaushambi and an amount of Rs.

4,10,000/- has been shown deposited with New Sansad Co-

operative Society. A net closing balance of Rs.8,30,931/- has

been shown as on 31.3.95. Nothing has been shown in this

balance sheet as to how the figure of opening balance of Rs.

8.30.931/- has been arrived at. According to accused opening

balance as per Ex PW 34/DA as on 31.3.92 was Rs.7,45,662.88,

how can it be relied upon, when no capital amount has been

shown in income tax return for the financial years w.e.f. 1990-

91 to 1992-93, thus, this argument appears to be vague and

unreliable.

115 Prosecution has proved income tax return of Accused

Sukh Ram for the financial year 1995-96, assessment year of

which is 1996-97 Ex PW34/F2, file Ex PW34/F (D-34 V).

Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been filed

showing opening balance of Rs. 8,30,931/-. A total capital

account of Rs.40,64,632/- has been shown as on 31.3.96 out of

45/150

46

which an amount of Rs.6,43,877/- has been shown as withdrawal.

A net closing balance of Rs34,20,750/-- has been shown as on

31.3.96.

116 I have gone through these balance sheets, all the

benefits as per these balance sheets have already been given to

accused by the prosecuting agency but under different heads.

Check period in our case is w.e.f. 20.6.91 to 16.8.96, thus accused

is entitled for the benefits upto 19.6.91 under the head of pre-

check period.

117 Thus, prosecution has proved that accused and

his wife Smt. Ram Devi were having total movable and

immovable assets valuing Rs.26,13,010/- prior to the check

period, with them.

DETAILS OF TOTAL INCOME OF ACCUSED SUKH RMAND HIS WIFE RAM DEVI FROM THEIR KNOWNSOURCES OF INCOME DURING CHECK PERIOD


statement of PW13 Reeta Jalkhani has proved that accused had

received a salary with effect from 20.6.91 to June, 1992 as

Member of Parliament of Rs. 65,150/- as shown at serial No.1 of

46/150

47

the details of income of accused during the check period in the

charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr PC. (Q15)


statement of PW15Vinod Kumar Nayyar has proved that accused

Sukh Ram had received a salary with effect from July, 1992 to

18.1.93 as Minister of State for Planning of Rs. 62,655/- as shown

at serial No.2 of the details of income of accused during the check

period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q16)

120 Prosecution vide Ex PW4/A to Ex PW4/E (D-39)and

from the statement of PW4 Vinod Kumar Sinha has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had received a salary with effect from 18.1.93

to 16.5.96 as Minister of State for Communication of

Rs.3,28,975/- as shown at serial No.3 of the details of income of

accused during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has

not denied it in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q14)

121 Prosecution vide Ex.PW 34/A to Ex PW34/L (D-34)

and from the statement of PW 34 D N Kapoor has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs. 9,94,373/- from his

Orchard as shown at serial No.4 of the details of income of

accused during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has

47/150

48

admitted it correct as matter of record in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 66 to Q71)



accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs. 1,84,436/-on account of

interest earned from his son Anil Sharma as shown at serial No.5

of the details of income of accused during the check period in the

charge sheet. Accused has admitted it correct as matter of record

in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q66 to 71)



Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs.

4,46,897/- from her son Anil Sharma as shown at serial No.6 of

the details of income of accused during the check period in the

charge sheet. Accused has admitted it correct as matter of record

in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 65, Q72 to 76)



Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs. 18,

88,900/- from her Orchard as shown at serial No.7 of the details

of income of accused during the check period in the charge sheet.

Accused has admitted it correct as matter of record in his

48/150

49

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 65, Q72 to 76)

125 Prosecution vide Ex.PW8/A to Ex PW8/D (D-27)

and from the statement of PW 8 Manoj Kumar has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had taken a total loan of Rs. 10 lakh (Rs. Five

lakh each) for construction of house No. D-42 Kaushambi from

Canfin Home Ltd. sponsored by Canara Bank as shown at serial

No.8 of the details of income of accused during the check period

in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 26,27 and Q28)

126 Prosecution vide Ex. PW 5/C and Ex PW10/A ( D

63)and from the statement of PW5 Pardeep Kumar Gupta and

PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar has proved that accused Sukh Ram had a

balance of Rs. 27,37,500/- which amount he had received as

compensation in a libel suit filed by him before Queen Bench,

London and which was transferred in his bank account in India

as shown at serial No.9 of the details of income of accused during

the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as

correct in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q19)

127 Prosecution vide Ex. P 10 to P13 (D-50) (admitted)

has proved that accused Sukh Ram had an income of interest of

Rs.3,45,933/- from Three FDRs in PNB as shown at serial No.10

of the details of income of accused during the check period in the

49/150

50

charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr. PC.

128 Prosecution vide Ex P W34A to L, (D-34) and from

the statement of PW34 D N Kapoor has proved that accused

Sukh Ram had an income of interest of Rs. 40,800/- from FDRs

of Shivalik during the period w.e.f. 1993 to 1995 as shown at

serial No.11 of the details of income of accused during the check

period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q 65, Q72 to 76)

129 Prosecution vide Ex. P W13/A, (D-36) and from the

statement of PW13 Reeta Jalkhani has proved that accused Sukh

Ram had an income of Rs. 56,071/- on account of TA and DA as

Member of Parliament w.e.f. July, 1991 to August, 1992 as

shown at serial No.12 of the details of income of accused during

the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in

his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q15)


statement of PW15 Sh. V K Nayyar has proved that accused Sukh


Minister of State (Planning) w.e.f. July, 1992 to December , 1992

as shown at serial No.13 of the details of income of accused

during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has not

50/150

51

denied it in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q16)

131 Prosecution vide Ex. PW39/A and Ex PW39/A-1 (D-

40) and from the statement of PW39 Sh. R S Malik has proved

that accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs.3,08,859/- on

account of TA and DA as Minister of State (Communication)

w.e.f. October, 1993 to June, 1996 as shown at serial No.14 of the

details of income of accused during the check period in the charge

sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr. PC. (/Q 80)


statement of PW13 Reeta Jalkhani has proved that accused Sukh


Member of Parliament w.e.f. May, 1996 to August, 1996 as

shown at serial No.15 of the details of income of accused during

the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in

his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q15)

133 Thus, prosecution has proved that accused and his

wife had a total income of Rs. 84,98,180/- during the check

period from 20.6.91 to 16.8.96.

134 Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi referring the statement

of PW7 argued that accused had received 4200 pounds, (equal to

51/150

52

Rs. 2,09,748/-) from his son in law, credit of which has not been

given by the prosecution, hence this amount may be added in the

income of accused. It is correct that accused in his statement U/s

313 Cr PC has claimed that one of his son in law is a practising

Doctor in U K who had sent 4200 pounds to him. I have gone

through the statement of PW7 who has stated as follows in this

regard:

“ It is correct that the credit of Rs.2,09,748/- as reflected on

10.7.95 in Ex PW7/A is on account of conversion of 4200 pounds

sterling received by the accounts holder as remittance.”

135 In view of the statement of PW7 this court is of

opinion that accused is entitle for the benefit of this amount. This

amount should be added in the income of accused. Thus, the

total income of accused and his wife during the check period

comes to Rs.87,07,928/-.

DETAILS OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURED BYACCUSED SUKH RAM AND HIS WIFE RAM DEVIDURING CHECK PERIOD


statement of PW 19 S Z Khan has proved that accused had paid an

amount of Rs.38,520/- as electricity charges of house no.42

Kaushambi as shown at serial No.1 of the details of expenditure

52/150

53

made during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has

admitted it as correct in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.

PC.(Q46)


statement of PW 18 Durga Singh Thakur has proved that accused

had paid an amount of Rs.1,119/- as water charges of Orchard, in

Saurath from June, 1991 to December, 1996 as shown at serial

No.2 of the details of expenditure made during the check period in

the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.

PC (Q.45) has stated that this water connection is in the name of

Anil Sharma who might had paid this amount. Accused has not

produced any receipt or document showing that water connection

was in the name of Anil Sharma who is his son, however, PW18

has specifically deposed that Orchard was of accused Sukh Ram

and he had deposited this amount, hence there is no reason to

disbelieve this witness, therefore, this court is of opinion that this

amount was spent by accused Sukh Ram.


statement of PW 21Sh. A N Sharma has proved that accused had

paid an amount of Rs.1,168/- towards electricity charges of

house at Village Saurath for the electric connection installed in

the name of Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sukh Ram from June, 1991 to

53/150

54

August, 1996 as shown at serial No.3 of the details of expenditure

made during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh

Ram has deposed in his statement U/s 313 Cr PC that this amount

might have been deposited by his wife (Q No.48) as the

connection is in her name.

139 Prosecution vide Ex PW33/A and Ex PW33/B (D-

58) and from the statement of PW 33 Sh. P C Sharma has proved

that accused had paid an amount of Rs.27,361/- towards

electricity charges of his house at Mandi from June, 1990 to

December, 1996 as shown at serial No.4 of the details of

expenditure made during the check period in the charge sheet.

Accused Sukh Ram has not denied this fact in his statement

recorded U/s 313 Cr PC . (Q64)

140 Prosecution vide Ex P-16 (D-54), which has been

admitted as correct by the accused in admission and denial, has

proved that accused had paid an amount of Rs.1749/- on account

of water charges for his house at Samkhetar Mandi as shown at

serial No.5 of the details of expenditure made during the check

period in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in

his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q1)

141 Prosecution vide Ex PW22/A (D-53)and from the

54/150

55

statement of PW 22 Munshi Ram has proved that accused had

paid an amount of Rs.215/- as Mamla Payment Orchard, Saurath

Mandi as shown at serial No.6 of the details of expenditure made

during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted

it correct as matter of record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.

PC.(Q 49)

142 Prosecution from the statement of PW 41 Smt. Bini

Devi, PW42 Ram Bhadur, PW57 Bimla and PW38 Sadhu Ram

has proved that accused had paid an amount of Rs1,24,390/- to the

servants serving at his Orchard, Saurath Mandi as shown at serial

No.7 of the details of expenditure made during the check period in

the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q79, 82, 83 & 100)


statement of PW 14 Sh. Puneet Sharma has proved that accused

had paid an amount of Rs.6498/- towards LPG charges for his

residence at Delhi for the period from 22.7.94 to 16.8.96 as

shown at serial No.8 of the details of expenditure made during the

check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has denied

this fact in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC . (Q41) I have

gone through the statement of PW14 Sh. Puneet Sharma and

relevant documents from which it is clear that LPG connection

vide consumer No. 17099 was in the name of accused Sukh Ram

55/150

56

himself. Gas cylinders were supplied at his official residence

bearing No. 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi, hence this court is of

opinion that prosecution has proved that he had spent Rs.6468/-

for purchasing gas cylinders for his domestic use.

144 Prosecution has produced Ex PW14/A (D-62) and

PW 14 Sh. Puneet Sharma to prove that accused had paid an

amount of Rs.6,865/- towards LPG charges in the name of his son

Sh. Anoop Sharma for the period from 22.7.94 to 16.8.96 as

shown at serial No.9 of the details of expenditure made during the

check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has denied

this fact in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC . (Q41) I have

gone through the statement of PW14 Sh. Puneet Sharma and

relevant documents from which it is clear that LPG connection

vide consumer No. 20321 was in the name of Anoop Sharma s/o

Sh. Sukh Ram. PW14 has stated that he cannot tell who had made

the payment, in these circumstances this court is of opinion that

the amount of Rs. 6865/- can not be added in the expenditure

made by accused Sukh Ram during the check period.


statement of PW 16 Sh. Rajinder Mahajan has proved that

accused had paid an amount of Rs1,28,870/- towards charges of

Air Journey to USA in the month of August 1996 for himself and

for his wife as shown at serial No.10 of the details of expenditure

56/150

57


Ram in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC (Q43) has stated

that he received 4200 pounds from his son in law Sh. S L Vashisht

who has been a practicising doctor in London. Out of this amount

he purchased tickets for himself and his wife. PW16 Sh. Rajinder

Mahajan specifically deposed that a payment of Rs.1,28,870/- was

received against bill Ex PW16/A from Sukh Ram vide a cheque.

thus this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved that this

expenditure was made by accused Sukh Ram.

146 Prosecution from the statement of PW52 Sh. Niranjan

Lal Goel has proved that accused had paid an amount of

Rs30,000/-to Sh. Niranjan Lal Goel for supervising the

construction work at D 42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad w.e.f. 1991 to

1994 as shown at serial No.11 of the details of expenditure made

during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram

has admitted it as correct being matter of record in his statement

recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q88) .

147 Prosecution from the statement of PW26 Sh. Vasudev

has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid an amount of

Rs10,000/-to PW26 Sh. Vaudev for doing the job of plumber at

his residence D 42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad as shown at serial

No.12 of the details of expenditure made during the check period

in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as correct

57/150

58

in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q53) .

148 Prosecution from the statement of PW28 Sh. Inder

Bhan Tomar has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid an

amount of Rs15,000/- to PW28 Sh. Inder Bhan Tomar in the year

1994 for doing electricity work in premises D 42 Kaushambi,

Ghaziabad as shown at serial No.13 of the details of expenditure


Ram has admitted it as correct in his statement recorded U/s 313

Cr PC.(Q54) .

149 Prosecution from the statement of PW 53 Chottey Lal

has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid an amount of

Rs9,000/- to Sh. PW53 Sh. Chottey Lal who was working as

gardener at the residence of accused at house No. D 42

Kaushambi, Ghaziabad from 29.1.96 to August, 1996 as shown at


period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as

correct in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q89) .

150 Prosecution from the statement of PW8 Manoj Kumar

Nayyar has proved that accused Sukh Ram had repaid an amount

of Rs4,93,864/- upto July, 1996 to Canfin Homes Ltd. against the

loan of Rs. 10 lakh taken by him as shown at serial No.15 of the

details of expenditure made during the check period in the charge

58/150

59

sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as correct in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q28) .

151 Prosecution from the statement of PW34 Sh.

Devender Kapoor (D34) has proved that accused Sukh Ram had

paid total amount of Rs3,12,595/- towards Income tax during the

check period as shown at serial No.16 of the details of


Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as correct being matter of

record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q66 to Q 71) .

152 Prosecution from the statement of PW34 Sh.

Devender Kapoor (D-34) has proved that accused Sukh Ram had

spent a total amount of Rs2,30,117/- as agricultural expenses

during the check period as shown at serial No.17 of the details of



record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q66 to 71)

153 Prosecution vide Ex PW5/H (D-45) and from the

statement of PW 5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused had

paid an amount of Rs.14 lakh to Bhav Dev Trust during the check

period as shown at serial No.18 of the details of expenditure made

during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram

has admitted it as correct being matter of record in his statement

59/150

60

recorded U/s 313 Cr PC (Q22).

154 Prosecution vide Ex PW5/G (D-45) and from the

statement of PW 5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused had

paid an amount of Rs. one lakh to Bhav Dev Trust between

17.7.95 to 12.9.95 as shown at serial No.19 of the details of



record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC (Q22).

155 Prosecution vide Ex PW5/D and Ex PW5/E (D-44)

and from the statement of PW 5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that

accused had paid an amount of Rs.10 lakh (Rs. Five lakh each) to

Duyffdun Education Trust, Chairman of which was Smt. Ram

Devi w/o accused between 29.2.96 to 15.6.96 as shown at serial

No.20 of the details of expenditure made during the check period

in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as

correct being matter of record in his statement recorded U/s 313

Cr PC (Q21).

156 Prosecution from the statement of PW 24 Sh.

Shamsher Singh has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid a

total amount of Rs19,200/- to his driver PW24 Shamsher Singh

towards his salary from June, 1991 to June, 1992 as shown at


60/150

61

period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as

correct being matter of record in his statement recorded U/s 313

Cr PC.(Q52) .

157 Prosecution from the statement of PW 25 Sh. Munshi

Ram s/o Durga Ram has proved that accused Sukh Ram had spent

an amount of Rs1,50,000/- on the reception of marriage of his

daughter Kavita in the year 1992 as shown at serial No.22 of the

details of expenditure made during the check period in the charge

sheet. Accused Sukh Ram in his supplementary statement

recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that exactly he cannot state

whether the expenditure was less than Rs.1,50,000/-, however,

cash and gifts were received in the reception which was also

utilised as a part of expenditure. Some amount of the expenditure

was also made from the earnings of his wife who had an

independent income from her agricultural land. (Q2 of

supplementary statement). It is clear that accused has not

specifically denied the fact of expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the

reception of his daughter. He has claimed that some expenditure

was made from the cash and gifts received in the reception and

some expenditure was made by his wife. It is clear from the above

discussion that income of wife of accused has also been taken in

consideration and all benefits because of her income has already

been granted to accused. Accused has not disclosed as to how

much amount was spent by him and how much amount was spent

61/150

62

by his wife and how much amount was spent from the cash/gifts

received in the reception. Accused even has not produced his wife

in the witness box as defence witness to explain as to how much

amount was spend by her. Accused has not produced any

statement of account in this regard. In these circumstances this

court is of opinion that the prosecution has proved that accused

had spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on the reception of her

daughter in the year 1992.

158 Prosecution from the statement of PW 31 Sh. Raj

Kishan Gaur has proved that accused Sukh Ram had spent an

amount of Rs1,00,000/- on the of marriage of his daughter Kavita

in the year 1992 as shown at serial No.23 of the details of


Accused Sukh Ram in his supplementary statement recorded U/s

313 Cr PC has stated that jewelery was managed from the old

ornaments of his wife. His wife has also incurred some expenses

from her income. Some gifts were also given by relatives. . (Q5 of

supplementary statement). It is clear that accused has not

specifically denied the fact of expenditure on account of dowry

articles of Rs. 1,00,000/- given to her daughter in her marriage.

He has claimed that jewelery was manage from the old

ornaments of his wife and some expenditure was made from the

income of his wife and some gifts were given by the relatives. It

is clear from the above discussion that income of wife of accused

62/150

63

has also been taken in consideration and all benefits because of

her income has already been granted to accused. Accused has not

disclosed as to how much amount was spent by him and how

much amount was spent by his wife and how much amount was

spent from the cash/gifts received in the marriage. Accused even

has not produced his wife in the witness box as defence witness to

state that jewelery was managed from her old ornaments and to

explain as to how much amount was spent by her from her

personal income Word old is a vague term. It can be one month

old or one year old or ten years old and so on. Accused has not

stated any specific time when, how and from whom the jewelery

was acquired. Jewelery has also not been claimed as the stridhan

of the wife of accused. Accused even has not claimed that

jewelery was acquired prior to the check period. It is also clear

that benefit of pre check period earnings/wealth etc. has already

been given to accused. Accused has not produced any statement

of account in this regard. In these circumstances this court is of

opinion that the prosecution has proved that accused had spent an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the marriage of her daughter on

account of dowry articles in the year 1992.

159 Prosecution from the statement of PW 25 Sh. Munshi

Ram s/o Durga Ram has proved that accused Sukh Ram had spent

an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the marriage of his son Anoop

Sharma in the year 1994 as shown at serial No.24 of the details of

63/150

64


Accused Sukh Ram in his supplementary statement recorded U/s

313 Cr PC has stated that the reception was held at his residence

in which some expenses were incurred by his wife from her

income and some cash in the form of sagan was also received

from invitees which was also utilised. (Q3 of supplementary

statement). It is clear that accused has not specifically denied the

fact of expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the reception of his son

Anoop. He has claimed that some expenditure was made from

the cash received in the reception and some expenditure was made

by his wife. It is clear from the above discussion that income of

wife of accused has also been taken in consideration and all

benefits because of her income has already been granted to

accused. Accused has not disclosed as to how much amount was

spend by him and how much amount was spend by his wife and

how much amount was spend from the cash received in the

reception. Accused has not even disclosed as to how much amount

in cash was received as sagan in reception. Accused even has not

produced his wife in the witness box as defence witness to explain

as to how much amount was spend by her. Accused has not

produced any statement of account in this regard. In these

circumstances this court is of opinion that the prosecution has

proved that accused had spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the

reception of his son in the year 1994.

64/150

65

160 Prosecution vide Ex PW11/A and Ex P11/B (D-59)

and from the statement of PW 11 Sh. Anand Gupta has proved

that accused had purchased IFB Washing Machine in sum of

Rs.17,995/- in his name from M/s Appliances India between

4.9.93 to 9.9.93 as shown at serial No.25 of the details of


Accused Sukh Ram has denied it in his statement recorded U/s

313 Cr PC (Q38). Accused Sukh Ram has deposed that his son

Anil Sharma might have purchased it. PW11 Sh. Anand Gupta

has deposed after seeing voucher Ex PW11/A and Ex PW11/B

that sale was made to Mr. Sukh Ram, 12 Safdarjung Lane, New

Delhi, in a total consideration of Rs. 17,995/-. In these

circumstances this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved

that accused Sukh Ram had spent this amount for purchasing a

washing machine.(Q38)

161 Prosecution vide Ex P-17 (admitted during admission

and denial) (D-42) has proved that accused had paid Rs. 1200/-

on account of rent of locker No.6 Syndicate bank, R K Puram as

shown at serial No.26 of the details of expenditure made during

the check period in the charge sheet.

162 According to prosecution accused had spent

Rs.3,66,000/- on household expenses as shown at serial No.27 of

the details of expenditure made during the check period in the

65/150

66

charge sheet. Prosecution has taken check period w.e.f. 20.6.91 to

16.8.96. which comes to more than 61 months. Thus, the

household expenses assessed by the prosecution comes to

Rs.6,000/- per month. After considering the status of accused who

was a Member of Parliament and remained Minister of State in the

Central Govt. of India, this amount appears to be quite reasonable.

Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

AIR 1964 SC 464 has held that upto 1/3rd of salaried income of a

person can be assessed as living expenses. Even this fact has not

been disputed during the course of arguments by both the Ld.

Defence Counsels on behalf of accused. Thus, this court is of

opinion that prosecution has proved that accused had spent

Rs.3,66,000/- as living expenses during the check period.

163 Though, Prosecution has claimed that accused

Sukh Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Devi had spent a total

amount of Rs.46,87,960/- during the check period but

prosecution could prove their expenditure of Rs.46,81,095/-

(4687960-6865)

DETAILS OF MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETSHELD BY ACCUSED SUKH RM AND HIS WIFE RAMDEVI AT THE END OF CHECK PERIOD.

164 Prosecution vide Ex PW 22/B (Jamabandi) and from

the statement of PW22 Munshi Ram has proved that Smt. Ram

66/150

67

Devi wife of accused Sukh Ram had purchased Orchard in Saurath

from one Phulla Devi of 8 bighas and 17 biswas in consideration

of Rs.65,000/- as shown at serial No.1 of the details of immovable

and movable assets at the end of check period as mentioned in

the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr

PC has stated that this question (Q50) is vague and stated that as

far as he remember this purchase had taken place in the last

quarter of 1990 or 1991, thus, it is clear that accused had not

denied it. PW 22 Munshi Ram s/o Moti Ram in his examination

in chief has specifically deposed that this land was purchased after

31.3.91 and before 17.12.96. Accused in his statement U/s 313

Cr PC has stated that this land was purchased either in the last

quarter of 1990 or 1991, thus coupled with the statement of PW22

it is proved that this land was purchased during the check period.

165 Prosecution vide Ex PW 1/B and Ex PW1/B1 (D-33)

and from the statement of PW1 P Kalisham has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had spent Rs. 41,29,730/- on the construction

of Farm House in Saurath Orchard during the check period as

shown at serial No.2 of the details of immovable and movable

assets at the end of check period as mentioned in the charge

sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has

stated that this building does not belong to him but to his wife. He

was not aware of any inspection carried out by PW1. Reports Ex

67/150

68

PW1/B and Ex PW1/B1 given by PW1 are wrong. (Q7).

166 Prosecution vide Ex PW 1/C and Ex PW1/C1 (D-33)

and from the statement of PW1 P Kalisham has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had spent an amount of Rs.5,69,000/- on

renovation of building at Shamketar, Mandi, HP during the check

period as shown at serial No.3 of the details of immovable and

movable assets at the end of check period as mentioned in the

charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC

has stated that cost of renovation of building as calculated by

PW1 is wrong. PW1 P Kalisham has not carried out inspection in

his presence. Exact cost of renovation is known to Sh. Dalip

Kumar, Manager of Hotel Mayfair who has been cited as witness

by the prosecution but with the malafide intention prosecution has

not examined him. (Q8)

167 Prosecution has produced its valuer Sh. P Kalisham

as PW1 who was a Civil Engineer (BE) and was working as

Executive Engineer in Post & Telegraph Department who has

stated that in the second week of December, 1996 he had

inspected building at Apple Orchard at Mandi. This building

evaluated as type V specification as per CPWD, though it is of

higher specification as per his knowledge. There was one servant

quarter in this complex which evaluated as Type IV. He had

evaluated the cost of this building as Rs. 41,29,730/-. He has

68/150

69

proved his Report Ex PW1/B and annexures attached to this

report Ex PW1/B-1.

168 PW1 has stated that in the second week of

December, 1996 he had inspected building at Shamkhetra, HP

which was an old building. He had evaluated the cost of renovated

portion of this building only. He had seen the site plan which was

approved in the name of Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sh. Sukh Ram. He

has proved his Report Ex PW1/C and annexures attached to this

report Ex PW1/C-1. This witness has evaluated the cost of

renovation as Rs.5,69,000/-.

169 Accused has also produced his valuer Sh. P C Gupta

as DW6 in his defence evidence who is a retired Chief Engineer

from PWD, Himachal Pradesh. He has stated that he is approved

valuer of Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department,

Panchkula. He has deposed that from 17th July to 19th July, 2004

he had evaluated Orchard house at Surath. He has specifically

stated that this property belongs to Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sh. Sukh

Ram. This house was constructed on hilly terrain. He has stated

that he has given specifications of the construction in his report Ex

PW6/D. He has worked out cost of this building as Rs.10,17,432/-

against the estimated cost given by the XEN, CBI. In his

examination in chief he has stated that he does not dispute the

measurement taken by XEN, CBI in respect of this building. He

69/150

70

has further stated that local stone and wood was used . A tree

would cost Rs. 5 or 10 according to the class of tree. There could

be 50/60 slippers in one tree. He has stated that CBI has applied

rates of DSR whereas the construction was raised in a village in

Distt. Mandi. Himachal Pradesh PWD has its own scheduled rates.

He has applied the scheduled rates of Himachal Pradesh, PWD for

calculating the cost of construction. He has also stated that he

had gone through the Valuation Report of the valuer of CBI and

compared the cost given by him and estimated by CBI.

170 DW-6 has deposed that on 20.7.04 he had inspected

residential property at Mandi in the name of Smt. Ram Devi w/o

Sh. Sukh Ram in Mohalla Shamketra Mandi which was renovated

in the year 1995-96 with few additions and alterations. He has

proved his Valuation report Ex DW6/A. He has worked out cost

of renovation as Rs. 2,92,867/-. In his examination in chief he has

stated that he does not dispute the measurement taken by XEN,

CBI, however, he has stated that XEN of CBI has assessed the

rate of marble as Rs.1550/- psqm but he has worked out the same

as Rs. 650/- psqm. Similarly, he has stated that rate of glazed tile

has been assessed as Rs.509 psqm by the XEN of CBI whereas he

has assessed the same at the rate of Rs. 350/- psqm. He has also

stated that rate of cupboard has been assessed as Rs.4500/- psqm

by the XEN of CBI whereas he has taken the rate as Rs.1250/-

psqm. He has also stated that he had gone through the Valuation

70/150

71

Report of the valuer of CBI and compared the cost given by him

and estimated by CBI. In his examination in chief he has not

disputed the measurement taken by the Executive Engineer of CBI

in respect of this building.

171 It is argued by Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi for

accused that valuer of CBI has applied Delhi Schedule Rates

while the building was constructed in a village of Himachal

Pradesh, hence his calculations can never be correct. It is argued

that according to DW-6 local stones and wood were used in the

construction of building which has reduced the cost of

construction. It is also argued that valuer of CBI is not an

approved valuer, hence his report may not be relied upon. He has

adopted plinth area method for calculating the value which is a

wrong method.

172 PW1 has been cross examined at length on behalf of

accused. Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard

is as under:

“Q: What do you mean by D.SR which appears in your

report?

Ans: Delhi Schedule of Rates, which are prescribed by C P W D.

Q Is it correct that each State has its own Schedule of rates?

Which are more or less equivalent to CPWD?

Ans: It is correct, each state has its own schedule of rates, but

71/150

72

they are more or less equivalent to CPWD rates.”

173 From the above quoted cross examination it is clear

that Scheduled Rates are almost equal everywhere. It also appeals

to the common sense for example, rate of a bag of cement, iron or

other construction material like glazed tiles etc. will be the same in

Delhi or in Himachal Pradesh, rather it can be more in Himachal

Pradesh because of additional transport charges. Rates may be

less in Delhi as wholesale market is situated in Delhi, however,

certainly unskilled labour is cheaper in villages but the skilled

labour cost more in villages because such people are not available

in villages and have to go there from big cities/towns. PW1 in his

cross examination has specifically stated that local stones and

local wood was not used in the construction. Relevant portion of

his cross examination in this regard is as under:

“It is incorrect that the local stones were used in the

construction as the stones of the size used in the construction

could not be available locally”

“----It is incorrect that wooden work of the building was

done with local wood. For windows and doors teak wood was

used. For wooden lining and false sealing country wood plank

were used. .......”

174 DW-6 has not given any reason regarding his claim

of use of local stone and wood in the construction while PW1, as

72/150

73

discussed above, has given reason to show that local stone and

wood was not used in the construction.

175 It is correct that PW-1 is not an approved valuer

however, he is an independent person being a Govt. employee

having sufficient experience. While DW-6 is a private valuer.

There is natural tendency of private expert to support the view of

person who had called him. Hon'ble High Court of Himachal

Pradesh in Raj Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1005 Cr.L J

page 810 in this regard has held as follows:

“ Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 45 -Expert opinion –

Conflicting views of two experts – Reliability – Murder case –

Letters written by accused prior to commission of offence

showing the motive – Government examiner clearly pointing out

that letters were in hand-writing of accused – However expert

produced by accused stating that said letters were not written by

accused – There is natural tendency of expert to support view

of person who had called him – Evidence of government

examiner more reliable.”

176 Hon'ble High Court of Patna in Abhyanand Mishra

Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 Patna 323 with regard to evidence of

an expert engaged by a party observed as follows:

“The opinion of an expert engaged by a party suffers from

the defect that it is given by a remunerated witness. He knows

73/150

74

before hand why he has been called and what the party calling him

wishes to be proved. It is not improbable that he has an

unconscious bias in favour of the party. These circumstances to

great extent detract from the weight to be attached to such

witness's opinion.”

In para No.7 of this authority it is further observed as

follows:

“ The opinion of Mr. Beunet suffers from the defect that it

was given by a remunerated witness. He knows beforehand why

he had been called and what the party calling him wishes to be

proved. The witness stated that 10 days before he came to court he

was approached by the appellant about this case. The appellant

told him that he repudiated the two signatures on X and Y. The

witness was also given a copy of the evidence of the Government

Handwriting expert before he was examined in court. He further

admitted that he had been paid his fees in two instalments before

he came to depose. It is not improbable that he had an

unconscious bias in favour of the appellant. These circumstances

to a great extent detract from the weight to be attached in the

witness's opinion.”

177 It is correct that PW1 has used Plinth Area Method

for calculating the cost of the building. I have gone through his

report. His report is based on the measurement of Plinth Area.

Thereafter, he has calculated the value. DW-6 has not disputed the

74/150

75

measurements taken by PW1, however he has taken rates of all the

items on lower side with a view to reduce the cost of construction

to favour the accused. DW-6 has considered mild steel for his

estimation whereas Tor steel is used in the Building. The quantity

of steel taken per cubic metre has also been taken by DW-6 on

much lower side than the actual.

178 DW-6 has admitted in his cross examination that he

had taken cash memo etc. from the party but he has not filed the

same alongwith his report hence adverse inference can be drawn

against him that cash memos/bills were not corroborating his

report. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he had

not collected documentary evidence with regard to market price of

the items. In this regard, relevant portion of his cross

examination is as under:

“ I had taken the documents i.e. cash memo etc. from the

party with regard to expenditure made by the accused for

constructing the property. It is correct that I had not attached

those documents alongwith my report and I had not file the

same in the court. It is wrong to suggest that I had

intentionally not annexed those documents with my report as

they were not supporting my report. It is wrong to suggest

that I was handed over by the party the site plans of the

buildings, valuation report and the statements of the valuer

75/150

76

recorded in court. Vol. I have been provided with valuation

report of CBI Engineer only.”

179 DW-6 with regard to building constructed at Saurath

and Mandi, in his report, has stated that the construction was made

under self supervision. Relevant portion of his cross examination

in this regard is as under:

“I have mentioned in my report that the property at

Saurath and Mandi were constructed under self supervision as

was disclosed by the accused.”

180 Cost of construction under self supervision is less,

however, it is well proved that construction was not carried out at

Saurath and Mandi under self supervision which is clear from the

statement of PW47.

181 PW47 Sh. L R Sharma has stated that he was asked

by Mr. Sukh Ram to supervise the construction work at Mandi

house at D42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. He has stated that Mr.

Sukh Ram appointed Mr. N N Goel to supervise the work as an

Architect. All the bills were received by him and the same were

also checked by N N Goel Associates and thereafter cross

checked by his staff. He has also deposed that he had received

Rs.39,90,000/- from Smt. Ram Devi and Sh. Sukh Ram between

76/150

77

the period April, 1993 to 1995. He had spent this money for

renovation of Houses at Mandi and Hotel Mayfair and for

Kaushambi House. Relevant portion of his examination in chief

in this regard is as under:

“----All the bills regarding the said purposes were received

by me and the same were got checked by N N Goel Associates

and subsequent cross checked by my staff, particularly Shri “C

Gilotra, Ex-XEN of CPWD.”

182 No statement of accused has been produced. This

witness has stated that Rs.39,90,000/- received by him from Smt.

Ram Devi and Sh. Sukh Ram spent by him on renovation of

houses at Mandi and Hotel Mayfair and for Kaushambi House

which includes purchase of TV sets and kitchen ware etc. for

Hotel Mayfair, thus, according to this witness he had spent the

amount received from Smt. Ram Devi and Sukh Ram on

construction work and for purchasing kitchenware and TV Sets for

Hotel Mayfair. According to the Valuation Report of DW6 total

cost of construction of all the three buildings comes to

Rs.33,60,039/- while according to the admission of PW 47 he had

received Rs.39,90,000/- from Smt. Ram Devi and Sukh Ram, thus

the defence evidence itself contradicts report given by this

witness.

183 Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has

77/150

78

stated that the exact cost was known to Dalip Kumar, Manger of

Hotel Mayfair. (Q no.8). Hotel Mayfair belongs to the son of Mr.

Sukh Ram. Even Mr. Sukh Ram has not produced this witness in

his defence evidence to prove the exact cost of construction of

renovation. No documents, bills/receipts have been produced on

the file.

184 Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused is an income tax payee,

in her income tax return for the financial year 1993-94, assessment

year 1994-95 Ex PW34/I-3 (D-34-VIII) file of which is Ex PW-

34/I, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.94 has disclosed that an

amount of Rs.1,89,937/- invested on the construction of Farm

House which is under construction. Similarly, Smt. Ram Devi in

her income tax return for the financial year 1994-95, assessment

year 1995-96 Ex PW34/J -3(D-34-IX) file of which is Ex PW-

34/J, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.95 has disclosed that an


House which is under construction. Similarly, Smt. Ram Devi in

her income tax return for the financial year 1995-96, assessment

year 1996-97 Ex PW34/K -3(D-34-X) file of which is Ex PW-

34/K, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.96 has disclosed that an


House which is under construction. DW 6 has assessed the value

of this building as Rs. 10,17,432/-, thus, again contradicted by the

documents of accused himself.

78/150

79

185 In view of above discussion this court is of opinion

that Valuation of construction given by by DW6 is not reliable

and the valuation of construction given by PW1 in his report is

reliable, therefore, this court is of opinion that prosecution has

proved that accused had spent an amount of Rs.41,29,730/- on the

construction of building in Apple Orchard. Similarly, Valuation

of renovation given by by DW6 is not reliable and the valuation

of renovation given by PW1 in his report is reliable, therefore,

this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved that accused

had spent an amount of Rs. 5,69,000/-- on the renovation of this

building.

186 Prosecution has proved Ex PW 1/A and Ex PW1/A-1

(D-32) and produced PW1 P Kalisham to prove that accused

Sukh Ram had spent an amount of Rs.29,45,416/- on the

construction of building on plot No.D-42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad

during the check period as shown at serial No.4 of the details of

immovable and movable assets held by accused at the end of

check period as mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that PW1 has

adopted a wrong method of calculation. Method of plinth area

basis can be adopted for the building yet to be constructed.

Building in question had already been constructed. Value of

building could have been determined by detailed calculation on

79/150

80

the basis of number of door, number of windows, stone used etc.

Since the method adopted by PW1 is wrong, hence he has given a

wrong valuation of the building. (Q5)

187 PW-1has stated that on 16.10.96 he visited house No.

D42 Kaushambi alongwith Dy. SP Rishi Prakash where from the

side of accused Sukh Ram one Engineer of M/s Goel & Associates

was also present who was looking after the construction of that

building. PW1 has evaluated this building as type V as per

schedule of CPWD though the building was higher specification

than that of type V as stated by him. He has proved his

Evaluation Report Ex PW1/A and annexures to this report Ex

PW1/A-1. This witness has evaluated the value of this building as

Rs. 29,45,416/-

188 DW-6 has deposed that he had visited D-42

Kaushambi, Ghaziabad for the purpose of valuation of property.

He has proved his Valuation report Ex DW6/A. He has worked

out cost of construction of this building as Rs. 20,49,740/-. He has

also stated that he had gone through the Valuation Report of the

valuer of CBI and compared the cost given by him and estimated

by CBI. He has stated that CBI has adopted Plinth Area Method

to arrive the cost of construction of the building which is not fair

in this case. Plinth Area Method should not be used to work out

the cost of construction of constructed building. In his

80/150

81

examination in chief he has not disputed the measurement taken

by the Executive Engineer of CBI in respect of this building. In

his cross examination he has stated that he has no idea whether the

building was got constructed under the supervision of Architect.

In his cross examination question has been put to him whether he

dispute the measurement in respect of the property at Kaushambi.

Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard is as

under:

“Q Do you dispute the measurement in respect of property

at Kaushambi?

Ans: The demenour of the witness is noted who is not

answering the question despite the fact that the question has

been repeated several times. The question is again repeated.

Ans: The measurement consists of length, width and height. I am

not disputing the length and width. The height of the building

has not been mentioned by the CBI Valuer in his report.

It is correct that in my examination in chief on page

three I have stated that the measurements taken by the

Executive Engineer CBI in respect of D42 Kaushambi are not

being disputed by me.

I had inspected property D 42 Kaushambi on 14th and

15th of May, 2007. A request was made to me to inspect the

property sometime in July, 2004 but I could not find the time to

81/150

82

inspect the property earlier. The Valuation Report in respect of D

42 Kaushambi was prepared by me on 15.7.07”.

189 This witness has admitted in his cross examination

that he had taken cash memo etc. from the party but he has not

filed the same alongwith his report hence adverse inference can be

drawn against him that cash memos/bills were not corroborating

his report. He has also admitted in his cross examination that this

assignment was given to him in the year 2004, however, he has

inspected the building in 2007. He has also admitted in his cross

examination that he had not collected documentary evidence with

regard to market price of the items. He has also admitted that he

had not taken the assistance of Architect/Engineer who had

supervised the construction. In this regard, relevant portion of his

cross examination is as under:

“I had not collected any documentary proof/evidence with

regard to market rate of items. It is correct that assignment with

regard to assessing the value of three properties pertaining to my

report was assigned to me in the year 2004. I had assessed the

value of two properties in the year 2004 and had assessed the

value of third property in the year 2007. Delay is because I could

not find time to assess the value of third property. First I prepared

the rough notes for my report thereafter final report was prepared.

It is correct that I have not filed the rough notes in the court

alongwith my report. I had not taken assistance of any

82/150

83

Engineer/Architect etc. who had supervised the construction of

properties. It is wrong to suggest that I had intentionally omitted

to take the services of the Engineer/Architect in arriving at the

valuation of the above said properties. I had taken the

documents i.e. cash memo etc. from the party with regard to

expenditure made by the accused for constructing the

property. It is correct that I had not attached those

documents alongwith my report and I had not file the same in

the court. It is wrong to suggest that I had intentionally not

annexed those documents with my report as they were not

supporting my report. It is wrong to suggest that I was

handed over by the party the site plans of the buildings,

valuation report and the statements of the valuer recorded in

court. Vol. I have been provided with valuation report of CBI

Engineer only.”

190 PW47 Sh. L R Sharma has stated that he was asked

by Mr. Sukh Ram to supervise the construction work at Mandi

house at D42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. He has stated that Mr.

Sukh Ram appointed Mr. N N Goel to supervise the work as an

Architect. All the bills were received by him and the same were

also checked by N N Goel Associates and thereafter cross checked

by his staff. He has also deposed that he had received

Rs.39,90,000/- from Smt. Ram Devi and Sh. Sukh Ram between

83/150

84

the period April, 1993 to 1995. He had spent this money for

renovation of Mandi House and Hotel Mayfair and for Kaushambi

House. Relevant portion of his examination in chief in this regard

is as under:

“----All the bills regarding the said purposes were received

by me and the same were got checked by N N Goel Associates

and subsequent cross checked by my staff, particularly Shri “C

Gilotra, Ex-XEN of CPWD.”

191 In his cross examination this witness has stated that

he cannot admit or deny if he had spent Rs.23 lac in construction

of house at Kaushambi because he was not maintaining any

separate account. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr

PC has stated that an amount about Rs. 23 lac was spent for the

construction of Kaushambi House. (Q no.85), DW-6 in his report

has worked out the cost of construction of building as

Rs.20,49,740/-, thus, it is clear that accused himself contradicts the

cost of construction given by DW-6. Besides, PW26 Sh. Vasudev

has stated that he had worked as plumber at the residence of Sh.

Sukh Ram at D42, Kaushambi Ghaziabad in the year 1993 for

which he had been paid Rs. 10,000/- as labour charges, material

was provided by the owner. PW28 Sh. Inder Bhan Tomar has

stated that in the year 1994 he had done electricity work in

premises D 42, Kaushambi Ghaziabad. He was paid Rs. 15,000/-

for labour charges, total contract was given for Rs.25,000/- but he

84/150

85

did not complete the work hence he was paid Rs. 15,000/-. PW

52 Sh. Niranjan Lal Goel has stated that construction work of D-

42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad was completed under his supervision.

He has stated that M/s B N Construction was the contractor for

carrying out construction work. Mr. Banwari Lal was the

contractor for fixing marble floors and Mr. Paras Ram had done

POP on walls and floors. He has stated that he had supervised the

work from 1991 to 1994 and charged Rs. 30,000/- as his

professional fees. He has also deposed that he has yet to receive

another sum of Rs. 30,000/- from Sh. Sukh Ram which has not yet

been paid to him. In his cross examination this witness has stated

that initial estimate for complete construction was about Rs. 10

lac, on better specifications provided by the accused estimate was

increased by another 2.5 lac, so according to this witness total cost

of construction of this building was about Rs.12,50,000/-.

192 Accused Sukh Ram is an income tax payee, in his

income tax return for the financial year 1994-95, assessment year

1995-96 Ex PW34/E (D-34-IV) file of which is Ex PW-34/E, in

the balance sheet upto 31.3.95 has disclosed that an amount of

Rs.11,12,4287/- invested on the construction of House No. D-42

Kaushambi, Ghaziabad which is under construction. Similarly,

Accused Sukh Ram in his income tax return for the financial year

1995-96, assessment year 1996-97 Ex PW34/F (D-34-X) file of

which is Ex PW-34/F, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.96 has

85/150

86

disclosed that an amount of Rs.3,67,731/- was more invested on

the construction of House No. D-42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad which

is under construction. Thus, the total amount spent on the

construction of this building comes to Rs. 14,80,159/-. DW 6

has assessed the value of this building as Rs. 20,49,740/-, thus,

again contradicted by the documents of accused himself.


that Valuation Report given by DW6 with regard to this building

is not reliable and the valuation of this building given by PW1 in

his report is reliable, therefore, this court is of opinion that

prosecution has proved that accused had spent an amount of Rs.

29,45,416/- on the construction of this building.

194 Prosecution vide Ex PW 17/A (D-26) and from the

statement of PW17 Hari Simrath Singh Dua has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had paid an amount of Rs. 7,35,000/- upto

18.8.96, in instalments, for the flat booked by him in Nav Sansad

Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society as shown at serial

No.5 of immovable and movable assets held by accused at the end

of check period as mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has admitted it to be correct

being matter of record. (Q44).

195 Prosecution vide Ex PW 5/C (D-46) and from the

86/150

87

statement of PW5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused Sukh

Ram had deposited an amount of Rs. 49,751/- in OBC S J

Enclave w.e.f. 9.1.96 to 12.8.96 as shown at serial No.6 of details

of immovable and movable assets held by accused at the end of


statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has not denied it by stating

that it is a matter of record. (Q20).

196 Prosecution vide Ex PW 5/I (D-46) and from the

statement of PW5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused Sukh

Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in FDR in OBC

Safdarjung Enclave as shown at serial No.7 of details of





197 Prosecution vide Ex PW 7/A and Ex PW7/B (D-41)

and from the statement of PW7 Sh. J N Behal has proved that

accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs 42,023/- in

Saving Bank Account, SBI, Parliament House, New Delhi. w.e.f.

August, 1991 till 6.8.91as shown at serial No7 (note: serial no.7

has been repeated twice in the charge sheet, hence, in order to

avoid confusion same serial no. is being given here) of details of


87/150

88




198 Prosecution vide Ex P-14 (D-52) (admitted) has

proved that accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of

Rs2,94,953/- in Saving Bank account No. 1873 Canara Bank,

Mandi during the check period as shown at serial No.8 of details


check period as mentioned in the charge sheet.


statement of PW12 Sh. Y P Sharma has proved that accused Sukh

Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.7,620/- in saving bank

account no. 25495 Canara Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi

from July, 1993 to 16.8.96 which is in the joint name of Sukh Ram

and Smt. Ram Devi as shown at serial No.9 of details of






statement of PW6 Sh. S C Khurana has proved that there was a

credit balance of Rs.2,58,736/- in saving bank account no. 11495

88/150

89

Syndicate Bank, New Delhi as on 1.8.98 in the name Smt. Ram

Devi W/O Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.10 of the details of





201 Prosecution vide Ex P-15 (D-52) (admitted) has


Rs11,35,797/- in Saving Bank account No. 1402 Canara Bank,

Mandi during the check period as shown at serial No.11 of details



202 Prosecution vide Ex P-9 (D-49 (admitted) has proved

that accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.50,929/-

in Saving Bank account No. 4053 in H P Cooperative Bank

Shimla during the check period as shown at serial No.12 of details



203 Prosecution vide Ex P-11 (D-50 (admitted) has


Rs73,753/- in Saving Bank account No. 27,008/- P NB Shimla

during the check period as shown at serial No.13 of details of

89/150

90



204 Prosecution vide Ex P-10 to P-13 (D-50 (admitted) has

proved that accused Sukh Ram was having three FDRs total

value Rs. 4,95,933/- of PNB as shown at serial No.14 of



205 According to prosecution accused was having one FDR of

Rs. 20,000/- in SBI , Main Branch, New Delhi as shown at serial

No.15 of details of immovable and movable assets at the end of

check period as mentioned in the charge sheet, however

prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove it, even my

Ld. Predecessor has not put any question in this regard to accused

in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC. In these circumstances

this court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove that

accused was having this FDR at the end of check period.

206 Prosecution has proved Ex PW48/A (D 24 (I) and

produced PW48 Sh. P N Khanna and PW46 Sh. Amitabh Shukla

to prove that cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- was recovered from Locker

No.6 in the name of Ram Devi w/o Accused Sukh Ram,

Syndicate bank, RK Puram New Delhi as shown at serial No.16

of immovable and movable assets at the end of check period as

90/150

91

mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that he has no knowledge (Q86).

Accused has produced certified copy of the order of Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Bench B) of April, 2003 titled

Mrs. Aruna Vashisht Vs. ACIT, Co. Circle 2 , ITA No.

260/DEL/1997. It is argued that Ld, Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal has held that this amount of Rs.4 lac belongs to Mrs.

Aruna Vashisht, hence, it cannot be included in his assets. In para

No.12 of this order it is held as follows;

“No doubt that the locker was in the name of Smt. Ram

Devi, the mother of the assessee but from the day one, the stand

has been taken by the assessee as well as the mother of the

assessee that the locker No. N-6 obtained from Syndicate Bank

belongs to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that this

contention of the assessee and the mother of the assessee was an

after thought. Therefore, in view of these facts and

circumstances and in view of the judicial pronouncements

indicated above, we hold that the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs found

in locker opened in the name of the mother of the assessee was

belonging to the assessee. Likewise, the amount of Rs.23,000/-

deposited in the bank account was also belonging to the assessee.

The amount of gift of Rs. 1,12,000/- was also belonging to the

assessee as the same was out of the amount of Rs.8,03,545/-

received by the assessee over a period of 11 years as stated above.

The remaining amount of Rs. 2,68,542/- as held by the AO that no

91/150

92

amount was available with the assessee, is also not correct because

the same was available out of the amount of Rs.8,03,545/-.

Accordingly, the addition made by the AO on protective basis and

on substantive basis totaling to Rs.8,03,545/- is hereby deleted.”

207 In view of the above finding given by Ld. Income

Tax Appellate tribunal that the amount of Rs.4 lakhs found in the

locker in the name of Smt. Ram Devi mother of appellant Aruna

Vashisht belongs to Smt. Aruna Vashisht, this amount cannot be

included in the assets of accused.

208 Prosecution vide Ex PW 48/B (D-24(ii) ) and from

the statement of PW48 Sh. P N Khanna and PW46 Sh. Amitabh

Shukla has proved that jewelery valuing Rs. 4,50,000/- was

recovered from Locker No.6 in the name of Ram Devi w/o

Accused Sukh Ram, Syndicate Bank, RK Puram New Delhi ( No

serial number has been mentioned against this entry in the list of

immovable and movable assets at the end of check period as

mentioned in the charge sheet in order to avoid confusion I am

also not giving any separate No. to this entry ) Accused in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that he has no

knowledge and further stated that valuation report has not been

correctly prepared. Thus it is clear that accused has not denied it

specifically (Q86). Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi argued

that this jewelery has been valued at Rs.4,50,000/- on the basis of

92/150

93

its current value. Prosecution has neither established when the

jewelery was purchased nor cared for determining the age of

jewelery, thus, it cannot be held that it was acquired during the

check period. According to prosecution this jewelery was found

in the locker of Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram and it was

acquired by accused during the check period. According to

accused it is an old jewelery, accused has not produced any

evidence in this regard. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Avadh Kishore, AIR 204, S C page 518 has

held as follows:

“ Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13 (1) (e) –

Acquisition of disproportionate Assets by public servant –

Expression 'known source of income' in S. 13 (1) (e) – Does not

mean sources known to accused – Burden is cast on accused not

only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth

– But also to satisfy Court that explanation is worthy of

acceptance – Term 'income' – Meaning of.”

209 It must be in the special knowledge of accused or his

wife when this jewelery was acquired. Neither accused nor his

wife appeared in the witness box to depose that it was her old

jewelery or it was her stridhan. Even no suggestion has been

given to PW 46 or 48 that it was old jewelery purchased prior to

the check period. In these circumstances this court is of opinion

that prosecution has proved that this jewelery belongs to Smt.

93/150

94

Ram Devi.

210 Prosecution vide Ex PW 9/C (D-14) and from the

statement of PW9 Sh. T Bhattacharya, PW44 Parveen Kumar

PW46 Amitabh Shukla and PW 60 B S Jakhar have proved that

Rs.2,45,28,844/- were recovered in cash from house No.12

Safdarjung Lane New Delhi as shown at serial No.17 of


mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that only cash available in small steel

almirah in my bed room belong to my wife . An amount about

Rs.3,44,950/- recovered from the room of my daughter belong to

her. Rest of the amount did not belong to him . Alleged recovery

was made from the Guest Room and attached store room which

was in the possession of Congress Party and wherein its election

office was being run, possession of which was given to Sh Shiv

Kumar Mishra at the instance of Sh Sita Ram Kesari then AICC

Cashier and Sh B P Maurya the then General Secretary of

Congress party (Q31).

211 Prosecution vide Ex PW 45/A and PW3/B (D-19) and

from the statement of PW45 K K Goyal and PW 3 Sunil Dutt have

proved that Rs.1,13,51,520/- were recovered in cash from house of

Sukh Ram at Mandi as shown at serial No.18 of immovable and


94/150

95


has stated that only cash available in his house at Mandi was about

Rs.30,000/- which was recovered from the room of his son Anil

Sharma . Rest of the money alleged to have been recovered does

not belong to him. It was the election fund of the Congress party

send by Sh Sita Ram Kesari the then Cashier of AICC to election

office being run by Sh Tirath Ram Sharma in two rooms at first

floor. (Q60).

212 Recovery of the above said two amounts from house

No. 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi and from the house of Sukh

Ram at Mandi has not been disputed on behalf of accused,

however, it is claimed that Sh. B P Maurya, the then General

Secretary of Congress and Sh. Sita Ram Kesari, the then Treasurer

of AICC had secured the consent of accused for setting up camp

election office at 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi and in the house

of accused at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh for the assembly

election to be held in UP and J & K in September/October, 1996.

Camp Election Office was established in Guest Room and side

room/pooja room attached with the guest room having attached

latrine and bath room at 12 Safdarjung Lane and two rooms on the

first floor in the house at Mandi, all the above said amount was

recovered from the camp election office of Congress, thus the

amount belonged to the Congress Party. Ld. Senior Counsel, in

this regard, has referred the statements of PW 20, PW-33, PW-42,

95/150

96

PW-45 and PW-47 and argued that from the cross examination of

these prosecution witnesses it is proved that Congress Party was

maintaining Camp Election Office in both the premises.

213 I have carefully gone through the statements of these

witnesses. PW20 in his cross examination has stated that he knew

Tirath Ram Sharma. He does not know when the house of Sukh

Ram was raided. He had gone to the house of Sukh Ram in the

end of July or first week of August, 1996. He had met Tirath Ram

Sharma in the house of Sukh Ram at Mandi. This witness has

specifically deposed as follows;

“I do not know if he was functioning Election Office from

the said house.”

214 This witness has not deposed as to why he had gone

to the house of Sukh Ram at Mandi in the end of July or first week

of August, 1996. This witness was the then Patwari. He has been

produced by the prosecution to prove the revenue record. He has

not disclosed above said facts in his statement recorded U/s 161

Cr PC.

215 PW33 Sh. Partap Chand Sharma, SDO, Electricity,

Himachal Pradesh has been produced by the prosecution to prove

the electricity charges paid by Sh. Sukh Ram. In his cross

examination, he has stated that in July, 1996 Sh. Anil Sharma S/o

96/150

97

Sh. Sukh Ram Sharma was a Minister in Himachal Pradesh. He

made a complaint about excessive billing and asked him to check

the wiring, hence he alongwith wireman Bhagat Ram went to

check the wiring. In his cross examination he has deposed as

follows:

“The next room was the drawing room which was open and

renovation was going on there. I checked the wiring of the

drawing room. The next room was open and 2/3 persons were

sitting there. One of them was Tirath Ram Sharma who was

known to me. I checked the writing of that room. I had a talk

with Tirath Ram Sharma. He told me that he had been sent there

by Shri Sita Ram Kesari for election work. There was another

room after that which I did not see.”

216 This witness was SDO of electricity department. If

there was excess billing job of electricity department was to check

the meter so as to find out the fault for excess billing but not to

check the wiring of the house of consumer, whosoever he may be.

This witness has deposed that he had gone to the house of accused

in July, 1996 and claimed that Tirath Ram Sharma met him there

who told him all the above quoted facts, however, Tirath Ram

Sharma has been produced in the witness box by accused as DW

-13. In his examination in chief he has specifically deposed that

he had taken over the possession of two rooms either on Second

August or third August, 1996. Relevant portion of his

97/150

98

examination in chief is as under:

“ Possession was handed over to me either on seecond

August, or third August, 1996”.

217 Thus, the claim of PW 33 that he had met Tirath Ram

Sharma in July, 1996 who told him that he had been sent by Sita

Ram Kesari for election work, proves to be false. This witness has

not stated a word in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr PC, in this

regard.

218 Prosecution has produced PW42 Ram Bahadhur who

was working in the house of accused Sukh Ram w.e.f. 1992 to

1996 as chowkidar to prove the expenditures made by accused

during the check period on him. In his cross examination he has

stated that in July, 1996 accused Sukh Ram and his son were not

present in their house in Mandi. In August, 1996 Tirath Ram

Sharma was maintaining Congress Party Office at the top floor of

the house in Mandi where he was working as chowkidar. In the

month of August, late in the night 2/3 persons had come. He was

woken up to take their luggage inside. He had taken 7/8 attachies

from the car of one person Mr. Sharma. In his cross examination

on behalf of prosecution this witness has admitted that he had not

disclosed these facts as deposed by him in his cross examination

to the CBI, in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr PC.

98/150

99

219 PW45 Sh. K K Goel, in his cross examination has

stated as follows:

“ When the CBI team reached at the house of Sh. Sukhram,

we found 6/7 persons sitting at the compound of the house. The

CBI Officials enquired from those persons about their identities

and the reason of their presence over there. I do not know which

of the CBI official made enquiries from them. I do not know as to

what was the distance between us and the CBI officials. We

could not hear the talk between the CBI officials and the

persons present in the compound. I cannot either admit or deny

the suggestions that on query by the CBI officials those persons

informed that they were there to take election material for

elections to be held in Jammu and thereafter they were asked to

leave the place by the CBI officials, on which they left.”

220 From the above quoted statement of this witness it is

clear that he could not hear the talks between CBI officials and the

persons present in the compound.

221 Much reliance has been placed by Ld. Senior counsel

on the statement of PW-47 Lekh Ram Sharma during the course

of argument. It is argued that from the statement of this witness it

is proved that Congress Party was maintaining Camp Offices at

the premises of accused and election material was supplied at 12

Safdarjung Lane in presence of this witness. Ld Senior counsel

99/150

100

has argued that statement of L.R Sharma with respect to his

conversation with Mr B P Maurya is admissible in view of the fact

that Mr Maurya expired in the year 2000 and therefore could not

be produced as witness. It is argued that secondary evidence of a

witness who cannot be produced is relevant under the evidence

Act . Ld Defence counsel in this regard has placed reliance on

Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra(2000) 6 SCC 671 ( para No 3.4

of written submission filed on behalf of accused ) I have carefully

gone through the statement of this witness. In his examination in

chief he has stated that he knew accused Sukh Ram since 1985 as

he belonged to Mandi Constituency. He was asked by Sukh Ram

to supervise construction work. Relevant portion of his

examination in chief in this regard is as under:

“ I know Shri Sukh Ram, present in court since 1985.

Family member since as I belong to Mandi constituency where

from Mr Sukh Ram elected from that constituency in 1985. I had

no business dealing with him. I was told by Mr Sukh Ram to

supervise the construction work at Mandi and Kaushambi, D-42

Ghaziabad. Again said I was asked to supervise the renovation

work at Mandi, as well as Mayfair Hotel.”......................................

222 He has also stated that he used to received money

from 12 Safdarjung Lane and had received Rs.39,90,000/- from

Smt Ram Devi and Sukh Ram at the relevant time which shows

that he was close confident of accused.

100/150

101

223 In his cross examination he has stated as follows:

“ In the year 1993 I was desirous and anxious to

contest the election of Vidhan Sabha in Himachal Pradesh. I knew

Shri B P Maurya, Genl Secretary of AICC. I had a close relation

with him. I also conducted a rally for him. Mr Maurya had

introduced me to Shri Sita Ram Keshri. Shri Maurya had

discussion with me about election to be held in UP and J&K about

regarding election material. At that time Mr H D Devgora was the

Prime Minister of India. It is correct that the relations between

Devgora the then PM and Mr Narsimha Rao, Ex P,M had become

stained as Congress party had not joined the Govt. I had

suggested to Mr Maurya that the residence of Mr Sukh Ram at 12

Safdarjung Lane New Delhi and that of at Mandi , be utilized for

election purposes to be held in two States, since Pt Sukh Ram was

going abroad.

I know Shri Tirath Ram Sharma and Shiv Kumar Mishra of

the Congress party. It is correct that Shri Tirath Ram Sharma was

appointed for Mandi residence and Sh Shiv Kumar for Safdarjung

Lane house. I do now know for what purpose Mr Sukh Ram had

gone abroad. However, he had gone abroad, in the first week of

August 1996. I used to visit both the residence premises in the

absence of Mr Sukh Ram. In August, 1996 in second week, I was

called by Mr B P Maurya at the office of AICC at Akbar Road, I

went there . Mr Maurya met me. One Mr Chander Sharma also

101/150

102

met me. From there, we went to Mr Sita Ram Keshri. I remained

in the car. Mr Chander Sharma and Mr Maurya went inside.

After half an hour, they came back, along with election

material and then we went to 12 Safdarjung lane. The election

material was in some gunny bags and suitcases. Mr BP Maurya

asked me to go to Mandi. I refuged. He then asked Mr Chander

Sharma to go to Mandi and hand over the election material to

Tirath Ram Sharma in Mandi. We met Mr Mishra on reaching

Safdarjung Lane. I had not talked with Mr Mishra . The election

material, which was brought from the house of Sita Ram Keshari,

was handed over to Mr Mishra.”

224 This witness has specifically deposed that he

remained in the car while Chander Sharma and Maurya had gone

inside . They had brought election material which was in some

gunny bags and suitcases. It is in the defence evidence that 25 to

26 boxes were alleged to be delivered at Delhi along with gunny

bags and 12 boxes / attachies and one gunny bag had been alleged

to be delivered at Mandi. Even according to recovery memos of

the cash seized at Delhi and Mandi it is clear that an amount of Rs

2,06,49,630/- was recovered from 23 suitcases from the Pooja

Room at 12 Safdarjung Lane and Rs.1,13,51,520/- contained in

12/13 suitcases recovered from house at Mandi. Even PW 42

Ram Bahadur who was working as Chowkidar in the house of

accused at Mandi has stated that he had taken out 7/8 attachies /

102/150

103

briefcases from the car to the house . PW 42 has also stated

that 2/3 person had come. Man may tell lie but not the

circumstances, It is beyond imagination that this much luggage

can be carried in a car.

225 PW47 has not stated even a single word, about the

facts which he has stated in his cross examination , in his

statement recorded U/S 161 Cr PC . An attempt has also been

made to explain it in the cross examination which is clear from the

following portion of his cross examination:

“ I was interrogated by the CBI. I was not asked by the CBI

about the election material. Therefore I had told these facts to

CBI. CBI seized my car . It was released to me after six years. It

is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Some of the bags

were sent to Mandi.”

226 From the statement of this witness it is clear that he

was a close confident of accused and was ready to help the

accused to any extent and actually supported the accused by

admitting his entire defence in cross examination which he has not

disclosed even in his statement recorded U/S 161 Cr P C.

227 In view of above discussion this Court is of opinion

that statements of PW20, PW33, PW 42, PW45 and PW47 cannot

be relied upon to prove that Congress party was maintaining

103/150

104

Election camp office at the premises of accused in Delhi and

Mandi.

228 Ld Senior Counsel argued that in a criminal case

accused has to prove his defence by mere preponderance of

probability. He has referred the statement of DW 10 Shiv Kumar

Mishra , DW.13 Tirath Ram Sharma. DW 11 Ritu Sharma DW 16

Anil Sharma and argued that these DWs have also proved that

Congress party was maintaining its election camp office at the

premises of accused in Delhi and Mandi.

229 DW10 Shiv Kumar Mishra has stated that he was

working as Additional P S of Mr B P Maurya and usually remain

present in Press conference of Mr Maurya. Sh Sita Ram Kesari

had assigned the duty of conducting election and setting up of

election office to Mr Maurya. Accused was also present at the

time of deliberations. Camp office was set up in the last week of

July and August 1996. He had been designated incharge of that

office. He had been provided one guest room with attached latrine

bathroom and attached room thereto. On 8/9 August B P Maurya ,

Chander Sharma and L R Sharma had brought some funds for

election in 22/23 brief cases/attachies and handed over to him.

He had kept the briefcases in one almirah in guest room and two

Almirahs in side room and on the floor of side room. Fund was to

send UP with the permission of Mr. Kesari and Maurya.

104/150

105

Almirahas in the side room were in possession of Pandit Sukh

Ram. Keys of almirahas of the side room were in possession of

the daughter of Pt. Sukh Ram. Keys of almirah of guest room was

with him. On 16.8.96 CBI had conducted raid and seized the cash.

He had informed Mr. Maurya and Mr. Kesari, in this regard. Mr.

Maurya had suggested that when it was party fund they should

accept it but Mr. Kesari had told that it was not possible. Mr.

Maurya had a press conference in which he was also present

wherein Mr. Maurya had stated that it was party fund before the

Journalists and persons from TV channels. In his cross

examination he has stated that he was working as additional PS to

Mr. Maurya w.e.f. January, 1996 to December, 1997 who was the

then General Secretary of AICC. He had denied the suggestion

that Mr. Maurya was removed from the post of General Secretary

immediately, however voluntarily stated that he was removed after

sometime and not immediately.

230 In this regard, DW 5 Jaswant Singh, Clerk AICC has

stated as follows:

“Sh. B P Maurya was appointed as General Secretary of

AICC on 4.10.95 and he continued as such till 20.1.96.”

231 DW-10 in his cross examination has stated that he has

not narrated the incident in writing to Prime Minister of India,

President of India, Home Minister of India, Director CBI or any

105/150

106

other competent authority. He has voluntarily stated that he had

orally stated to P V Narsimha Rao. He has denied the suggestion

that Mr. Narsimha Rao, B P Maurya and Sita Ram Kesari, in their

statements, denied the claim of Sukh Ram that it was Congress

Party money.

232 This witness was shown the CD of Press Conference

organised by Sita Ram Kesari and B P Maurya. With regard to

CD this witness has stated as follows in his cross examination:

“ It is correct that as per recording in CD Sh. Sita Ram

Kesari has said that he (Sukh Ram ) wants to throw the blame of

his own vices on the head of the party, it is a shameful act on the

part of Sukh Ram. Vol. However, this interview was not

conducted in my presence.

It is correct that as per recording in CD Sh. V P Maurya has

said “Ho Sakta Ye Rupiya Kisi Ki Dharohar rakha ho”. “Ho

Sakta Hai Ye Party Ka Rupiya Ho”. “Ho Sakta Hai Ye Brastachar

ka Rupiya Ho”. “Kuchh abhi tho kaha nahi ja sakta na” “Ye.. Ho

sakta hai ki party fund me aaya ho, aur vo bimari ke liy chale

gaye, aur vo adjustment nahi ho paya”.

Volunteer in this press conference Maurya has stated that it

was the party fund money. It is correct that these lines are not

mentioned in this CD, Volunteer it is incomplete and edited CD. I

am having no CD with me in which Mr. Maurya had stated so. I

am not having copy of any statement prepared by the secretary of

106/150

107

Mr. Maurya in which it has written so, Volunteer this press

conference was organised all of sudden when Pt. SukhRam was

suspended from Congress. It is incorrect to suggest that in order

to help Pt. Sukh Ram I have stated that V P Maurya has made

statement that this money belongs to party.”

233 PW13 Tirath Ram Sharma has deposed that election

camp office was established in the house of Pt. Sukh Ram at

Mandi. He had been appointed Incharge of the election camp

office. Anil Kumar s/o Pt. Sukh Ram had given him the

possession of two side rooms to establish camp office for election

on 2nd August or 3rd August, 1996. He had received telephonic call

from Mr. Maurya and Sita Ram to remain present in the office as

they were sending some election material and funds. One Mr.

Chander Sharma had brought material and fund on 9.8.96 at about

11.30 mid night. Chander Sharma had told him that those

briefcases contained amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. On16.8.96 he

came to know that CBI had raided the house of Sukh Ram. He

had told CBI personnels that he was holding camp office but he

was not allowed to enter. He had telephoned to Delhi and

informed about the raid. In his cross examination this witness has

stated that he could not produce any documentary evidence with

regard to his appointment as General Secretary of Congress Party,

Distt. Mandi, Himachal or documentary proof with regard to

asking him by Sh. Sita Ram Kesari and Mr. B P Maurya to set up

107/150

108

election office. He cannot produce any documentary proof with

regard to writing letters to Congress Party President, General

Secretary, PM and President of India.

234 This witness has stated that he has received a fund of

Rs. 1,25,00,000/- while there is recovery of only Rs.

1,13,51,520/- from the house of accused at Mandi. No

explanation has been given by this witness as to where the

remaining money had gone. This witness has also been shown

CD having interview of Sh. Sita Ram Kesri and Mr. B P Maurya.

After seeing and hearing the CD he has stated in his cross

examination as follows:

“I have heard the voice of Mr. Kesari and Mr. Maurya and

also identify them in the CD.

Q That in the CD Ex PW3/1A which is played to you now that

Sh. Sukh Ram wants to throw blame of his own voices on the head

of the party. It is shameful act on the part of Sukh Ram.

Ans: It is correct that Mr. Kesari had said these words. Vol. But

he has not said that it was not party fund.

It is correct that Mr. B P Maurya in the said CD has said

“Ho Sakta Hai Ye Rupiya Kisi Ki Dharohar rakha ho”. “Ho Sakta

Ha Yeh Party ka Rupiya ho”. Ho sakta hai ye bharashtachar ka

rupiya ho”, “Kuch Abhi to kaha nahi ja sakta na”, “Ye Ho Sakta

Hai ki party fund mein aya ho aur vo bimari ke liye chale gaye”,

Aur vo adjustment nahi ho paya”.

108/150

109

It is incorrect to suggest that I had made a false statement

that money was brought by Chander Sharma and handed over to

me or that there was no party office opened at the house of Pt.

SukhRam at Mandi. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not

deputed by Sh. Sita Ram and Mr. Maurya to look after the election

camp office at Mandi.

Q Sh. Kesari and Mr. B P Maurya had not said that the money

recovered from the premises of Pt. Sukh Ram was sent by them

for election purposes or otherwise. (objected to as the witness

cannot confronted or asked with reference what is stated in the CD

attributed to Sh. Kesari and Sh. Maurya and same being the

contents of CD itself).”

Ld. SPP argued that CD has already been played to this

witness which is produced in defence evidence hence witness is

being confronted with the same. (Objection over ruled. Request

allowed).

Ans: It has not been denied by both these persons that it was not

the party fund.

Q Both, Sh. Kesari and Maurya had not said that it was a party

fund.?

Ans: They have stated that it may party money or it may be some

entrustment money.

It is incorrect to suggest that I have made statement in order

to help Pt. Sukh Ram at his instance.”

109/150

110

235 It is argued on behalf of accused that CD produced in

this Court is an edited one, hence no reliance can be placed on it.

Accused himself summoned this CD through DW-3 K V L Narain

Rao. In this regard, following portion of his statement is as under:

“Our TV Channel takes interview of various persons in

relation of the news. We have got broadcast quality camera

system. Reporter and camera person go to the spot where the

news is there. The recorder comes back to the studio and then it is

telecast. The story which go on air, we maintain a record. I am

aware that an interview was taken of late Sh. B P Maurya, the then

General Secretary, AICC in relation to the news about alleged

recovery of cash etc. from the premises of Pt. Sukh Ram. Vol, that

I being Chief Executive shall not be aware of the details of

interview. The interview was recorded and preserved initially on

a video tape and then we go on transferring interviews/news on

DVD to preserve the same. The said DVD has been brought to me

today in the court. It contains the story about the news item

including the interview of Sh.B P Maurya. It does not containany

news item.

Q Please tell if it is unedited recording of the interview of Sh. B P

Maurya as aforesaid?

Ans: This is edited story which went on air and the DVD brought

by me contains the complete story which went on air.

Every story is edited before it goes on air and similarly, in

this case also there might have been the editing of the story before

110/150

111

it went to air. I cannot say if the original video tape is available or

not.”

236 He has further deposed as follows, in his examination

in chief:

“The original video tape (at that time) was the unedited

record of the interview. Vol. That is the story footage from that

interview is taken. The DVD is Ex D-3/1.”

237 In this regard, statement of DW8 Sh. Deepak

Chaurasia is also relevant which is as follows;

“I had taken the interview of Sh. B P Maurya, the then

General Secretary of AICC in connection with the searches at the

house of Pt. Sukh Ram, the then Communication Minister, Govt.

of India. A tape was recorded as per guidelines issued by the

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the CD are destroyed

after three months until and unless any designated court or enquiry

agency requests the broadcaster to preserve the same.”

238 Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that

accused himself has summoned the CD in his defence evidence.

It is well settled legal preposition that a party who produces a

particular evidence is bound by the same. Our Hon'ble High Court

in M/s Rudnap Export-Import V. Eastern Associates Co. and

others, AIR 1984 DELHI 20 has held as follows:

111/150

112

“Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.61 – Document filed by a party

– It can be looked into at the instance of opposite party – No proof

thereof is necessary.”

Similar view has been expressed by our Hon'ble High Court

in K K Dhawan Vs. Dr. Promila Sunali, 1997 Rajdhani Law

Reporter 608 which is as follows:

“If a person's document or letter is on record but is not

exhibited then this may be read in evidence against him.”

239 Thus, in my view, now the objection raised on behalf of

accused that the tape is edited one is meritless. In view of above

discussion this court is of opinion that evidence of both these

witnesses is insufficient and unreliable to prove that they were

maintaining Camp Election Office of Congress Party in the

premises of accused at 12 Safdarjung Lane, Delhi and in his native

house at Mandi.

240 Chander Sharma has been produced as DW12. His

examination in chief was recorded on 27.3.2008 and his cross

examination was deferred. Thereafter this witness has not

appeared in the witness box. Prosecution has not received

opportunity to cross examine this witness. Finally Ld. Defence

counsel has given up this witness.

241 DW11 Mrs. Ritu Sharma, daughter of accused Sukh

112/150

113

Ram has stated that on 4.8.96 her father and mother had gone to

USA. Before going to USA her father had handed over one

room, one store and attached toilet to Shiv Kumar Mishra.

She has not named the pooja room given to Shiv Kumar Mishra.

She has further stated that on 16.8.96 CBI personnels raided the

premises. They had allowed her to call Munshi Ram who was the

PS of her father. They had enquired about the keys of the locked

rooms. Guest Room which was with Mr. Mishra was also locked.

She told them that keys were with Mr. Mishra and she can call

him but they did not allowed her to call Mr. Mishra as she had

already called Mr. Munshi Ram. She has further deposed in her

examination in chief as follows:

“The store was inside the guest room and toilet was

attached. Store room was also locked. They broke open the

lock, after calling the person for breaking the lock, firstly, that of

guest room. Lock of steel almirah which was in the guest room

was also broke open. They had taken out two briefcases from that

Almirah. They had asked for keys of briefcases from me but I had

told them that I was not having any keys of briefcases. I was

having only knowledge with regard to the keys of guest room

which was with Mr. Mishra but I was not aware about keys of

other articles. Lock of attached store room was also got broke

open. Briefcases were also present in that store Keys of two

cupboards in that store room was with my mother which was

113/150

114

known to me. They had also broke open those two cupboards.

In those cupboards some jewelery of my mother was there

alongwith her clothes etc. and household articles. They broke

open briefcases etc. and found cash. They had collected all

these in drawing room. I was scared. Many persons were there.

About 3-4PM I T officials had also reached there. I T (income

tax) persons had also questioned me. I told them the same thing

which I had disclosed to CBI Personnels. “

242 In her cross examination she has stated as follows:

“I and Munshi Ram were together present when the

guest room, store room was searched. Munshi Ram was with

them throughout. He used to come to me to enquire about my

help off and on. He was asked to count the money. Signature

of mine and Munshi Ram were taken on all the papers with

regard to search. Signatures of mine are at point B on all the

pages and that of Munshi Ram at point A on Ex PW9/B on all the

pages.”......

......” It is correct that they had also given copies of

these documents to us after completion of the proceedings.”

.........”I did not report to anybody till date in this regard. The

statement made by me voluntarily in this court today. I have stated

in this court only today. Guest Room was totally

furnished.”......

114/150

115

.............” the articles mentioned from item No.1 to 22 were

recovered from Pooja Ram/store room. Pooja Room/store

room is different than other rooms.”.....

.....” I had given my statement to income tax Authority

on oath correctly whichever they had asked from me.”.....

243 I have carefully perused observation memo Ex

PW9/A dt. 16.8.96 of house No. 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi.

An amount of Rs.2,06,49,630/- was recovered from Pooja Room.

Contained in 23 suitcases. An amount of Rs. 26,70,000/- as

shown at serial No.14 (VIII) and an amount of Rs. 1,64,764/- as

shown at serial No.14 (IX) and an amount of Rs.5,39,500/- as

shown at serial No.14 (X) was recovered from guest room

contained in three briefcases. A cash of Rs.1,60,000/- as shown at

serial No.30 (VIII) was recovered from the bed room of Sukh

Ram. A cash of Rs. 3,44,950/- was recovered from the bed room

of Mrs. Ritu Sharma as shown at serial No.20 at page 10 of the

Observation Memo.

244 The articles recovered from Pooja room are as

follows:

1 One Steel Almira containing three suit length ,

miscellaneous cosmetics, six sarees, 24 silver coins, one torch,

poloride camera , Sony walkman , Portable colour TV Citizen.

115/150

116

2 One pistal PA 63 Registration No is BH-3598 alongwith

29 bore containing 384 bullets.

3 10 bottles of scotch of foreign make one bottle of wine

4 One steel almirah containing seven coats and pants and

towels toilattaries .

5 Sony compact disc player.

6 One attachee case containing gift items

7 One suitcase containing woolen and sarees.

8 One suitcase containing six shawls and two pullovers.

9 One eminent suit case containing gift items.

10 One Rexin suitcase containing two pullovers.

11 One Hallmark suit case containing .

12 One suitcase containing six sarees, four suits and chunnies.

13 Aristocrat suit case containing ladies suits and shawls.

14 Large suitcase containing woolen .

15 Skybag suit case containing woolen and shirts.

16 VIP suit case containing four suit length and Kashmere

Blankets.

17 One large suitcase containing woolens towels and bed

sheets.

18 One Magnum suitcase containing woolen cloths.

19 One large suitcase containing miscellaneous woolen

clothes.

20 One big travel suitcase containing woolens

21 Various items, old jewelery for which a separate inventory

116/150

117

cum valuation report has got made from Govt approved.

22 23 suitcases big and small, One containing a total cash

of Rs.2,06,49,630.00

245 I have perused the various articles recovered from the

guest room as shown in Observation Memo Ex PW9/A which also

shows that it was full of domestic articles. Mrs. Ritu Sharma,

DW10 has fully corroborated this fact by stating in her cross

examination that guest room was fully furnished. None of the

article available in the guest room shows that it was being used as

election office. List of the articles found in the pooja room also

shows that it contained all the domestic articles. A pistol as

shown at serial No.2 alongwith 384 bullets has been found in

pooja room. 10 bottles of scotch of foreign make and one

bottle of wine has also been found in the pooja room as shown

at serial No.3. Had the pooja room was being used as election

camp office these articles should not be there.

246 I have also carefully perused inventory/observation

memo Ex PW45/C (D-18). With regard to search of residential

premises of Sukh Ram at Shamkhetra Mandi, Himachal Pradesh

and Seizure cum Search List Ex PW45/A (D-19) vide which a

total amount of Rs.1,16,51,520/- was recovered contained in 12

boxes. From the perusal of both these memos it is clear that no

117/150

118

election material was found in the premises.

247 It is a case of disproportionate asset U/s 13 (1) (e) of

PC Act, 1988. A Full Bench of Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in C

S D Swami Vs. State has held as follows with regard to burden of

proof in such cases:

“Section 5 (3) does not create a new offence but only lays

down a rule of evidence, enabling the court to raise a presumption

of guilt in certain circumstances- a rule which is a complete

departure from the established principle of criminal jurisprudence

that the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove all

ingredients of the offence charged, and that the burden never shifts

on to the accused to disprove the charge framed against him.”

It is further held in this authority by our Hon'ble Supreme

Court as follows:

“ The Legislature has advisedly used the expression

“satisfactorily account”. The emphasis must be on the word “

satisfactorily”, and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a

burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as

to how he came by his larger wealth, but also to satisfy the Court

that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.”

“ The expression “known source of income” must

have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough

investigation of the case. It cannot be contended that “known

source of income” means source known to the accused. The

118/150

119

prosecution cannot in the very nature of things be expected to

known the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters “

specially within the knowledge” of the accused.”

248 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in M Krishna Reddy Vs

State (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 has held as follows:

“ It is not the mere acquisition of property that

constitutes an offence under S. 5(1) (e) but it is the failure of

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 or property which were found in

his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known

sources of income, i e known to the prosecution and (4) it must

prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in

possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known

sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily

established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)

(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such

resources or property . In other words, only after the prosecution

has proved the required ingredients the burden of satisfactorily

accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts

to the accused.”

119/150

120

249 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of MP Vs Avadh

Kishore AIR 2004 SC page 517 has held as follows:

“ Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13(1)

(e) – Acquisition of disproportionate assets by public servant-

Expression ' known source of income' in S. 13(1) (e) – Does not

mean sources known to accused- Burden is cast on accused not

only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth

– But also to satisfy Court that explanation is worthy of

acceptance – Term income- Meaning of .”

“ The Legislature has advisedly used the expression

'satisfactorily account.' The emphasis must be on the word '

satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a

burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as

to how he came by his larger wealth, but also to satisfy the Court

that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.”

250 Ld. SPP relying upon the statement of PW29 Sh. P V

Narsimha Rao argued that he has demolished the entire defence of

accused by stating that no amount from party fund was ever

transferred to any other place. Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi

argued that statement of this witness cannot be relied upon as

opportunity to cross examine this witness has not been granted to

accused.

120/150

121

251 Statement of PW29 P V Narsima Rao was recorded

on 6.11.2004 by the then Ld CMM Mrs Reena Singh Nag who

was appointed commission to record his statement. Relevant

portion of his statement is as under :

“ Nobody is suppose to tell me about the transfer of

Congress party fund to any other person. It is solely for the

Treasurer to have control over the same. No Cabinet Minister ever

told me after the fall of Congress Government regarding the shift

of congress party funds to any other congress leader's house.

Q After the fall of the congress Government did anybody

included Sita Ram Kesari told you having kept / transfer the party

fund to any other leader.

A Sh Keshari did not inform me nor anybody else informed

me about the transfer of the party fund volunteered congress party

fund is kept in bank normally and if for any reason the same is

withdrawn and required to be taken over to some other place the

control over it remains with the Treasurer.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX ( by accused )

The accused has requested to defer the cross . Request

declined for the reason that Mr Rao himself visibly unwell and for

the reason stated in the order sheet .

Nil Opp. Given

RO&AC Sd/

121/150

122

CMM/ Delhi

252 Relevant portion of the order sheet dt. 6.11.2004 of

Ld. CMM who had executed this commission is as under:

“An application has been moved before the undersigned

requesting for fixing some other date as Sh. P D Sharma, Ld.

Defence Counsel is unwell as his blood sugar level has gone up

resulting in high blood pressure because of which he is unable to

attend the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has been advised

complete rest which application has been moved by the accused

himself. It may be mentioned that yesterday in the after lunch

Session one application was moved by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. D

S Patial for giving some other date on the same ground as taken

today. Notice was given through Sh. D S Patial but the same

could not be served on the CBI so proceedings were ordered to be

held today. Now the witness Sh. P V Narsimha Rao is present

before me. He appears to be inaffirm and sick also and is aged

about 84 years and it would not be in the interest of justice to defer

the examination of the witness since Ld. Defence Counsel is free

to move application U/s 311 Cr PC as per law if he so desires

before Ld. Special Judge. It was in the knowledge of Ld. Defence

Counsel that he would not be in a position to appear before the

Commission for examination of the witness so he could have

deputed some other counsel or accused could also have

engaged/brought some other counsel. Moreover, it has not been

122/150

123

mentioned in the application for adjournment as to when Ld.

Defence Counsel would be in a position to make himself available

for cross examination of the witness. Sh. Rao has been brought

before the undersigned by his aid as he seems to be unable to walk

comfortably on his own. In these circumstances let the

examination of the witness be proceeded with.

Sd/-

ADJ cum CMM Delhi.6.11.04.

253 From above order sheet it is clear that Mr. Rao was

inaffirm and seriously ill. Every effort was made on behalf of

accused to delay the recording of his statement. No cross

examination of Mr. Rao was conducted on behalf of accused

inspite of opportunity granted to him.

254 Afterword an application u/s 311 Cr PC was moved

on behalf of accused for granting opportunity to cross examine

Mr. Rao which was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor Sh. Dinesh

Dayal and Ld. CMM was again appointed commission to record

the cross examination of Mr. Rao. On 19.11.04 Ld. CMM fixed

27.11.04 for recording the cross examination of Mr. Rao. On

27.11.04 Ld. CMM had gone to the residence of Mr. Rao for

recording his cross examination but his PA Sh. Chetan Sharma

had informed that Mr. Rao was admitted in AIIMS, hence matter

123/150

124

was adjourned for 10.12.04. On 10.12.04 again Ld. CMM had

gone to the residence of Mr. Rao but it was again informed by his

PA Sh. Chetan Sharma that he was admitted in AIIMS hence the

matter was fixed for 5.2.05 for recording of the cross examination

of Mr. Rao. Unfortunately, Mr. Rao expired on 26.12.04, hence

his cross examination could not be conducted.

255 In these circumstances, whether his statement can be

relied upon or not has now become a legal question. Hon'ble High

Court of Patna in Sri Kishun Jhunjhunwala Vs. Emperor, AIR (33)

1946 Patna 384 has held as follows:

“Evidence Act (1872) Sec. 33 – Applicability – witness

dying before cross examination – Degree of weight to be attached

to his evidence depends on circumstances.

It is further held that where a witness dies after examination

in chief and before cross examination his evidence is admissible

but the degree of weight to be attached to it depends on the

circumstances of the case”

256 In this regard Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in

Ahmed Ali Vs. Jyoti Pershad, AIR 1944 page 188 has held as

follows:

“Evidence Act S. 33 – Witness dying before cross

examination that his evidence does not become inadmissible.”

124/150

125

257 In this regard, Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in

Devar Park Building Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Madhuri Jalan, AIR 2002

Calcutta, 281 has held as follows:

“Evidence Act (1 of 1872) Ss. 133. 33 – Evidence of person

with unfinished cross examination – Admissibility – Evidence of

defendant recorded on commission – cross-examination only

partly held – death of defendant in meantime – His evidence

would not be inadmissible – There is no provision under law that

if witness is not cross-examined either in full or part his evidence

would be absolutely rendered inadmissible – How much weight

shall be attached should be decided considering other facts and

circumstances surrounding it – Provision of S.33 would not be

applicable in such case.”

258 In this regard, our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mulak

Raj Sikka Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC page 1723 has

held as follows:

“ Where in a Sessions trial the witness whose deposition

recorded by the committing Magistrate was sought to be brought

on record, could not be found in spite of all reasonable steps taken,

including the one taken by High Court during the hearing of

appeal, and further although the accused had a right to cross

examine that witness in the committing Court, his counsel had

preferred not to cross-examine at that stage and had reversed it for

the Sessions Court, both the conditions of Section 33 were

125/150

126

satisfied and the evidence of such witness recorded in committing

Court was admissible in Sessions trial.”

259 In view of above discussed law it is clear that the

statement of late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao is admissible in evidence

in this case, however, it is to be considered as to how much weight

is to be attached to his statement.

260 Late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao was not at all enemical

to accused. Rather, it is the case of accused that CBI wants to

implicate Sh. P V Narsimha Rao for which it was forcing him to

make a statement stating that this money belongs to Mr. Rao but

as he has not obliged the CBI by making such false statement

hence CBI has implicated him in this false case. In these

circumstances why Mr. Rao will depose against accused falsely.

Even otherwise, at the relevant time, when he had made this

statement he was on the death bed, when every hope of this world

is gone and every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is

induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. In

these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve his statement.

This Court is of opinion that statement of Mr. Rao is reliable and

can be used against accused.

261 Mr. B P Maurya and Sh. Sita Ram Kesari have

expired during the pendency of this case. Mr. Sita Ram Kesari has

126/150

127

been cited as a witness in this case. His statement U/s 161 Cr PC

has also been recorded. I fully agree with the contention of Ld.

Senior Counsel that the statement of late Sh. Sita Ram Kesari U/s

161 Cr PC cannot be relied upon as he has not appeared in the

witness box. Similarly, the statement of Mrs. Ritu Sharma

recorded U/s 131 I T Act cannot be relied upon against accused in

these proceedings as no chance has been given to accused to cross

examine her.

262 PW46 has stated, in his examination in chief, as

follows:

“ During the interrogation, Mr. Sukh Ram told that money

recovered belonged to Congress Party. But when I interrogated

Sh. Sita Ram Kesari and Ahmed Patel they denied this fact

and told that the money does not belong to Congress Party. “

263 Similarly, PW 63 Sh. H S Sandhu has stated, in his

cross examination, in this regard, as follows:

“As far as I recollect Mr. Sukh Ram has mentioned that a

part of his residential address at Delhi and Mandi were being used

as office of Congress Party for the purpose of election to be held

at UP and J K. Vol. That I investigated this part of the

statement and that is why I interrogated late Sh. Sita Ram

Kesari and late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao and both of them

127/150

128

categorically denied the same. (Objected to by the Ld. Defence

Counsel on the ground that the statement is hit by Section 162 Cr.

PC). It is correct that Pt. Sukh Ram had disclosed that cash

recovered belonged to Congress Party election fund. (Vol. I have

already answered this part was investigated and late Sh. Sita Ram

Kesari and late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao were examined in this

regard). I do not now recollect if Sh. B P Maury, the then General

Secretary of the Congress Party had also made a statement about

the cash recovered at the house of Pt. Sukh Ram. I do not

remember if myself or any CBI officer working under me ever

examined B P Maury.”

264 These questions have been asked in cross

examination of this witness and when the answers suitable to

accused not received from this witness an objection of Section 162

Cr. PC had been taken, as recorded by my Ld. Predecessor. Ld.

Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi, with regard to conversation of PW

47 with Sh. B P Maurya, has argued that it is admissible, as

discussed above, in this judgment. This Court is of opinion

that on the same reasoning statement of PW 46 and PW63

with regard to their conversation with late Sh. Sita Ram

Kesari and P V Narsimha Rao is also admissible in evidence

against accused.

128/150

129

265 It is argued that CBI was vindictive against the

accused and harassing him to obtain a statement from him against

Sh. P V Narsimha Rao. CBI has also falsely implicated his son

Anil Sharma in a criminal case vide R C No. 6 of 1996 which later

on got canceled by CBI. Accused has produced Anil Sharma in

his defence evidence as DW-6 who has stated as follows, in this

regard:

“SP had told me to inform my father to state that money

was got kept by Mr. Narsimha Rao. I tried to talk my father

who was abroad and informed him what Mr. Sandhu had told

me. My father had told me that he will tell the facts about him

after coming back from abroad. He had stated that he will not

made any such statement as desired by CBI. I had met again

with Mr. Sandhu with the message of my father. Mr. Sandhu

had told me that if we will not state so then case will also be

registered against me. Thereafter, case was also registered against

me vide R C No. 6 of 1996. I had to secure anticipatory bail from

High Court. Thereafter, in order to pressure me CBI had

challenged that order of my bail in Hon'ble Supreme Court. CBI

had got canceled my bail from Supreme Court on technical

ground. CBI had not arrested me thereafter. The case against me

was investigated by CBI and after three months they had tot that

case canceled. Certified copy of the No Objection Certificate for

cancellation of FIR dt. 23.4.99 and order of the Special Judge,

129/150

130

Shimla dt. 30.6.99 in this regard I am placing on the file.”

266 In his cross examination he has stated as follows:

“ I had not gone through the report filed U/s 173 Cr PC by

the CBI in the Court of Special Judge, Shimla for cancellation of

the case. It is correct that my case was canceled as it did not

fall in the category of disproportionate assets as the assets

were within 10.4% of my total income according to the case of

prosecution.”

267 The very fact that CBI after investigating the case

reached to the conclusion that no case of DA made out against

Anil Sharma as his assets fall within 10.4% of his total income

proves that CBI was not vindictive against accused or his family

members, had it not been so why the CBI in its investigation

reached to the conclusion that no DA case made out against Anil

Sharma. In these circumstances this court is of opinion that CBI

has not falsely implicated family members of accused.

268 Last but not the least, the defence taken by accused

even does not appeal to common sense as to why the Congress

Party would establish a camp office at the residence of accused

Sukh Ram in Delhi and Mandi for elections to be held in J & K

and UP, when Congress party has its regular office in Delhi and

the then Treasurer of Congress Party, Sh. Sita Ram Kesari was

130/150

131

also having his residence in Delhi, in such circumstances there

was no need for holding a separate camp office for election at the

residence of accused Sukh Ram. Similarly, when the elections

were to be held in J & K and UP what was the need of

establishing election camp office at Mandi at the residence of

accused Sukh Ram. Had there been any need of establishing camp

office for the elections to be held in UP and J & K camp office

would have been established in UP and J & K but not in Himachal

Pradesh.

279 From the above discussion, this court is of opinion

that prosecution has proved its case with regard to recovery of

cash of Rs. 2,45,28,844/- from the official residence 12

Safdarjung Lane of accused Sukh Ram in Delhi and cash of

Rs.1,13,51,520/- from the house of accused Sukh Ram at Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh which belongs to him, there is no merit in the

defence taken by accused.

270 It is argued by Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi that

prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession of the

money recovered from the premises of accused Sukh Ram.

Possession is a polymorphous term which may have different

meaning in different contexts. It is impossible to work out a

completely logical and precise definition of it (possession) so as to

uniformly applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes.

131/150

132

271 In view of above discussion prosecution has well

proved that this amount was recovered from the premises of

accused Sukh Ram. It is well settled legal preposition that once

the possession is established, burden lies on a person who claims

that it was not in his conscious possession to prove it because it

was within his special knowledge as to how it came in his

possession. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Megh Singh Vs. State of

Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 3184 with regard to conscious possession

has held as follows:

“ The word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular

fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. Once

possession is established the person who claims that it was not a

conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to

be in possession is within his special knowledge. S. 35 of the Act

gives a statutory recognition of this position because of

presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of

S.54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from

possession of illicit articles.”

272 In Gopal Dass Udho Dass Vs. Union of India, AIR

2004 SC 3830 our Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this regard, in para

No.19 it is held as follows:

“ Since possession was an offence, knowledge in possession

of the unauthorised article was an essential ingredient of the said

132/150

133

offence. Where a statute forbids an act doing of that act itself

supplies mens rea. In such a case, the prosecution need only to

prove commission of the prohibited act and it for the person

concerned to bring himself within the statutory defence, which in

the present case was provided for in the proviso to S. 71 (1).

However, in view of S. 98-B, the accused had to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that he had no knowledge in the possession of

the unauthorised article. “

273 In this regard, our Hon'ble Supreme Court in P K

Arjunan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2007 SC 2331 has held as

follows:

“Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077) S.55, S. 64 – Possession of

forbidden articles – Burden to prove that possession was

conscious – Not on prosecution – Burden lies on accused in view

of presumption under S. 64.”

274 Prosecution has proved Ex PW56/C to Ex PW56/F

and Ex PW55/A and B and Ex.PW56/P (D-28, D-29, D30 and D

-65)and produced PW56, Rishi Prakash, PW58 Mahesh Chandra

Arora, PW59 Sunil Makhija and PW61 Shashant Mishra to prove

that Sh. C K Khemka had given three pay orders of Rs.35 lac each

on 23.11.96, 11.12.96 and total amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000/- to

PW56 Rishi Prakash on three different dates in presence of PW58

Mahesh Chandra, PW59 Sunil Makhija and PW61 Shashant

133/150

134

Mishra and stated that this amount was given to him as loan by

accused Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.19 of immovable and



has stated that he has no knowledge. (Q90,91and 92). Ld. Special

PP argued that all these three pay orders have been recovered vide

recovery memos. In the recovery memos it is clearly mentioned

that Sh. C K Khemka had told to Rishi Prakash in presence of

witnesses Mahesh Chandra, Sunil Makhija and Shashank Mishra

that this amount was given to him as loan by accused Sukh Ram,

therefore, this money belongs to Sh. Sukh Ram. Ld. SPP argued

that prosecution has cited Sh. C K Khemka as a witness in the list

of witnesses, however, he has been won over by accused, hence he

has not appeared in the witness box on behalf of prosecution. It is

further argued by Ld. SPP that it is clear from the fact that accused

has cited him as defence witness in his list of defence witnesses.

It is argued on behalf of prosecution that in these circumstances

prosecution has proved that this amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/-

belongs to accused Sukh Ram which he had given as loan to Sh. C

K Khemka.

275 Prosecution has neither produced Sh.C K Khemka in

the witness box to prove that Sukh Ram had given this amount of

Rs.1,05,00,000/- to him as loan nor any other witness in presence

of whom this amount was given to Sh. C K Khemka as loan by

134/150

135

accused Sukh Ram. Prosecution has produced PW Mahesh

Chandra, Sunil Makhija and Shashank Mishra before whom C K

Khemka handed over three pay orders to PW Rishi Prakash who

had seized the same vide memos mentioned above. It is correct

that it is mentioned in memos that C K Khemka had stated before

the witnesses that this amount was given to him as loan by

accused Sukh Ram. Besides this, prosecution has not produced

any evidence to prove the fact that this amount belongs to accused

Sukh Ram who had given it as loan to Sh. C K Khemka.

276 In my view from the evidence produced by the

prosecution in this regard has only proved that C K Khemka had

handed over these three pay orders of Rs.35 lac each total

amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000/- to Dy. S P. Prosecution has neither

produced C K Khemka in the witness box nor any other

substantive evidence to prove that this amount belongs to accused

Sukh Ram who had given it as loan to Sh. C K Khemka. The

evidence produced by prosecution can only raise a suspicion that

this amount belongs to accused Sukh Ram who had given it as

loan to Sh. C K Khemka. A suspicion, however strong, it may be,

cannot take the place of evidence. In these circumstances this

court is of opinion that in this regard accused is entitle for benefit

of doubt, hence this amount cannot be added in the assets of

accused.

135/150

136

277 Prosecution vide Ex PW 9/A, Ex PW45/C and PW

49/A ( D-13) from the statement of PW9 T Bhattacharya, PW45

K K Goyal and PW 49 R K Khurana has proved that household

articles valuing Rs.64,090/- (which includes the cost of Eureka

Forbes Vacuum Cleaner, Two LPG Cylinders and two colour TV

Sets found at 12 Safdarjung Lane) were found in the house of

Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.20 of immovable and movable

assets at the end of check period as mentioned in the charge

sheet. This entry has not been disputed by the Ld. Counsel Sh.

Tulsi in his oral argument and written submission. Thus, there is

no reason to disbelieve this fact, hence this court is of opinion that

prosecution has proved that accused was having household items

worth Rs.64,090/- at the end of check period.

278 Prosecution has proved Ex PW 49/A and Ex

PW49/B, (D23 (I, & II) and produced PW35 Sh. Somesh Chander

and PW 49 R K Khurana to prove that electronic items valuing

Rs.6,23,300/- were found in house No. D-42, Kaushambi of

accused Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.21 of immovable and



has stated that in the parliamentary election in 1989 he hired a

house at Panchsheel Park for which his wife had purchased and

acquired certain domestic articles. On allotment of official

residence all these articles were shifted to his official residence 12

136/150

137

Safdarjung Lane and on completion of his house at Kaushambi

some of these articles were shifted there. He has also stated that

valuation mentioned in the report is incorrect. (Q78 and Q62). Ld.

Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi argued that PW35 has stated that

he had not physically inspected the articles, no purchase memo of

articles were shown to him. Articles were valued according to new

items. Valuation was given according to the catalogue of price.

From the statement of accused it is clear that he has not disputed

purchasing of these articles, however accused has not produced

any bills or documents with regard to purchasing of these articles.

Accused has clearly admitted that his wife had purchased these

articles meaning thereby she had purchased the new articles at the

relevant time, therefore, PW35 has rightly assessed the price of

new articles according to the catalogue. It was in the special

knowledge of accused or his wife when these articles were

purchased by them. They must have obtained bills/cash memos

of purchasing of these articles but they have not produced the

same. In view of the law laid down by our Hon'ble Supreme

Court in state of M P Vs. Avadh Kishore, AIR 2004 SC page 517

as quoted above burden is cast on the accused not only to offer a

plausible explanation as to acquisition but also to satisfy Court

that his explanation is worthy of acceptance, however, accused has

not produced any evidence in this regard, therefore, this court is

of opinion that prosecution has proved that accused had acquired

electronic items worth Rs. 6,23,300/- which were observed in his

137/150

138

house No.D42, Kaushambi vide Observation Memo Ex PW49/A

and Ex PW49/B.

279 According to prosecution accused had purchased an

Antena of Rs.4400/- as shown at serial No.22 of details of


mentioned in the charge sheet, however prosecution has not

produced any evidence to prove it, even my Ld. Predecessor has

not put any question in this regard to accused in his statement

recorded U/s 313 Cr PC. In these circumstances this court is of

opinion that prosecution failed to prove that accused was having

this FDR at the end of check period.

280 Prosecution has proved Ex PW 9/A, Ex PW45/C and

PW 49/A ( D-13, D-18 and D-23) and produced PW9 T

Bhattacharya, PW45 K K Goyal and PW 49 R K Khurana to

prove that household articles valuing Rs.3,14,800/- were

found/observed at the official residence of accused Sukh Ram as

shown at serial No. 23 of immovable and movable assets at the

end of check period as mentioned in the charge sheet. Ld. Senior

Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi argued that prosecution has neither given

any breakup nor detail in this regard. Valuation Report has not

been proved. Prosecution has failed to appreciate that accused

was a Cabinet Minister and a Member of Parliament who was

provided fully furnished accommodation including furniture, Air

138/150

139

Conditioner, Refrigerator etc., hence this amount should not have

been added in the assets of accused. I have gone through the

relevant memos. In the memos against the articles which were

provided by the office, it is clearly mentioned as official, thus,

there is no merit in the arguments that investigating agency has

taken the value of articles provided to him officially at his

residence.

281 Prosecution vide Ex P-W34/A to L (D-34) and from

the statement of PW 34 D N Kapoor has proved that an amount of

Rs.1,92,000/- of accused Sukh Ram was outstanding as loan

towards Anil Kumar as shown at serial No.24 of immovable and


charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct being matter of

record, in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q66to Q 76).

282 Prosecution vide Ex P-W34/A to L (D-34) and from

the statement of PW 34 D N Kapoor has proved that an amount of

Rs.4,37,500/- of Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram was

outstanding as loan towards Anil Kumar as shown at serial No.25

of immovable and movable assets at the end of check period as

mentioned in the charge sheet.. Accused has admitted it as correct

being matter of record, in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.

PC.(Q66 to Q 76).

139/150

140

283 Though the prosecution has claimed that accused

Sukh Ram and his wife Ram Devi had found in possession of

total movable and immovable assets valuing Rs. 6,00,90,365/-

at the end of check period but prosecution could prove the

total assets of accused and his wife at the end of check period

of Rs.4,91,65,965/-,

284 I have carefully gone through the statement of PW

60 Sh. B S Jakhar. In his cross examination he has specifically

stated that he did not call any person for enquiry regarding

recoveries effected on 16.8.96 upto 27.8.96. Searches were

conducted while investigating the case vide RC No. 3 (A)/96.

Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard is as

under:

------” I did not call any person for the purpose of any

enquiry regarding the recovery upto 27.8.96.”.....

....”The search of the locker was done by me after registration of

the present case. I was not given any written authorisation by the

SP to search the locker. Vol. That the locker was searched by me

in case RC no. 3(a)/96 for which I had authorisation. It is wrong

to suggest that I had no written authorisation of the SP to

investigate the case RC No. 3A/96. RC No.3A/06 did not relate to

the disproportionate assets. I did not issue any notice to the

accused to explain the recovery in RC 3A/96. Same is my reply

140/150

141

for Smt. Rama Devi and Anil Kumar Sharma.”

285 Not even a suggestion has been given to Mr. Jakhar

that he had investigated the case registered vide RC 4A/96. PW

56 Rishi Prakash, the then Dy. SP had partly investigated this case

of disproportionate assets registered against accused vide RC

No.4A/96. This witness has been cross examined at length on

behalf of accused. Not even a single suggestion has been given to

this witness also that B S Jakhar had investigated this case

registered against accused Sukh Ram. Similarly, PW 63 H S

Sandhu has also partly investigated this case and filed charge sheet

in this court. He has also been cross examined at length on behalf

of accused. Not even a single suggestion has been given to this

witness also that Mr. B S Jakhar had investigated this case

registered against accused vide RC 4A/96.

286 Search of premises of accused No.12 Safdarjung

Lane was conducted by Sh. B S Jakhar in RC No. 3A/96. Search

of locker No. 6 at Syndicate Bank, R K Puram was also conducted

in that RC. RC of this case was registered on 27.8.96. RC

No.4A/96 was registered on the complaint of Dy. S P Sh. B S

Jakhar on 27.8.96. In view of above discussion it is clear that

there is no evidence on the record to show that Mr. B S Jakhar had

investigated this case of disproportionate assets registered against

accused vide RC No. 4A/96. Merely on the basis of averments

141/150

142

made in his statement or complaint by Sh. B S Jakhar “on

verification were found to be disproportionate” it cannot be held

that Mr. Jakhar had investigated this case of disproportionate

assets against accused. In view of above discussion this court is of

opinion that there is no merit in the argument that this case has

been investigated in contravention of Section 17 of PC Act, 1988

by Sh. B S Jakhar.

287 I have carefully gone through the authority P V

Narsimha Rao Vs. State 1998 (2) CC Cases (SC) 71 relied upon

by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S P Manocha, Hon'ble Supreme

Court in this authority has concluded as follows:

(1)A Member of Parliament does not enjoy immunity under

Article 105 (2) or under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution

from being prosecuted before a crim9inal court for an

offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe for the

purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or

in any committees thereof.

(2) A Member of Parliament is a public servant under

Section 2 © of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3) Since there is no authority competent to remove a

Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for his

prosecution under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take cognizance of the

142/150

143

offences mentioned in Section 19 (1) in the absence of

sanction but till provision is made by Parliament in that

regard by suitable amendment in the law the prosecuting

agency before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an

offence punishable U/s 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the 1988

Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal

court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of

the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case

may be.”

288 It is correct that accused was a public servant being

Member of Parliament at the time when the charge sheet has been

filed in this court against him. Above quoted authority is dt.

17.4.1998 while charge sheet has been filed in our case in this

court on 9.6.97. Even in the above quoted authority Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that since there is no authority

competent to remove a Member of Parliament and to grant

sanction for his prosecution under Section 19 (1) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take

cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19 (1) in the

absence of sanction, charge sheet has been filed in this court on

9.6.97, thereafter my Ld. Predecessor has taken cognizance of

offences against accused on 14.7.97, thus the cognizance taken by

my Ld. Predecessor is not bad, even according to the authority

143/150

144

cited by Ld. Defence counsel. Prior to the view expressed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P V Narsimha Rao Vs. State, 1998 (2)

CCC 71, Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on 5.5.93 in Habibulla

Khan Vs. State of Orissa 1993 Cr. L J 3604 has held that MLA is

such a public servant for whose prosecution under the PC Act no

previous sanction is required. It is observed as follows in this

regard in para No.26 of this authority:

“ We, therefore, conclude by stating that though we

are satisfied that an MLA would come within the fold of the

definition of “public servant”, as given in Section 2( c) of the Act,

he is not the type of “public servant” for whose prosecution under

the Act, previous sanction as required by Section 19 is necessary.

We quite realise the anomaly of our conclusion, because though

Section 19 of the Act makes no distinction between one public

servant and another for the purpose of previous sanction, we have

made so. But this is a result which we could not have truly and

legally avoided. According to us, it is a fit case where the

Parliament should make its mind known unambiguously and

unequivocally.”

289 This view has been confirmed by our Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1995

SC 1123 wherein it is held as follows:

“Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) Ss. 13, 19 –

Sanction for prosecution – Accused persons prosecuted for

144/150

145

criminal misconduct allegedly committed during their tenure as

Ministers and not in their capacity as MLAs – Provisions of S. 19

not applicable - Sanction not necessary.

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) Ss. 13, 19 –

Sanction for prosecution – Accused persons alleged to have

committed criminal misconduct during their tenure as Ministers –

Prosecution after they ceased to be Ministers - Sanction not

necessary.”

290 Thus, till the view expressed by our Hon'ble Supreme

Court on 17.4.98 in P V Narsimha Rao's case the ratio of law with

regard to prosecution of MLA or MP was that no

sanction/permission was required for their prosecution. In our

case charge sheet has been filed on 9.6.97 i.e. prior to the view

expressed in P V Narsimha Rao's case. It is well settled legal

preposition that all the criminal laws are prospective in nature

unless the same are specifically made applicable retrospectively.

In the P V Narsimha Rao's case relied upon on behalf of accused it

is mentioned that till the provision is made by Parliament in this

regard by suitable amendment in the law the prosecuting agency

before filing a charge sheet in respect of an offence punishable U/s

7, 10,11,13 and 15 of the P C Act, 1988 against a Member of

Parliament in a criminal court shall obtain the permission from the

Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the

case may be. From the above language it is clear that it is

145/150

146

prospective in nature. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this authority has

not directed that prosecuting agency will also obtain permission of

the Speaker of Lok Sabha /Chairman of the Rajya Sabha for the

prosecution of Member of Parliaments already pending in the

courts.

291 Prevention of Corruption Act is a Social legislation

enacted with a view to curb illegal activities of public servants,

hence it should be liberally construed so as to advance its objects.

In this regard Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs State

of MP (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases-88 has held as follows:

“ Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Nature and

interpretation of –Held is a social legislation to curb illegal

activities of public servant and should be liberally construed so as

to advance its object and not liberally in favour of the accused--

Interpretation of Statutes—Particular statutes or provisions-- Penal

statute – Social Legislation-- Interpretation of.”

292 I have gone through all the authorities cited by Ld.

Defence Counsels on behalf of accused, there is no dispute with

the preposition of law laid down in all these authorities, however,

every case has its own facts and circumstances, ratio of law laid

146/150

147

down in authorities according to the facts and circumstances of

that particular case, hence may not be applicable in all the cases

as it is. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works etc

Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1073 in this regard

has held as follows:

“ The ratio of any decision must be understood in the

background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time

ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually

decides, and not what logically follows from it.”

293 Similar view has been expressed by our Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kalyan Chander Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan AIR

2005 SC-921 in para No.42 which is as follows:

“While deciding the cases on facts, more so in criminal

cases the Court should bear in mind that each case must vest

on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot

be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case.

It is also a well established principal that while considering the

ratio laid down in one case, the Court will have to bear in

mind that every judgment must be read as applicable to the

particular facts proved or assumed to be true. Since the

generality of expressions which may be found therein are not

intended to be exposition of the whole of the law but are

governed and qualified by the peculiar facts of the case in

147/150

148

which such expression are found . A case is only an authority

for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from

it.”

294 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University

Vs Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd., 2002 X AD ( SC) 589 = 2003 (

2) SC 111 cautions that - “ a little difference in facts of additional

facts may make a lot of difference in the presidential value of a

decision. In Bharat Petrolem Corporation Ltd Vs N R Vairamani,

AIR 2004 SC 778, Their Lordship observed that - “ Observations

of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as

provisions of the statue and that too taken out of their context.

These observation must be read in the context in which they

appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be

construed as statutes”. This is also the opinion of the Court in

Punjab National Bank Vs R L Vaid, 2004 IX AD( SC) 333=

(2004) 7 SCC 698. In State of Gujarat Vs Akhil Gujarat Pravasi,

2004 V AD ( SC) 533 = ARI 2004 SCC 3894, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that “ any observation made during

the course of reasoning in a judgment should not be read divorced

from the context in which they were used”. In Zee Tele Films Vs

Union of India, 2005 II AD ( SC) 457, the Apex Court has

unequivocally declared that “ a decision is not an authority for the

proposition which did not fall for its consideration .”

148/150

149

295 In view of above discussion this Court is of opinion

that ratio of law laid down in P V Narsimha Rao's Case on 17.4.98

is not applicable to our case, charge sheet of which was filed on

9.6.97 and cognizance of offences was taken on 14.7.97 against

the accused.


that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts as

follows:

i) That total movable and immovable assets

of accused Sukh Ram and his wife at the

beginning of check period were of Rs. 26,13,010/-.

ii) That total movable and immovable assets

of accused Sukh Ram and his wife at the

end of check period were of Rs. 4,91,65,965/-.

iii) That accused Sukh Ram and his wife

acquired movable and immovable

assets during the check period of Rs. 4,65,52.955/-

( I – II)

iv) That total income of accused Sukh Ram

and his wife during the check period

from known sources was of Rs.87,07,928/-

v That accused Sukh Ram made a

total expenditure during the check

149/150

150

period of Rs. 46,81,095/-

vi That total savings of accused Sukh Ram

and his wife during the check period was

of Rs. 40,26,833/-.

(IV-V)

vii That accused Sukh Ram was found in

possession of total movable and

immovable assets disproportionate

to his known sources of

earning which he could not

satisfactorily account for

even in this court of value of Rs. 4,25,26,122./-.

297 As the accused has been found in possession of

disproportionate assets worth Rs. 4,25,26,122/- to his known

sources of earnings which he could not satisfactorily account for

even in this court, therefore, this court convicts accused Sukh Ram

for the offence punishable U/s 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Announced in open court ( V K MAHESHWARI)on this 20th day of February,2009 SPECIAL JUDGE; DELHI

150/150

Judgement-Sukh Ram DA Case

Documents

Transcript of Judgement-Sukh Ram DA Case