Delhi District CourtCc No. 271/2019 Cbi vs Sanjiv Kumar And Others Page 1 Of 352 on 22 January, 2021IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GULATI\n             SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI­12,\n       ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.\n\n\nCC No. 271/2019\nCNR No. DLCT11­001371­2019\nRC No. 3(A)/2005/ACU­IX/CBI/ND\nU/s 109IPC, Sec 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(e) ofPC ActCentral Bureau of Investigation\n\n                                  Versus\n\n1       Sanjiv Kumar S/o Dr. Maheshwar Kumar\n        R/o Flat No. 6360, Sector­C, Pocket 6 & 7,\n        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.\n\n2.      Smt. Abha Sinha D/o Sh. Gupteshwar Prasad Singh\n        R/o Flat No. 6360, Sector­C, Pocket 6 & 7,\n        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.\n\n3.      Dr. Maheshwar Kumar S/o Late Srinarayan Singh\n        R/o Flat No. 6360, Sector­C, Pocket 6 & 7,\n        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.                    (since expired)\n\n4.      Smt. Kanak Lata D/o Late Kishore Mohan Singh\n        R/o Flat No. 6360, Sector­C, Pocket 6 & 7,\n        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.\n                                                          .....Accused\n\n\n\n\nCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 1 of 352\n Date of Institution                       :      30.08.2008\nArguments heard on                        :      16.01.2021\nDate of Judgment                          :      22.01.2021\n\n\nJUDGMENT1.               Accused Sanjiv Kumar (A­1), a former IAS officer of the\n1985 batch belonging to the Haryana cadre being the prime accused,\nhas faced the present trial along­with his wife (accused) Ms. Abha\nKumar (A­2), father (accused) Dr. Maheshwar Kumar (A­3) and\nmother (accused) Mrs. Kanak Lata (A­4), with the Charge of having\namassed assets/wealth beyond his known sources of income. The\nprecise amount of disproportionate assets alleged to have been\namassed by A­1 is Rs. 4,08,81,202 during the period 1.4.96 to\n16.2.2005. The alleged role of A­2 to A­4 is that of abetment. Accused\nno. 3 Dr. Maheshwar Kumar, however, expired during the pendency\nof trial.2.               The check period was taken from 1.4.96 to 16.2.2005.3.               As per the investigation/charge­sheet, the combined total\nincome of accused Sanjiv Kumar and his family members (A­2 to A­4) during the check period was calculated as Rs. 71,70,176 whereas\nthe total expenditure during this period was assessed as Rs.\n3,62,65,245.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 2 of 3524.               The total value of the assets held by A­1 to A­4 at the\nstart of the check­period was Rs. 29,11,329 whereas the value of\ncombined assets at the end of the check period was put at Rs.\n1,46,97,372.5.               The alleged disproportionate assets include numerous\nbank accounts which had significant deposits and withdrawals during\nthe check period, massive investment in shares, and considerable\nimmovable properties. The percentage of disproportionate assets to the\nknown sources of income of Sanjiv Kumar was thus worked out at\n570%, as alleged in the charge­sheet.6.               Accused Sanjiv Kumar is alleged to have been in\npossession of disproportionate assets in his own name and in the name\nof his dependents i.e. wife, children as also his parents, the crux of the\nallegation being that the 'disproportionate assets' were though\namassed by accused Sanjiv Kumar but held 'benami' in the name of\nhis wife and parents who abetted the acquisition of assets by accused\nSanjiv Kumar beyond his legitimate sources of income, ostensibly to\nobscure the true source.7.               Consequently, accused Sanjiv Kumar was Charged under\nsection 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 3 of 352Corruption Act whereas accused Ms. Abha Kumar, accused Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar and accused Mrs. Kanak Lata were Charged u/s\n109 IPC read with section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the\nPrevention of Corruption Act8.               Before proceeding ahead to detail the facts as enumerated\nin the charge­sheet, it is important to highlight an important fact. Out\nof the total of Rs. 4,08,81,202 which is the alleged disproportionate\nasset value ascribed to accused Sanjiv Kumar, bulk of it pertains to\n(alleged) investment in equity market/shares i.e. Rs. 2,51,71,200 by\naccused Sanjiv Kumar and Rs. 75 lacs by accused Abha Kumar.9.               The defense plea revolves around the assertion that the\ninvestment in shares which has been attributed to Sanjiv Kumar was\nnever made by accused Sanjiv Kumar, and that the investment\nascribed to Abha Kumar was actually the investment of one Sh. Tika\nHasan Mustafa who was a family friend of the accused persons.\nAdditionally, it was pleaded that income of none of the accused\npersons has been correctly calculated by the Investigating Officer. Not\nonly legitimate income was deliberately left out by the Investigating\nOfficer while calculating the respective incomes of the accused\npersons but with a mala fide intention, there are multiple examples\nwhere same entries which have been shown under the head of expenseCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 4 of 352were also shown under the head of assets, thereby significantly\npushing up the alleged disproportionate asset value.10.              Another very relevant fact needs a highlight at the\noutset. Some of the allegedly disproportionate assets which include\nmovable as well as immovable assets have a direct link with Dr. Rajiv\nKumar who happens to be the real brother of accused Sanjiv Kumar.\nHe is a doctor by profession and is settled in UK. Despite this, Dr.\nRajiv Kumar was never associated in any capacity during the\ninvestigation. The IO never bothered to examine him or question him.\nIt is interesting to further highlight that 2 flats situated in Vasant Kunj,\nNew Delhi were purchased during the check period, allegedly\n'benami' by accused Sanjiv Kumar. One of these was purchased by\naccused Dr. Maheshwar Kumar whereas the other was purchased by\nDr. Rajiv Kumar. Even though IO made Dr. Maheshwar Kumar an\nabettor by concluding that the flat purchased by him was 'benami' of\nSanjiv Kumar, Dr. Rajiv Kumar was left untouched even though the\nevidence led was that it was Sanjiv Kumar who had paid the entire\namount for both the flats. It remained an unexplained mystery as to\nwhy was the IO so kind towards Dr. Rajiv Kumar so as to leave him\nout altogether from the ambit of his detailed investigation but scuffed\nDr. Maheshwar Kumar by his neck when the role of both appeared to\nbe identical. It was repeatedly argued by accused Sanjiv Kumar (inCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 5 of 352person) that had the IO recorded the version of Dr. Rajiv Kumar, a\nconsiderable number of allegedly disproportionate assets would have\nbeen easily explained and legitimately accounted for, and that is the\nreason, out of mala­fide, that the IO deliberately did not question Dr.\nRajiv Kumar.11.              Prosecution examined a total of 47 witnesses to prove the\nCharge. Accused Sanjiv Kumar examined 20 witnesses in his defense.Charge­sheet:12.              The investigation in the present case resulted from the\nHon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 25.11.2003 passed in Writ\nPetition (Crl.) No. 93 of 2003 inter­alia directing CBI to take up from\nthe State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana Enquiry No. 16 dated 3.9.2002,\nChandigarh regarding disproportionate assets of the petitioner i.e.\nSanjiv Kumar, IAS In compliance of the said order, CBI registered\nPE 3 (A)/2004/ACU­IX on 27.1.2004. During the course of inquiry\nsufficient material came on record indicating commission of offence\nU/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) ofPC Actand thus Preliminary Enquiry was\nconverted into present RC on 16.2.2005.13.              The allegations appearing against accused Sanjiv Kumar,\nan IAS Officer were that while discharging functions as a publicCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 6 of 352servant in Government of Haryana in different capacities from 1998,\nhad amassed assets both immovable and movable at Gurgaon,\nFaridabad, Ranchi, Dhanbad and New Delhi etc. worth about Rs.\n80,33,673/­ in his name or in the names of his dependent family\nmembers. During the check period from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2003, assets\nto the tune of Rs. 46,17,370/­ were found to be disproportionate to his\nknown sources of income. The check period was thereafter expanded\nfrom 1.4.96 till 16.2.2005.14.              Though the check period was taken to be from 1.4.96 till\n16.2.2005, accused Sanjiv Kumar was under suspension from\n4.12.2001 on various charges alleged by the Haryana Government and\ncontinued to be so till his conviction in the JBT Recruitment scam of\nwhich Sanjiv Kumar was the whistle blower.15.              Accused Mrs. Abha Singh w/o Sanjiv Kumar was a\nhousewife with no independent source of income though she was\nenrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab, Haryana and\nChandigarh since 1999.16.              Accused Dr. Maheshwar Kumar, father of Sanjiv Kumar\ntook voluntarily retirement on 1.9.1988 from the post of Chief\nMedical Superintendent and Chief Surgeon, Indian Railway MedicalCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 7 of 352Services, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad. He was practicing as a private\nsurgeon in Dhanbad after taking voluntary retirement. He frequently\ncame and stayed in New Delhi at C­6/6360, Vasant Kunj since\nNovember 1999.17.              Accused Smt. Kanak Lata w/o Dr. Maheshwar Kumar\n(and mother of accused Sanjiv) was a Hindi literature writer and had\nwritten various books for which she had been receiving some amount\nas royalty.18.              Since investigation had revealed that accused Sanjiv\nKumar had acquired assets, movable and immovable in the name of\nhis wife Mrs. Abha Kumar, his father Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and his\nmother Mrs. Kanak Lata during the check period 1.4.1996 to\n16.2.2005 hence, investigation was conducted into the income, assets\n(movable & immovable) and expenditure of Mrs. Abha Kumar, Dr.\nMahesh Kumar, Smt. Kanak Lata and two children of accused Sanjiv\nKumar, namely Miss Snigdha Kumar and Master Ananya Prahersh.\nAfter detailed investigation, respective income, expenditure and assets\ncharts were prepared. Assets at the beginning of check period, assets at\nthe end of check period, income during check period and expenditure\nduring check period were given in Statement A, B, C & D\nrespectively, which are reproduced as under:CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 8 of 352Statement ­ "A"Assets held at the beginning of Check period - Before 1.4.1996.Sl.N       Details of Assets                Asset Holder   Date/year Amount\n o                                                                      Rs.\n\n1      Flat No. 15, Hope Sh. Sanjiv Kumar                  5.1.1996 9,82,40\n       Apartment, Part II,                                          0/­\n       Gurgaon\n\n2      SB A/c No. 15469 in Sh. Sanjiv Kumar                31.3.1996 194/­\n       Oriental Bank of\n       Commerce,      New\n       Railway       Road,\n       Gurgaon\n\n3      Account no. 7617 Sh. Sanjiv Kumar                   31.3.1996 1,552/­\n       opened on 16.6.95 in\n       Allahabad      Bank,\n       Panipat\n\n4      A/c no 6765 opened Sh. Sanjiv Kumar                 31.3.1996 102/­\n       on    15.9.1995   in\n       Canara Bank, Panipat\n       MainTotal Assets in the name of Sanjiv Kumar (Individual) ­ Rs.\n9,84,248/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others              Page 9 of 3525      Abha Sinha w/o Sh. Mrs. Abha 31.3.96        8,71,917/­\n       Sanjiv Kumar in her Kumar\n       income tax return for\n       AY 1996­97 has\n       mentioned assets and\n       property worth of Rs.8,71,917/­ as on\n       31.3.1996\n\n6      Plot No. 1995 of 350 Mrs. Abha Sept, 94     19,163/­\n       sq. yds, Sector 28, Kumar\n       Faridabad, HUDA,\n       Haryana7      SB A/c No. 15666 in Mrs. Abha 31.3.96       500/­Oriental Bank of Kumar\n       Commerce,      New\n       Railway       Road\n       Gurgaon\n\n8      PPF A/c No. 11/1810 Mrs. Abha 31.3.96       20,100/­\n       in SBI PB Division, Kumar\n       Dhanbad       w.e.f.14.2.1995\n\n9      Jewellery found in Locker in the Prior    to 4,00,000/­\n       locker no. 609, ICICI name of Mrs. 1996\n       Bank, Vasant Kunj, Abha\n       Delhi evaluated by Kumar, Smt.\n       Govt.       approved Kanak LataCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 10 of 352valuer Vijay Goel of and Dr. M.\n       M/s Zevrat, 2192 Kumar\n       Gurudwara      Road,\n       Karol Bagh, Delhi\n\n\nTotal Assets in the name of Abha Kumar (Individual) - Rs.13,11,680/­10     PPF A/c No. 1310 Dr.        April 91 5,300New               Maheshwar to March\n       No.01P00900557 in Kumar     1993\n       SBI, PB Division\n       Dhanbad\n\n11     Building in Dhanbad Dr.         1988­89    5,50,000/­\n       which             was Maheshwar\n       constructed by Dr. Kumar\n       Maheshwar Kumar,\n       on the basis of power\n       of attorney executed\n       by his daughter­in­\n       law Ms. Abha Kumar\n       and    Ms.     Meena\n       Kumar w/o Dr. Rajiv\n       Kumar in 198812     Pension A/c No. 2268 Dr.   16.2.1996 18,345/­of Dr. Maheshwar Maheshwar\n       Kumar in Allahabad KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others   Page 11 of 352Bank, Dhanbad\n\n\nTotal Assets in the name of Maheshwar Kumar (Individual) ­ Rs.5,73,645/­13     SB A/c No. 470 in the Dr. M. 31.3.96                 22,503/­name of Dr. M. Kumar and\n       Kumar and Smt. Kanak Lata\n       Kanak     Lata     in\n       Allahabad      Bank,\n       Hirapur      Branch,\n       DhanbadJoint Total Assets in the name of Dr. M. Kumar & Kanak Lata ­\nRs. 22503/­14     Plot No. 1997 of 350 Mrs. Kanak Sept,                19,163sq. yds, Sector 28, Lata        1994\n       Faridabad,    HUDA\n       Haryana.Total Assets in the name of Kanak Lata Rs. 19,163/­1      Sr. No. 1 to 4 total           Sanjiv     984248Kumar2      Sr. No. 5 to 9 total           Abha Kumar 13116803      Sr. No. 10 to 12 total Maheshwar 573645CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others             Page 12 of 352Kumar4      Sr. No. 13                     Dr.       22503Maheshwar\n                                      Kumar   &\n                                      Mrs. Kanak\n                                      Lata5      Sr. No. 14                     Mrs. Kanak 19163Lata\n\n       G. Total                       Total          29,11,239 Rs.29,11,23\n                                                               9/­\n\n\n\n                                       Statement B\n\n                       Assets at the end of Check Period\n                        Check period 1.4.96 to 16.2.2005\nSl.N A/c No.                          Name       & Date       Balance\no                                     Address of              amount as on\n                                      Depositor               28.2.2005\n\n1      SB A/c No. 1410, Sh.      Sanjiv Balance 1,08,729/­\n       Vijaya Bank, Sector Kumar        as on\n       34A, Chandigarh                  16.2.20052      SB A/c No. 7617, Sh.   Sanjiv Balance                  2,101/­Allahabad  Bank, Kumar        as on\n       PanipatCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 13 of 35216.2.20053      SB A/c No. 15469 Sh.   Sanjiv Balance                 17,679/­OBC, Gurgaon     Kumar        as on\n                                                 16.2.20054      SB A/c No.3610, Sh.       Sanjiv 16.2.2005 1,279/­Allahabad      Bank, Kumar(HUF\n       Hirapur Br., Dhanbad )\n\n5      Six IDBI Flexi Bonds Sanjiv               23.4.2001 30,000/­\n       dated 23.4.01; No. Kumar\n       000679582­\n       000679587\n\n6      Two     ICICI    Tax Sanjiv               Date    of 10,000/­\n       Saving Bonds Date Kumar                   investmen\n       30.4.03, Date of                          t\n       Maturity 30.8.2006                        18.3.20037      DDP No. 10155 Sanjiv                      5.2.2001 1,25,000/­Allahabad      Bank, Kumar\n       Hirapur, Dhanbad     (HUF)\n\n8      National             Saving Sanjiv        25.3.2000 5,000/­\n       Certificate                 Kumar\n\n9      National    Saving Sanjiv                 30.3.1999 5,000/­\n       Certificate    No. Kumar\n       21DD001593\n\n10     Sanjiv Kumar (HUF) Sanjiv                 2004­       50,000/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others            Page 14 of 352in his IT Return for Kumar                2005\n       assessment       year (HUF)\n       2000­01 to 2004­05\n       has mentioned one\n       flat Gurgaon ( DLF )\n       for Rs. 50,000/­\n\n\nTotal Assets in the name of Sanjiv Kumar ­ Rs. 3,54,788/­.11     National    Saving 1    Sanjiv 24.3.2001 5,000/­\n       Certificate        Kumar\n       6NS/20DD 850782 2       Kanak\n                                      LataTotal joint assets in the name of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar & Kanak Lata\n­ Rs. 5,000/­\n\n\n12     SB A/c No. 6000 Abha Kumar Balance as 40,033/­\n       Oriental Bank of           on\n       Commerce.                  16.2.2005\n\n13     PPF A/c No. 11/1810 Abha Kumar 24.10.04           3,35,100/­\n       w.e.f 14.2.95 in SBI,\n       PB           Division,\n       DhanbadCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 15 of 35214     SB A/c No. 119 Abha Kumar 16.2.2005 8,779/­Allahabad  Bank,\n       Hirapur   Branch,\n       Dhanbad15     SB A/c No. 15666 Abha Kumar Balance as 334/­Oriental Bank of            on\n       Commerce, Gurgaon           16.2.2005\n\n16     Assets movable & Abha Kumar March\n       immovable held at                  2002­2003\n       the end of check\n       period as shown in\n       the income tax return\n       filed by Smt. Abha\n       Kumar      for    the\n                             Rs. 30,000/­\n       assessment       year\n       2002­03.              Rs. 70,000/­1. Land at Ranchi                Rs.           2,93,170/­\n                                        1,93,170/­2.   Building               at\n       Dhanbad.3. Land & house at\n       Gurgaon\n\n17     Special Term Deposit Abha Kumar 19.11.199 20,000/­receipt no.776004 for           878 months\n\n18     DCM Estate plot of Abha Kumar July 1996 3,00,000/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 16 of 352Smt. Abha Kumar\n       w/o Sh. Sanjiv Kumar\n       purchased in July199619     Plot no. 1995 of 350 Abha Kumar 16.2.2005 19163\n       sq.    yds,   Sec­28\n       Faridabad,   HUDA,\n       Haryana\n\n20     Jewellery found in Locker     in 16.2.2005 14,79,084/­\n       locker no. 609 ICICI the name of\n       Bank, Vasant Kunj, Abha\n       Delhi evaluated by Kumar, Smt.\n       Govt approved valuer Kanak Lata\n       Sh. Vijay Goel of M/s and D.r M.\n       Zevrat, Karol Bagh, Kumar.Delhi.21     Flat No. 6357, Ist In the name 19.11.199 14,00,000/­\n       Floor,     Sector­C, of Dr. Rajiv 9\n       Vasant Kunj, N. Kumar\n       Delhi                (Brother of\n       In income tax return Sanjiv\n       for assessment year Kumar who\n       2000­01, Mrs. Abha lives in UK)\n       Kumar has shown Rs. Purchased\n       6,50,000/­ as advance on 19.11.99\n       for Flat to Sh. K. K.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others   Page 17 of 352Lal\n\n22     SB A/c No. 19594 Abha Sinha 17.2.2005 1,393/­\n       (New      A/c     No. (A/c opened\n       90432010057225) in on\n       the name of Mrs. 22.12.1999)\n       Abha      Sinha    at\n       Syndicate       Bank,\n       Khan Market, New\n       Delhi.Total Assets in the name of Mrs. Abha Kumar ­ Rs. 38,97,056/­\n\n\n\n23     ICICI Bank A/c no. Smt. Abha Balance as 10,07,365/­\n       000701501139,      Kumar  & on\n       Vasant Kunj, Delhi Sanjiv    16.2.2005\n       A/c    opened   on Kumar\n       21.3.2003\n\n24     SB A/c No. 6064, Sh. Sanjiv Balance as 6,18,671/­\n       Oriental Bank of Kumar   & on\n       Commerce,        Smt. Abha 16.2.2005\n       Panchkula        Kumar\n\n\nTotal joint Assets in name of Sanjiv Kumar & Abha Kumar ­ Rs.\n16,26,036/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others   Page 18 of 35225     Pension A/c no. 2268 Dr.   31.1.2005 55,901\n       of Dr. Maheshwar Maheshwar\n       Kumar in Allahabad Kumar\n       Bank, Dhanbad26     Old A/c No. 119 Dr.        8.1.2005                       1,709/­(New SB A/c No. Maheshwar\n       01190007742) in SBI, Kumar\n       PB Div., Dhanbad27     PPF A/c No. 1310 Dr.                         Investmen 5,300/­(New         No. Maheshwar                   t   during\n       01P00900557)  in Kumar                       the period\n       SBI, PB Division                             April 1991\n       Dhanbad                                      to March199328     Six ICICI Tax saving Dr.                  M. Date of      30,000\n       bonds                Kumar                   investment\n       Date of            maturity                  18.2.03\n       30.8.2006\n\n29     Allahabad      Bank, Dr.       Date of    3,50,000/­\n       Hirapur, Dhanbad A/c Maheshwar investment\n       No. DDP 110044       Kumar     11.7.2002CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 19 of 35230     DDP No. 11188 Dr.                         M. 17.9.2002 59,742/­Allahabad      Bank, Kumar\n       Hirapur, Dhanbad.31     Flat No. 6360, Vasant Dr.   December 10,00,000/­\n       Kunj, Pocket 6&7, Maheshwar 1999\n       New Delhi purchased Kumar\n       in the year December199932     National             Saving Dr.       25.3.2000 10,000/­\n       Certificate                 Maheshwar\n       6NS/16EE 492062                Kumar\n\n33     National       Saving Dr.      30.3.1999 10,000/­\n       Certificate No. 16EE Maheshwar\n       459885                Kumar\n\n34     Dr.      Maheshwar Dr.                        IT return\n       Kumar in his ITR for Maheshwar                for\n       assessment     Year Kumar                     assessmen\n       2004­05          has                          t\n       mentioned following                           year 2004­movable         and Rs.                       05immovable properties 5,50,000/­*1.   Building               at Rs. 50,000/­\n       Dhanbad                        *\n                                                                  6,32,500/­2. Flat at Gurgaon Rs. 3,000/­*\n       (DLF)CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 20 of 3523. Cordless Phone set Rs. 29,500/­4. Microwave          *35     Plot No. B­103 in Dr.            26.4.96               7,76,000/­Sushant        Lok, Maheshwar\n       Gurgaon, Haryana, in Kumar, Mrs.\n       the name of Dr. Kanak Lata,\n       Maheshwar Kumar Ms. Snigdha\n       Dt. 26.4.96          Kumar\n                            (under\n                            natural\n                            guardian\n                            Sanjiv\n                            Kumar.Total Assets in the name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar ­ Rs.\n29,31,152/­\n\n\n36     SB A/c No. 3609, Mrs. Kanak 16.2.2005 4,949/­\n       Allahabad  Bank, Lata\n       Hirapur   Branch,\n       Dhanbad\n\n37     Two     ICICI            Tax Kanak Lata Date of        10,000/­\n       saving bonds                              investme­\n                                                 nt\n                                                 18.3.2003CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 21 of 35238     DDP No. 11232, Kanak Lata 16.10.02         1,50,000/­\n       Allahabad,    Bank,\n       Hirapur Dhanbad39     DDP No. 11297, Kanak Lata 30.11.02         50,000/­Allahabad,    Bank,\n       Hirapur Dhanbad\n\n40     DDP No. 10154, Kanak Lata 5.2.2001         1,25,000/­\n       Allahabad,    Bank,\n       Hirapur Dhanbad\n\n41     Rs. 4,25,000/­ has Kanak Lata 30.6.97      4,25,000/­\n       been shown in the\n       sale deed of land in\n       Vill.    Dhumuspur,\n       Gurgaon;         plot\n       purchased in the\n       name of Kanak Lata\n\n42     Valuation report by Kanak Lata 1997        10,50,000/­\n       General Design &\n       Planning, 62, Jaina\n       Building, Roshanara\n       Road, Delhi­7, dt.3.11.05\n\n43     Plot No. 1997 of 350 Kanak Lata 16.2.1994 19,163/­\n       sq. yds, Sector 28,\n       Faridabad,   HUDA,\n       Haryana in the nameCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others   Page 22 of 352of Kanak Lata\n\n44     DCM residential plot Kanak Lata Jan 1997 5,00,000/­\n       booked in the name              to   May\n       of Mrs. Kanak Lata              1997\n       M/o     Sh.   Sanjiv\n       Kumar         during\n       January 1997 to May199745     00853575 SB Vasant Kanak Lata 5.10.04            6,000/­\n       Kunj Post office,\n       Delhi\n\n46     00483817                MIS Kanak Lata 4.9.04    3,00,000/­\n       Vasant Kunj             Post\n       Office, Delhi.47     00411659 RD Vasant Kanak Lata 5.10.04            12,500/­\n       Kunj Post Office,\n       Delhi\n\n\nTotal assets in the name of Kanak Lata (individual) ­ Rs.\n26,52,612/­.48     SB    A/c    No.470 Mrs Kanak 16.2.2005 6,465/­Allahabad Bank,     Lata &\n       Hirapur Br, Dhanbad. M. KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 23 of 35249     A/c No. 16887, OBC, Dr.     M. Balance as 19,052/­\n       Rly Road, Gurgaon; Kumar, Smt on\n       A/c opened on 2.6.97 Kanak Lata 16.2.2005\n                                      & Smt.\n                                      Abha Kumar\n\n50     SB              A/c Kanak Lata 31.12.200 2,47,486/­No.019601507407     &          4Dr.       (16.2.2005\n                                      Maheshwar )\n                                      Kumar\n\n51     Statement of SB A/c Dr.     M. 16.2.2005 1,67,288/­\n       No. 000701228511, Kumar,\n       ICICI Bank, Vasant Kanak Lata,\n       Kunj, New Delhi     Abha Kumar52     Flat No. B2­301        Dr.          Paid       19,52,000/­Total Cost of the Flat Maheshwar during\n       Rs.20,32,300/­         Kumar     & 19.5.2001\n                              Mrs. Kanak to\n       Total amount paid Rs.Lata         28.2.2003\n       20,73,000/­       (Rs.\n       40,700/­ is excess Power            Statement\n       paid)                  Welfare      of account\n                              Organization uptoMembership No. 301, Gurgaon 5.11.200353     DDP No. 11209 Dr.      M. 03.10.02                    1,00,000/­Allahabad Bank Kumar &CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 24 of 352Hirapur, Dhanbad               Kanak Lata\n\n54     National    Saving Dr.   M. 24.3.2001 5,000/­\n       Certificate        Kumar  &\n       6NS/20DD 850780 Kanak Lata\n\n55     National    Saving Dr.   M. 24.3.2001 5,000/­\n       Certificate        Kumar  &\n       6NS/20DD 850781 Kanak Lata\n\n56     National             Saving Dr.           M. 18.3.2002 5,000/­\n       Certificate                 Kumar\n       6NS/20DD 236404                &    Kanak\n                                      Lata\n\n57     National             Saving Dr.           M. 18.3.2002 10,000/­\n       Certificate                 Kumar\n       6NS/37EE 949346                &    Kanak\n                                      Lata\n\n58     National             Saving Dr.           M. 10.3.2003 5,000/­\n       Certificate                 Kumar\n       6NS/31DD 230529                &    Kanak\n                                      Lata\n\n59     National             Saving Dr.           M 10.3.2003 5,000/­\n       Certificate                 Kumar\n       6NS/31DD 2305230 &    Kanak\n                        LataCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 25 of 35260     NSC     No.     34DD Dr.     M. 29.3.2004 5,000/­961314      purchased Kumar and\n       from Vasant Kunj Kanak Lata\n       Post Office, Delhi61     NSC     No.     34DD Dr.     M. 29.3.2004 5,000/­961315      purchased Kumar and\n       from Vasant Kunj Kanak Lata\n       Post Office, Delhi\n\n62     4 ICICI Tax Saving Dr.     M. Date   of 20,000/­Bonds; maturity on Kumar and investment\n       28.2.2003 for Rs. Kanak Lata 30.10.19927,965/­                      9Total assets in the name of Dr. M. Kumar, Kanak Lata and Abha\nKumar ­ Rs. 25,57,291/­\n\n\n63     SB 00853328 Vasant Snigdha     Date of   11,333/­\n       Kunj Post office, Kumar        opening\n       Delhi.             d/o    Abha 21.7.2004\n                          Kumar\n\n\n\n64     00411564 RD Vasant Snigdha     31.7.2004 8,000/­\n       Kunj Post Office, Kumar\n       Delhi.             d/o    AbhaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others   Page 26 of 352Kumar\n\n65     00411553 RD Vasant Snigdha     21.7.2004 12,000/­\n       Kunj Post Office, Kumar\n       Delhi.             d/o    Abha\n                          Kumar\n\n66     0043390 MIS, Vasant Snigdha     24.7.2004 2,00,000/­\n       Kunj Post Office, Kumar\n       Delhi.              d/o    Abha\n                                      Kumar\n\n67     00483427                MIS Snigdha         2.8.2004    1,00,000/­\n       Vasant Kunj             Post Kumar\n       Office, Delhi.                 d/o   Abha\n                                      Kumar\n\n68     00411571 RD Vasant Ananya      31.7.2004 20,000/­\n       Kunj Post Office, Prahersh\n       Delhi.             s/o  Sanjiv\n                          Kumar\n\n69     00483431                MIS Ananya        3.8.2004      3,00,000/­\n       Vasant Kunj             Post Prahersh s/o\n       Office, Delhi.               Sanjiv\n                                    Kumar\n\n70     SB 00853345 Vasant Ananya                   21.7.2004 10,000/­\n       Kunj Post Office, Prahersh\n       Delhi.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 27 of 352s/o  Sanjiv\n                                      Kumar71     Saving    A/c  No. Snigdha                   16.2.2005 12,104/­000701239298    in Kumar\n       ICICI Bank, Vasant under\n       Kunj, N. Delhi     guardian\n                          Abha\n                                      KumarTotal assets in name of Snigdha Kumar & Ananya ­ Rs. 6,73,437/­\n\n\n              Grand Total of All Assets of Statement B.1      Sr. No. 1 to 10                S. Kumar      3547882      Sr. No. 11                     S. Kumar + 5000Kanak Lata3      Sr. No. 12 to 22               Smt. Abha 3897056Kumar4      Sr. No. 23 & 24                Smt. Abha 1626036Kumar  &\n                                      Sanjiv\n                                      Kumar5      Sr. No. 25 to 35               Dr.       2931152MaheshwarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 28 of 352Kumar6      Sr. No. 36 to 47               Smt. Kanak 2652612Lata\n\n7      Sr. 48 to 62                   Family            2557291\n                                      Members\n                                      of Dr. M.\n                                      Kumar8      Sr. No. 63 & 71                Snigdha           673437Kumar &\n                                      Ananya\n\n       G. Total Sr. No. 1 to                            1,46,9737 Total Rs.71                                               2             1,46,97,372\n\n\n                                     Statement­ 'C'\n                          Income during the check period\n                      Check Period 1.4.1996 to 16.2.2005\nSl.     Particulars                   Date                       Amount (Rs)\nNo.\n\n1       Salary income of Sh. April 1996                          8,363/­\n        Sanjiv       Kumar\n        received     during\n        April 1996\n\n2       Salary       of      Sanjiv May          1996       toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                       Page 29 of 352Kumar for the period 9.6.96\n\n3       Salary statement of 10.6.96 to 24.7.97 71,355/­\n        Sh. Sanjiv Kumar\n        received       from\n        Haryana        Civil\n        Secretariat\n\n4       Salary statement of 25.7.97 to 2.11.98 1,20,210/­\n        Sh. Sanjiv Kumar\n        received from the\n        O/o Administrative\n        Officer/Director\n        Primary Education\n        ( HR)\n\n5       Salary income of Sh. 3.11.98             to 75,389/­\n        Sanjiv       Kumar 15.6.1999\n        received from O/o\n        HPSPP, Chandigarh.\n\n6       Income from salary 16.6.99 to 30.6.99 9,655/­\n        as MD, Haryana\n        Backward Classes,\n        Chandigarh.\n\n7       Average Salary for 4 1.7.99 to 10/99       50,012/­\n        months from July to\n        October\n\n8       Income as Director 11/99 to 5/2000         1,93,999/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 30 of 352Food & Supply,\n        Haryana Chandigarhfor the period 11/99to 05/2000 including\n        DA and Arrears\n\n9       Salary income of 06/2000                       to 1,12,030/­\n        Sanjiv         Kumar 14.1.2001\n        received as State\n        project Director from\n        the O/o HPSPP,\n        Chandigarh\n\n10      Income from salary 15.1.01 to 25.5.01 92,927/­\n        as Joint Secretary\n        Revenue\n        Department,\n        Haryana for the\n        period 15.1.01 to\n        31.10.02 and 1.11.02\n        to 31.3.03.\n\n11      Subsistence           21.5.01                  to 1,01,075/­\n        allowance paid for 31.5.2004\n        the period 21.5.01 to\n        26.6.01 and 4.12.01\n        to 31.10.02 and\n        1.11.02 to 31.3.03.\n\n12      Details       of     salary 06/2004 to 02/05     30,108/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 31 of 352received      from\n        Haryana Secretariat,\n        Chandigarh.Total Salary income of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar during the check period\n­ Rs. 8,65,123/­\n\n\n13      Income on account 1. 1997­98               26,940\n        of Rental/Agriculture 2. 1998­99           61,315\n        of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar3. 1999­00           78,500\n        (HUF) reflected in\n        IT returns of HUF 4. 2000­01               65,337\n        for assessment years. 5. 2001­02           74,6666. 2002­03   65,830\n        In assessment year 7. 2003­04              44,754\n        1999­2000         Sh.8. 2004­05           45,031\n        Sanjiv         Kumar\n        mentioned advance 9. 2005­2006             40,077\n        against flat of Rs. Total                  5,02,450\n        25,000/­. In ITR of\n        assessment       year\n        2001­02            he\n        mentioned        sale\n        consideration\n        amount      of    Rs.3,25,000/­.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 32 of 35214      Patna flat sold by                1997 to 2000   10,75,000/\n        whole family i.e. Dr.\n        M. Kumar, Smt.\n        Kanak Lata, Sh.Sanjiv Kumar during\n        the period 1997 to200015      Survival benefit of                 28.4.2002    40,000/­\n        Rs. 40,000/­ was\n        received          on\n        28.4.2002 by the\n        policy holder, Sh.\n        Sanjiv      Kumar\n        against his     LIC\n        policy           no.\n        171578323.\n\n16      Price of flat no. 15,                    2003    10,71,000/\n        Hope Apartment sold\n        by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar\n        in year 2003 to Sh.\n        Subhash Saini.\n\n17      Interest earned from 4.8.99 to 5.2.2004 12,036/­\n        savings of salary\n        account no. 1410 in\n        name     of    Sanjiv\n        Kumar maintained in\n        Vijaya Bank, br.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 33 of 352Chandigarh.Total income of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar (individual) ­ Rs. 35,65,609/­.18      2 ICICI Tax Saving                  28.2.2003   13,983/­\n        Bond vide certificate\n        no.     12274­12275\n        invested on 30.11.99\n        in name of Sh.\n        Sanjiv Kumar and\n        Kanak Lata.Joint Income of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar & Kanak Lata ­ Rs. 13,983\n\n19      Income on account\n        of rental etc of Smt.\n        Abha      Sinha    as\n        reflected in income\n        tax returns.Asst. Year1. Income for the\n        year 1996­97      1997­98                       74,683/­2. Income for the\n        year 1997­98      1998­99                       65,355/­3. Income for the\n        year 1998­99      1999­00                       1,03,281/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others              Page 34 of 3524. Income for the 2000­01                62,725/­\n        year 1999­005. Income for the 2001­02                65,886/­\n        year 2000­016. Income for the 2002­03                78,361\n        year 2001­027. Loans raised in\n                           1999                  5,75,250/­\n        1999 from sister\n        Poonam Singh8. Income for the\n        year 2004­05      2005­06                1.34.206\n                                      Total      11,59, 74720      LIC Policy No. April 2004                1,04,900/­60341988       HLY\n        dated     10.4.1980\n        matured and Rs.104900.00       was\n        received   by    the\n        policy holder, Smt.\n        Abha Sinha from\n        LIC\n\n21      Survival benefit of 23.4.2002            20,000\n        Rs. 20,000/­ was\n        received         on\n        23.4.2002 by the\n        policy holder, Smt.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 35 of 352Abha Kumar against\n        her LIC policy no.\n        171578339Total Income of Mrs. Abha Kumar (Individual) Rs.. 12,84,647/­\n\n\n\n22      Dr. M. Kumar in his 1998­99              1,50,920/­\n        IT    returns,   has 1999­2000           1,54,845/­\n        mentioned income\n                             2000­01             1,76,229/­\n        from all sources\n                             2001­02             2,21,238/­\n                                      2002­03    1,99,215/­\n                                      2003­04    2,12,945/­\n                                      2004­05    2,13,163\n\n                                      Total      13,28,555/\n\n23      Dr. M. Kumar has 2004­2005               92,000/­\n        shown loans and\n        advance taken as per\n        IT     return    for\n        assessment      year\n        2004­05\n\n24      Interest earned by 28.2.02 to 31.8.04 3867\n        Dr.      Maheshwar\n        Kumar in his pensionCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 36 of 352account               2268\n        maintained              in\n        Allahabad             Bank\n        Dhanbad\n\n\nTotal income of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar (individual) ­ Rs.14,24,422/­\n\n\n\n\n25      Mrs. Kanak Lata in 1998­1999              78,785/­\n        her IT return has 1999­2000               1,11,798/­\n        mentioned         the\n                              2000­2001           84,720/­\n        following    income\n        including             2001­2002           79,496/­\n        agricultural income 2002­2003             72,004/­\n        for assessment years.\n                              2003­2004           59,374/­\n                                      2004­2005   73,688\n                                      2005­2006   1,17,702\n                                      Total       6,74,567\n\n26      Mrs. Kanak Lata has 2003­2004\n        also mentioned the\n        following gifts and\n                                                  65,000/­\n        loans received in IT\n        return for assessment                     1,00,000/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 37 of 352year 2003­2004                Total      1,65,000/­\n        1. Rajiv            Kumar\n        ( HUF)\n        2. Loan against FDR\n        with Allahabad BankTotal income of Mrs. Kanak Lata (individual) ­ Rs. 8,39,567/­\n\n\n\n27      4 ICICI Tax saving 28.2.2003             27,965/­\n        bonds vide certificate\n        no.     12276­12279\n        invested on 30.11.99\n        in name of Dr.\n        Maheshwar Kumar\n        and Kanak Lata.28      2 ICICI Tax saving 28.2.2003             13,983\n        bonds vide certificate\n        no.     12280­12281\n        invested 30.10.1999\n        in name of Kanak\n        Lata     and       Dr.\n        Maheshwar Kumar.Joint income of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Kanak Lata ­ Rs.\n41,948/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 38 of 352Grand Total of all\n        Assets of Statement\n        'C'1       Sr. No. 1 to 17               Sh. Sanjiv Kumar 35656092       Sr. No. 18                    Sh. Sanjiv Kumar 13983& Kanak Lata3       Sr. No. 19 to 21               Abha Sinha       12846474       Sr. No. 22 to 24              Dr. M. Kumar      1424425       Sr. No. 25 to 26              Smt. Kanak Lata 8395676       Sr. No. 27 & 28               Dr. M. Kumar & 41948Kanak Lata\n\n        Total                                           71,70,176\n\n\n\n\n                                      Statement­ D\n                    Expenditure During the Check Period\n                     Check Period 01.04.1996 to 16.2.2005\nSl.    Detail of Expenditure Name                Date     Amount\nNo\n\n1      1/3       expenditure Sh. Sanjiv During            2,88,374/­\n       against non­verifiable Kumar     checkCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others              Page 39 of 352expenditure of Sh.                        period\n       Sanjiv Kumar from\n       his salary of Rs.8,65,123/­during the\n       check period.2      Expenditure incurred Sh. Sanjiv During 40,440/­\n       by credit card during Kumar     June 99­1999­00     (Citibank           00Credit Card No.\n       5425568602050009\n       in the name of Sh.\n       Sanjiv Kumar for the\n       period 23.6.99 till\n       closure)3      LIC    policy  No. Sh. Sanjiv June                      1,54,728/­113007203­YLY,     Kumar      2001                 to\n       Branch Unit 11F,              2004\n       Date 28.6.01\n\n4      LIC    policy no. Sh. Sanjiv Nov                        17,815/­\n       550644860­YLY     Kumar      1999                  to\n                                    Nov20045      LIC    policy no. Sh. Sanjiv April   1,00,996/­\n       171578323­YLY     Kumar      1998 to\n                                    Aprril2004CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 40 of 3526      Expenditure        on Ms.      April  3,95,280/­education of children Snigdha 1996 to\n       of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Kumar & Jan 2005\n       during the check Mr.\n       period from March Ananya\n       1998 to Jan 2005.     Praharsh\n       Rs. 1,99,345/­ for Ms.\n       Snigdha d/o of Sanjiv\n       Kumar.Rs. 1,95,935/­ for\n       Ananya Praharsh s/o\n       Sanjiv Kumar\n\n7      Payment towards fees Sh. Sanjiv 11.6.200 1,10,000/­\n       of Sr. Advocate in the Kumar    33\n       matter of Sanjiv\n       Kumar listed on\n       12.6.2003      before\n       Supreme Court\n\n8      Payment of electricity Sh. Sanjiv March 87,994/­\n       bill of flat no. 15, Kumar        1999 to\n       Hope      Apartment,              Sept\n       Sector 15, Part II,               2003\n       Gurgaon.\n\n9      Maintenance charges Sh. Sanjiv 08/98 to 54,600/­\n       against flat no. 15, Kumar     06/03\n       Hope      Apartment,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 41 of 352Sector 15, Part II\n       Gurgaon.\n\n10     Sh. Sanjiv Kumar has Sh. Sanjiv 2002­             9,224/­\n       mentioned         the Kumar     2003              14,791\n       following expenses in (HUF)     2003­             7,025\n       his IT return for               2004\n       assessment year.                                  14,486/­\n                                       2004­\n                                                         45,52620052005­2006Total\n\n11     Payment              against Sanjiv       25.5.98 77,885/­\n       mobile                   no. Kumar        to\n       9814088370                                26.7.200012     Sh. Subhash Chander Sanjiv                1999­   2,22,71,200/­\n       Gupta received Rs. Kumar                  2001\n       2,51,71,200/­    from\n       Sanjiv Kumar and his\n       men in cash as well\n       as cheque for the\n       investment in the\n       share market during\n       the period 1999­2001\n       and    he     investedCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others             Page 42 of 3522,33,71,200/­ in the\n       share market for\n       Sanjiv Kumar.\n\n13     Payment of water bill Sanjiv              15.11.20 7,953\n       of flat No. C­ Kumar                      00     to\n       6&7/6357      Vasant                      22.12.20Kunj, New Delhi in                        00the name of K. K. Lal\n       which    was     sold\n       during­1999 in the\n       name of Dr. Rajiv\n       Kumar (occupied by\n       Sanjiv Kumar)\n\n14     Payment of electricity Sanjiv             Jan 2002 44,170\n       bill of flat No. C­ Kumar                 to   Feb\n       6&7/6357      Vasant                      2005\n       Kunj, New Delhi sold\n       to Dr. Maheshwar\n       Kumar (occupied by\n       Sanjiv Kumar)Total Expenses of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar (individual) ­ Rs.2,36,96,961/­\n\n\n\n15     2 ICICI Tax Saving Sanjiv                 Date of 10,000\n       Bonds              Kumar                  InvestmeCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others             Page 43 of 352and Kanak nt\n                                      Lata      30.10.1999Joint Expenses of Sanjiv Kumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata ­ Rs.10,000/­\n\n\n\n16     Smt. Abha Sinha has Smt. Abha 1996­                 32,454/­\n       mentioned          the Sinha  1997                  59,803/­\n       following                     1997­                 55,983/­\n       expenditures in her IT        1998\n       returns for following                               53,407/­\n                                     1998­\n       assessment years                                    45,920/­199979,692/­\n                                                 1999­\n                                                 2000      57,678/­\n\n                                                 2000­     6,50,000/­\n                                                 2001      55,220/­\n                                                 2001­     10,90,157/­20022002­20031999­20002005­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 44 of 3522006Total17     LIC    policy No. Mrs. Abha Feb 1999 17,344/­550573541­YLY     Kumar     to   Feb0418     LIC    policy No. Mrs. Abha During 1,13,790/­113017747­YLY     Kumar     2002 to\n                                   March200419     LIC    policy No. Mrs. Abha During 43,980/­540418972­YLY     Kumar     1999­0420     LIC    policy No. Mrs. Abha April    45,640/­171578339­YLY     Kumar     1998 to\n                                   April 04\n\n21     Temporary Loan to Smt. Abha During                14,000/­\n       Mr. Ranjeet Singh (as Kumar 2002­\n       per IT return for the       2003\n       assessment       year\n       2002­2003)\n\n22     Loan advanced to Smt. Abha During                 6,000/­\n       Vibha    Sinha    as Kumar 2002­\n       shown in ITR of Smt.       2003\n       Abha Sinha for the\n       assessment      yearCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others             Page 45 of 3522002­03.\n\n23     Loan advance to G. Smt. Abha During       2,37,000/­\n       P. Singh, as per IT Kumar    2002­\n       return of Smt. Abha          2003\n       Kumar            for\n       assessment      year\n       2002­03\n\n24     An amount of Rs. Smt. Abha Jan 2000 75,00,000/­\n       75,00,000/­ was paid Sinha to July\n       by Smt. Abha Sinha         2000\n       to    M/s    Cosmos\n       Management Services\n       Pvt., Khan Market,\n       New Delhi.\n\n25     Account no. 16887, Mrs. Abha 02.09.19 1,81,727/­\n       Oriental Bank of Kumar       97\n       Commerce, New Rly\n       Road, Gurgaon.Total Expenses of Mrs. Abha Kumar (individual) ­ Rs. 92,49,638/­.26     SB a/c no. 6064 OBC, Sanjiv 1.3.2001 14,00,000/­\n       Panchkula in the Kumar &\n       name     of    Sanjiv Abha\n       Kumar      &    Abha KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 46 of 352Kumar for preparation\n       of CDR/Folio No.\n       59354/­Joint Expenses of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar & Abha Kumar ­ Rs.14,00,000/­\n\n\n27     LIC    policy             no. Dr.       28.3.2001 24,270\n       542268876                     Maheshwar\n                                     Kumar\n\n28     Stamp duty paid by Dr.         20.12.1999 80,000/­\n       Dr.        Maheshwar Maheshwar\n       Kumar       for  the Kumar\n       registration of flat\n       No. 6360, Sector­ C,\n       Pocket 6­7, Vasant\n       Kunj, New Delhi.\n\n29     Payment of water bill Dr.  12,11,2992 2,583/­\n       of flat No. 6360 Maheshwar to\n       Vasant Kunj, New Kumar     22.11.2004\n       Delhi in the name of\n       Sh. Prasanna Kumar\n       which was sold in\n       1999       to    Dr.\n       Maheshwar KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 47 of 35230     Payment of electricity Dr.  M. Nov 2000 1,46,070/­\n       bill of flat No. 6360 Kumar    to 2005\n       Vasant Kunj, New\n       Delhi in the name of\n       Sh. Prasanna Kumar\n\n31     Payment        against Dr.   M. 24.4.2001 35,214/­\n       telephone          no. Kumar    to\n       26123876 installed at           28.1.2005\n       flat no. 6360, C­6&7\n       Vasant Kunj, New\n       Delhi\n\n32     Insurance of Car No. Dr.     14.11.2002 9,126/­\n       BR­17C 9991 in the Maheshwar to\n       name      of     Dr. Kumar   17.2.2005\n       Maheshwar Kumar\n\n33     Payment to Oriental Dr.     28.6.1999 2,177\n       Insurance Company Maheshwar\n       Ltd Chandigarh as Kumar\n       Mediclaim\n       Worldwide for policy\n       no. 231200/2000/66\n\n34     Purchase of Foreign Dr.     19.07.2001 43,627/­\n       Currency from M/s Maheshwar\n       PherozeFramroze & Kumar\n       company Pvt Ltd.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others   Page 48 of 35235     Certificate U/s 68 (2) Dr. M. November 3,33,000/­\n       of    the voluntary Kumar     1997\n       disclosure of income\n       scheme, 1997, issued\n       by O/o Commissioner\n       of    Income      Tax,\n       Dhanbad          dated\n       6.12.1997 in favour\n       of Dr. Maheshwar\n       Kumar.\n\n36     Dr.        Maheshwar Dr. M. 1998­1999 No details\n       Kumar in his IT Kumar       1999­2000 79,645/­\n       returns has mentioned\n                                   2000­2001 83,650/­\n       the         following\n       expenditures.               2001­2002 66,390/­\n                                                  2002­2003 1,82,841/­\n                                                  2003­2004 71,775/­\n                                                  2004­2005 1,01,559/­\n                                                  Total     5,85,860Total expenditure of Dr. M. Kumar (individual) ­ Rs. 12,61,927/­\n\n\n\n37     LIC    policy             no. Smt.        28.03.2001 24,100\n       542268677                     Kanak\n                                     LataCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others             Page 49 of 35238     Purchase of foreign Kanak                 19.7.2001    44,417/­\n       currency from M/s Lata\n       PherozeFramroze &\n       company Pvt Ltd.39     Stamp duty paid by Kanak                  03.06.1997 53,125/­\n       Mrs. Kanak Lata for Lata\n       the registration of 8\n       Kanal      Land     at\n       Dhumuspur village.\n\n40     Payment to Oriental Mrs.                  28.06.1999 2,177/­\n       Insurance Company Kanak\n       Ltd. Chandigarh as Lata\n       Mediclaim\n       Worldwide for policy\n       no. 231200/2000/67\n\n41     Mrs. Kanak Lata has Mrs.                  2001­2002    57,359/­\n       mentioned          the Kanak              2002­2003\n       following              Lata\n                                                 2003­2004    1,10,336/­\n       expenditures in her IT\n       returns.                                  2004­2005\n                                                 2005­2006    39,253/­\n\n                                                 Total\n                                                              28,344/­\n\n\n                                                              81,213CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 50 of 3523,16,535Total Exp. Of Mrs. Kanak Lata (individual) ­ Rs. 4,40,354/­\n\n42     Dr.       Maheshwar Dr.     M. During     1,02,687/­\n       kumar     and    Smt. Kumar    June 99\n       Kanak     Lata    had and Smt.\n       purchased two air Kanak\n       tickets on 26.6.1999 Lata.of Rs. 1,02,687 from\n       Travel        Heights\n       Barakhamba Road,\n       New Delhi for Air\n       travel Delhi­London­\n       Delhi on Air India.\n\n43     Dr.       Maheshwar Dr.      M. During 1,03,678/­\n       Kumar and Smt. Kumar            July 1999\n       Kanak     Lata     had and Smt.\n       visited         United Kanak\n       Kingdom      in    the Lata.\n       month of July 1999\n       for which they had\n       purchased      foreign\n       currency    of     Rs.\n       49,757/­, Rs. 2,082/­,\n       Rs 49,757/­ and Rs.\n       2,082/­ (Dollar &\n       Pounds) from M/sCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 51 of 352New Found Land\n       Enterprises Pvt Ltd\n       against cash memos\n       i.e. 2.7.1999Joint expenses of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar &\nMrs. Kanak Lata ­ Rs. 2,06,365/­\n\n\n\n\n                  Grand Total of All Assets of Statement D1      Sr. No. 1 to 14                Sh. Sanjiv   2,36,96,961/­Kumar2      Sr. No. 15                     Sh. Sanjiv   1,00,000/­Kumar &\n                                      Kanak\n                                      Lata3      Sr. No. 16 to 25               Smt.         92,49,638/­Abha\n                                      Kumar4      Sr. No. 26                     Sh. Sanjiv   1400000Kumar\n                                      &Abha\n                                      KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 52 of 3525      Sr. No. 27 to 36               Dr.   M.       1261927Kumar6      Sr. No. 37 to 41               Mrs.           4,40,354/­Kanak\n                                      Lata7      Sr. No. 42 and 43              Dr.   M.       206365/­Kumar &\n                                      Kanak\n                                      Lata\n\n       Total                                         3,62,65,245/­19.              Thus from the above, the total assets acquired during the\ncheck period by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, his family members and parents\nwere found to be worth Rs. 1,17,86,133/­ (1,46,97,372 - 29,11,239).\nThe expenditure during check period was found to be of Rs.\n3,62,65,245. The income of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, his family members\nand parents was found to be Rs. 71,70,176/­. Thus, the\ndisproportionate assets in the name of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Mrs. Abha\nKumar w/o Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Mrs. Kanak\nLata (parents of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar) during 1.4.1996 to 16.2.2005 were\nto the tune of Rs. 4,08,81,202/­ which worked out to be 570.15%.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 53 of 352Calculation of DA\n                         Check period 1.4.1996 to 16.2.2005\n\nSr. No. Detail                                         Amount\n\n1         Assets at the end of check period 1,46,97,372/­\n          (Statement B)\n\n2         Assets at the beginning of check 29,11,239/­\n          period (Statement A)\n\n3         Assets acquired during check period 1,17,86,133/­\n          (B­A)\n\n4         Expenditure during check period 3,62,65,245/­\n          (Statement D)\n\n5         Assets + expenditure during check 4,80,51,378/­\n          period (Sl.No. 3 + 4)\n\n6         Income during               check      period 71,70,176/­\n          (Statement­C)\n\n7         DA during check period (Sl. No. 5­ 4,08,81,202/­\n          6)\n\n                                  Percentage of DA - 570.15%20.              During investigation, explanation had been sought from\nSh. Sanjiv Kumar and his family members about the assets but they\ncould not satisfactorily account for the same. Further, Govt. ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 54 of 352Haryana had informed that Sh. Sanjiv Kumar had not intimated to the\ngovernment authorities any of the immovable or moveable assets\nacquired by him in his own name or in the name of his wife during the\ncheck period. Sanjiv Kumar being a public servant while functioning\nunder various capacities of Haryana Government, during the period\n1.4.1996 to 16.2.2005 acquired assets which were disproportionate to\nhis income. On 16.2.2005, he and his family members were found in\npossession of assets to the extent of Rs. 4,08,81,202/­ which were\ndisproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could\nnot satisfactorily account for. Thus, Sh. Sanjiv Kumar committed an\noffence punishable U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) ofPC Act.21.              It was further alleged in the charge­sheet that there was\nevidence to show that Mrs. Abha Kumar w/o Sanjiv Kumar, Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar and Smt. Kanak Lata, parents of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar\nengaged in conspiracy with Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, and in furtherance of\nthe same facilitated and aided in the acquisition of illegal assets\nthereby, committing offence U/s 109IPCr/w 13 (2) r/w 13 ( 1 ) (e) ofPC Act.CHARGE:22.              On 5.6.2010, ld. Predecessor framed Charge against\naccused Sanjiv Kumaru/s 13 (2)read withsection 13 (1) (e)ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 55 of 352Prevention of Corruption Actand against accused Ms. Kanak Lata,\nMs. Abha Kumar and Dr. Maheshwar Kumar U/s 109IPCr/w 13 (2)\nr/w 13 (1) (e) ofPC Act.Prosecution Evidence23.              In order to prove the Charge, prosecution examined 47\nwitnesses. A brief resume of the witnesses to highlight the purpose of\ntheir testimony would be relevant:PW 1 - from Allahabad Bank, Panipat to prove the savings account\nstatement of accused Sanjiv Kumar when he was Deputy\nCommissioner, Panipat.PW 2 - Jewelery valuer who carried out the valuation of jewelery\nfound in the joint ICICI Bank locker of accused A­2 to A­ 4\nPW 3 - the then Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, GOI reg.\nlegality of order granting sanction for prosecution of accused Sanjiv\nKumar.PW 4 - from Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC), Rly rd. Br.,\nGurgaon to prove account statement of Savings a/c no. 15666 in the\nname of Abha Kumar and Savings a/c no. 15469 in the name of Sanjiv\nKumar.PW 5 - also from OBC, Rly. rd. Gurgaon to prove documents in\nregard to savings a/c in the name of accused Abha, Sanjiv and joint a/cCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 56 of 352No. 16887 in the name of A­2 to A­4.PW 6 ­ ITO from Gaya, Bihar to prove IT Returns of Sanjiv Kumar\n(HUF) from 1999­2k to 2005­06.PW 7 - Dy. Supdt., HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority),\nto prove allotment of plots to accused Abha and accused Kanak Lata\nin Faridabad (Hry.).PW 8 - Kanoongo in Gurgaon, to prove certified copy of jamabandi\nin respect of property measuring 8 kanals owned by Kanak Lata in\nDhumuspur village.PW 9 - to prove salary of accused Sanjiv as Director of Haryana\nPrathmik Shiksa Pariyojana Parishad, from 3.11.98 to 15.6.99 and\nfrom 17.5.2000 to 14.01.2001.PW 10 - to prove sale transaction of agri. land in Village Dhumuspur,\nGurgaon to accused Kanak Lata.PW 11 - from Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi, to prove the stay of\nSanjiv Kumar in Delhi on specific dates to co­relate with SC Gupta's\nstatement u/S 161 Cr. PC that he received money from accused Sanjiv\nin Haryana Bhawan.PW 12 - from Delhi Jal Board but discharged unexamined.\nPW 12 - also testified regarding sale of Dhumuspur agricultural land\nto accused Kanak Lata.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 57 of 352PW 13 - from Vijaya Bank, sector 34 Chandigarh to prove statement\nof a/c no. 1410 in name of Sanjiv Kumar.PW 14 - from Vijaya Bank but discharged as not competent.\nPW 15 - to prove statement of ICICI Jt. a/c of Kanak Lata and Dr.\nMaheshwar from 1.8.2004 to 17.2.2005, specifically in relation to\ndeposit of 1000 GBP on 12.8.2004 and 2000 GBP on 28.9.2004.PW 16 - Architect to prove the valuation report of Dhumuspur village\nproperty of Kanak Lata.PW 17 - from LIC, to prove details of 13 LIC policies seized by the\nCBI.PW 18 - was a property dealer, to prove that 2 Vasant Kunj flats were\nactually bought benami by Sanjiv Kumar.PW 19 - from Ansal Properties, to depose regarding purchase of plot\nby Kanak Lata in Sushant Lok.PW 20 - Proprietor of Pandit clinic, Dhanbad having 12 bed facility\nto prove whether or not Dr. M. Kumar had income from private\npractice as a surgeon.PW 21 - from Pureearth Infra.Ltd, to prove allotment of one flat each\nto Kanak Lata and Abha at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 58 of 352PW 22 - Witness from OBC, Panckula to prove credit transfer\nvouchers and debit vouchers in 2 accounts - of accused Sanjiv and\naccused Abha.PW 23 - from DHBVN (Elec. Board), Haryana to prove that Rs.\n87994/­ was paid as electricity bills of flat no. 15, Hope Apartments\nfrom March 1999 to September 2003, in the name of Sanjiv Kumar.\nPW 24 - Witness from OBC Gurgaon, Rly rd. br. to prove account\nopening forms of a/c no. 15666 in the name of Abha, a/c no. 15469 in\nthe name of Sanjiv Kumar and joint a/c no. 16887 in the name of\nAbha Kumar, Kanak Lata and Dr. M. Kumar\nPW 25 - To prove that accused Sanjiv dabbled in share market with\nthe aid of SC Gupta (PW 41).PW 26 - From Syndicate Bank, Khan Market to prove account\nstatement from 1.6.2004 to 31.01.2005 of a/c no. 90432010057525 in\nthe name of Abha Kumar.PW 27 - had worked as a clerk in Hope Apartments Society,\nGurgaon; brought in to prove the maintenance charges statement for\nflat no. 15 HOPE Apartments from June 1996 till Dec. 2003.\nPW 29 - from M/s PherozFramroz and Co. Ltd. which deals in\nforeign exchange to prove purchase of GBP 500 and US $ 200 by\nMaheshwar Kumar for Rs. 43,627 in cash, and further to prove\npurchase of GBP 300 and US $ 500 by Kanak Lata for Rs. 44,417.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 59 of 352PW 30 - from Airtel, to prove subscriber details of 13 mobile nos.\nPW 31 - from Canara Bank, Panipat to prove a/c no. 6765 of Sanjiv\nKumar\nPW 32 - Proved the elec. Bills for the period Nov. 2K to Feb. 2005\nfor flats no. 6357 and 6360 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.\nPW 33 - was a private practicing Doctor in Dhanbad; knew Dr. M.\nKumar who had his private practice and used to conduct minor\noperations at the clinic of witness.PW 34 - from MTNL to prove telephone bills of phones installed in\nflat no. 6357 and 6360, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.\nPW 35 - to prove transaction of agricultural land in vill. Dhumuspur.\nPW 36 - to prove transaction of agricultural land in vill. Dhumuspur.\nPW 37 - was Tehsildar Gurgaon; proved a document pertaining to\nDhumuspur property.PW 38 - was search witness to the raid conducted at the flat of Sanjiv\nKumar in Vasant Kunj.PW 39 - was also search witness to the raid conducted at the flat of\nSanjiv Kumar in Vasant Kunj.PW 40 - from Cosmos Mngmnt., to prove deposits to the tune of Rs.\n75 lacs by Abha Kumar for share trading.PW 41 - to prove that accused Sanjiv paid Rs. 2.51 crores for trading\nin shares.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 60 of 352PW 42 - was from Ansals; to prove allotment of a plot in Sushant Lok\nin the name of accused Kanak Lata.PW 43 - Manager from Jharsa Grameen Bank, to prove transfer\nentries of Rs. 10 and 5 lacs from the account of Hawa Singh to Sanjiiv\nKumar's account in OBC, Pkl branch.PW 44 - Assisted the first Investigating officer\nPW 45 - IST IO\nPW 46 - 2ND IO\nPW 47 - to prove that he paid bribe of Rs. 90 lacs to Sanjiv Kumar\nbut handed over the same to SC Gupta (PW 41) for trading in shares.Detailed testimonies ­24.              PW 1 Sh. Sidhu Ram Batra: Witness was from\nAllahabad Bank, Panipat Branch and deposed about opening of Saving\nbank A/c No. 7617 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar, the then Dy.\nCommissioner, Panipat in the said branch. This account was opened\non 16.6.95 with the initial amount of Rs. 100/­. Witness proved the\nstatement of account as Ex. PW1/A which bore his signatures at point\nA along with seal of the Bank. He had also proved the account\nopening form cum specimen signatures in respect of the above­\nmentioned bank account, as Ex. PW1/B.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 61 of 352In cross­examination, PW1 deposed that apart from\nStatement of Account and Account Opening Form, no other document\nbearing his signature was seized by IO in his presence.25.              PW 2 Sh. Vijay Goel: Was government approved\njewellery valuer since 1998. On 10.5.07 he was called at ICICI Bank,\nVasant Kunj, N. Delhi by Insp. A. K. Pandey of CBI. Locker bearing\nno. 609, ICICI Bank which was in the joint names of Dr. Maheshwar\nKumar, Smt. Kanak Lata and Smt. Abha was opened in his presence\nand in the presence of bank officials. Locker operation memo was\nproved as Ex. PW2/A. 44 jewellery items were taken out from the said\nlocker. He took the gross weight of the jewellery items, net weight in\ngrams, description of stones & weight of stones and thereafter,\nassessed the value of thereof as also of total value of jewellery items\nand prepared his valuation report which was proved as Ex. PW2/B.\nThe value of jewellery items was assessed at Rs. 14,79,084/­ on the\nbasis of market rate prevalent at the relevant time i.e. end of check\nperiod ­ 16.2.2005. Witness had assessed that 30% of the jewellery\nfound in the locker was of pre­check period i.e. pre­1996.In cross­examination, PW2 admitted that assessment in\nrespect of the period of manufacturing of jewellery is a guess work,\nthat assessment might be incorrect and that there are 50:50 chances inCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 62 of 352regard to the correctness or the incorrectness of the assessment done\nby the Witness. The Witness deposed that in last about five years from\nthe date of his deposition, generally 'Hallmarks' are being 'made' by\nthe jewellers however, he could not recollect if the jewellery items\nassessed by him, had any 'Hallmarks'. The Witness could not admit\nor deny the suggestion that none of the jewellery items assessed by\nhim had any Hallmark of any jeweller. PW 2 further deposed that\nweight of the gems was taken on the basis of assessment of size of\nstones but the stones were not separated from the jewellery items for\nassessing the weight. The Witness denied the suggestion that\nassessment given by him in regard to the weight of gems and metal as\nalso the period is based only on subjective assessment and that the\nreport prepared by him is not correct and reliable.26.              PW 3 Sh. Vijay Kumar: Deposed that in August, 2008\nhe was working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel,\nPublic Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and\nTraining, Govt of India, N. Delhi and was dealing with the work of\ndisciplinary matters as well as proposals for sanctions for prosecution\nof IAS officers. A proposal for sanction for prosecution of Sh. Sanjiv\nKumar, IAS (HY 85) was received from CBI in January 2008. The\nsaid proposal was accompanied with copies of documents andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 63 of 352statements of witnesses relied upon by CBI. On receipt of proposal,\nreference was made to the Govt of Haryana for their comments. In\nApril 2009, the Govt. of Haryana recommended the grant of sanction.\nThereafter, the matter was referred to the Central Vigilance\nCommission for their advice which also advised for grant of sanction\nfor prosecution against Sh. Sanjiv Kumar. Thereafter, he (PW3)\nsubmitted a note for consideration and decision of sanctioning\nauthority i.e. to The Prime Minister, being the Minister in­charge of\nthe Ministry of Personnel, Govt of India. The decision of the\nsanctioning authority for grant of sanction for prosecution was\nconveyed by the Prime Minister's office. Thereafter, he submitted a\ndraft sanction order which was approved by the Joint Secretary of\nMinistry of Personnel. After approval of the draft order for sanction,\nthe final order was signed by him i.e. PW 3 in accordance with the\napproval and conveyed the same to CBI. Witness proved the sanction\norder dated 26.8.2008 as Ex. PW3/A.\n\n                         In cross­examination conducted by A­1 Sanjiv\nKumar, PW3 denied that sanction for prosecution was accorded on the\nsame format which was sent by the CBI voluntarily stating that as per\nrequirement, certain modifications were made. The Witness could not\nrecollect if the documents in regard to raids conducted by CBI at 17\nplaces were also there in the bunch of documents sent by the CBI.\nPW3 further deposed that his noting along with prima­facie view toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 64 of 352accord the sanction was prepared on the basis of material sent by the\nCBI. The Witness admitted that neither Sanction order Ex. PW3/A\nwas approved or signed by the Minister In­charge nor draft Sanction\nOrder was sent to the Minister In­charge along with the noting\nhowever, he clarified that the approval was given by Minister In­\ncharge on the file, below his noting. The Witness admitted about\nhaving no knowledge as to who examined the entire material or\nassisted the Minister In­charge while giving approval on the file. The\nWitness denied that 'Sanction' for prosecution has not been granted by\nthe competent authority or that the same has been granted without\ngoing through the material on record or independent application of\nmind by the concerned Authority. PW3 admitted that draft Sanction\nOrder was not approved by the Minister In­charge along with the\napproval of noting for according sanction for prosecution. The Witness\nalso denied that matter pertaining to the sanction of prosecution was\nnot properly dealt with in accordance with business rules of Govt. of\nIndia or that he is not a proper and competent witness to depose on the\nquestion of sanction for prosecution against the accused as he was not\nthe Sanctioning Authority, rather only had conveyed the sanction in\naccordance with the approval of the Minister In­charge.The Witness PW3 was not cross­examined on behalf of A­2 Smt.\nAbha Kumar, A­3 Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and A­4 Smt. Kanak Lata.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 65 of 35227.              PW 4 Sh. Krishan Lal Rana: Was witness from Oriental\nBank of Commerce, New Railway Road, Gurgaon, Haryana and\nproved the statement of account Ex. PW4/A of account No. 15666 in\nthe name of Smt. Abha Kumar for the period 5.6.99 to 6.1.2007 which\nwas prepared by him on the basis of records. The account was opened\non 30.3.1996. He further deposed that the statement of account Ex.\nPW4/B of account No. 15469 for the period 24.9.98 to 6.1.2007 in the\nname of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar IAS was also prepared by him on the basis\nof records. The account was opened on 19.01.1996.In cross­examination, PW4 deposed that except the\nstamp of the bank visible on Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, there is no\nseparate certificate under Banker's book ofEvidence Actissued by\nhim with regard to these statements, voluntarily stating that his stamp\n'suffices'.28.              PW 5 Sh. Ashok Dhall: Was also a witness from\nOriental Bank of Commerce, New Railway Road, Gurgaon. He did not\nremember whether he had handed over any documents to CBI.\nWitness stated that none of the documents contained in files D­13, D­\n14 and D­15 bore his signatures nor had he dealt with the same in any\ncapacity.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 66 of 352Ld. Defense counsel gave a statement stating that he did not want to\ncross­examine PW5 Ashok Dhall.29.              PW 6 Sh. Tarun Roy: Was witness from the Income Tax\ndepartment, posted in Dhanbad at the relevant time. He deposed that\npursuant to the letter received from the IO, he had personally\nsubmitted income tax returns of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar (HUF) for the AY\n1999­2000, 2002­2003, 2004­05 and 2005­06 along with his covering\nletter which was proved as Ex. PW6/A. He proved the income tax\nreturns of Sanjiv Kumar (HUF) for the AY 1999­2000, 2002­2003,\n2004­05 and 2005­06 as Ex. PW6/B, Ex. PW6/C, Ex. PW6/D and Ex.\nPW6/E.\n\n                 In cross­examination conducted by accused Sanjiv\nKumar, PW6 admitted that the investigating officer requested for the\nincome tax record for the assessment years starting from 1999­2000 to\n2005­2006. The Witness deposed that since the office was undershifting, some record was not found traceable at that time for which\nreason the record pertaining to the ITRs of all the years was not\ntraceable, and that whatever record was found, the same was submitted\nby the Witness to the investigating officer. The Witness further\ndeposed that as per rules, record of ITR for ten years used to be\nmaintained. The Witness admitted that the above­said ITRs wereCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 67 of 352accompanied by balance sheet showing income and expenditure and\nthat for the same, no proceedings for any penalty had been initiated\nunder any provision ofIncome Tax Act. The Witness deposed that\nbeing the Income Tax Officer, he assessed the ITR Ex. PW6/E for the\nAssessment Year 2005­2006 after referring to the records.In cross­examination conducted on behalf of other three\naccused persons, the Witness deposed that these ITR's have not been\nfiled by Smt. Abha Sinha, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Smt. Kanak\nLata, rather the same have been filed by Sanjiv Kumar (HUF).30.              PW 7 Sh. Ram Chander: Witness was from the Govt.\nOf Haryana, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) at\nFaridabad. He stated that on 30.6.2006 file D­4 was seized from him\nby the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. As per file D­4 (proved as\nEx. PW7/B), vide letter dated 14.9.94 plot No. 1995, Sector 28,\nHUDA, Faridabad was offered to Smt. Abha Kumar (w/o Sanjiv\nKumar) by Chief Administrator, HUDA. The offer was accepted and\nan amount of Rs. 19,163/­ i.e. 25% of the total price was deposited by\nthe allottee Abha Kumar vide receipt No. 102647 dated 22.9.1994.\nThe remaining 75% cost of the plot was to be deposited in the next 06\nyears in instalments. As per file D­3 (proved as Ex. PW7/C) Plot No.\n1997, Sector 28, HUDA, Faridabad was offered to Smt. Kanak LataCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 68 of 352(w/o M. Kumar r/o D.C. residence, Hissar) which was accepted by her\nand as per the terms and conditions of allotment, 25% price of the plot\ni.e. Rs. 19,163 was deposited by her vide receipt no. 102648 dt\n22.9.1994 while the remaining instalments were to be deposited in\nnext 6 years.In cross­examination, PW7 admitted that pursuant to the\norders passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5851, all the plots including\nthe above two plots, allotted from the CM discretionary quota were\ncancelled. However, subsequently the above two plots were again\nrestored in view of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of\nIndia. The Witness deposed that since notice of cancellation of the\nplots was not sent, hence notice in regard to restoration of plot was\nalso not sent. However, as per file Ex. PW7/B (D­4), notice dated\n3.5.2002 and as per file Ex. PW7/C (D­3), notice dated 28.3.2002\nwere sent for payment of due instalments to Smt. Abha Kumar and\nSmt. Kanak Lata, respectively.31.              PW 8 Sh. Surinder Bhardwaj: Was also a witness from\nthe Govt. of Haryana, Revenue Department and was posted as\nKanoongo in District Gurgaon. On 23.5.2006, he had issued a\ncertified copy of Nakal Jamabandi in respect of Mustakil (Rectangle)\nNo. 17 and Kila No. 12 having an area of 8 kanal pertaining to theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 69 of 352year 2003­04. As per the certified copy of jamabandi proved as Ex.\nPW8/A, Smt. Kanak Lata w/o M. Kumar was the recorded owner of\nthe land.In cross­examination, PW8 deposed that recordings in\nthe Jamabandi are on the basis of mutation, duly approved by the\nTehsildar. He admitted that in Ex. PW8/A, there is no mention of any\nsuch order of the Tehsildar.32.              PW 9 Sh. B. L. Kapoor: Was retired Chief Accounts\nOfficer from the Finance deptt., Govt. of Haryana. Witness deposed\nthat Sanjiv Kumar had worked as Director in HPSPP during the period\n1998 to 2001. On the request of CBI, he had prepared the salary\nstatement/details (proved as Ex. PW9/A) of Sanjiv Kumar during the\nperiod he remained in HPSPP, and handed over the same to CBI\nofficer. He also wrote a letter (proved as Ex. PW9/B) to Haryana Civil\nSecretariat enclosing copy of the salary statement Ex. PW9/A.\n\nPW 9 was not cross­examined.33.              PW 10 Sh. Phire Ram: Witness was a resident of\nDhumuspur Village, Gurgaon where accused Kanak Lata had\npurchased an 8 kanal land piece. He deposed that he knew Sh. Rajpal,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 70 of 352Sh. Gaje Singh, Sh. Balraj and Sh. Hans Raj as they belonged to his\nfamily and also were natives of the same village. He stated that Sale\nDeed (proved as Ex. PW10/A) had the photographs of Sh. Rajpal, Sh.\nGaje Singh, Sh. Hans Raj, Sh. Balraj and also of Dharamvir. They all\nwere real brothers, were having agricultural land in village Dhumaspur\nand had sold the land through this sale deed. The deal was finalized\nthrough Sh. Sumer Arora and the sale deed was executed by the five\nbrothers who had put their thumb impressions and signatures on the\nsale deed in his presence. He (i.e. PW10) had signed the sale deed as a\nwitness at point A on page no. 2. He further stated that payment was\nmade in cash however, he did not know as to for how much was the\nland sold.In cross­examination, PW10 deposed that he had not\nwitnessed any other writing except the Sale Deed on the day of its\nexecution which was recorded by the Deed Writer. He denied the\nsuggestion that the Sale Deed Ex. PW10/A was not executed in his\npresence or that he had put his signatures on the same later on. He\nadmitted that the Sale Deed contains photographs of all the sellers as\nalso of the purchaser on its first page.34.              PW 11 Sh. Manohar Lal: Was a Govt. of Haryana\nofficial, working in the record office of PWD, Haryana Bhawan, NewCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 71 of 352Delhi. On 6.8.2007, he had handed over to CBI four registers\ncontaining entries regarding the visitors to Haryana Bhawan which\nwere seized vide seizure memo (proved as) Ex. PW11/A. In the visitor\nregister for the month of May 2000 at page no. 28, there was an entry\nregarding the visit of Sanjiv Kumar and booking of Suite No. 406 at\n3.20 PM on 16.5.2000. The time of departure was mentioned as 10.00\nPM. Photocopy of page no. 28 of the register duly certified by the\nwitness was proved as Ex. PW11/B.\n\n                 In cross­examination, PW11 deposed that the entries at\npage No. 28 were not made in his presence. He admitted having been\ncited as a witness in a case against accused Sanjiv Kumar before the\ncourt of Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh where original registers were\nshown to him, and that Ex. PW11/B is one of the pages of the said\nregisters.35.              PW 12 Sh. Parveen Sharma: Was witness from Delhi\nJal Board, posted in Vasant Kunj at the relevant time. He deposed that\ncomputer summary statement of flat No. C­67/6&7, Vasant Kunj,\nDelhi did not bear his signatures. This witness was declared\nincompetent by the court as he had not signed the statement nor his\nsignature appeared on any of the documents.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 72 of 35236.              PW 12 Sh. Jagat Singh: This witness was also given\nPW number12. Witness was a resident of Village Dhumus Pur and\nknew Sh. Raj Pal, Sh. Gaje Singh, Sh. Hans Raj, Sh. Balraj and Sh.\nDharamvir (all sons of late Roshan Lal) who were natives of the same\nvillage. Witness identified the photographs at point 'A' on Ex. PW10/A\n(sale deed) as being of those five persons. Witness deposed that they\nhad sold the land to Smt. Kanak Lata whose photograph was identified\nat point 'B' on Ex. PW10/A (sale deed). He had appeared before the\nSub Registrar and put his signatures at point 'D' on the Sale Deed in\nthe presence of Sub Registrar. Witness stated that the 'payment' had\nalready been made by Kanak Lata to the sons of late Roshan Lal and\nnothing was due.PW 12 was not cross­examined.37.              PW 13 Sh. Rajiv Kumar: Was a witness from Vijaya\nBank, Sector 34, Chandigarh. He proved statement (of account no.\n1410 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar, IAS) from 12.2.99 to 16.2.2005 as\nEx. PW13/A which was attested by him with the seal of the bank. As\nper this statement, there was a credit balance of Rs. 108729.73/­ in the\nsaid account as on 8.2.2005.In his cross­examination, PW13 admitted that statement\nof account Ex. PW13/A had not been certified as per the Banker'sCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 73 of 352Book of Evidence Act. He further admitted that after August 2001, all\nthe credit entries relate to credit of periodical interest.38.              PW 14 Sh. Abhijeet Sorte: Was also a witness from\nVijaya Bank, Sector­34, Chandigarh. He deposed that on the\ninstruction of the then branch head Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhar, he had\nvisited the CBI office at New Delhi and handed over to CBI the letter\nalong with documents as was given to him by the bank manager.This witness was also declared incompetent after Court Observation\nwas recorded that the witness has simply handed over whatever has\nbeen given to him and not dealt with any of the documents.39.              PW 15 Sh. Satish Newatia: Was witness from ICICI\nBank, Shastri Nagar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. He proved statement of\njoint account in the name of Kanak Lata & M. Kumar bearing a/c No.\n019601507407 as Ex. PW15/A. The account statement was for the\nperiod 1.8.2004 to 17.2.2005. Witness stated that the term deposit\ncredit balance was Rs. 2,35,000/­ and operative account balance was\nRs. 12,486/­, making it a total of Rs. 2,47,486/­ as on 31.12.2004.\nWitness further deposed that on 12.8.2004, 1000 British Pounds at\nexchange rate of Rs. 83,570 amounting to Rs. 83,570/­ were deposited\nin the bank and on 28.9.2004 British Pounds 2000 at exchange rate ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 74 of 352Rs. 82.37 amounting to Rs. 1,64,740/­ was deposited in this account.In cross­examination, PW15 admitted about statement of\naccount Ex. PW15/A not being certified as per Banker's Book of\nEvidence Act. PW15 deposed that 1000 British pounds and 2000\nBritish pounds might have been credited via transfer or through\nforeign demand draft, however the same could not be deciphered from\nthe statement of account. Witness clarified that the said British pounds\nwere processed at Borivalli Processing Centre of ICICI Bank,\nMumbai. He further stated that as per his knowledge, British Pounds\ncannot be deposited in cash. The Witness also stated that he could not\nsay as to who had transferred the British pounds in the account and\nfrom where were the same transferred, the record of which might have\nbeen available at Borivalli Centre.40.              PW 16 Sh. Gita Prakash Gujral: Was a qualified\narchitect and had retired as Dy. General Manager (Architect) from the\nNBCC Ltd, Govt. of India. After retirement, he was having his own\npractice. Witness stated that he was approached for carrying out\nvaluation of property No. 9, Khasra No. 123/104, Village Dhumuspur,\nGurgaon. Accordingly, he visited the site on 29.10.2005, examined the\nproperty and prepared its valuation report dated 3.11.2005 (which was\nproved as) Ex. PW16/A. Signature of the owner of property Smt.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 75 of 352Kanak Lata was also obtained on the valuation report Ex. PW16/A at\npoint B by delivering the valuation report at her residence at Vasant\nKunj. Witness also pointed out that the declaration dt. 29.10.2005\n(proved as) Ex. PW16/B was signed by him, at point A.\n\n                 In cross­examination, PW16 deposed that he had carried\nout the valuation as per National Building Code and that all the\ncalculations were carried out as per the rates prevailing at the relevant\ntime.41.              PW 17 Smt. Jyoti Vermani: Was witness from the LIC\nof India, and was summoned to prove the details of LIC policies\nseized/found from the accused persons during the investigation. She\ndeposed in March 2006, CBI had sought details in respect of 13 Life\nInsurance Policies. Vide letter dt. 5.4.2006 proved as Ex. PW17/A,\ndetails of 11 policies contained in 21 sheets, proved as Ex. PW17/B1\nto Ex. PW17/B21 were sent to the CBI. The sheets contained the\ndetails of premium paid to and the payments made by the LIC upto\n5.4.2006.In cross­examination, PW17 deposed that she could not\ntell as to who had paid the premium in respect of these policies. The\nWitness could not admit or deny whether payment in respect of\npolicies mentioned at serial Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 9 of Ex. PW17/A (file D­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 76 of 35239) were made by Shri G.P. Singh. The Witness admitted that\npayment details mentioned in Ex. PW17/B­5 in respect of policy\nmentioned at serial No. 3 of Ex. PW17/A (file D­39), in Ex. PW17/B­\n11 in respect of policy mentioned at serial No. 6 of Ex. PW17/A and in\nEx. PW17/B­7 in respect of policy mentioned at serial No. 4 of Ex.\nPW17/A were not from the date of initiation of the policy. The\nWitness denied that the details mentioned in the sheets Ex. PW17/B­1\nto Ex. PW17/B­21 were incorrect.42.              PW 18 Sh. Sunil Choudhary: Was a property dealer in\nthe Vasant Kunj area under the name and style of M/s Chaudhary\nProperties. Witness claimed to have known Sanjiv Kr. since 1999\nwhen Sanjiv Kr. came to his office in connection with purchase of a\nflat. He had requested for purchase of two flats at Vasant Kunj, Pocket\nC­6. Witness stated that the market price of these flats at that time was\nRs. 28 or 29 lac and that the deal was finalized for Rs. 28 lac per flat.\nThe flats in respect of which the deal was finalized were flat no. C­\n6/6357 and flat no. C­6/6360, and those were duplex flats. Witness\ndetailed that Sh. K. K. Lal was owner of flat No. C­6/6357. Rs. 05 lac\nwas paid in cash by Sanjiv Kumar to him which he had handed over to\nK. K. Lal. The property was purchased in through GPA the name of\nDr. Rajiv Kumar, brother of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar. Out of the balance ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 77 of 352Rs. 23 lac, Rs. 9 lac was paid in cash and Rs. 14 lac was paid through\ndemand drafts. Witness further testified that the balance payment was\nalso made by Sanjiv Kumar, that Dr. Rajiv Kumar was not present at\nany point of time and that he (PW18) had not met him till date.\nWitness was one of the witnesses to GPA Ex. PW18/A1, SPA Ex.\nPW18/A2 and Will Ex. PW18/A3 executed by K. K. Lal in favour of\nDr. Rajiv Kumar.Witness further detailed that the second flat i.e. flat no. C­\n6/6360 was owned by Sh. Prasanna Kumar who was a resident of USA\nand one Sh. Rajeev Goyal had negotiated the deal on his behalf. The\npower of attorney in respect of this flat was in the name of Sh. Pramod\nKumar Aggarwal. Rs. 05 lac was given as advance to Sh. Rajeev\nGoyal by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar through him. Out of balance of Rs. 23 lac,\nRs. 10 lac was paid through demand draft and Rs. 13 lac was paid in\ncash which payment was also made by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, as per PW18. Sale deed of the flat (proved as) Ex. PW18/B was executed by\nPramod Kumar Aggarwal in the name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar,\nfather of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar. Witness asserted that all the negotiations\nand payments were made by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar in respect of both these\nflats and further that possession of both the flats was handed over to\nSanjiv Kumar.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 78 of 352In cross­examination, PW18 deposed about raid having\nbeen conducted once by the CBI at his premises No. C­6/6353, Vasant\nKunj, New Delhi and that as per his knowledge, no search list or\nseizure memo was prepared in regard to that search. However, CBI\nhad taken some registers and office records from his office which later\non were returned to him. The Witness deposed that the raid was\nconducted in his premises prior to him being called by the CBI for\ninquiry and recording of his statement. The Witness admitted that the\nraid was conducted at his premises on 17.2.2005. The Witness could\nnot recollect the date when he was called by the CBI for recording his\nstatement but stated that it might be 19.2.2005. No cash or any\ndubious document was recovered from his premises during that raid.\nThe Witness denied the suggestion that some dubious documents\ninvolving him in a criminal case were recovered from his premises but\nin order to save himself, he had given a statement before CBI under\npressure. The Witness admitted about there being no mention of any\nmonetary consideration, in cash or through demand draft, in GPA Ex.\nPW18/A­1 (file D­40), SPA Ex. PW18/A­2 (file D­40) or in Will Ex.\nPW18/A­3 (file D­40). The Witness denied that no cash was paid at\nthe time of purchase of flat but however admitted that no receipt was\nexecuted in respect of the said cash payment. The Witness further\ndeposed that it is not always necessary that receipt be executed in\nrespect of cash payments but it depended on the mutual understandingCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 79 of 352of the parties, and that in case of parties being acquainted to each\nother, generally the receipts were not executed for cash payments.\nWitness then clarified that the parties were not acquainted to each\nother in the present case.43.              PW 19 Sh. T. Rajan: Witness was from the sales\ndepartment of M/s Ansal Properties & Constructions Ltd. He did not\nremember whether his statement was recorded by CBI officer on\n21.6.05 nor that he had visited the CBI office in connection with the\ninvestigation of this case. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP\nfor CBI.In cross­examination by ld. PP, witness stated that file\npertaining to plot No. B­103 was not in his custody and he was not\nhandling the said file. He was looking after the commercial properties\nand the files relating to residential plots used to come only on the\ndirections of super officer of the company. Ld. Predecessor denied\npermission to the ld. PP to put to the Witness the file pertaining to B­\n103, Sushant Lok since the witness asserted that he was dealing with\ncommercial properties whereas B­103 was a residential plot.The Witness was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 80 of 35244.              PW 20 Sh. Sarabjeet Pandit: Witness deposed that he\nwas proprietor of M/s Pandit Clinic situated at Dhanbad, Jharkhand\nhaving a 12 bed facility. He did not know (accused) Dr. M. Kumar.\nThe letter dated 30.1.2007 proved as Ex. PW20/A was admitted to\nhave been written by him as per the information made available to him\nby her mother late Smt. Snehlata Pandit. Witness clarified that he had\nno personal knowledge as to what was written in Ex. PW20/A.\n\nPW 20 was not cross­examined by the defense.45.              PW 21 Sh. Ajay Khanna: Witness was working as\nCompany Secretary in DCM Estates & Infrastructure Ltd. He deposed\nabout land in Kishan Ganj, Bara Hindu Rao being given for\ndevelopment by DCM Ltd. to Ansals and Kailashnath Associates\nrespectively. Some of the bookings were carried out by Kailashnath\nAssociates whereas some were done by Ansals. Eventually however,\nthe land could not be developed and DCM Ltd. again took over the\nland. The name of this company was changed to M/s Purearth\nInfrastructure Ltd. somewhere in the year 2005. Witness deposed that\nthe customer files were taken over by him from M/s DCM Ltd. which\nincluded the files pertaining to allotment to Mrs. Kanak Lata and\nAbha Sinha. (The allotment to Mrs. Kanak Lata had been admitted byCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 81 of 352ld. Counsel for accused persons). The witness proved one booklet of\nallotment including allotment letter and 08 receipts which were proved\nas Ex. PW12/A1 to PW21/A9. Witness further deposed that as per\nletter dated 17.7.96 proved as Ex. PW21/B, the provisional booking\ntransfer was done in the name of Abha Sinha, as accepted by M/s\nKailash Nath & Associates on 17.7.96. Witness also clarified that the\nfile brought by him relating to booking transfer in the name of Abha\nSinha did not depict any payment by Abha Sinha after acceptance of\nthe provisional booking on 17.7.96 by Kailash Nath Associates.In cross­examination, PW21 deposed that he had not\nhanded over any document to CBI in regard to arrangement between\nM/s. DCM Ltd., M/s. Kailash Nath and M/s. Ansals Properties. The\nWitness was not aware whether the three parties used to share\ninformation regarding bookings done by them. The Witness deposed\nthat the details of all the payments made by the provisional booking\nholder used to be kept in the respective files of that booking holder\nand that sheet (proved as) Ex. PW21/DA (put to the witness in cross­\nexam.) reflects the payment made by the original booking holder. The\nWitness was having no knowledge whether at the time of transfer of\nprovisional booking executed vide letter dated 17.7.1996 Ex.\nPW21/B, any payment was made by accused Abha Sinha or not.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 82 of 35246.              PW 22 Sh. N. K. Raheja: Was witness from the Oriental\nBank of Commerce, Panchkula, Haryana. Witness deposed that vide\nreceipt memo dated 2.8.2005 (proved as) Ex. PW22/A, he had handed\nover to the CBI original transfer voucher for Rs. 1,60,000/­ in the\nname of Sanjiv Kumar (proved as) Ex. PW22/A1, original credit\nvoucher for Rs. 1,60,000/­ in the name of Sanjiv Kumar (proved as)\nEx. PW22/A2, Original debit bill purchase voucher in the name of\nSanjiv Kumar (proved as) Ex. PW22/A3, Original credit voucher of\nbill in the name of Sanjiv Kumar (proved as) Ex. PW22/A4, Original\ndebit bill purchase voucher in the name of Sanjiv Kumar (proved as)\nEx. PW22/A5, original credit voucher in the name of Sanjiv Kumar\n(proved as) Ex. PW22/A6, Original cheque No. 954441 for Rs.\n6,50,975/­ drawn by Smt. Abha Kumar on account no. 6000 (proved\nas) Ex. PW22/A7 and original credit voucher in the name of Sanjiv\nKumar (proved as) Ex. PW22/A8. Witness further deposed that on\n8.10.2005 vide letter proved as Ex. PW22/B, he had delivered debit\nand credit vouchers to the CBI.PW 22 was not cross­examined.47.              PW 23 Sh. Harish Kumar: Witness was from Dakshin\nHaryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (formerly Haryana State ElectricityCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 83 of 352Board) and his job profile included maintaining the ledger regarding\nthe bills raised and payments received. As per the report of the\nWitness dated 4.5.2007 (proved as) Ex. PW23/A, Rs. 87,994/­ had\nbeen paid against electricity bill for the period March 1999 to\nSeptember 2003 in respect of Flat No. 15, Hope Apartment, Sector 15­\nII, Gurgaon in the name of Sanjiv Kumar.In cross­examination, PW 23 denied that pages 1 to 6\nhanded over by him along with report Ex. PW23/A (in file D­47) were\nnot the photocopies of the original ledger. Witness deposed that the\nbilling in regard to that flat had started only from February 1999. He\nadmitted that on page 1, there is an endorsement reflecting that first\nbilling started in 12/1997 or 2/1998. Witness clarified that the ledger\naccount is maintained flatwise and not owner­wise. The Witness\ndenied that the documents handed over by him to CBI were forged\ndocuments and that the same were not borne out from the original\nledger.48.              PW 24 Sh. Samir Suman: Witness was from the\nOriental Bank of Commerce, New Railway Road, Gurgaon. He stated\nthat vide seizure memo dated 7.9.2007 he had handed over to CBI\noriginal account opening form of SB A/c no. 15666 in the name ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 84 of 352Smt. Abha Kumar (proved as) Ex. PW24/B, account opening form in\nrespect of SB a/c no. 15469 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar (proved as)\nEx. PW24/C and account opening form in respect of SB a/c No.\n16887 in the joint names of Ms. Abha Kumar, Kanak Lata and Dr. M.\nKumar (proved as) Ex. PW24/D.\n\n                 In cross­examination, PW24 deposed that he had not\nprepared the details Ex. PW24/D though the same was prepared in his\npresence and that he had not signed the same at the time of its\npreparation but rather signed the same in the office of CBI at the\nasking of CBI officer. The Witness admitted that Ex. PW24/D had not\nbeen certified in any manner.49.              PW 25 Sh. Ram Avtar Aggarwal : Was a crucial witness\nfor the prosecution to prove the Charge, in part, that accused Sanjiv\nKumar had invested Rs. 2.51 crores in share market. Witness deposed\nthat he was a practicing chartered accountant and also running a\ncompany in the name of M/s Ramanuj Finance & Investment Ltd at\nFaridabad. He stated that he knew accused Sanjiv Kumar and had met\nhim for the first time in the year 2001­2002 when he was posted as\nCommissioner,           Rehabilitation           Department,   Govt    of   Haryana,\nChandigarh in connection with allotment of a piece of land atCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 85 of 352Faridabad in which department of Rehabilitation was also to play\nsome role. However, he asserted that he did not know any Subhash\nChand Gupta but knew that owner of M/s Vandana Investments is one\nMr. Gupta. He admitted to have gone to M/s Vandana investments in\nconnection with purchase of shares. Witness further stated that he did\nnot know any firm by the name of Cosmos Management. Witness\nadmitted letter of undertaking dt 1.4.2001 which was proved as Ex.\nPW25/A and that the same was given by him to M/s Vandana\nInvestment in connection with purchase of 22,000 shares of Raymonds\nLtd. Witness further admitted the Memorandum of Understanding\n(proved as) Ex. PW25/B, also dated 1.4.2001, with M/s Vandana\nInvestment and that the same was in his hand writing. He claimed to\nhave made payment of Rs. 25 to 27 lacs towards purchase of these\nshares to M/s Vandana Investment through two or three cheques.\nWitness further clarified that through the payment of Rs. 29 lacs,\n22000 shares of Raymonds and some other shares of Infosys, Satyam\nand few other companies were purchased, and that M/s Vandana\nInvestments had purchased those shares for him. This witness was\ndeclared hostile by the ld. PP for CBI.In cross­examination conducted by ld. PP, CBI, Witness\ndenied that he met Sh. Subhash Gupta of Vandana Investment for the\nfirst time at the residence of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar at Vasant Kunj. HeCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 86 of 352stated that after he had purchased shares from Vandana Investment\nfor Rs. 29 lacs, Sh. Gupta incidentally met him at the residence of Sh.\nSanjiv Kumar. The Witness further stated that when he met Mr. Gupta\nat the residence of accused Sanjiv, both of them recognized each other\nand that Mr. Gupta happened to be the same person who had signed\nthe memorandum Ex. PW25/B (D­35) at point B. He then admitted\nthat he knew Mr. Gupta of M/s Vandana Investment since 1992 when\nhe was working with M/s M. R. Soni Share Broker but he did not have\nany dealing with him. He denied stating before CBI officer that Mr.\nGupta had shared with him any problem faced by him in connection\nwith purchase of shares of Rs. 30 lacs at the behest of Sanjiv Kumar as\nalso for someone else whose name he did not disclose. In this regard,\nhe was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C.\n(proved as) Ex. PW25/C. Witness further denied that the shares which\nhe had purchased for Rs. 29 lacs from Mr. Gupta of M/s Vandana\nInvestments were purchased by Mr. Gupta for Sanjiv Kumar and that\nhe knew this fact.He further deposed that the reference of accused Sanjiv\nKumar in this dealing of shares between him and M/s. Vandana\nInvestments came up when incidentally the Witness met Mr. Gupta at\nthe residence of accused Sanjiv Kumar, both of whom were furnishing\nthe guarantee of accused Sanjiv Kumar as there was a deadlock as toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 87 of 352whether the shares have to be transferred first or the payment will\nmade first.The Witness further stated that he was not aware whether\naccused Sanjiv Kumar had any Demat account as he never had any\nfinancial dealing with him and that he was in touch with accused\nSanjiv Kumar for one or two years from the date of his first meeting\nwith the accused. Witness clarified that there was no transaction with\nM/s. Vandana Investments after completion of this transaction.\nWitness did not recollect whether he had any dealing with M/s.\nVandana Investments prior to this transaction. He denied that he had\nbeen won over by the accused or that he was not stating the truth\nunder the pressure of accused persons.The Witness was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.50.              PW 26 Sh. Surjeet Chopra:        Was witness from the\nSyndicate Bank, Khan Market Branch, N. Delhi. He had handed over\nto the CBI, statement of account (proved as) Ex. PW26/A in respect of\na/c no. 90432010057525 in the name of Ms. Abha Sinha for the period\n1.6.2004 to 31.1.2005 in which, as on 31.1.2005, there was a credit\nbalance of Rs. 1393.36.The Witness was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 88 of 35251.              PW 27 Sh. Anil Kumar: Was earlier working as a clerk\nin Hope Apartments Society, Sector 15­II, Gurgaon. He used to\nmaintain record of the Society's maintenance charge collections from\nthe residents. Witness proved as Ex. PW27/A the statement of\nmaintenance charges from June 1996 to Dec. 2003 in respect of Flat\nNo. 15 Hope Apartments which was in the name of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar.\nThis statement was prepared by the Witness on the basis of record\navailable in the office of society.In his cross­examination, PW 27 deposed that he was not\naware that till the control of the flats were handed over to the Society,\nthe maintenance was done by the development authority. The Witness\nfurther deposed that as per statement Ex. PW27/A (in file D­12),\nduring the period May 2000 to December 2003, the payment towards\nmaintenance charges were made to the society by different persons.\nWitness clarified that the name of owner is changed only after the flat\nis transferred through instruments of transfer of property. The Witness\nadmitted that maintenance charges are levied and have to be paid by\nthe occupants of the flats though receipt is issued in the name of the\nowner.52.              PW 28 Sh. R. K. Shrivastava: He was working in CFSLCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 89 of 352as Sr. Scientific Officer and deposed regarding forensic examination\nof five sealed parcels which were received from the CBI through\nforwarding letter (proved as) Ex. PW28/A. The parcels contained two\nCPUs, six CDs, two hard disks and one power book (laptop). The\npower book was returned unexamined due to technical reasons but the\nrest of the exhibits were examined by him. He conducted forensic\nexamination using Encase Forensic Software on all the exhibits to\nretrieve the data. He detached the two hard disks installed inside the\ntwo CPUs and marked them as Q1 and Q5, and the two hard disks\nreceived separately were marked as Q2 and Q4. The two CPUs were\nmarked as Exh­1 and Exh­5. The six CDs were marked as CD­1 (Exh­1) to CD­6 (Exh­1) respectively. The forensic images of hard disks\nQ1 and Q2 were prepared in the laboratory and were marked as IQ1,\nIQ2 and IQ4 respectively. Hard disk Q5 was examined in write\nblocking mode as its forensic image could not be prepared on account\nof bad sectors in the hard disc or corrupted data. On the basis of\nforensic images of hard disks, the data was retrieved and transferred\non a CD in corresponding folders and marked as Annexure I to his\nreport. The report prepared by him running into four pages was\nforwarded by him on 10.2.2006 along with sealed exhibits. Witness\nproved photo copy of his report as Ex. PW28/B.\n\nPW 28 was not cross examined by the defense.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 90 of 35253.              PW 29 Sh. Hemender Kumar: Witness was summoned\nto prove foreign currency purchase transactions by A­3 and A­4. He\nwas working as Area Manager in M/s PherozFramroz & Company Pvt\nLtd. Witness proved as Ex. PW29/A, Receipt No. 6010 dated\n19.7.2001 which was issued by his company in the name of Sh.\nMaheshwar Kumar who had purchased foreign currency of 500 British\nPounds and 200 US Dollars and paid a sum of Rs. 43,627.65 in cash.\nWitness further proved as Ex. PW29/B, Receipt No. 6009 dt.\n19.7.2001 was also was issued by his company in the name of Mrs.\nKanak Lata who had purchased foreign Currency of 300 British\nPounds and 500 US Dollars and paid a sum of Rs. 44,417.65 in cash.In cross­examination, PW 29 clarified that the receipts\nEx. PW29/A and Ex. PW29/B were not signed by him but by cashier\nSantosh Tiwari. The Witness denied that receipts Ex. PW29/A and\nEx. PW29/B were authenticated by him at the instance of CBI without\nverifying the company's record.54.              PW 30 Sh. R. K. Singh: Was Nodal Officer with M/s\nBharti Airtel Ltd. and was summoned to prove subscriber details of\ncertain mobile numbers. He deposed that Letter dated 26.6.07 (proved\nas) Ex. PW30/A was written by him in response to the queries madeCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 91 of 352by CBI in respect of subscriber details of 10 mobile phone numbers\nfor the period 1998 to 2001. He had provided subscriber details in\nrespect of three mobile numbers i.e. 9810235130, 9810044148 and\n9810336722. No details in respect of mobile no. 9818301800,\n9810167193 and 9810143777 were available in the system for the said\nperiod and as such no details were provided to CBI. The Mobile nos.\n9812034121 and 9812031121 were not of Bharti Airtel Ltd and\nbelonged to Idea, Haryana, and mobile no. 9814006874 was also not\nof Bharti Airtel but was of M/s Spice, Punjab.PW 30 was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.55.              PW 31 Sh. Shekhar Chandra: Witness was from Canara\nBank, Panipat, Haryana and was summoned to prove statement of\naccount (proved as) Ex. PW31/A in respect of account no. 6765 in the\nname of Sanjiv Kumar, for the period 25.9.95 to 30.3.2003. As per this\nstatement, there was a credit balance of Rs. 102 as on 1.4.1996 and\nthere was 'Nil' balance in the account as on 30.3.2003.PW 31 was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.56.              PW 32 Sh. Mukesh Mishra: Was summoned from\nBSES Rajdhani Power Limited and was posted at Vasant Kunj OfficeCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 92 of 352of the company as Commercial Officer. The issuance of bills and\nreceipt of payments used to be under his supervision. Vide letter dt.\n2.3.2007 (proved as) Ex. PW32/A, Witness had submitted to CBI the\ndetails of payments made in respect of flat nos. 6357 and 6360, Pocket\nC, Vasant Kunj, N. Delhi for the period November 2000 to February\n2005. The details of the payments were proved as Ex. PW32/B1 to\nPW32/B8.In cross­examination, PW 32 admitted that except\nstatements Ex. PW32/B­1 and Ex. PW32/B­5, others were computer\ngenerated statements and that he had not given any certificate as to\ntheir authenticity. The Witness deposed that he had not brought the\nrecord from which these statements were prepared and also was not\naware as to who actually had paid those electricity charges.57.              PW 33 Dr. Krishna Pratap Singh: Witness was a\nprivate practicing doctor from Dhanbad and was summoned to prove\nhis professional relationship with A­3 Dr. Maheshwar. He deposed\nthat he was running a six bedded polyclinic with facilities for minor\noperations. He knew Dr. Mahesh Kumar who was also having his own\nprivate clinic at his residence. Witness stated that Dr. Maheshwar\nKumar used to occasionally refer patients to his clinic of which he\nused to maintain the records. Dr. Maheshwar Kumar used to conductCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 93 of 352minor operations in his clinic of the patients referred by him. Witness\nclarified that there was no facility of any major operation in his clinic.\nVide Ex. PW33/A1 to Ex. PW33/A13, he had handed over to CBI\nphotocopy of the record maintained by him highlighting the patients\nreferred to him by Dr. Maheshwar Kumar.In cross­examination, PW 33 deposed that Ex. PW33/A­\n1 to Ex. PW33/A­13 (D­68) were the photocopies of Admission\nRegister. The Witness clarified that D/A stands for "Date of\nAdmission" whereas D/O stands for Date of Discharge. The witness\nadmitted that his statement was recorded by the CBI in which he\nstated that he knew Dr. Maheshwar Kumar for 6­7 years. The Witness\ndeposed in a contradictory manner about his acquaintance with Dr. M.\nKumar. He denied stating before the CBI officer about his\nacquaintance with Dr. Maheshwar Kumar for the last about 6­7 years\nsince he started the clinic only in the year 2002. He also deposed that\nhe knew Dr. M. Kumar during his internship days when Dr. M. Kumar\nwas Medical Supdt. Of Railway Hospital, Dhanbad. The Witness also\ndeposed that he had heard about Dr. Maheshwar Kumar referring the\npatients for major surgery to M/s. Pandit Clinic where he (Dr.\nMaheshwar) used to perform major surgeries. However, the witness\nstated that neither had he seen Dr. Maheshwar performing major\nsurgeries in M/s. Pandit Clinic nor had any knowledge about any feeCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 94 of 352charged by Dr. Maheshwar. The Witness denied that Dr. Maheshwar\nused to regularly refer the patients to his clinic and also regularly\nperformed minor surgeries in his clinic.58.              PW 34 Sh. Radhe Shyam: Witness was from\nChanakyapuri office of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. The details\nof payment in respect of telephone No. 26123864 installed in the name\nof Dr. Rajiv Kumar was proved as Ex. PW34/A and the details of\npayment in respect of telephone no. 26123876 installed in the name of\nDr. Maheshwar Kumar was proved as Ex. PW34/B. As per details of\nEx. PW34/A, total payment of Rs. 38,052/­ was received by the\nMTNL for the period 30.4.2001 to 20.1.2005 and as per details of Ex.\nPW34/B, total payment of Rs. 35,214/­ was received by MTNL for the\nperiod 24.4.2001 to 28.1.2005.In cross­examination, PW34 deposed that from the\ndetails contained in Ex. PW34/A and Ex. PW34/B (file D­62), he\ncould not state as to who actually had made the payment. However, as\nper practice, anyone could make the payment at the counters but the\nsame are always made on behalf of the subscriber of the telephone.59.              PW 35 Sh. Rajpal: Witness was an agriculturist ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 95 of 352Village Dhumspur and was co­owner of agricultural land in village\nDhumuspur along with his brothers Hans Raj, Gaje Singh, Dharambir\nand Sh. Balraj. He deposed that vide sale deed proved as Ex. PW10/A,\nthey had sold their land through Sh. Jagat Singh, Sh. Dewan Chand,\nSh. Rampat and Sh. Phire. Witness further deposed that the sale deed\nwas executed in favour of a lady who was either the mother or wife of\nthe Dy. Commissioner. The land was sold for Rs. 12 to 12.5 lacs and\nthe entire payment was made in cash. However, witness did not know\nas to how much amount was mentioned in the sale deed. Witness\nclarified that photograph at point 'B' was already affixed on the sale\ndeed Ex. PW10/A when the same was brought before them for\nsignature and further that the stamps for execution of sale deed was\npurchased by the buyer.In cross­examination, PW 35 deposed that he had gone to\nthe office of CBI only once along with his brothers. He further stated\nthat the CBI made inquiries from him only once but did not know\nwhether his statement was recorded or not. The Witness further\ndeposed that he had not told the CBI officer that the land was sold for\nabout Rs. 4 to 5 lacs, and voluntarily stated that he had told the CBI\nofficer that the land was sold for Rs. 12 to 12.5 lacs. The Witness also\ndeposed that he could not say whether he had stated to the CBI in his\nstatement recorded on 16.5.2005 that the land was sold between Rs. 4CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 96 of 352to 5 lacs. The Witness stated that Indira Vikas Patra were purchased\nfrom his share of the sale consideration amount and subsequently, the\nland was purchased after 2­3 years after encashing the Indira Vikas\nPatra.60.              PW 36 Sh. Hansraj: This witness was also a co­owner of\nthe 1 acre land situated in Village Dhumaspur which was sold by him\nalong­with his brothers Rajpal, Gaje Singh, Balraj and Dharambir to\nA­4 Kanak Lata. Witness stated that the land was sold for Rs. 12.50\nlacs to a lady through the dealers Sh. Rampat, Sh. Phire, Sh. Diwan\nChand and Sh. Jagat Singh. Witness identified his photograph on Sale\ndeed Ex. PW10/A and also the photographs of his brothers at point A.\nHe also identified the photograph at point B to be of that lady in\nwhose name the land was registered. Witness asserted that the sale\nconsideration of Rs. 12.50 lac was paid in cash.In cross­examination, PW 36 deposed that he had visited\nthe office of CBI once when he was shown Ex. PW10/A when the CBI\nofficer made inquiries from him but could not recollect whether his\nstatement was recorded or not. The Witness deposed that though some\nwriting work was done by the CBI Officer while asking questions\nfrom him but he was not aware about the same. The Witness also\ndeposed that he purchased Kisan Vikas Patra from the money whichCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 97 of 352he received as his share out of the total sale consideration and later on\nthe proceeds of said Kisan Vikas Patra were used in the construction\nof the house. The Witness denied that he had stated the amount of Rs.\n12.50 lacs as sale consideration at the asking of the CBI, voluntarily\nstating that 'that much amount was received by him'.61.              PW 37 Sh. Narender Singh Kadyan: Was a Revenue\nOfficial in Haryana and at the relevant time was working as Tehsildar­\nCum­Registrar in Gurgaon. Vide seizure memo dated 23.11.2007\nwhich was proved as Ex. PW37/A, witness had handed over to CBI\ncopy of document no. 3265 dated 3.6.97 which was Ex. PW10/A i.e.\nsale deed of Dhumaspur property.PW 37 was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.62.              PW 38 Sh. Lal Singh: Was Witness to the search/raid\nconducted at the residence of accused Sanjiv Kumar. He deposed that\nin the year 2005, he was posted in Sales Tax Department as Statistical\nAssistant. On 17.2.2005 he had visited the CBI office at about 5.00 am\nand then accompanied the CBI team to Vasant Kunj for conducting\nsearch of a flat. The occupant of the flat was available and his name\nwas Sanjiv Kumar but was not able to identify Sanjiv Kumar in courtCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 98 of 352due to lapse of time. The search continued till 4.00 PM. Thereafter,\nsearch list Ex. PW38/A was prepared which had his signatures at point\n'A'.In cross­examination, PW 38 deposed that the CBI had\nnot called him directly on phone, voluntarily stating that the CBI had\nrequested his superiors in the office where­after he was deputed to\nvisit the office of CBI by giving a written order. The Witness further\ndeposed that as a token of his having visited the office of CBI, his\nsignatures were obtained in the CBI office but could not recollect\nwhether his signatures were taken in a register at the entry gate or at\nsome other place. The Witness also could not recollect as to with\nwhom had he met in the office of CBI. PW stated that neither had he\ngone through the search list (proved as) Ex. PW38/A (in file D­36)\nbefore signing the same nor noticed the serial number of the items\nmentioned therein. The Witness however denied that he was not\npresent with the search team.63.              PW 39 Sh. B. B. Malhotra: Was also a witness to the\nsearch carried out at the premises of accused Sanjiv. He deposed that\nin February 2005, he was posted as JE in Dwarka Zone of DDA. On\n17.2.2005 he had visited the CBI office on the instructions of his\nsuperior, early in the morning. From the CBI office, the CBI teamCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 99 of 352went to Vasant Kunj and conducted search of a residential flat. He did\nnot know the name of the occupant of the flat who was present there\nnor could he recognize him due to lapse of time. The search continued\ntill late afternoon. The Witness further deposed that the search list\n(proved as) Ex. PW38/A was prepared at the flat itself which bore his\nsignatures at point B.\n\n                 In cross­examination, PW 39 deposed that he could not\nrecollect about the number of members in the search team and was not\naware about the name of the CBI officer, heading the search team. The\nWitness also deposed that though he had seen the sealed packets at the\ntime of signing the search list but had not seen the contents of the said\npackets. The Witness denied that he only had seen the process of\nsealing. He remained present on the ground floor and was relieved\nfrom the spot itself. The Witness denied that all the 35 items\nmentioned in the search list were not seized from the flat and that\nsome of the items were taken by the CBI officers from their side and\nimplanted in the recovery during the search. The Witness could not\ntell as to how many entry and exit gates were there in the flat and\nadmitted that from the place where he was sitting on the ground floor\nof the flat, it was not possible to see all the entry and exits of the flat.64.              PW 40 Seema Malhotra: Was a very crucial witness forCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 100 of 352the prosecution to prove one of the major limbs of prosecution\nallegation which was that accused Abha had deposited Rs. 75 lacs\nwith Cosmos Investments for dabbling in share trading. This witness\ndeposed that she had worked with M/s Cosmos Management Service\nPvt Ltd., Khan Market from 1998 to 2007. This company was dealing\nin financial investments and instruments and sale and purchase of\nshares as a sub­broker. She was one of the Directors of M/s Cosmos\nManagement Service Pvt Ltd. from the date of her joining. The\ncompany was working under the supervision of Sh. J. L. Malhotra\nwho was a Chartered Accountant by profession.She further deposed that Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma\nwas an accountant in the company and she could identify his writing\nand signature as he was working under her. It was further deposed by\nher that for individual client registration, a form is required to be filled\nup by the person concerned who used to get his signature verified\nfrom the bank in which he maintained his account. The photograph of\nthe person concerned also used to be affixed on the client registration\nform. Whenever any client used to hand over cash towards the\npurchase price of shares or as margin money, it used to be accepted by\nSh. Davender Kumar or by her, against a proper receipt and the cash\nused to be handed over to Sh. J. L. Malhotra. She further testified that\nshe knew Abha Sinha through Tika Mustafa, who was a walk­in client\nand who got registered himself with the company and later onCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 101 of 352introduced his wife Sabiha Mustafa and Abha Sinha who were also\nregistered as clients of the company.This witness then deposed that somewhere in 2005, CBI\nconducted search in their office and seized certain documents through\na search list, a copy of which was handed over to her against receipt.\nShe proved the client registration form of Sh. Tika Mustafa with his\nphotograph and signature duly verified by the bank as Ex. PW40/A1\nbut the form did not bear signature of anyone from her company. She\nsimilarly proved the client registration of Abha Sinha as Ex. PW40/A2\nand that of Sabiha Mustafa as Ex. PW40/A3.She also deposed that subsequently, CBI asked for certain\ndocuments which were forwarded to CBI vide forwarding letter dated\n19.2.2005 (proved as) Ex. PW40/B, under her signature. She also\nstated that she had forwarded the acknowledgment portion of the\nreceipt book from Serial No. 101 to 200. Witness then proved each of\nthe receipts issued in the name of Abha Sinha ­1.      Receipt No. 156 dt. 5.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C1 for Rs. 04 lac paid\nin cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.2.      Receipt No. 157 dt. 6.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C2 for Rs. 02 lac paid\nin cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.3.      Receipt No. 158 dt. 7.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C3 for Rs. 02 lac paid\nin cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 102 of 3524.      Receipt No. 161 dt. 10.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C4 for Rs. 4,50,000\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.5.      Receipt No.164 dt. 12.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C5for Rs. 03 lac paid\nin cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.6.      Receipt No. 167 dt. 18.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C6 for Rs. 05 lac paid\nin cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.7.      Receipt No. 169 dt. 19.1.2000 Ex. PW40/C7 for Rs. 4,50,000/­\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.8.      Receipt No. 198 dt.13.3.2000 Ex. PW40/C8, for Rs. 05 lac paid\nby cheque, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.Witness deposed that signature of the person in whose\nname receipt had been issued was available on the back of the receipt.She further deposed that she had also forwarded an\nanalytical statement for the year 1999­2000 Ex. PW40/D1 running\ninto five pages and for the year 2000­2001 Ex. PW40/D2 running into\n10 pages reflecting the amounts received from and paid to Smt. Abha\nSinha during this period. Vide seizure memo proved as Ex. PW40/DE,\nshe had handed over to the CBI, difference bills in respect of shares\ntraded in futures running into 101 pages for the period 30.4.2000 to\n30.9.2000 which were proved as Ex. PW40/E1 (in file D­67) and\nhighlighted that at Page No. 1 and 3 of Ex. PW40/E1, the signature of\nSmt. Abha Sinha appear at point 'A'. She also deposed that during the\nsearch, certain receipt books for the receipts from Sr. No. 301 to 400CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 103 of 352and from Sr. No. 401 to 500 were also seized by CBI vide search list\ndated 17.2.2005.Witness further proved certain more receipts issued in\nthe name of Abha Sinha ­1.      Receipt No. 305 dt. 24.3.2000 Ex. PW40/C9 for Rs. 04 lac paid\nin cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.2.      Receipt No. 306 dt. 24.3.2000 Ex. PW40/C10 for Rs.1 lac paid\nthrough cheque, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.3.      Receipt No. 309 dt. 25.3.2000 Ex. PW40/C11 for Rs. 11 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.4.      Receipt No. 411 dt. 28.4.2000 Ex. PW40/C12 for Rs. 05 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.5.      Receipt No. 416 dt. 04.5.2000 Ex. PW40/C13 for Rs. 02 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.6.      Receipt No. 417 dt. 06.5.2000 Ex. PW40/C14 for Rs. 02 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.7.      Receipt No. 420 dt. 15.5.2000 Ex. PW40/C15 for Rs. 01 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.8.      Receipt No. 421 dt. 16.5.2000 Ex. PW40/C16 for Rs. 02 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.9.      Receipt No. 423 dt. 18.5.2000 Ex. PW40/C17 for Rs. 02 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.10.     Receipt No. 429 dt. 29.5.2000 Ex. PW40/C18 for Rs. 03 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 104 of 35211.     Receipt No. 443 dt. 23.6.2000 Ex. PW40/C19, for Rs. 01 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.12.     Receipt No. 444 dt. 27.6.2000 Ex. PW40/C20 for Rs. 02 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.13.     Receipt No. 447 dt. 12.7.2000 Ex. PW40/C21 for Rs. 01 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.14.     Receipt No. 455 dt. 20.7.2000 Ex. PW40/C22 for Rs. 01 lac\npaid in cash, in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha.PW40 further deposed that through these receipts, total of\nRs. 68 lac was paid by Smt. Abha Sinha. A further sum of Rs. 07 lac\nwas received in the account of Abha Sinha from Tika Mustafa through\ntransfer and Abha Sinha was paid back Rs. 06 lac through cheque.\nThus, a total sum of Rs. 69 lacs was paid by Smt. Abha Sinha after\nadjusting total amount received and paid back as reflected in the\nanalytical statement Ex. PW40/D­1. She also deposed that during the\nsearch, a delivery instruction book relating to Demat account of their\ncompany maintained with M/s Abhipra Capital Limited was also\nseized by the CBI and through which the shares in Demat account of\ntheir company used to be transferred to the accounts of the clients of\ntheir company. The delivery instruction slips proved as Ex. PW40/F1\nto Ex. PW40/F4 dated 28.2.2001 were signed by her and through these\nslips the shares mentioned therein were transferred in the account with\nclient ID No. 10994415. She clarified that the slips were issued as perCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 105 of 352the instructions of Sh. J. L. Malhotra.She further deposed that during the search CBI had also\nseized two Client Ledgers mentioned at Sr. No. 6 & 7 of the search list\ndated 17.2.2005. In the client registers, the record of shares transferred\nthrough the delivery instruction slips used to be maintained with the\nname of the client. The account of Smt. Abha Sinha was proved as\nEx. PW40/G1 (in file D­75A) and Ex. PW40/G2. During the search,\nCBI also seized Party Ledger Computer print running into five pages\nproved as Ex. PW40/H1 to Ex. PW40/H5 in the name of Abha Sinha\nfor the period 4.12.1999 to 31.3.2000. Witness also stated about\nseizure by the CBI of Party Ledger Computer print running into 11\npages proved as Ex. PW40/H6 to Ex. PW40/H16 in the name of M/s\nAVI Capital Service Pvt Ltd for the period 01.4.2000 to 27.2.2001.\nShe further proved the two cheques as Ex. PW40/J1 and Ex. PW40/J2\nthrough which the payment was made vide receipt Ex. PW10/C8 and\nEx. PW40/C­10 respectively.In cross­examination, PW 40 deposed that she had\nappeared as a witness before a Court at Chandigarh where accused\nSanjiv Kumar was also present, certified copy of which running into 5\npages (was proved as) Ex. PW40/A­1/DA. The Witness admitted that\nshe was having 5% shares in M/s. Cosmos Investments and her duty\nwas to interact with the clients and to facilitate them in trading. TheCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 106 of 352Witness deposed that the finalization of any account after trading of\nthe day was being dealt with by Sh. J.L. Malhotra for which the clients\nused to directly interact with Sh. Malhotra who was keeping all the\nrecords relating to trading, accounts and final settlement. The Witness\nalso deposed that she and other official of the accounts branch were\nonly receiving the cash or cheques and issued receipts, and that they\ndid not know the other details of the transaction. The Witness admitted\nthat usually a person is not allowed to trade in the name of other\nwithout him having specific authorization to that effect. The Witness\ndeposed that she was not in a position to state if Tika Mustafa had\ngiven any authorization in favour of accused Abha Sinha for trading\non his behalf where­after the Witness was shown a document Ex.\nPW40/A­1/DB after which the Witness stated that it might be the\nauthorization. At this stage of cross­examination, a Court observation\nwas recorded to the effect that the letter was not containing the seal of\nM/s. Cosmos nor signature of anyone from M/s. Cosmos as a token of\nhaving received it in M/s. Cosmos. The Witness then deposed that\nwhenever payments in cash were received either through accused\nAbha Sinha or through somebody else, it used to be verified the next\nday from Shri T. Mustafa and then Abha's signatures used to be\nobtained on the receipts. PW stated that accused Abha had once or\ntwice come to deposit the cash/cheque in the company.The Witness further deposed that some of the shares ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 107 of 352M/s. Morgan Stanley sold by Sh. Tika Mustafa resulted in 'bad\ndelivery twice' on which account there was some dispute between Sh.\nMustafa and J.L. Malhotra whereupon the shares bought were\naccumulated and were to be transferred vide delivery instruction slips\nas per the instructions received by her from Shri Malhotra. The\nWitness also deposed that she had stated before the Court at\nChandigarh that authorization was given by Sh. Tikka to accused\nAbha Sinha for the transfer of the shares which was kept in safe\ncustody by Shri Malhotra and was not traceable. The Witness clarified\nthat while shifting the office from 3A Khan Market to 48 Khan\nMarket, some of the documents were got misplaced and that while\nforwarding certain documents to the CBI, it was mentioned that the\ndocuments had been misplaced while shifting and that efforts were\ngoing on to trace the same.The Witness explained her ignorance as to who were the\nDirectors in M/s. Abhipra Capitals. PW also deposed that separate\n'machines' used to be maintained for daily trading activity which were\nrecorded therein immediately when the transaction was done. She\ndeposed that print out of the sheets collectively      (proved as) Ex.\nPW40/E­1 were taken out by the person managing the computer\nsystem, and that if any dividend was paid or bonus shares issued in the\nname of accused Abha Sinha, the same would be there in the statement\nof the account. The Witness deposed that she did not have anyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 108 of 352personal knowledge about any such payment or issuance of bonus\nshares to accused Abha Sinha.65.              PW 41 Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta: Was another\ncrucial witness since the entire alleged money trail of Rs. 2.51 crores\nto link up accused Sanjiv circled around this witness. However, this\nwitness turned hostile at the outset. He deposed that he did not know\nSanjiv Kumar. He admitted to have gone to the CBI office after\nsearches were conducted at his residence A­96, Shyam Park Extn,\nSahibabad, Ghaziabad somewhere in yr. 2005­2006. Witness further\ndeposed that once he was told by Tika Hassan Mustafa that he i.e. PW\n41, had to do some work for Sanjiv Kumar but he was never\nintroduced to said Sanjiv Kumar. He further clarified that accused\nSanjiv Kumar was not the same Sanjiv Kumar for whom Tika Hasan\nhad asked him to work. He denied knowing any person named Abha\nKumar though he admitted that the name of Abha Kumar was\nmentioned in the documents which were maintained in his office.\nWitness sought to clarify that Tika Hasan Mustafa had given him\ncertain names including the name of Sanjiv Kumar and Abha Kumar\nand asked him to do the work of sale and purchase of shares for\nforward trading in their names stating that they were very big persons\nand if at all any difficulty arose, they will sort it out. He had visited\nthe CBI office several times but did not remember the dates of his visitCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 109 of 352and further admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI but could\nnot confirm as to whether his statement was recorded on 19.2.2005\nand 3.1.2008. Witness further admitted that he had received cash and\ncheques on various occasions from Tika Hasan Mustafa in the name of\nSanjiv Kumar. However, he could not remember the names in which\nthe shares used to be purchased and sold at the instance of Tika Hasan\nMustafa. This witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP.In cross­examination conducted by ld. PP, witness\nadmitted that file (proved as) Ex. PW41/Z was taken by the CBI at the\ntime of raid at his residence. He further admitted that documents Ex.\nPW41/A1 to Ex. PW41/A4 (file D­50) were in his hand writing but\nthe details stated therein were mentioned at the instance of Tika\nHassan. He denied that the amounts mentioned in Ex. PW41/A1 to\nPW41/A3 were given to him by Abha Kumar, Arun Sharma and\nSanjiv Kumar. PW 41 asserted that all the amounts had been received\nfrom Tika Hasan and as per the instructions of Tika Hasan Mustafa,\nhad reflected the same in different names. Witness also admitted that\nthe List of forwarding trading in shares (proved as) Ex. PW41/A6 was\nin his hand writing wherein the name of Abha Kumar was mentioned\nbut witness clarified that it was as per the instructions of Tika Hasan.\nWitness further admitted that name of Abha was mentioned in the list\nEx. PW41/A7.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 110 of 352PW 41 admitted ownership of M/s Vandana Investments\nand further that the computer generated sheets (proved as) Ex.\nPW41/A8 to Ex. PW41/A22 from the computer installed in the o/o\nVandana Investments relates to 'difference' resulting from forward\ntrading of shares in the account of Abha. In regard to Ram Avtar\nAggarwal PW 25, PW 41 deposed that he was sent to his office by\nTika Hasan Mustafa and that all the shares of Tika Hasan were\ntransferred in Ram A. Aggarwal's account when dealings with Tika\nHasan ended.Witness further admitted ownership of M/s AVI Capital\nServices Pvt Ltd. He also admitted that 3 Letters dated 19.2.2001\n(proved as) Ex. PW41/B1 to Ex. PW41/B3 (in file D­35) and two\nletters dt. 26.12.2000 (proved as) Ex. PW41/B4 and Ex. PW41/B5 (in\nfile D­35) were written by him to M/s Cosmos Management Services\nPvt Ltd. PW 41 accepted that 'Forward Trade Register' (proved as Ex.\nPW41/C­1 [file D­78]) was seized by the CBI vide production cum\nseizure memo dt 8.5.2007 (Ex. PW41/C) and that the entries in this\nregister were in his hand writing. Witness further deposed that the\ncomputer generated sheets from page no. 38 to 55 of the 'Daily Sauda\nRegister' for the period 20.8.99 to 24.11.99 and computer generated\nsheets from page no. 17 to 37 of list of debtors/creditors of his\ncompany (proved as) Ex. PW41/D(colly) were seized by CBI from hisCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 111 of 352office.PW 41 admitted to have issued five drafts, each for Rs.\n50,000/­ in the name of K. K. Lal vide draft issuance applications\nforms (proved as) Ex. PW41/E1 to PW41/E5. The drafts were\nseparately proved as Ex. PW41/E6 to Ex. PW41/E10.                However,\nwitness denied knowing any person by the name of K. K. Lal. He did\nnot remember as to in what context these drafts were got prepared. He\ndenied that these drafts were prepared on the instructions of Sanjiv\nKumar but did not remember as to on whose instructions did he get the\ndrafts prepared.In his cross­examination conducted on behalf of all the\naccused persons, PW41 admitted that as per the instructions of Shri\nTikka Hassan Mustafa, M/s. Cosmos Management transferred the\nshares to his firm M/s. AVI Capital Services.It needs a highlight here that an application underSection 311Cr.PC moved by A­1 Sanjiv Kumar for further cross­\nexamination of PW41 was allowed by ld. Predecessor vide order\ndated 15.11.2019 whereafter PW41 Subhash Chander Gupta was\nagain summoned for his cross­examination by accused Sanjiv Kumar.\nThe background to this application was that at the stage of final\narguments way back in 2017, Prosecution moved an application\nseeking to examine 2 witnesses - RK Sharma and Devender Kumar.\nThe application qua RK Sharma was allowed. In his chief­testimonyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 112 of 352RK Sharma claimed to have paid close to Rs. 90 lacs to SC Gupta as\nbribe money share of accused Sanjiv. Consequently, it was only\nlogical that SC Gupta had to be summoned again since accused Sanjiv\nhad to clear the air generated by RK Sharma's hugely belated\ntestimony. It needs a highlight that accused Sanjiv also went against\nthe order of ld. Predecessor before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi\nhighlighting that RK Sharma had already deposed against accused\nSanjiv in another CBI investigated trial regarding the same issue of\nalleged bribe money but had been found to be completely without\ncredibility by the concerned special court at Chandigarh, but before\nthe matter could be taken up on merit by the Hon'ble High Court, RK\nSharma completed his testimony as PW 47.In further cross­examination of PW 41 conducted on\n13.2.2020, Witness deposed that he could not recollect if he had stated\nin his previous statement which was recorded on 24.2.2015 about him\nnot knowing any person by the name R.K. Sharma. Witness also stated\nthat except for M/s. Vandana Investments he had no other firm.\nWitness admitted that he was also summoned as a prosecution witness\nin a case before Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh where he had\ndeposed about one R.K. Sharma. The Witness deposed that in his\nstatement recorded before the Special CBI Court at Chandigarh, he\nhad stated that he knew R.K. Sharma who used to trade in the share\nmarket individually in his own account. The witness was shown copyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 113 of 352of his deposition dated 24.2.2015 recorded before this Court in which\nhe had stated that he did not know any R.K. Sharma whereas in his\ndeposition recorded before the Special CBI Court, Chandigarh, he had\nstated that he knew R.K. Sharma whereupon the Witness was asked as\nto which of his statement is correct to which the Witness responded\nthat his statement recorded before Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh\nwas correct.The Witness was further asked that why did he depose\nbefore this Court that he did not know any R.K. Sharma to which the\nWitness replied that since he was being repeatedly asked if he knew\nSanjiv Kumar and whether he knew 'that Sanjiv Kumar who used to\ngive money to R.K. Sharma' in which context, he had stated that he\ndid not know any R.K. Sharma who was being given money by Sanjiv\nKumar. Further, on being asked as to whether he was collecting the\ncash personally by visiting the clients, the witness replied in negative\nstating that since he was a chronic patient of arthritis, the cash used to\nhanded over either by the clients themselves in his office or through\nany of their authorized persons.66.              PW 42 Sh. Pankaj Chaturvedi: Was a witness\nsummoned from Ansal Properties and Infrastructure to prove the\nallotment of plot in the name of accused Kanak Lata in Sushant Lok.\nVide seizure memo dated 7.9.2007 (proved as) Ex. PW42/A, witnessCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 114 of 352had handed over to the Investigating Officer application form no. 4738\nand 4346 which were proved as Ex. PW42/2 and Ex. 42/3. Witness\ndeposed that Application form Ex. PW42/2 was in the name of Mrs.\nKanak Lata, Mrs. Abha Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar and Miss Snigdha\nKumar for allotment of plot No. B­102, Sushant Lok, Phase­I, and\napplication form Ex. PW42/3 was in the name of Mrs. Kanak Lata, Dr.\nM. Kumar and Miss Snigdha Kumar for allotment of Plot in Sushant\nLok, Phase­I. As per his knowledge, no allotment was made pursuant\nto Ex. PW42/3. The documents Ex. PW42/2 and Ex. PW42/3 were\nhanded over by him to CBI on the instructions of Sh. P. L. Mandola\nvide letter dt. 6.9.07 which letter was proved as Ex. PW42/4.In cross­examination, PW 42 admitted that the company\nallots the plots only to the persons whose names have been mentioned\nin the application form. The Witness admitted that in document Ex.\nPW42/A1, which is a plot buyer agreement in regard to plot No. 103,\nSushant Lok, Phase I, buyers were stated to be Kanak Lata, Dr. M.\nKumar and Snigdha Kumar which plot was not allotted to the\napplicants on the basis of application form Ex. PW42/2. Witness\nfurther stated that it might be possible that afterwards the applicant\nmay have come to the office and had requested for allotment to the\ndone in favour of a new person for whom form Ex. PW42/3 was filled\nup and signed. After confronting the Witness with the two receiptsCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 115 of 352(proved as) Ex. PW42/A2 and Ex. PW42/A3 (in file D­38) issued in\nthe name of Kanak Lata, he was asked if he could state that payment\nwas made only by Kanak Lata or by all the co­owners to which the\nWitness expressed his inability to reply.67.              PW 43 Sh. Kanwaljit Singh: Deposed that he was\nworking as Sr. Manager in Jharsa Branch of Gurgaon Grameen Bank.\nHe had delivered certain original documents to CBI vide letter marked\nas PW43/A. The documents which he had handed over through letter\nmarked PW43/A were transfer credit slip dated 21.2.2000 (proved as)\nEx. PW43/1, cheque dt. 3.3.2000 of Gurgaon Grameen Bank of A/c\nno. 4967 for an amount of Rs. 05 lac in favour of Sanjiv Kumar\n(proved as) Ex. PW43/2, Cash deposit slip for an amount of Rs.\n6,50,000/­ deposited in the account of Hukam Singh on 29.5.2000\nproved as Ex. PW43/3, Cash deposit slip dt. 30.5.2000 whereby an\namount of Rs. 3,02,000 was deposited in the account of Hukam Chand\n(proved as) Ex. PW43/4, debit slip dated 31.5.2000 whereby a demand\ndraft for an amount of Rs. 10,02,000/­ was issued in favour of Sanjiv\nKumar (proved as) Ex. PW43/5, withdrawal slip whereby an amount\nof Rs. 1,50,000/­ was withdrawn from a/c no. 4967 on 17.10.2000\n(proved as) Ex. PW43/6 and ledger folio for saving bank account no.\n4967 from 18.5.90 to 14.8.2001 (proved as) Ex. PW43/7.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 116 of 352PW 43 was not cross­examined on behalf of the defense.68.              PW 44 Sh. Ram Nath Azad, retired Asst. Director,IPCC, CBI: He deposed that the present case was registered by the\nBranch SSP Sh. Harbhajan Ram vide FIR Ex. PW44/1 and the\ninvestigation was assigned to Sh. M. K. Bhatt, the then Addl. SP of the\nbranch. In the year 2005, he was Addl. SP CBI AC Zone III, New\nDelhi and had assisted Sh. M. K. Bhatt in the investigation of this\ncase. During this period, he had examined about 18 witnesses and\ncollected documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A dated 30.6.2006.\nHe further deposed that he had also collected documents vide letter\ndated 30.5.2006 from Sub Registrar X, District South, West Delhi vide\nmemo Ex. PW44/2. He also collected documents vide seizure memo\nproved as Ex. PW44/3 from Sh. R. C. Gupta, Asst. Director SFS\n(Housing) DDA, New Delhi and had conducted a search on 17.2.2005\nat A­96, Shyam Park Extension, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad which belongs\nto Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta. He also deposed that during the period\nof investigation case diaries were prepared by him, the original of\nwhich was marked to the SSP and the carbon copy was given to the\nIO.In cross­examination, PW44 deposed that so far he\nremembered, while conducting investigation of the present case, he\nhad conducted search only at one premises of which the seizure/searchCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 117 of 352memos were prepared at the spot after the raid/search. Since the\nindependent witnesses involved in the search were arranged by the\nbranch in­charge, hence he could not tell whether entry regarding the\nnames and other particulars of the witnesses were made in any\nregister. The Witness denied the suggestion that the final decision\nwith regard to filing of charge­sheet was taken by the then Director,\nCBI. The Witness also denied that the investigating officer merely\nconducted a formality since the real decision in the present case was\nbeing taken by the Director of CBI. The Witness further denied having\nnot examined any witness of the case or that he had not conducted any\nsearch in any premises during investigation of the present case.69.              PW 45 Sh. M. K. Bhatt, Retired SSP, CBI: He deposed\nthat FIR of this case Ex. PW44/1 was registered by Mr. Harbhajan\nRam SSP and as per endorsement No. 5, the investigation of the case\nwas marked to him during the year 2005 when he was posted as Addl.\nSP CBI AC­III Branch, New Delhi. He further deposed that during the\ninvestigation he had recorded statement of about 24 witnesses,\nconducted searches and also collected/seized certain documents. He\nthen deposed that vide search list Ex. PW38/A, he had conducted\nsearch at Flat No. 6360/6357, Sector C­6 and C­7, Vasant Kunj, New\nDelhi. He also deposed that vide receipt memo Ex. PW22/A dated\n02.8.2005, he had collected some bank records from Sh. N. K. Raheja,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 118 of 352Sr. Managar, Oriental Bank of Commerce Panchkula. He also deposed\nabout seizure of documents from Oriental Bank of Commerce,\nPanchkula vide letter Ex. PW22/B. Vide letter Ex. PW45/1, he had\nreceived documents from Syndicate Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi\nand he had also received certain documents from Standard Chartered\nBank, Sansad Marg Branch, New Delhi vide letter Mark PW45/A and\nMark PW45/B. Similarly, vide letter Mark PW45/C he had received\ndocuments from Manager Customer Care, Citi Bank and vide letter\nMark 43/A he had received some documents from Gurgaon Grameen\nBank.He further deposed that documents collected by him were\ndeposited in the malkhana. He conducted the investigation of this case\nfrom 16.2.2005 till middle of November 2005. During the\ninvestigation of this case he was assisted by Insp. B. S. Chauhan, Dy.\nSP R. N. Azad, DSP R. Singh and Insp. Dhiraj Kheterpal.In cross­examination, PW 45 deposed that while\ninvestigation was being conducted by him, Ms. Sonali Mishra, SSP\ntook over the charge of the Branch in April 2005. The Witness\nadmitted that during his investigation, after writing the case diary,\noriginal of the same used to be submitted to SSP/Branch In­charge and\nthat a carbon copy of the same used to be kept by him. Witness\nexplained that after registration of the case, line of action/points to be\ninvestigated were proposed by the investigating officer which wereCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 119 of 352approved by the branch in­charge/SSP. The Witness also deposed that\nduring investigation, once the original case diary is submitted to the\nSSP, the same is not returned to the investigating officer. PW further\nstated that it is not necessary that before filing of the charge­sheet, the\ninvestigating officer has to take back the original case diary. The\nWitness denied that if the branch in­charge is inimical to the accused,\nhe might make manipulation in the case diary without knowledge of\nthe investigating officer. The Witness also denied that he had not\nconducted a fair investigation or that it was a motivated investigation\nunder the directions of his superior i.e. SSP Harbhajan Ram.70.              PW 46 A. K. Pandey, Dy. SP CBI: He deposed that in\nthe year 2005, he was posted as Inspector in AC III/ACU/IX Branch\nand had taken over the investigation of this case in August, 2006 from\nSh. R. N. Azad, Addl. SP. During the investigation, he had examined\naround 35 to 40 witnesses and had taken over and seized number of\ndocuments details of which are as under:1.    Vide letter Ex. PW46/1 of State Bank of India,\n           Dhanbad Branch, he had received statement of account of\n           PPF account No. 1810 in the name of Abha Kumar for the\n           period 14.2.1995 to 3.1.2007.2.    Vide letter Ex. PW46/2 of Chief Manager, State Bank\n           of India, Dhanbad Branch he had received Statement of SBCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 120 of 352Account No.01190007742 for the period 20.1.2001 to\n           December 2005.3.    Vide collection memo dated 17.3.2004 Ex. PW46/3 he\n           had collected one correspondence file of flat No. 15, Floor\n           No. IV,       in the name of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar from Sh. Anil\n           Kumar, Clerk, HOPE Co­operative Society, Sector 15, Part\n           II, Gurgaon.4.    Vide letter dated 3.1.2008 Ex. PW46/4 he had\n           collected vouchers sent by Chief Manager, Oriental Bank\n           of commerce, Gurgaon.5.    Vide seizure memo dated 23.1.2008 Ex. PW46/5, he\n           had seized original pay in slip dated 22.4.1998 of Oriental\n           Bank of Commerce, New Rly. Road Branch, Gurgaon for\n           Rs.8,91,396.25 deposited in SB account No. 16887 in the\n           name of Abha Singh.6.    Vide seizure memo Ex. PW46/6, he had seized the\n           original account opening form of A/c No. 7617 in the name\n           of Sanjiv Kumar with Allahabad Bank, Panipat.7.    Vide letter Ex. PW46/7 of Allahabad Bank, GT Road,\n           Panipat, he had received statement of Account of SB\n           Account No. 7617 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar.8.    Vide letter Ex. PW46/8 of Infotec, he had received\n           details of bonds held in the name of Sanjiv Kumar, Dr.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 121 of 352Maheshwar Kumar and Kanak Lata in the public issue of\n           ICICI Bank Ltd.9. Vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW46/9, he had\n           seized some documents from Sh. Alok Kumar Kedia, Sr.\n           Managar Allahabad Bank, Haripur Branch, Dhanbad.10. Vide letter Ex. PW46/10, he had received statement of\n           account of SB account No. 470 in the name of Kanak Lata\n           and Dr. Maheshwar Kumar, account No. 3610 in the name\n           of Sanjiv Kumar HUF, account no. 3638 in the name of\n           Rajiv Kumar HUF, account No.3609 in the name of Kanak\n           Lata and account No. 119 in the name of Abha Kumar.11. Vide letter Ex. PW46/11 of ICICI Bank, he had\n           received statement of account of A/c No. 000701228511\n           for the period 10.4.2004 to 20.2.2007 and link term­deposit\n           statement for the period 31.3.2004 to 2006 and another link\n           term deposit statement as on 31.1.2006 for the period\n           1.4.2006 to 31.1.2007.12. Vide seizure memo Ex. PW46/12, he had collected\n           original application of membership no. 301 of Dr.\n           Maheshwar Kumar/Kanak Lata mentioning address for\n           communication c/o Sanjiv Kumar IAS C/6, 6360 Vasant\n           Kunj, New Delhi, certified copy of ledger no. 301 in the\n           name of Dr. M. Kumar and Smt. Kanak Lata and certifiedCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 122 of 352copy of possession letter dated 1.3.2003 in respect of flat\n           No. B­2/301, Power Welfare Organization, Sector 43,\n           Gurgaon.13. Vide letter Ex. PW46/13, statement of account of\n           Sanjiv Kumar from the date of opening of account till\n           16.2.2005 was sent to him by Vijaya Bank, Chandigarh.14. Vide letter Ex. PW46/14 of Sr. Managar Allahabad\n           Bank, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad some information\n           regarding DDs No. 10154 in the name of Kanak Lata and\n           No. 10155 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar HUF was given.15. Vide letter Ex. PW46/15 of Allahabad Bank, Hirapur\n           Branch, Dhanbad, original account opening form of SB A/c\n           No. 470 in the name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Kanak\n           Lata, original account opening form of A/c No. 3609 in the\n           name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Kanak Lata, another\n           account opening form of account No. 3610          of Sanjiv\n           Kumar (HUF), original account opening form of A/c No.\n           119 of Abha Sinha, original account form of DDP 11044 in\n           the name of Dr. M. Kumar for Rs. 3,50,000, another DDP\n           No. 11209 dated 3.10.2009 in the name of Dr. Mahesh\n           Kumar for Rs. One Lac, another DDP No. 11188 dated\n           17.9.2009 in the name of Maheshwar Kumar for Rs.59,742, another DDP No. 11232 dated 16.10.2002 in theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 123 of 352name of Mrs. Kanak Lata for Rs. 1,50,000/­, and another\n           DDP No. 297 dated 30.11.2002 in the name of Mrs. Kanak\n           Lata for Rs. 50,000/­ were received.16. Vide letter dated 7.9.2007 Ex. PW46/16, original\n           documents pertaining to booking of plot by Mrs. Kanak\n           Lata and Abha Sinha in Park Square, formerly known as\n           Green Acre and Central Square, also formerly known as\n           Techno Plaza at Kishan Ganj and Bara Hindu Rao were\n           sent to him.17. Vide letter dated 30.1.2007 of Dr. K. P.         Singh,\n           Physician and Surgeon, Dhanbad (proved as Ex. PW46/17)\n           he had received the documents as requisitioned by him.18. Vide production cum seizure memo, he had seized\n           some documents from Sh. S. C. Gupta, A­96, Shyam Park\n           Extn, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.19. Vide seizure memo Ex. PW46/18, he had seized some\n           documents from Sh. Atul Gokhle, Asst. Manager IDBI\n           Bank, Indian Red Cross Society Building, New Delhi.20. Vide letter Ex. PW46/19 Manager, Customer Care,\n           Citi Bank had sent to him one original application form of\n           Credit Card number 5425568602050009 belonging to\n           Sanjiv Kumar.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 124 of 35221. Vide letter Ex. PW46/20, Neetu Sharma of Indusind\n           Bank Ltd, 28, Barakhamba Road had intimated regarding\n           Subhash Chander Gupta holding DP A/c No. 10042744\n           which also contained holding statement of this account\n           number as on 1.3.2007 and transaction statement from the\n           opening of the account from 7.7.1998 to 6.1.2007.PW 46 further deposed that documents which were\ncollected by other IOs viz Sh. R. Singh Dy. SP, Insp. D. S. Chauhan\nand Dheeraj Kheterpal Insp were also taken over by him and\ninvestigation was conducted in respect to those documents also. He\nalso deposed that documents as mentioned in the letter Ex. PW40/B\naddressed by Ms. Seema to Dheeraj Kheterpal were also considered by\nhim during investigation. He further deposed that vide memo Ex.\nPW46/1 Sh. D. S. Chauhan, the then Inspector, CBI had collected the\ndocuments from Sh. Saurab Sodhi, Legal Executive, Pure Earth\nInfrastructure Ltd. After analyzing the evidence collected, he prepared\nthe asset, income and expenditure chart of accused Sanjiv Kumar,\nAbha Kumar, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Smt. Kanak Lata. As per his\ninvestigation, assets of accused Sanjiv were of the value of Rs.\n4,08,81,202 which was disproportionate to the extent of 570.15% to\nhis known sources of income.In cross­examination, PW 46 was shown file Ex.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 125 of 352PW46/D1 named as M 202/7/215/7 and M 217/7 and was asked if the\nsaid file was seized by him to which the witness, after going through\nthe entire file, responded that the same was seized by him. Thereafter,\nPW46 was shown a document i.e. memorandum of partition from the\nfile Ex. PW46/D1 from page Nos. 51 to 54 on which M 217/07 had\nbeen inscribed and was asked whether he had considered/examined\nthis document during investigation to which the Witness replied that\nhe could not recall whether he had considered/examined this\ndocument. The Witness also stated that he could not recollect\nwhether during investigation, vide page No. 51 to 54 of Ex. PW46/D1,\nhe had come to know that after family partition, accused Sanji Kumar\nhad got some agricultural land or that from that land, he used to have\nagricultural income. The Witness denied that during investigation, it\nhad come to his knowledge that from the year 1978 to 1996 accused\nSanjiv Kumar had an agricultural income of Rs. 8,60,000/­. The\nWitness was shown assessment order Ex. PW46/D2 of Asstt.\nCommissioner of Income Tax, District Patna dated 3.3.1993 for the\nyear 1990­91 and was asked whether he had seized the said document\nduring investigation to which the Witness replied in the affirmative\nbut clarified that he had not considered/examined the same. He denied\nthat he had concealed the income prior to the check period. The\nWitness also denied that during investigation, he had been informed\nthat from a property at 438/B, Boring Canal Road, Patna, accused Dr.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 126 of 352M. Kumar was receiving monthly rental income of Rs. 4250/­ and Rs.\n5000/­ for different floors of the said property from the year 1982 to\n1997. PW 46 further denied that during investigation, he was provided\ncopy of rent receipts Mark PW46/DA and DB. The Witness clarified\nthat he had never gone to the house at Boring Canal Road, Patna for\nverifying the ownership or the occupancy or the tenancy or to have it\ninvestigated through somebody else.The Witness was shown seizure memo dated 20.12.2007\nEx. PW46/D3 which the Witness admitted vide which he had seized\nphotocopy of general power of attorney marked by the witness as\n1818/07, and which was marked before the court as Mark PW46/DC.\nThe Witness admitted that as per the said document, Dr. Rajiv Kumar\nhad appointed Smt. Abha Sinha as his GPA in respect of flat No.\n6357, 1st and 2nd floor duplex, Sector C, Pocket 6 & 7, SFS, Vasant\nKunj, New Delhi on 1.5.2001 of which property the Witness had\nexamined the title document. PW 46 stated that he had verified about\nthe occupancy of this premises and it was found to be occupied by\naccused Sanjiv Kumar, voluntarily stating that a search was also\nconducted probably in the year 2005 in the said premises and at that\ntime, accused Sanjiv Kumar was found present in the said property.\nThe Witness had also verified as to in whose names the electricity and\ntelephone connection of the said house existed. The Witness admitted\nthat the telephone connection in that house was in the name of Dr.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 127 of 352Rajiv Kumar, voluntarily clarifying that the same was being used by\naccused Sanjiv Kumar.The Witness further admitted to having verified about the\nregistered owner of telephone connection in premises No. 6360,\nGround Floor, Pocket 6 & 7 C, Vasant Kunj and that the phone\nconnection was in the name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar. The Witness\nalso admitted that the documents i.e. loan agreements between Dr.\nRajiv Kumar and Hukam Singh seized vide memo (proved as) Ex.\nPW46/D3 at serial Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. Mark PW46/DD and DE are the\nsame which were shown to the Witness in the court stating that the\nsame were not considered by him as he was not convinced about their\ntruthfulness        but denied that he deliberately did not consider Mark\nPW46/DD and DE. The Witness admitted having issued order dated\n1.12.2007 (proved as) Ex. PW46/D4 for producing the documents.\nThe Witness was also shown a Power of Attorney (proved as) Ex.\nPW46/D5, in file D­5 (II) at pg. no. 2 to 6 executed by Dr. Rajiv\nKumar in favour of his father Dr. M. Kumar for 'management of\naffairs of Dr. Rajiv Kumar HUF' but stated that neither had he verified\nnor considered the same during investigation.The Witness was shown photocopy of letter dated\n16.9.2000 of Haryana Officers & Public Enterprises Employee\nWelfare Co­operative Housing Society which letter (mark PW46/DF)\nwas seized by the Witness during investigation. The Witness alsoCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 128 of 352admitted to seizing letter dated 31.7.2008 (mark PW46/DG) of HUDA\nas also the photocopy of an affidavit (mark PW46/DH) of Kanak Lata.\nThe Witness stated that all the above­said documents were seized by\nhim vide seizure memo Ex. PW46/D3.Specifically in regard to the role of Dr. Rajiv Kumar, the\nWitness denied the suggestion that purchase of foreign currency\nreflected in Ex. Z­72, 73, 74 and 75 (file D­63) was sourced from the\nfunds of Dr. Rajiv Kumar or that the documents reflecting the\nsourcing of funds by Dr. Rajiv Kumar for purchase of foreign\ncurrency were provided to him. The Witness stated that during\ninvestigation, he could not find any evidence that Dr. Rajiv Kumar had\nstarted his practice in Dhanbad or that he had sold his medical\nequipment to Dr. B.K. Sinha of Patliputra Urological Centre, Patna in\nNovember 1997 for a sum of Rs. 4,93,000/­ or that he had sold a plot\nof land to Dr. T.C. Shah, Consultant Gynecologist, Dhanbad in\nDecember 1997 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac or that he had sold his motorcar\nto Mrs. Rita Lala H.E. School Road, Dhanbad for a sum of Rs.\n1,40,000/­ in February 1998 or that he had sold all the aforesaid\nproperties through his power of attorney/father Dr. M. Kumar or that\nhe had authorized his father Dr. M. Kumar to utilize the sale\nconsideration for construction of house at land in village Dhumus Pur,\nHaryana, in the name of his mother Mrs. Kanak Lata.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 129 of 352The Witness also stated that during investigation, he had\ncome to know that Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata\njointly owned a flat bearing No. B­2/301 in Power Welfare\nOrganization Housing Complex, Sector 43, Gurgaon but did not know\nthat this house was rented out to M/s. Citation Info Wares Ltd. w.e.f.\n1.7.2004 at a monthly rent of Rs. 11,500/­ and that a sum of Rs.\n50,000/­ was received as security amount. The Witness could not\nrecollect whether copy of the lease deed regarding the aforesaid\ntenancy was provided to him.The attention of the witness was also drawn to M­344 of\n2005 from page No. 1 to 30 (mark PW46/DI) seized by him vide\nsearch memo dated 17.2.2005. After seeing the search memo, Witness\nstated that the same was prepared by him and that on verifying the\ndocuments mark PW46/DI, the same were found to be correct, which\nwere then exhibited collectively as Ex. PW46/D7. Witness clarified\nthat the same were not considered by him while preparing the charge­\nsheet.Thereafter, the attention of the witness was drawn\ntowards page No. 16 of M­1377 of 2005 in file D­II, proved as\nEx.PW46/D8 which was examined by the witness during investigation\nbut he had not verified the land mentioned from point A to A on Ex.\nPW46/D8, voluntarily stating that the said document was prior to the\ncheck period pertaining to the financial year 1992­93, for whichCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 130 of 352reason the contents of the same were not verified. The Witness\nadmitted that he had not given the benefit of income as reflected in\nthe income tax return of Abha Sinha for the AY 2003­04 and 2004­05,\nvoluntarily stating that he had not received the ITRs for the said\nperiod. The Witness also admitted that he had not given the benefit of\nincome as reflected in the income tax return of Smt. Kanak Lata for\nthe AY 1997­98, voluntarily stating that he had not received the ITR\nof the said period. Similarly, the Witness admitted that he had not\ngiven the benefit of income as reflected in the income tax return of Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar for the AY 1997­98 and 2005­06, voluntarily\nstating that he had not received the ITRs for the said period.The Witness could not admit or deny whether accused\nSanjiv Kumar had received a subsistence allowance of Rs. 1,77,926/­\nfor the period from December 2001 to May 2004, voluntarily stating\nthat the salary record received by the witness reflected that upto\n31.5.2004, the accused had received a subsistence allowance of Rs.\n1,01,075/­. The Witness expressed ignorance whether from 21.5.2001\nto 26.6.2001, accused Sanjiv Kumar was not under suspension and\nwas receiving his regular salary and not subsistence allowance,\nvoluntarily stating that he had prepared the charge­sheet as per the\nrecord received from his department. He denied having deliberately\nconcealed the correct subsistence allowance paid to accused Sanjiv.The Witness admitted that Dr. M. Kumar was a SurgeonCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 131 of 352in Indian Railways and that the witness had not considered the retiral\nbenefits in cash as received by Dr. M. Kumar at the time of his\nretirement from Indian Railways, voluntarily stating that it was much\nprior to the check period and there was no evidence as to how this\nmoney was utilized.The attention of the witness thereafter was drawn to\nM255/05 i.e. GPA proved as Ex. PW46/D9 executed by accused\nSanjiv Kr. in favour of Rajeev Kumar S/o of Kartar Singh. The\nWitness could not recollect whether he had verified the document Ex.\nPW46/D9 or considered the same during investigation. The Witness\ndenied that from 2.6.2000 till the sale of flat No. 15, HOPE\nApartment in October 2003, the entire maintenance and utility bills in\nrespect of the said flat were paid by GPA holder Rajeev Kumar.The attention of the witness was further drawn to\nM202/2007 to M214/2007 (part of Ex. PW46/D1) who then stated that\nhe had given the benefits of royalties received by Smt. Kanak Lata\nvide aforesaid documents as all these incomes were reflected in her\nITR's. The witness denied that this income was not considered by\nhim.The attention of the witness thereafter was drawn to\nM215/2007 and M216/2007 being part of Ex. PW46/D1 whereafter\nWitness admitted that Dr. M. Kumar was a private practicing surgeon.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 132 of 352After seeing the document Ex. PW40/A1/DB, the\nWitness stated that he had verified the same and found the same to be\nfalse. He denied the said document to be genuine and that vide the\nsame, Abha Sinha had been authorized by Tika Hasan to deal with\naffairs of his shares in Cosmos. The Witness admitted that search had\nbeen conducted at the premises of Tika Hasan at R­32 South\nExtension Part II, New Delhi whereafter search and seizure memo was\nprepared. The Witness however denied that he had deliberately\nconcealed Ex. PW40/A1/DB.The attention of the witness was further drawn to\nM608/2005 at page No. 3. Witness admitted that the said document\nEx. PW46/D10 (in file D­35) was seized and which was produced by\nshare broker Subhash Gupta.The Witness stated that since he was not aware, hence\ncould not admit or deny that share transactions done by Abha Sinha on\nbehalf of Cosmos had already been adjudicated upon by CBI Court at\nChandigarh in RC No. 2A/2004/ACU/IX/New Delhi. He denied that\nhe had deliberately concealed the same during investigation. He\nfurther denied that it was within his knowledge that in the aforesaid\nFIR, Sanjiv Kumar, Sushant Kumar Swain, Nirmal Singh and Tika\nHasan Mustafa were the accused or that Seema Gupta and Subhash\nGupta were examined as witnesses or that all the accused in that caseCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 133 of 352had been acquitted. The Witness denied that shares belonging to\nCosmos were not the property of Abha Sinha. The Witness further\ndenied that he had come to know that there was a dispute between\nVivek Gupta s/o Subhash C. Gupta and Tika Hasan or that regarding\nthis dispute, an FIR No. 3/2001 under Section 420, 120­BIPCwas\npending investigation with PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi or that the said\ndispute was regarding the shares which have been attributed in the\npresent case to Abha Sinha.The Witness also denied that he had deliberately not\ngiven the benefit of the interest which had accrued on the bank\ndeposits of Abha Sinha, Sanjiv Kumar and Kanak Lata, voluntarily\nstating that this benefit was given for the allowance and incomes\nwhich were considered legitimate. He further denied that he had\ndeliberately concealed material evidence.Witness admitted that the original investment of Ex. Z­8\n(file D­9) was for an amount of Rs. 10,000/­ and after its maturity, Z­8\nwas created from the maturity amount of Rs. 20,000/­. The Witness\ndenied that accused had satisfactorily explained the assets.71.              PW 47 RK Sharma: Witness deposed that in the year\n2000, he was running 3 companies in the name and style of\nAlternative Communications, Media Magnetics and Mahima Audio\nVisuals and that these companies were dealing with the EducationCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 134 of 352Department of Govt. of Haryana. PW was printing academic and\npromotional material for District Primary Education Programme\n(DPEP) of which Sanjiv Kumar was the Director, and which work was\nawarded to the PW through open tender. The PW had frequent\nmeetings with Sanjiv Kumar during the time of his working with\nDPEP. The payments used to be made to the PW through cheques/DD\nin the names of his companies when he visited the office of DPEP at\nSector­17, Chandigarh.The PW also deposed that though he did'nt remember the\nexact period but in the month of February 2000 he had received\npayment of approx. Rs. 9­10 lacs and on receipt of the said payment,\nthe PW arrived at a understanding with Sanjiv Kumar that some\npercentage of the said amount i.e. around 30 to 40 percent will have to\nbe paid by the PW to Sanjiv Kumar. PW 47 had worked for the DPEP\nfor about 1½ to 2 years and as per understanding with Sanjiv Kumar,\nhe had paid around Rs. 90 lacs to Sanjiv Kumar through one Subhash\nGupta at the places informed by Mr. Gupta. PW further deposed that a\nlot of times, the payments were made by him to Mr. Gupta at the inner\ncircle of Connaught Place. Once or twice the payments were made at\nthe studio of PW situated at South Extension Part II and that once or\ntwice, Mr. Subhash Gupta had visited his house bearing Flat No. 64,\nHope Apartment Gurgaon to collect the payments. Subhash Gupta\nused to maintain the accounts of the payments received from him butCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 135 of 352he himself was not maintaining any account of such payments. The\nPW also deposed that there was another person having office at Niti\nBagh who also used to collect the payment from him on behalf of\nSanjiv Kumar but the witness could not recollect his name. PW\nasserted that he had made all the payments in cash.In cross­examination by accused Sanjiv Kumar, PW47\ndenied having never visited Niti Bagh to deliver the money or that he\npersonally knew S.C. Gupta and used to invest his money with him.\nThe Witness admitted that in another CBI matter adjudicated by\nChandigarh Court, he was made an approver and was granted pardon\nbut denied that he was made an approver only because he had agreed\nto depose on the lines of CBI. The Witness also admitted that he had\ndeposed about similar facts before CBI Court, Chandigarh regarding\nhis meetings with S.C. Gupta and delivery of money to him.\nThe Witness was not cross­examined on behalf of other three\naccused persons namely Abha Kumar, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and\nKanak Lata.Statement of Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC:72.              After culmination of prosecution evidence, statement of\naccused persons were recordedu/s 313Cr.P.C. Accused claimed to be\ninnocent and to have been falsely implicated in this case. The responseCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 136 of 352of accused persons to the incriminating evidence put to them was\nsimilar to the defense pleaded by each of them in cross­examination.\nAccused Sanjiv Kumar preferred to lead evidence and examined 20\nwitnesses in defense.Defense Evidence: was led only by accused Sanjiv Kumar.73.              DW 1 Insp Ram Rakt, Malkhana In­charge, CBI, AC­\nIII New Delhi:He had brought the summoned record i.e.1. Locker operation memo dt. 10.5.2007 (proved as) Ex. DW1/1.2. The valuation report attached to the locker operating memo\n            (proved as) Ex. DW1/2.3. Locker operation memo dt. 19.2.2005 in the present RC in\n            respect of locker No. 430 of ICICI Bank, Vasant Kunj\n            (proved as) Ex. DW1/3.4. Locker operation memo dt. 24.1.2007 in respect of locker no.81 with Allahabad Bank, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad (proved\n            as) Ex. DW1/4.5. Copy of application dt. 16.2.2005 for issuance of search\n            warrant U/s 93 Cr. P. C for conducting searches at 11 placesCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 137 of 352(proved as) Ex. DW1/5, and6. Copy of application (proved as) Ex. DW1/6 whereby\n            information was given about the places searched by the CBI\n            in the present RC.DW 1 Insp. Ram Rakt was not cross­examined by the prosecution.74.              DW 2 Sh. Ajit Samvedi, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank:He proved the statement of account in respect of account no. 1410 in\nthe name of Sanjiv Kr. w.e.f. 1.3.2000 to 8.2.2005 as Ex. DW2/1, and\nCertificate of interest accrued in this account from 7.8.2000 to\n8.2.2005 as Ex. DW2/2 as per which total interest which accrued in\nthis account during the said period was Rs. 15,536/­. Witness was not\nable to produce the details of the cheque credit in this account through\nclearing as details were not available, record of which being older than\n08 yr. However, details of amount credited in this account through\ntransfer from a/c no. 1165 of State Project Director, Haryana\nPrathamik Shiksha Priyojna Parishad were provided in letter (proved\nas) Ex. DW2/3. Witness further deposed that as per record, this\naccount was opened in February 1999 and as per statement of account\nEx. DW2/1, a cheque in favour of IDBI for an amount of Rs. 30,000/­\nwas cleared on 2.3.2001.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 138 of 352In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that he has no\npersonal knowledge of the case and that he has deposed on the basis of\nrecord.75.              DW 3 Sube Khan, Superintendent, O/o Chief\nSecretary, Haryana Service I Branch, Haryana Civil Secretariat,\nChandigarh:He had brought the salary statement of Sanjiv Kr. from 1995 to 2006\nas available with Haryana Government. This statement was in the\nform of a file containing 25 pages and was proved as Ex. DW3/1.\nWitness stated that as per letter dated 19.5.1994 (proved as) Ex.\nDW3/2, a house building loan of Rs. 1.25 lacs was sanctioned to\nSanjiv Kr. which was to be recovered in 100 monthly installments of\nRs. 1250/­ each which was disbursed vide letter dated 29.6.1994\n(proved as) Ex. DW3/3. Vide letter dated 17.8.95 (proved as) Ex.\nDW3/4, car loan of Rs. 1.25 lacs was sanctioned to Sanjiv Kumar\nwhich was to be repaid in 100 equal monthly installments of Rs.\n1250/­ each. He further stated that no travelling allowance was either\npaid or reimbursed to Sanjiv Kr. from 10.6.96 to 25.7.97 and\n21.5.2001 to 3.12.2001.DW 3 was not cross­examined by the prosecution.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 139 of 35276.              DW 4 Sh. Avdesh Kumar Verma, Asst. General\nManager, Central Branch, SBI, Dhanbad:Witness had not brought the details /ledger of saving bank account no.\n01190007742 in the name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar as it had been\nweeded out being a 10 yr. old record. He proved the photocopy of\nledger of PPF account no. 11/1810 of Ms. Abha Kumar w.e.f. 1.4.96\nto 16.2.2005 which was duly certified U/s 4 of Banker's Book of\nEvidence Act (proved as) Ex. DW4/1. As per Ex. DW4/1, as on\n29.3.96 there was a credit balance of Rs. 22,009/­ in this account and\nas on 10.4.2004 there was a balance of Rs. 4,74,889/­ in this account.The balance was forwarded and remained the same till 30.3.2005 as\nper statement of this account (proved as) Ex. DW4/2.DW 4 was not cross­examined by the prosecution.77.              DW 5 Sh. Rohit Nain, Probationary Officer, OBC,\nSector 11, Panchkula:Witness proved letter dated 3.12.2016 issued by Chief Manager of the\nbank as Ex. DW5/1. The certificate of interest with respect to saving\nbank a/c no. SB 6000 in the name of Mrs. Abha Kumar for the period\n30.6.2000 to 31.12.2004 was (proved) as Ex. DW5/2. As per thisCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 140 of 352certificate, an interest of Rs. 5192 accrued in a/c no. 6000 during the\nsaid period. The certificate of interest with respect to SB A/c no. 6064\nin the name of Sanjiv Kumar and Abha Kumar for the period\n30.6.2000 to 31.12.2004 was proved as Ex. DW5/3. As per this\ncertificate, an interest of Rs. 1,21,838 had accrued in this account\nduring the aforesaid period. Witness stated that the details of\ncheque/original pay­in slip by which an amount of Rs. 6,93,460 had\nbeen credited in SB A/c No. 6064 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar and\nMrs. Abha Kumar on 8.12.99, details of cheque/original pay­in slip by\nwhich an amount of Rs. 1,60,000 credited on 10.9.99, Rs. 4,40,000/­\ncredited on 10.9.99, Rs. 50000 credited on 11.11.99 and Rs. 30000\ncredited on 25.5.01 in SB A/c No. 6000 in the name of Mrs. Abha\nKumar were not available being a 10 yr. old record.DW 5 was not cross­examined on behalf of the prosecution.78.              DW 6 Sh. Anil Kumar Verma: He was from the Office\nof Chief Engineer, Central Water Commissioner, Patna. Witness\ndeposed that as per record H. No. 438B West Boring Canal Road,\nPatna was under the tenancy of Central Water Commission w.e.f.\n15.2.83 to 28.2.1999. The rent paid by Central Water Commission to\nthe landlord w.e.f. 15.2.83 to 30.9.87 was Rs. 2,995/­ per month,\nw.e.f. 1.10.87 to 30.9.92 was Rs. 4,250/­ per month and w.e.f. 1.10.92CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 141 of 352to 28.2.1999 was Rs. 5,954/­ per month. These details were mentioned\nin letter (proved as) Ex. DW6/1. The treasury vouchers for the\npayment of rent and the other relevant documents as available were\n(proved as) Ex. DW6/2 (colly). The photocopy of bill register\nreflecting payment of rent by the department to Dr. M. Kumar was\n(proved) as Ex. DW6/3 (colly). Photocopy of letter dated 18.3.99\nwhereby a cheque of Rs. 47,632/­ was sent to the landlord for rent for\nthe period July 1998 to February 1999 was proved as Ex. DW6/4.\nCopy of letter dated 12.3.99 whereby the tenanted premises were\nvacated w.e.f. the afternoon of 27.2.99 was proved as Ex. DW6/5.DW 6 was not cross­examined by the prosecution.79.              DW 7 Sh. Krishan Ram, Asst. Div. Manager, LIC\nD.O., Hazaribagh, Jharkhand: He deposed that he could not\nproduce the summoned record since the policy Nos. 171578339 in the\nname of Ms. Abha Kumar and No. 171578323 in the name of Sanjiv\nKumar belong to Hissar/Rohtak Division and that policy No.\n170129360 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar belongs to Ambala/Karnal\nDivision, record of which policy numbers was not available in\nHazaribagh Division. The Witness proved the status report of policy\nNo. 550573541 in the name of Ms. Abha Kumar, its payment history\nand the policy document, bearing seal of the company respectively asCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 142 of 352Ex. DW7/1, Ex. DW7/2 and Ex. DW7/3, stating that the said policy\ncommenced on 28.2.1988 with maturity in February 2019. The\nWitness deposed that as per record, payment of Rs. 71,159.40 had\nbeen made towards the premium of the policy upto 22.3.2016.Similarly, the Witness proved the status report of policy\nNo. 540418972 in the name of Ms. Abha Kumar, its payment history\nand the policy document, bearing seal of the company respectively as\nEx. DW7/4, Ex. DW7/5 and Ex. DW7/6, stating that the said policy\ncommenced on 28.2.1997 with maturity in February 2017. The\nWitness deposed that as per record, payment of Rs. 1,38,861.08 had\nbeen made towards the premium of the policy upto 22.3.2016 and that\nbeing money back policy, an amount of Rs. 20,000/­ was paid to Ms.\nAbha Kumar on 28.2.2002.Further, the Witness proved the status report of policy\nNo. 550644860 in the name of Sanjiv Kumar, its payment history and\nthe policy document, bearing seal of the company respectively as Ex.\nDW7/7, Ex. DW7/8 and Ex. DW7/9, stating that the said policy\ncommenced on 14.11.1988 with maturity in November 2040. The\nWitness deposed that as per record, payment of Rs. 38,175/­ had been\nmade towards the premium of the policy upto 24.10.2016.The Witness also proved the status report of policy No.\n542268878 in the name of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and its payment\nhistory, bearing seal of the company respectively as Ex. DW7/10 andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 143 of 352Ex. DW7/11, stating that the said policy commenced on 28.3.2001\nwith maturity in March 2006. The Witness deposed that it was a single\npremium policy and an amount of Rs. 24,185/­ had been paid by the\npolicy holder and that Rs. 37,591.41 was paid to the policy holder in\nMarch 2006.DW 7 was not cross­examined on behalf of the prosecution.80.              DW 8 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Br. Manager, ICICI Bank,\nDhanbad City Centre: Witness proved the statement regarding\ninterest accrued during 23.6.04 to 16.2.2005 in respect of A/c No.\n019601507407 in the name of Smt. Kanaklata and Sh. Maheshwar\nKumar as Ex. DW8/1 as per which interest of Rs. 15/­ had accrued.DW 8 was not cross­examined on behalf of the prosecution.81.              DW 9 Sh. Trilok Nath Mishra, Head Assistant,\nDistrict Transport Office, Dhanbad: Witness deposed that as per\nrecord Maruti Car bearing No. DR 17C 2299 had been registered on\n11.7.94 in the name of Dr. Rajiv Kumar S/o Dr. M. Kumar.\nThereafter, on 19.1.98 this vehicle was transferred in the name of Smt.\nShalini Shrivastav and on 23.1.2001 this vehicle was transferred in the\nname of Rattan Lal Banerjee. These details were mentioned in letterCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 144 of 352proved as Ex. DW9/1 issued by District Transport Officer, Dhanbad.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that he had\nno personal knowledge of the case and that he had deposed on the\nbasis of record.82.              DW 10 Sh. Zubair Riaz, Director Customs, Delhi:Witness deposed that register containing the relevant entries for TOR\nallegedly issued to one Dr. Rajiv Kumar on 3.12.90 and 15.12.93\nappears to had been issued from Kolkata Customs. As per Fax Mark\nDW10/A sent by Sh. P. K. Vohtra, Joint Commissioner of Customs,\nKolkata this record could not be traced as un­accompanied baggage\nregister for the year 1990 and 1993 could not be traced by Kolkata\noffice being an old record.DW 10 was not cross­examined on behalf of the prosecution.83.              DW 11 Sh. Anukul Anand, Inspector of Income Tax,\nOffice of Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax Bihar &\nJharkhand, Patna: Witness proved the ITR return of Rajiv Kumar\nHUF for the assessment year 2002­04 as Ex. DW11/1. The annexures\nof this ITR running into 10 pages were collectively proved as Ex.\nDW11/2. The ITR return of Rajiv Kumar HUF for the assessment yearCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 145 of 3522004­05 was proved as Ex. DW11/3 and the annexures of this ITR\nrunning into 09 pages were collectively proved as Ex. DW11/4. The\ncertified copy of the screen print of the ITR of Rajiv Kumar HUF for\nthe assessment year 2006­07 was proved as Ex. DW11/5. Witness\ninformed the court that the original ITRs of Rajiv Kumar HUF for the\nassessment year 1998­99, 2001­02, 2002­03 and 2005­06 had already\nbeen submitted to CBI vide letter dated 5.6.2007 along with its\nannexures which was proved as Ex. DW11/6.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that he has no\npersonal knowledge of the case and that he has deposed on the basis of\nrecord.84.              DW 12 Sh. Madan Mohan Prasad, Asst. G.M.,\nAllahabad Bank, H.O., Calcutta: Witness brought the record\nregarding various complaints made by Sh. M. Kumar for non­credit of\n3000 GB pounds equivalent to Rs. 2,07,060/­ remitted to his account\nthrough Allahabad Bank, Calcutta by his son Dr. Rajiv Kumar and the\nresponse of the bank to these complaints. Photo copies of all these\ndocuments were collectively exhibited as Ex. DW12/1.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that he has no\npersonal knowledge of the case and that he has deposed on the basis of\nrecord.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 146 of 35285.              DW 13 Sh. Sandeep Prasad, Sr. Manager, Allahabad\nBank, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad: Witness was summoned to\nproduce records of 4 accounts - a/c no. 2268, a/c no. 119, a/c no. 3609\nand a/c no. 470. Witness deposed that he had not brought the\nstatement of a/c no. 2268 from the date of its opening till 16.2.2005\nbecause due to computerization after the year 2000 and different\nagencies which were being used upto the year 2009, the record from\nthe year 2000 to 2009 was not traceable However, he had brought the\nrecords prior to the year 2000. The certified copy of statement of\naccount from the date of opening of account i.e. 1993 upto 29.3.2000\nwas proved as Ex. DW13/1. Statement of interest which accrued in\nthis account from 2.1.93 till March 2000 was proved as Ex. DW13/2.Statement of interest in A/c No. 3609 from 28.10.97 till March 2000\nwas proved as Ex. DW13/3.Statement of interest accrued in A/c No. SB 119 from 28.11.88 till\nMarch 2000 was proved as Ex. DW13/4.The statement of interest accrued in A/c No. 470 from 25.5.1989 till\nMarch 2000 was proved as Ex. DW13/5.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that he has no\npersonal knowledge of the case and that he has deposed on the basis of\nrecord.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 147 of 35286.              DW 14 Sh. Parkash Kumar: Witness was summoned to\nproduce certain revenue records from Dhanbad. As per revenue\nrecords of Property in Khata no. 80, having portion no. 2312 Mauza 8\nMauza Sarai Daila District Dhanbad, from 1994 upto the year 2000\nwas never mutated or stood in the name of Dr. Rajiv Kumar S/o\nMaheshwar Kumar.               His letter in this regard was proved as Ex.\nDW14/1. Photocopies of Jamabandi running into four pages was\nMarked DW14/A colly.DW 14 was not cross­examined on behalf of the prosecution.87.              DW 15 Ms. Shobha Singh: Witness was real sister of\naccused no. 2 Abha Kumar. She had brought the pass book for the\nperiod 1.3.2002 to 31.5.2005 of a joint a/c which she had with her\nhusband bearing no. 01190009565 with SBI, Bokaro Steel City. The\npass book was proved as Ex. DW15/1. Witness deposed about\naccused Abha taking care of her elder daughter when her daughter\nwas in Chandigarh and of her younger daughter when she was\nstudying in Delhi. Witness highlighted an entry dated 30.1.2003 in her\npass book at point 'A' which reflects preparation of demand draft of\nRs. 2,50,000 which was debited from her account. As per the witness,\nthis demand draft was issued either in the name of Sanjiv Kumar orCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 148 of 352Abha Sinha and was claimed to be a repayment of loan/assistance\nwhich had been provided at the time of marriage of her elder daughter\nin the year 2000.DW 15 was not cross­examined on behalf of the prosecution.88.              DW 16 Ms. Simanti Banerjee: Witness was Branch\nManager, ICICI Bank, Vasant Kunj, N. Delhi and brought the\nsummoned record i.e. statement of transaction in SB A/c No.\n000701228511 in the name of Maheshwar Kumar for the period\n1.4.2003 to 30.6.2003 which was proved as Ex. DW16/1; statement\nof account of Miss Snigdha Kumar under the guardianship of Abha\nKumar in respect of A/c No. 0007011239298 from 1.1.2004 to\n30.1.2004, proved as Ex. DW16/2; and statement of account of Ms.\nAbha Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar in respect of A/c No. 000701501139,\nproved as Ex. DW16/3. Witness deposed that the bank was not able to\nretrieve the cheque record as it was very old.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that\nshe had no personal knowledge of the case and that she had deposed\non the basis of record.89.              DW 17 Shri Shishir Gupta: Witness was from ICICI\nBank, Borivali West, Mumbai and deposed that in the accountCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 149 of 352statement (proved as) Ex. DW17/1 of a/c bearing No. 019601507407\nin the name of Ms. Kanak Lata and Maheshwar Kumar for the period\n1.7.2004 to 28.9.2004, there are two credit entries of British Pound\n2000 dated 12.8.2004 and 1000 dated 28.9.2004, respectively. The\ncertificate to that effect was proved as Ex. DW17/2.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that the\ntransactions as mentioned in his chief­examination were completed in\nVeer Savarkar Marg Branch, Thane West. The Witness stated that he\ncould not state whether any British Pounds were deposited with any\nsupporting document or with any pay­in­slip at that time but as per\nstatement of account, the deposit of British Pounds was direct deposit\nin the branch. However, he could not inform about the rules in regard\nto deposit of British Pounds in the year 2004. The Witness denied that\nfor want of complete supporting documents, he could not explain the\nmode of deposit of amount of British Pounds in question.90.              DW 18 Sh. Varun Anand: Witness was summoned from\nICICI Bank, Connaught Place, N. D. to prove the certified copies of\nstatement of account bearing No. 000701501139 (79 pgs.) in the name\nof Abha Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar. The documents were proved as Ex.\nDW18/1. Similarly, he also proved the certified copies of statement of\naccount bearing No. 000701239298 (22 pgs.) in the name of SnigdhaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 150 of 352Kumar (under guardianship of Abha Kumar) as Ex. DW18/2. The\nWitness further proved the certified copies of statement of account\nbearing No. 000701228511 (85 pgs) in the name of Maheshwar\nKumar as Ex. DW18/3. The interest certificates in regard to above­\nsaid three accounts duly signed by the Witness and also containing\nseal of the Bank, were proved by him as Ex. DW18/4 to Ex. DW18/6\nand the certificates under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act for the\nabove­said three accounts were proved by the Witness as Ex. DW18/7\nto Ex. PW18/9.In cross­examination, Witness deposed that as per\ninterest certificate Ex. DW18/4, the total interest paid by the bank to\nthe account holder in respect of saving bank account was Rs. 251/­ and\nthat in regard to fixed/recurring deposit, it was only Rs. 389/­.The Witness also deposed that as per interest certificate\nEx. DW18/5, the total amount of interest paid to the account holder\nfor saving bank account was Rs. 15/­ and in respect of financial year\n2004­2005, was only Rs. 2081/­.Similarly, the Witness deposed that as per interest\ncertificate Ex. DW18/6, the total amount of interest paid to the\naccount holder for saving bank account was Rs. 394/­ and for fixed\nand recurring deposit, the total amount of interest paid was Rs. 2351/­.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 151 of 35291.              DW 19 Sh. Shiv Kumar: Witness was summoned to\nproduce the ITR's of accused Abha Kumar. He deposed that as per\nletter Ex. DW19/3 received from Income Tax Officer Ward (4) 1,\nPatna, the record pertaining to ITRs for the year 2003­04 and 2004­05\nof Abha Sinha was not traceable and that reply to the said effect was\nalso received by the Witness from ITO Ward 61 (3) vide letter proved\nas Ex. DW19/2. The Witness deposed that the documents Ex. DW19/3\nto 19/5 were the ITRs however he could not state anything about the\nsaid documents as neither he was posted in the Income Tax Office,\nPatna nor could identify the signature of income tax official on the\nabove­said three exhibits.In cross­examination, Witness deposed that he could not\nopine about the authenticity of ITRs Ex. DW19/3 to Ex. DW19/5 as he\nnever dealt with the same.92.              DW 20 Sh. K.P. Singh, Chartered Accountant: He\ndeposed that he had been retained by Ms. Abha Sinha as a tax\nconsultant since last more than 12 years and was looking after her tax\nmatters. Abha Sinha had asked him to go through the ITRs files of\nSanjiv Kumar HUF, Rajiv Kumar HUF, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar (now\ndead), Mrs Kanak Lata as also of herself. She also had given him the\ncharge sheet of the present case whereafter he had gone through the\nITRs, computation of income, statement of affairs and also statementCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 152 of 352A to D of charge sheet.The DW further deposed that in all the ITRs of\naforementioned persons, all the items mentioned in the capital and the\nliabilities has been balanced with assets and properties.The DW had also gone through Ex. DW11/1, ITR return\nof Mr. Rajiv Kumar HUF for the assessment year 2004­05 wherein\nunder the head of capital and liabilities, gift made to Kanak Lata for\nRs. 34,000/­ and telephone bill for Rs. 4647/­ had been mentioned,\nand investment in power Welfare Organization for Rs. 5,05,000/­\nfinds mentioned under the head of assets and properties.The DW had also been shown ITR of late Dr. Maheshwar\nKumar for assessment year 2005­06 Ex. Z47/2 wherein under the head\nof Capital and Liabilities, gift received from Dr Rajiv Kumar s/o Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar for an amount of Rs. 1,98,420/­ and gift received\nfrom Kanak Lata wife of Dr. Maheshwar Kumar for Rs. 3,14,942/­ has\nbeen mentioned. Under the sub­heading of drawings, gift made to\nSnigdha Kumar d/o Sanjiv Kumar for Rs. 3,50,000/­ finds mentioned.\nUnder the head of assets and properties, building at Dhanbad for Rs.\n5,50,000/­ and investment in Power Welfare Organization for Rs.\n5,81,000/­, and investment with Ansal Properties disclosed in VDIS\n97 for Rs. 7,76,000/­ finds mentioned.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 153 of 352The DW had also been shown document Z51 (D2) which\nis ITR of Abha Sinha for financial year 1998­99 and assessment 1999­\n2000 wherein FDR of Rs. 20,000/­ brought forward from previous\nyears on completion of term has been encashed and same has been\nreinvested as FDR of new purchase worth Rs. 20,000/­. In the ITR of\nAbha Sinha for assessment year 2005­06, no loan amount was shown\nas outstanding.During his further examination­in­chief, DW deposed that\nas per the assessment year 2005­2006, all the loan accounts have been\nsettled with regard to Mr. Ranjit Singh and Ms. Vibha Sinha. DW\nfurther testified that whatever he had deposed in his statement was\nbased on income tax returns filed by Mrs. Abha Sinha and Mrs. Kanak\nLata, Late Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and admitted by the Income Tax\nDepartment of Government of India and that whatever money has\ncome from Rajiv Kumar HUF and Sanjiv Kumar HUF, the same was\nduly reflected in the returns of their income. The money received from\nRajiv Kumar individual, Rajiv Kumar HUF and Sanjiv Kumar HUF\nwere duly reflected in the statement of affairs of Dr. Maheshwar\nKumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata.In cross­examination, the Witness deposed that he used\nto file ITRs on behalf of accused Abha Kumar in which he had\nmentioned her name as Abha Sinha D/o G.P. Singh. The Witness\nstated that in the ITRs, always the name of father of assesse isCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 154 of 352mandatorily mentioned and that name of husband used to be never\nmentioned in the ITRs. The Witness admitted that neither had he\nstated in his examination­in­chief nor has brought any document\nreflecting that he used to file ITR for Abha Sinha @ Abha Kumar at\nany point of time, voluntarily stating that for the last approx. 7­8 years,\nthe ITRs used to be filed on­line which were uploaded by the Witness\nthrough his own ID i.e.[email protected]. Thereafter, a\nquestion was put to the Witness by Ld. PP to specify the period for\nwhich the Witness had been asked by Abha Kumar to look into the\nITR files of Sanjiv Kumar HUF, Rajiv Kumar HUF, Dr. Maheshwar\nKumar (expired), Abha Sinha and Mrs. Kanaklata? The Witness\nreplied that he had looked into the period as mentioned in the charge\nsheet.The Witness further deposed that he had not filed the ITR\nreturn of any of the above said persons i.e Sanjiv Kumar HUF, Rajiv\nKumar HUF, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar (expired), Abha Sinha and Mrs.\nKanak Lata during the period 1996 to 2006. He admitted that in the\nITR returns, the information given in the ITR are voluntarily\nsubmitted by the assesse. Before filing the ITR returns, the\nprofessional who is assigned to file the ITR by the assesse, will check\nall the aspects and then only shall he file the ITR. Witness clarified\nthat since there is no provision for physical verification of the\ninformation supplied to the professional by the assesse, hence theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 155 of 352information supplied by the assesse to the professional to file ITR is\nthe basis for filing ITR; however, at the same time the professional has\nan expertise to view information/documents as supplied by the assesse\nincluding the financial statement as well as bank statement of the\nassessee.The Witness was further cross­examined in question­\nanswer format.Question. Is it correct that while filing any documentation with any\npublic authority as a professional, you also tender a certificate to the\neffect that the details contained therein are solely based on the\ninformation/figures provided by your client and not on your own\nassumption ?Ans. As a professional if I am required to certify any document then\nonly I express my independent opinion.Question. In case of the client giving you the wrong information for\nfiling ITRs and you having filed the ITR of that person on the basis of\nsuch wrong information, whether you shall be liable for filing of\nwrong ITR?Ans. It depends on case to case and subject to scrutiny of the IT\nAuthorities. However, as a professional we are not liable for the same.Witness further stated that he had never filed ITR returns\non wrong information given by assesse. He explained that if some case\nis picked up for scrutiny, certain information is called for by theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 156 of 352assessing officer and which is then replied by the professionals.Witness asserted that it is a universal fact that every\nprofessional will file return of income on the basis of information\nsupplied by the assesse. If it is not subjected to any scrutiny, the return\nstands accepted by the IT department.The witness admitted that in his examination­in­chief, he\nhad merely read out the figures/details mentioned in the ITRs of\nSanjiv Kumar HUF, Rajiv Kumar HUF, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar\n(expired), Mrs. Kanak Lata and Ms. Abha Sinha @ Abha Kumar. He\ndeposed that he had knowledge regarding the above­said ITRs on the\nbasis of facts and figures as mentioned in the said ITRs.The Witness denied the suggestion that he had appeared\nas a defence witness in this court to depose as he had been paid by\nthe accused persons or that he had no knowledge of any of the\ndocuments shown to him during his examination­in­chief.ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED93.              Arguments were addressed over multiple dates through\nvideo conference. Prosecution opened the final arguments highlighting\nthe assets allegedly acquired by accused Sanjiv, the role of other\naccused persons as abettors and how the said assets were\n'disproportionate' to the known sources of income of accused SanjivCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 157 of 352Kumar as also the other accused persons taken collectively. Ld. Sr. PP\nalso, very briefly, touched upon the defense pleas in relation to some\nof these assets, as culled out by him from the cross­examination of the\nrelevant prosecution witnesses. Prosecution arguments were followed\nby the defense submissions which were extremely detailed and aided\nby relevant judgments. Prosecution was given an opportunity for\nrebuttal arguments during the course of which Ld. Sr. PP cited certain\nrelevant judgments, followed by an opportunity to the accused persons\nfor sir­rebuttal.94.              Crux of the arguments addressed on behalf of the defense\nhas already been highlighted at the outset. However, the key\narguments addressed are being briefly recapitulated so as to provide\ncontinuity with the findings which shall follow immediately after this\nsince all of these arguments shall be discussed in detail while\nreturning the findings.95.              On the preliminary issue of grant of sanction for\nprosecution, defense assailed the evidence of relevant witness PW 3\nVijay Kumar, the then Under Secretary who signed the sanction order\nby contending that he had not brought the relevant file on which he\nhad prepared the noting for the consideration of the Minister­in­\nCharge, after having received the entire incriminating material fromCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 158 of 352CBI requesting for grant of sanction for prosecution of accused Sanjiv\nwhich meant that it was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court as\nto whether the 'noting' contained all the relevant facts/reference to\nrelevant material for the consideration of the Minister­in­Charge.96.              So far as the 2 most high value 'disproportionate assets'\nare concerned - share market investment of Rs. 2.51 crores by Sanjiv\nKumar and share market investment of Rs. 75 lacs by Abha Kumar,\nthe plea taken respectively was that the prosecution has not been able\nto lead any evidence to show that accused Sanjiv paid Rs. 2.51 crores\nfor investment in shares, and that alleged investment by accused Abha\nwas actually the money supplied by a family friend, namely Tika\nHasan Mustafa for whom Abha acted as a handler of his equities\ninvestment.97.              Apart from the above, other high value assets consisted\nof:1. 2 flats in Vasant Kunj, one each in the name of Dr. Rajiv\n             Kumar (brother of accused Sanjiv) and Dr. Maheshwar (also\n             an accused but since deceased) in regard to which the\n             arguments addressed were that these flats were purchased by\n             Dr. Rajiv and Dr. Maheshwar respectively from their own\n             financial resources and that prosecution deliberately\n             withheld best evidence which would have shown that SanjivCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 159 of 352Kumar was not in any manner associated with the\n             purchase of these flats.2. Farmhouse of accused Kanak Lata at Dhumus Pur Vilage in\n             Gurgaon in regard to which the argument addressed was that\n             the prosecution was neither able to prove that the same had\n             been financed by Sanjiv Kumar nor was able to prove that\n             the land was sold for Rs. 12 lacs and not Rs. 4.5 lacs, which\n             was the amount mentioned in the sale deed.3. Flat at Bara Hindu Rao allotted to accused Abha in regard to\n             which the argument addressed was that prosecution was\n             unable to prove that accused Abha had actually paid up Rs. 3\n             lacs which was the amount shown standing to her credit by\n             the Developer when the allotment of the flat was transferred\n             in her name from a previous allottee.4. Flat at Bara Hindu Rao in the name of Kanak Lata which\n             was admitted by the accused but it was contended that the\n             same had been purchased from HUF Funds and duly\n             reflected in IT returns. It was contended that this property\n             was HUF property in the name of Sanjiv Kumar, Kanak\n             Lata, M. Kumar and Rajiv Kumar and hence, Rs. 5 lacs is to\n             be divided amongst above mentioned 4 persons i.e. Rs. 1.25\n             lacs each and not be treated as sole asset/expense ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 160 of 352Kanak Lata. Consequently, the expense for A­1, A­2 and\n             A­3 collectively should be taken as Rs. 3.75 lacs.5. Allotment of plot at Sushant Lok in the name of accused\n             Kanak Lata, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar and Snighda Kumar\n             (daughter of accused Sanjiv under guardianship of accused\n             Sanjiv) in regard to which the argument addressed was that\n             prosecution has not been able to prove the allotment itself.However, strangely enough, while submitting its own\n             calculations on statement A,B,C&D, accused persons in\n             statement B (at pg. 32, entry no. 35) contended that the\n             purchase of this property was financed by the VDIS amount\n             disclosure by M. Kumar and further, that out of Rs.\n             7,76,000, only Rs. 6 lacs should be taken as expense since\n             Rs. 1,76,000 was the sale price component which was\n             deposited immediately before the check period i.e. on\n             31.3.1996.6. Flat at Power Welfare Organisation, Gurgaon in the name of\n             M. Kumar and Kanak Lata which was admitted by the\n             accused but with the clarification that it was financed jointly\n             by accused Kanak Lata, Dr, Maheshwar and Dr. Rajiv\n             Kumar and hence, this was also an HUF property.7. Plot allotted to accused Abha Kumar in Faridabad by HUDACC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 161 of 352from CM Haryana's discretionary quota in regard to which\n             argument addressed was that the allotment was prior to the\n             check period and further that except for payment of 1\n             installment, nothing had been paid thereafter which fact was\n             proved by the prosecution witness itself.8. Plot allotted to accused Kanak Lata in Faridabad by HUDA\n             from CM Haryana's discretionary quota in regard to which\n             also the argument addressed was that the allotment was done\n             prior to the check period and further that except for payment\n             of 1 installment, nothing had been paid thereafter which fact\n             was proved by the prosecution witness itself.9. Bank account in Syndicate Bank, Khan Market from which\n             accused Abha allegedly cumulatively paid Rs. 6 lacs through\n             2 cheques to Cosmos Management in regard to which the\n             argument addressed was that prosecution had neither been\n             able to prove that the account from which the cheques were\n             issued was in the name of Abha nor proved the relevant\n             account statement reflecting the debit of those 2 cheques in\n             favour of Cosmos Management.10.Bank account no. 16887 in OBC, Gurgaon in the joint names\n             of accused Kanak Lata, Abha Kumar and Dr. Maheshwar\n             Kumar in which high value transactions of Rs. 18 lacs andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 162 of 352Rs. 7 lacs towards share investments were allegedly\n             executed by accused Kanak Lata in favour of Vandana\n             Investments (related to PW 41), in response to which the\n             argument addressed was that neither was the account proved\n             to be in the name of accused persons nor was the account\n             statement showing the alleged high value transaction by\n             Kanak Lata proved by the prosecution.11.Jewelry worth of Rs. 14 lacs found in the ICICI locker\n             jointly held by accused Abha, Kanak Lata and Maheshwar\n             Kumar was actually the stree­dhan of accused Abha,\n             accused Kanak Lata and wife of Dr. Rajiv Kumar (brother of\n             accused Sanjiv who is settled in UK). The valuation report\n             of govt. approved valuer PW 2 was assailed as being of no\n             evidentiary value.12.Transfer of Rs. 15 lacs by Hukum Singh to accused Sanjiv\n             Kumar to which the accused responded by submitting that\n             the said amount was actually a loan taken by Dr. Rajiv from\n             Hukum Singh who was his old patient.13.Investment in Post Office savings, Tax saving bonds, LIC\n             policies were all financed through the legitimate sources of\n             income of the accused.14. Income of accused Sanjiv earned through salary/suspensionCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 163 of 352allowance during the check period as also of the other\n             accused persons through legitimate sources has either not\n             been correctly computed in the charge­sheet or has been\n             deliberately ignored by the IO.15.Certain expenditure entries have been doubled up by also\n             showing the same entries as assets.16.Certain entries which have been shown as assets e.g. interest\n             income should have been shown as entries under the Head of\n             income.Following judgments were relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Public\nProsecutor and by accused persons/ld. defense counsel, respectively:Judgments Cited By The Prosecution\n\nOn the issue of contradiction with previous statement of a witness:In reference to the testimony of PW 47 RK Sharma before the Special\nJudge, CBI, Chandigarh in case no. CC No. 29 of 30.8.2008.\nAll of the following judgments were in rebuttal to the legal submission\nof accused no. 1 that testimony of PW 47 RK Sharma should be\nignored since he had already deposed on the same issue against\naccused Sanjiv in another trial conducted by the Special CBI Court\ni.e. issue estoppel.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 164 of 352The argument raised by the prosecution was that PW 47 RK Sharma\nshould have been first shown his testimony recorded by the Special\nCBI Court at Chandigarh if the accused no. 1 wanted to contradict the\nwitness.1.Raveen Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh Crl. Appeal\n       Nos. 2187­88 of 2011 (decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on\n       26.10.2020)2.V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand2015 AIR (SC) 30433.Chinnammal v. State of Tamil Nadu1997 (1) SCC 1454. Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand 2017 AIR (SC) 23755.Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar1997 AIR (SC) 3226. Hira Lal Paswan @ Hira Lala Ram v. State of Bihar, (Patna)\n       (DB) 2018(3) PLJR 986\n\nOn the issue of what is "Lawful Income": Prosecution argued that\ngifts received by the accused no. 1 and 2 were outside the ambit of\nlawful income, and further that the burden of proof to prove the source\nof income shifts to the accused once the prosecution is able to\nestablish disproportionate income/assets. In support of the submission,\nld. Sr. PP relied on the following judgments by highlighting the short\nnotes which also have been reproduced below alongwith the judgment\ncitation.1.State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha2017 (6) SCC 263\n               Amount of gift received by a public servant is\n                      not a legal source of income ­ Disclosure of gifts\n                      in income tax returns does not make them lawful.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 165 of 352 Law does not require the prosecution to prove the\n                      impossible        ­ All    that     was     required     is   the\n                      establishment of such a degree of probability that\n                      a prudent man may on this basis believe in the\n                      existence of the fact in issue.2.Bhaskar Shankar Wagh v. State of Maharashtra2008 (4)\n        AIR Bom. R 185\n              'Known               sources      of     income'     means      income\n                     received from any lawful source and such receipt has\n                     been intimated in accordance with provisions of any\n                     law, rules or orders for time being applicable to\n                     a public servant."On the effect of income disclosed in Income Tax Returns (ITR's) ­\nMere declaration in ITRs won't legitimize the income/wealth:1.State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha2017(6) SCC 263\n              Neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in\n                     the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively\n                     attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the\n                     accused persons or are of any avail to them to\n                     satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their\n                     pecuniary resources and properties as mandated bySection 13(1)(e)of the Act.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 166 of 3522.S. Narayanan v. Deputy Director of CBI (Madras), 2017(4)\n        MLJ (Criminal) 248\n              Adjudication underIncome Tax Act­Effect of\n                     ­Purpose of Income Tax Act and the Prevention of\n                     Corruption Act held to be distinct and different ­ They\n                     play on a different domain and, therefore, any\n                     adjudication under theIncome Tax Actshall have a\n                     very less bearing in the criminal prosecution initiated\n                     under thePrevention of Corruption Act. The intention\n                     of theIncome Tax Actis to levy and collect tax\n                     on income.          Payment   of   tax    on     income    is\n                     immaterial when prosecution is launched on the\n                     premise that the income in the hands of the accused is\n                     a tainted or ill­gotten income.On the issue of validity of Sanction for prosecution of accused\nSanjiv: Defense had scathingly attacked the sanction order on the\nground that Under Secretary (PW3) was not the competent witness to\ndepose about grant of sanction for prosecution. Also, it was argued\nthat the witness i.e. PW 3 could not satisfy the Court regarding the\nrelevant material sent to the concerned Minister­in­Charge for his\ninformed decision to grant approval for prosecution. Meeting the\nabove argument, ld. Senior PP relied on the following judgments toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 167 of 352contend the not only was PW3 a competent witness but the formal\nsanction order passed by him was legal.1.Dharmendra Kumar Mohanji Mishra v. State Of\n           Gujarat (Gujarat) 2009 Cri.LJ 4327\n\n                    Sanction order passed by Under Secretary to\n                       Government of India under transaction of business\n                       rules ­ Notification dated 3rd November, 1958\n                       provides that Under Secretary to the Government of\n                       India is competent to make and execute the order\n                       in     the    name        of   the   President   or    Finance\n                       Minister. Sanction was held valid.2.Hawa Singh v. CBI2012(4) ILR (Delhi) 290\n\n                  Sanction for prosecution ­ Competent authority has\n                     accorded 'approved' to prosecute the petitioner after\n                     due application of mind to the material placed before\n                     him ­ The Under Secretary who issued the sanction\n                     order was duly authorised under Government of\n                     India (Transaction of Business Rules) to issue the\n                     sanction order and non­examination of sanctioning\n                     authority by the prosecution does not have the\n                     effect of declaring the sanction to be invalid ­\n                     Merely because order is a verbatim copy of draftCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 168 of 352order, it cannot be said to be suffering from non­\n                     application of mind.3.Priyanath Misra v. The Additional Superintendent of\n             Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai (Madras), 2018 Cri. LJ 2350\n\n                  Sanction accorded by the President of India ­ Same\n                     communicated through Under Secretary ­ Resultantly,\n                     sanction held to be accorded by the competent\n                     authority.On the defense submission qua applicability of the principle of\nAudi Alteram Partem at the stage of grant of sanction for\nprosecution1.Neera Yadav v. Central                Bureau   of   Investigation\n             (Allahabad), 2016(5) R.C.R.(Criminal) 246\n                   Sanction for prosecution ­ Order of prosecution\n                       sanction is an administrative act where question\n                       of giving opportunity of being heard at that stage\n                       does not arise.Qua irregularities in investigation:CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others            Page 169 of 3521. Leela Ram (Dead) throughDuli Chand v. State of\n             Haryana, 1999 AIR (SC) 3717\n               Any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation\n                 ought not be treated as a ground to reject prosecution\n                 case. Evidence is to be considered from the point of\n                 trustworthiness ­ If this element is satisfied they ought to\n                 inspire confidence in mind of the court.2.Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh2003 AIR (SC) 1164\n\n                 In cases of defective investigation the court has to be\n                 circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not\n                 be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account\n                 of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing\n                 into the hands of the investigating officer if the\n                 investigation is designedly defective.Judgments Cited On Behalf Of A­2 And A­4\n\nOn the issue of valid sanction for prosecution of public servant:Applicability of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and related\nprinciples1.State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramkrishna Dorkar, 1994 SCC\n        Online Bom 416CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others            Page 170 of 352It was held that no sanction can be granted in respect of an\n        offence unless the sanctioning authority has accorded an\n        opportunity to the accused to explain satisfactorily the\n        disproportionate assets found.2.Ishwar Piraj Kalpatri Vs State of Maharashtra, 1992 SCC\n        Online Bom 400\n        Opportunity to satisfactorily account for the assets, allegedly\n        disproportionate to the source of income of the accused, must be\n        afforded before the offence is registered.3.R.S. Nayak Vs A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 684\n        Grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and\n        sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of\n        Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and the\n        aforesaid requirements must therefore, be strictly complied\n        before any prosecution could be launched against public\n        servants4.Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh(1979) 4\n        SCC 172\n        Sanctioning authority must be shown to have applied its mind.No presumption regarding the satisfaction arising on facts. In\n        absence of any valid sanction, whole prosecution was held\n        invalid.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 171 of 3525.State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh248 (2018) Delhi Law\n        Times 564 (Delhi High Court)\n        Mere fact that there is "error, omission or irregularity" in order\n        of sanction cannot result in cognizance being held to be bad or\n        prosecution to be interdicted unless it is demonstrated that such\n        defect in sanction for prosecution have occasioned "failure of\n        justice". Plea of public servant who is accused of such offences\n        as are involved herein about "error, omission or irregularity" is\n        the sanction for his prosecution occasioning or resulting in\n        failure of justice cannot result in Court intervening unless such\n        objection is raised at "earlier stage of proceedings".6.Manohar Lal Vs. State2006 Crl. L.J. 1029 (J&K High\n        Court)\n        Sanction for prosecution was accorded on the basis of draft\n        sanction order sent by the investigating officer to sanctioning\n        authority and same was held invalid.7.Om Prakash Vs State (CBI) Crl. A. No. 232/99 decided on\n        15/10/2008 (Delhi High Court)\n        Held that sanction was not valid as the sanction order was not\n        prepared under dictation of sanctioning authority.8.Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs CBI , I(2016) DLT (Crl.)539\n       Delhi High CourtCBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal2013 STPL (web) 923 SCCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 172 of 352Suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of false and\nmalafide.On the point of applicability of principle of Issue Estoppel in\ncriminal proceedings:1.Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of\n                 Gujarat & another, 2012 (7) SCC 621 (para 23)\n                 Where an issue of fact has already been decided by a\n                 competent court and a finding is given in favour of the\n                 accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or\n                 res­judicata against the prosecution in subsequent\n                 proceedings.2.Manipur Administration Vs Thokcham Bira Singh,\n                 1964 (7) SCR 123\n                 Section 403 Cr. PC does not preclude the applicability of\n                 this rule of issue of estoppel in criminal matters.On the relevance of assets shown in the ITR's:Rekha Nambiar Vs. State, WP (Crl.) 1432/2014 and Crl. M.C. No.\n4781/2014 decided on 4.11.2015\nWhen the alleged money is duly shown in the books of accounts andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others            Page 173 of 352in the ITRs, the authenticity and credibility of the same cannot be\ndoubted in a case of disproportionate assets.Judgments cited by Defense at the stage of Clarifications:1. Rekha Nambiar Vs. State, 224 (2015) DLT 3792.M Krishna Reddy Vs State, Dy. Supdt. Of Police,\n                      Hyderabad, 1992 (4) SCC 453.State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. J. Satyanarayana,\n                      2017 (6) SCC 6284.State of MP Vs Mohanlal Soni, 2000 (6) SCC 3385.Mohd. Mumtaz Vs. Nandini Satpathy, 1987 (1)\n                      SCC 729\nIn all of the above judgments, it was held that Income Tax Return is\nan unassailable document and assets duly declared in the ITR cannot\nbe termed as disproportionate assets.1.Shamsher Singh Verma Vs. State of Haryana,\n                          2016 (15) SCC 4852.       Farid Hussinsab Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl.Appeal No. 970/2019, High Court of Bombay3.      Saddiq & Ors. Vs. State, 1980 SCC Online All614CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 174 of 3524.Boraiah Vs State, 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 160\n\n\n                 In all of the above judgments, it was held that in case of a\nprosecution 'relied upon' document, once admitted by the accused,\nhas to be read in evidence and need not be formally proved. The\nprosecution having relied upon the same cannot later raise doubts on\nthe genuineness or authenticity of the same. The cited judgments were\nin response to the argument addressed by the prosecution that entries\nin the ITR's cannot be accepted per­se as being truthful even though\nthose ITR's were led as prosecution evidence.FINDINGS:98.              Before adverting to the merits of the arguments addressed\nand returning findings thereon, it is important to remember that\ndisproportionate assets of primary accused Sanjiv Kumar have been\ncalculated by adding the assets of his wife and both the parents. It has\nbeen alleged that accused Sanjiv Kumar held/created disproportionate\nassets in his own name as also in the name of his 'dependent' family\nmembers. However, it needs a highlight that Dr. Maheshwar Kumar\n(A­3) had retired from the Indian Railway Medical Services in 1988 at\nthe position of Chief Surgeon and after taking voluntary retirement in\n1988 was a practicing general surgeon at Dhanbad to which effect,\nevidence was led by the prosecution itself. Additionally, Dr.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 175 of 352Maheshwar Kumar was drawing pension also, had rent income from\nimmovable property which was constructed much prior to the check\nperiod and income from agriculture, all of which has been reflected in\nhis income tax returns. None of these facts concerning Dr. Maheshwar\nKumar have been denied or disputed by the prosecution. In this\nbackdrop, in the understanding of the Court, prosecution had to prove\nas a thresh­hold requirement that accused Maheshwar Kumar and\nKanak Lata were 'dependents' of Sanjiv Kumar such that all of their\nassets created and expenses incurred during the check period can be\nsaid to have been financed/sourced by accused Sanjiv Kumar alone.The prosecution proceeded on the assumption that whatever 'assets'\nof accused A - 3 and A - 4 were created during the check period, were\nfinanced by accused Sanjiv Kumar. The prosecution, therefore,\nclubbed income, assets and expenditure of all the 4 accused during the\ncheck period to arrive at a figure of Rs. 4 crores of alleged\ndisproportionate assets. This Court, however, will segregate the assets,\nincome and expenditure of the accused persons and while discussing\neach of the allegedly disproportionate assets especially the contentious\nassets, will assess whether prosecution has been able to lead any\nreliable evidence to link the creation of assets of accused Maheshwar\nKumar and Kanak Lata with accused Sanjiv. In other words, the Court\nwill avoid "all in the pot' approach.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 176 of 35299.              There were certain highly contentious 'assets' which\nincluded movable as also immobile assets to prove which prosecution\nled specific evidence. After the culmination of final arguments, ld.\nCounsel for A­2 and A­3 filed a chart of assets, income and\nexpenditure of accused persons which in the opinion of the accused\nwas the correct chart. CBI also filed its response to the same wherein\ncertain entries under the head of income, assets and expenditure as\ngiven in the chart provided by the accused persons was admitted\nwhereas others were objected to. The comparison of said Charts will\nbe taken up for discussion after assessing evidence qua the contentious\nassets i.e. the then Prime Minister of India.100.             However, before proceeding to discuss prosecution\nevidence qua the contentious 'assets', Court will have to take up the\nissue of legality of sanction for prosecution of accused Sanjiv Kumar\nwhich was granted by the competent authority.On the point of Sanction for prosecution of accused Sanjiv Kumar:101.             Being a serving public servant at the relevant time,\nsanction had to be obtained from the competent authority before\nproceeding to prosecute accused Sanjiv Kumar. The competent\nauthority to grant sanction for prosecution was the Minister­in­charge\nof the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 177 of 352Public Grievances and Pensions which at the relevant time was the\nthen Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh. PW 3 Vijay\nKumar stepped in to depose regarding the sanction accorded by the\nthen Minister­In­charge. PW 3 was Under Secretary in the above\ndeptt. at the relevant time and had dealt with the proposal for seeking\nsanction for prosecution of accused Sanjiv Kumar. In his chief­\nexamination, this Witness deposed that alongwith the proposal for\nseeking sanction for prosecution, CBI had sent all documents and\nstatements of witnesses relied upon by it and thereafter, explained in\ndetail the procedure which was followed after receiving proposal from\nCBI for grant of sanction for prosecution i.e. comments were sought\nfrom the Govt. Of Haryana, opinion of the CVC was sought and after\nreceiving recommendation of the Govt. of Haryana and CVC in favour\nof grant of sanction, the matter was processed by the witness. He\nprepared a 'note' for the consideration of Minister­in­Charge. The\napproval for sanction was conveyed by the PMO where­after the draft\nsanction order was put up before the Joint Secy., Ministry of\nPersonnel and after getting his approval, the sanction order was signed\nby the Witness and conveyed to the CBI.102.             In cross­examination on behalf of accused Sanjiv Kumar,\nwitness was unable to specify as to what all documents were sent by\nthe CBI along with proposal for sanction. Witness further deposed thatCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 178 of 352he had not brought the file containing the noting prepared by him and\nwhich was sent to the Minister­In­Charge. Witness also deposed that\non the basis of material sent by the CBI, he had prepared a summary\nof the case in his noting along­with his prima facie view that there was\nmaterial on record to accord sanction. In reply to a specific question,\nwitness answered that actual sanction order Ex. PW3/A was not\napproved or signed by the Minister­In­Charge and neither was the\ndraft sanction order sent to the Minister­In­Charge along with the\nnoting. However, Witness clarified that approval by the Minister­In­\nCharge was given on the file below his 'noting'. Witness admitted that\nhe was not aware as to who had examined the entire material or\nassisted the Minister­In­Charge while giving approval on the file.\nWitness thereafter denied suggestions to the effect that sanction for\nprosecution was granted without going through the material on record\nor independent application of mind, and that he was not the competent\nwitness to depose on the aspect of grant of sanction for prosecution of\naccused Sanjiv Kumar.103.             Ld. Counsel for A­2 and A­4 argued at length on the\nillegality of the sanction order. The crux of his arguments in this\nregard was that the Court was not shown as to on what basis was the\nnoting prepared by the witness and sent forward to the Minister­In­\nCharge with his own recommendation/prima facie view in favour ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 179 of 352grant of sanction. It was explained by the ld. Counsel that unless the\nfile containing the noting of the Witness was shown to the Court, the\nCourt cannot come to any definite conclusion in regard to whether all\nthe relevant material was sent to the sanctioning authority i.e.\nMinister­In­Charge. Additionally, this Court also put it to the ld. Sr.\nPP that if the Witness had merely sent a summary of the material sent\nby the CBI, how was it to be judged whether all the relevant material\nwas sent to the Minister­In­Charge for his consideration? Ld. Counsel\nfor A­2 and A­4 also raised the argument of denial of the principle of\naudi alteram partem to accused Sanjiv by contending that the\nsanctioning authority should have granted an opportunity of hearing to\nthe accused. For this submission, ld. Counsel relied on a judgment\ndelivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.104.             In response to the defense arguments, ld. Sr. PP relied on\na string of judgments to contend that signing of the final sanction\norder by the Under Secretary was legal and suffered from no illegality\nor infirmity.105.             It was explained by the ld. Sr. PP that approval of\nsanction for prosecution by the competent authority must not be\nconfused with issuance of formal authorisation conveying the sanctionCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 180 of 352of prosecution. Ld. Sr. PP further submitted that there is no dispute\nabout the fact that approval for sanction for prosecution was granted\nby the competent authority i.e. Minister­In­Charge. Perusal of the\nsanction order clearly expresses that the Minister­In­Charge\nconsidered all the relevant material which was sent up for his\nconsideration. There was nothing to infer from the language of the\nsanction order that grant of sanction was accorded as a mere formality,\nwithout application of mind and without considering the relevant\nmaterial sent by the CBI. Replying specifically to the Court query, ld.\nSr. PP submitted that only because the witness stated about having\nprepared a 'summary' on the basis of material received along with the\nproposal from CBI does not mean that the relevant material was not\nsent up to the Minister­In­Charge. Preparation of summary was a\nnecessary exercise as a part of the discharge of the official\nresponsibilities of the Witness since the file was to be up­marked to\nthe top brass. It is thus obvious that the Under Secretary, as the\nwitness was then, would have prepared a summary for the\nconvenience of the superiors. Merely because the witness prepared a\nsummary of the material sent by CBI cannot be inferred to mean that\nonly the summary was sent up to the Minister­In­Charge. Ld. Sr. PP\nfurther highlighted that even towards the end of the cross­examination\nof the witness, no suggestion was given to the witness that relevant\nmaterial was held back by the witness and not sent up to the Minister­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 181 of 352In­Charge. Consequently, it was submitted that the non­production of\n'noting file' on which approval was granted by the Minister­In­Charge\nis not of much consequence.106.             So far as the argument of denial of audi alteram partem is\nconcerned, ld. Sr. PP also cited a judgment of Hon'ble Allahbad High\nCourt wherein it has been held that sanctioning authority need not give\nany opportunity of hearing to the accused before refusing or according\nsanction for prosecution.107.             Having duly considered rival submissions on the point of\nsanction, this Court would agree with the submissions of the ld. Sr.\nPP. The explanation given in response to the specific query by the\nCourt in regard to the preparation of 'summary' by the Witness is\nconvincing and logical. Further, non­production of the file containing\nthe noting of the Witness is not of any consequence once it is clear\nfrom the sanction order that the sanctioning authority had considered\nall the relevant material which further conveys application of mind by\nthe sanctioning authority. Judgments cited by the ld. Sr. PP\n(highlighted above) leave no scope for doubt that formal sanction\norder could be validly issued by the Under Secretary of the\nDepartment. I, therefore, find no reason to conclude that the sanction\norder was vitiated with any sort of illegality. Furthermore, I agree withCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 182 of 352the submission of Ld. Sr. PP that this was not the stage to grant an\nopportunity of hearing by the Sanctioning Authority to the public\nservant.108.             I shall now proceed to discuss the prosecution evidence\nled qua proving the allegedly disproportionate assets of accused Sanjiv\nKumar which includes assets of his wife Abha Kumar, father Dr. M.\nKumar and mother Kanak Lata.Immovable assets created during the check period:Of Accused Kanak Lata109.             Farm house in village Dhumuspur, Gurgaon - This\nimmovable property was purchased by accused Kanak Lata on\n3.6.1997 from 5 brothers who were co­owners of the land in question.\nThe land measured 1 acre. Some unfinished construction was also\ncarried out on the land by accused Kanak Lata.110.             In order to prove the monetary value of this property,\nprosecution led contradictory evidence. There was a valuation of this\nproperty carried out by Ms. Kanak Lata in the year 2005 from an\narchitect Mr. G.P. Gujral (PW 16). As per this valuation, the purchase\nvalue of property was shown as Rs. 4.5 lacs whereas the construction\ncarried out on this land was estimated at a value of Rs. 10.5 lacs,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 183 of 352making the cumulative value of the property to be Rs. 15 lacs. This\nvaluation report was exhibited as Ex. PW16/A and the same was not\ndenied by Ms. Kanak Lata. Mr. Gujral was brought in as PW 16 to\nprove this valuation. Further, 4 other witnesses were brought in to\nprove the 'actual sale price' of this farmhouse which as per the\nprosecution was Rs. 12.5 lacs and not Rs. 4.5 lacs. 2 of these\nwitnesses were the intermediaries of the sale transaction i.e. Phire\nRam and Jagat Ram whereas the other two were the co­owners of this\nproperty i.e. Rajpal and Hansraj. Before the Court, Phire Ram and\nJagat Ram did not depose anything about the sale price of the\nfarmhouse being Rs. 12.5 lacs. Perusal of the 161 Cr. PC statement of\nJagat Ram recorded on 5.7.2006 reveals that the sale negotiations took\nplace at the house of Phire Ram. However, Phire Ram as PW 10 did\nnot testify anything on this count neither did Jagat Ram as PW 12.\nBoth of them simply stated that sale amount had already been paid by\nthe purchaser. PW 35 Rajpal, however, deposed that actual sale price\nwas Rs. 12.5 lacs but mentioned as Rs. 4.5 lacs in the sale deed. It is\ninteresting to note that in the initial statement of Rajpal recorded u/s\n161 Cr. PC on 16.5.2005, this witness stated before the IO that the\nproperty was sold for Rs. 4.5 lacs and that each of the 5 brothers\ninvested his share of Rs. 85K in Kisan Vikas Patra. Statement of 3\nother co­owners recorded on 16.5.2005 is also verbatim to the\nstatement of Rajpal. Strangely enough, after more than a year, onCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 184 of 35229.6.2006, Rajpal was again summoned by the IO to give supp.\nStatement wherein he completely changed his version of the actual\nsale price and pegged it at Rs. 12.5 lacs without explaining as to why\nhad he mentioned Rs. 4.5 lacs in his initial statement. Even more\nintriguing is that the IO, ostensibly to get corroboration for the supp.\nstatement of Rajpal, then recorded the statement of Jagat Ram on\n5.7.2006 who was supposedly an intermediary from the side of Ms.\nKanak Lata. Jagat Ram stated before the IO about the sale negotiation\nhaving taken place at the house of Phire Ram and the actual price\nbeing Rs. 12.5 lacs. Phire Ram's statement was also recorded to the\nsame effect on 29.6.2006, the same day when Rajpal's supplementary\nstatement was recorded. However, as PW's, neither Jagat Ram nor\nPhire Ram supported the prosecution version. PW 35 Rajpal on the\nother hand, in his chief exam., deposed about the actual sale price of\nthe land being 12.5 lacs but in cross­examination stated that he could\nneither admit nor deny that in his initial statement before the IO\nrecorded on 16.5.2005, he had stated the sale price as Rs. 4.5. lacs.\nRelevant to highlight that apart from Rajpal, none of the other 3 co­\nowners were summoned by the IO to give a supp. statement with\nregard to the value of the land being Rs. 12.5 lacs. However, one of\nthe co­owners Hansraj came in as PW 36 and also deposed that the\nsale price was actually Rs. 12.5 lacs. In cross­examination, he denied\nhaving stated to the IO (u/s 161 Cr.PC) about the sale price being Rs.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 185 of 3524.5 lacs but also admitted that some writing work was done when he\nvisited the office of CBI. Interesting to note that Hansraj was never\ncalled by the IO to give a supp. statement like Rajpal. Hansraj's\nstatement u/s 161 Cr. PC mentions that the sale price was Rs. 4.5 lacs\nbut before the Court, he deposed about the sale price being Rs. 12.5\nlacs. Needless to say that Hansraj was mentioned as a witness in the\nlist of prosecution witnesses which was possible only if he had been\ninterrogated during the investigation which fact is proved from the\nstatement of Hansraj recordedu/s 161Cr.PC. Further, the court has\nnot been able to fathom as to why did the prosecution prove the\nvaluation report through PW 16 Mr. Gujral which mentioned the sale\nprice of farmhouse as Rs. 4.5 lacs and then brought in oral evidence to\ncontradict its own documentary evidence to suggest that the sale price\nwas actually much higher. The prosecution evidence on the value of\nfarmhouse 'actually' being Rs. 12.5 lacs and not Rs. 4.5 lacs is thus\ngrossly deficient and uninspiring. There appears to be a concerted\neffort on the part of the IO to deliberately prop up the alleged asset\nvalue of the farmhouse for some inexplicable reason.111.             Proceeding further, the only link of the purchase of this\nfarmhouse with accused Sanjiv Kumar which the prosecution has\nbeen able to prove is that the owners/intermediaries of the sale\ntransaction were aware that the land has to be sold to the mother ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 186 of 352Deputy Commissioner of Gurgaon. None of the prosecution\nwitnesses brought in to prove the sale of farmhouse to Ms. Kanak\nLata have deposed anything regarding the payment of sale amount\nhaving been made by Sanjiv Kumar. Further, there is no evidence\nled by the prosecution that the amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs were paid\nfrom any of the bank accounts of Sanjiv Kumar (as per witnesses,\nsale price was paid in cash). The witnesses only deposed that Ms.\nKanak Lata was not present at the time of registration sale deed\nthough all of them identified the picture of Ms. Kanak Lata on the\nsale deed. However, the non­presence of Ms. Kanak Lata at the time\nof registration of sale deed does not in any manner connect accused\nSanjiv Kumar with the payment of sale price of Rs. 4.5 lacs nor has\nthe prosecution been able to prove in any manner that the\nconstruction which was carried out on the farmhouse after its\npurchase was financed by accused Sanjiv Kumar.112.             Unit/Flat in Bara Hindu Rao, (DCM Techno Plaza\nProject) - This flat/unit was purchased by Ms. Kanak Lata in the year\n1997. Land in Kishan Ganj, Bara Hindu Rao was given for\ndevelopment by DCM Ltd. to Ansals and Kailashnath Associates\nrespectively under separate agreements in 1986 and 1988. Some of the\nbookings were carried out by Kailashnath Associates whereas someCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 187 of 352were done by Ansals. Eventually however, the land could not be\ndeveloped and DCM Ltd. again took over the land from Ansals and\nKailashnath Associates in yr. 2000 alongwith all the bookings done by\nthem. DCM Ltd. had a corporate restructuring exercise with DCM\nInfra in 2004 pursuant to which this land was to be handled by DCM\nInfra. Ltd. Later on, DCM Infra. Ltd. changed to PureEarth Infra. in\nthe yr. 2005. PW 21 Ajay Khanna (from PureEarth Infra.Ltd.) came\nin to depose about the allotment of unit to Ms. Kanak Lata. The\nallotment of unit in Bara Hindu Rao Project has not been denied by\nMs. Kanak Lata as no cross examination was done on this aspect on\nbehalf of Kanak Lata. The total price of the plot was Rs. 20 lacs.\nHowever, evidence led is to the extent of payment of Rs. 5 lacs for this\nplot by Kanak Lata all of which was paid through various bank\ninstruments. Here again, prosecution has not been able to link the\npayment of this flat/unit with accused Sanjiv Kumar in any manner.\nPW 21 did not depose anything about any amount of booking or sale\nprice having been paid by Sanjiv Kumar nor was the prosecution able\nto lead any evidence that Rs. 5 lacs deposited by Kanak Lata was\nfinanced by Sanjiv Kumar. It needs a highlight that accused Sanjiv\nclaimed that this property was purchased from HUF Funds for which\nhe relied on an affidavit dt. 16.9.98 (Mark PW 46/DH) of Kanak Lata\nwherein she has affirmed that property was purchased from HUF\nfunds and so Sanjiv Kumar, Rajiv Kumar and Maheshwar KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 188 of 352should be added as owners of the property. It was further contended\nthat since it was an HUF property, the asset value of Rs. 5 lacs should\nnot be attributed solely to Kanak Lata but divided 4 ways with Rajiv\nKumar also being an HUF owner to the extent of Rs.1.25 lacs and\nconsequently, the asset value for the purpose of this case should be\ntaken as Rs. 3.75 lacs i.e. deducting the value of Rs. 1.25 lacs\nattributable to Dr. Rajiv Kumar. The argument advanced is ludicrous\nto say the least. It is the foundational defense plea that HUF of Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar consisting of himself, Kanak Lata, Sanjiv Kr. and\nDr. Rajiv Kr. was dissolved in 1988 and properties were partitioned\namongst these 4 persons. Thereafter, HUFs of Sanjiv Kr. and Dr.\nRajiv Kr. were formed. If that be so, how could this HUF suddenly\nrevive in 1998? Further, once the HUF stood dissolved in 1988, how\ncan the defense plea of this property being purchased from HUF funds\nbe accepted? The argument is therefore not tenable.113.             Plot in sector 28, Faridabad - This plot was allotted to\nMs. Kanak Lata in the year 1994 from the Chief Minister's\ndiscretionary quota in HUDA (Haryana Urban Development\nAuthority). At the relevant time, accused Sanjiv Kumar was posted as\nDeputy Commissioner, Hissar (Haryana). The allotment application\nmentions the address of Ms. Kanak Lata as c/o D.C. Hissar. The\nevidence led shows that apart from the initial installment of Rs. 19163,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 189 of 352no other payment was made by Ms. Kanak Lata. The total purchase\nprice was Rs. 76550 which was to be paid in installments over a\nperiod of 6 years. However, soon after the allotment process, the same\nwas challenged and then quashed. However, the allotment process was\nrestored with legitimacy by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but by that\ntime accused Sanjiv Kumar had fallen out of favour with the State\nGovernment and was actually on the run after taking the lid off the\nJBT recruitment scam where­after Sanjiv Kumar was placed under\nsuspension. Though the evidence led by PW 7 shows that till the date\nof his deposition, the allotment had not been cancelled, the fact also\nstands confirmed that except for initial allotment installment of Rs.\n19163 nothing was paid by Ms. Kanak Lata. This amount of Rs.\n19163 however has been taken in the Charge­sheet as an asset. This\nCourt is unable to accept the rationale behind the same. The check\nperiod starts from 1.4.96 and extends upto 16.2.2005. There is no\nproof of Ms. Kanak Lata having paid any installment during the check\nperiod nor is there any proof that she was put in possession of the plot\nso as to have some kind of disposable rights over it. Allotment of a\nplot on payment of first installment and its ripening into ownership are\nentirely different things. The ownership process is much more\nelaborate which is dependent on all due payment having been made\nand then a conveyance deed being executed and registered.\nProsecution evidence itself shows that apart from the first installmentCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 190 of 352which also was paid in the pre­check period, no other installments\nwere paid. In such a case, the initial payment of Rs. 19163 cannot be\ntaken as asset since no asset was created. The fact that allotment\nmight still stand in the name of Kanak Lata does not in any manner\nprove her ownership over the same. At best, it only gives her a right to\ndeposit remaining installments but which she has not done for the last\nalmost 19 years. It is upto the HUDA to have cancelled the allotment\nby now since no allotment can remain subsisting for such a long time\nwithout installments having been paid but for the inaction of HUDA,\nthe allottee cannot be held to be owner of the plot in the context of the\npresent case i.e. as an asset holder. She has no right to deal in the plot\ntill it ripens onto ownership or to deal with it without the permission\nof the HUDA which is a state instrumentality. There is nothing to\nshow that Kanak Lata has at any point of time sought to dispose off\nthe plot which could even prima facie convey that it was an\nexpendable asset. Even the concerned prosecution witness (PW 7) did\nnot depose in any manner in his chief­examination which can be\nconstrued that as allottee of the said plot, Kanak Lata was in\npossession of an expendable asset. To prove this allotment as an asset,\nit was incumbent upon the public prosecutor to have questioned the\nconcerned PW with regard to the ownership rights or allied rights of\nthe allottee (Kanak Lata in the present case) over the said plot.\nHowever, no such questions were put. The witness merely informedCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 191 of 352the court about the initial allotment installment having been paid. In\nview of the above, this court is unable to consider Rs. 19163 as an\nasset of Ms. Kanak Lata.114.             Plot no. B­103 at Sushant Lok­ The original allottees of\nthis plot were Kanak Lata, Sanjiv Kumar, Abha Kumar and Snighda\nKumar. Ms. Kanak Lata was the lead applicant whereas rest 3 were\nco­allotees. Prosecution summoned 2 witnesses to prove allotment of\nthis plot. First witness i.e. PW 19 T. Rajan from the office of Ansal\nProperties (developer of Sushant Lok) did not prove any document\nrelating to the allotment of this plot. Subsequently, PW 42 stepped in\nto prove the allotment. The documents collected during investigation\nincluded 2 application forms and few affidavits executed by the\noriginal and transposed allottee. The initial allotment form Ex. PW\n42/2 was filled up by Ms. Kanak Lata, Abha Kumar, Snighda and\nSanjiv Kumar. However, the 2nd form Ex. PW 42/3 was filled up by\nKanak Lata, Maheshwar Kumar and Snighda Kumar (under guardian\nship of Sanjiv Kumar). The IO also collected affidavits of Kanak Lata,\nAbha Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar, Snighda Kumar and Maheshwar Kumar\nwhich were to the effect that Maheshwar Kumar is to be transposed as\nan allottee whereas Abha and Sanjiv Kumar were to exit from the\nallotment application. The total payment made for the plot was Rs.\n7,76,000 out of which Rs. 1,76,000 was paid through cheque onCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 192 of 35231.3.96 i.e. immediately before the start of check period. Rest 6 lacs\nwere paid in April and May 1996, in cash. The payment\nreceipts/acknowledgment were issued in the name of Kanak Lata.\nThough in his chief­examination, witness denied that any allotment\nwas made on the basis of Ex. PW42/3 (i.e. 2 nd application form), in\ncross­examination he admitted the plot buyer agreement wherein the\nallotees were stated to be Kanak Lata, Maheshwar Kumar and Snighda\n(minor) through Sanjiv Kumar. It was contended during final\narguments that prosecution was unable to prove this allotment but in\nthe chart of statements A, B, C & D which was submitted by the\naccused persons, it was claimed that this property was purchased from\nthe VDIS amount declared by Dr. M. Kumar in 1997. Additionally,\nsince the accused themselves got the plot buyer agreement admitted\nfrom PW 42 which clearly mentions accused Kanak, accused\nMaheshwar and Snighda as allottees, coupled with the receipts of Rs.\n6l lacs issued in the name of Kanak Lata which was put to the witness\nin cross­ examination, it is clear that the allotment stood proved. The\nonly question, therefore, is whether the payment of purchase amount\nof this asset (to the extent of Rs. 6 lacs) can be linked to accused\nSanjiv? PW 42 was specifically asked whether in view of the receipts\nof Rs. 6 lacs, could he state whether the payments were made by\nKanak Lata alone or by all the co­owners? In response, witness was\nunable to answer. Thus, even though daughter of accused Sanjiv was aCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 193 of 352beneficiary, the prosecution was unable to prove that the payment of\nthis plot had been made in part or full by accused Sanjiv for which\nreason, the expense of this asset cannot be linked to accused Sanjiv\nKumar and as a corollary, the proportionate asset value of this\nproperty cannot be transferred to Sanjiv Kumar.115.             Flat in Power Welfare Organisation, sector 43,\nGurgaon- Acquisition of this flat was in the name of Mrs. Kanak\nLata and Dr. Maheshwar Kumar, in the year 2003 i.e. during the\ncheck period. The total value of this flat was Rs. 19,52,000. The\naccused persons admitted this asset. However, it was argued on behalf\nof the accused persons that this flat was also an HUF property and\nhence, the value of this flat should be split up 3 ways - amongst Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar, Kanak Lata, and Dr. Rajiv Kumar. The Court\nhowever is unable to accept this submission for the reasons which\nhave already been stated while dealing with acquisition by Kanak Lata\nof Bara Hindu Rao Property. Strangely enough this HUF property is\nclaimed to be of Kanak Lata, Maheshwar Kumar and Rajiv Kumar\nwith Sanjiv Kumar conspicuously missing from this 'new' HUF line\nup. The accused persons have been creating HUF's at will wherever it\nsuits them. Interestingly, there is no plea that this property was also\nprocured from HUF funds but that Dr. Rajiv Kumar had invested Rs.\n5.50 lacs in the purchase of this property i.e. Dr. Rajiv Kumar hasCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 194 of 352reflected in the IT return Ex. DW11/4. However, there is no bank\ntransfer to confirm this assertion of investment by Dr. Rajiv Kumar.\nConsidering that Dr. Rajiv Kumar is a resident of the UK, it is obvious\nthat any investment made by him in India, whether directly or through\nhis brother/ parents, has to be co­related to a bank transfer. Needless\nto highlight that the plea of this property also being an HUF property\nwas put forth so as to reduce the expense/asset value attributable to\nKanak Lata and Maheshwar Kumar. However, prosecution has no\nobjection to deduction of the share of Rs. 5,05,000 from the total asset\nvalue, being the share of Dr. Rajiv Kumar. If the mere assertion of\ninvestment by Dr. Rajiv in his IT Return is to be accepted, then Sanjiv\nKumar HUF's ITR of AY 2005­06 Ex. PW6/E also has to be taken\ninto account wherein he has mentioned an investment of Rs. 4,51,000\nin this very property and hence, to that extent, the asset value has to be\nattributed to Sanjiv Kumar.Of Accused Maheshwar Kumar116.             The immovable asset addition which is credited to Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar 'individually' during the check period is flat no.\n6360, Vasant Kunj. The evidence led by the prosecution to prove that\nit was the benami property of Sanjiv Kumar was ingenious.117.             The owner of this property was Sh. Prasanna Kumar whoCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 195 of 352was a resident of USA. He had given power of attorney to manage this\nproperty to Sh. Pramod Kumar Aggarwal who was listed as a\nprosecution witness at number 25 but was dropped and was never\nexamined but for which reason is not too far to seek, as will be\nrevealed by the discussion hereinafter. The sale deed of the flat was\nexecuted by Pramod K. Aggarwal. Instead of Pramod Kumar\nAggarwal, the prosecution brought in SC Chaudhary (PW 18) who\nwas a property dealer and who claimed to have brokered the deal of\nthe flat. He was also a marginal witness to the sale deed.118.             SC     Chaudhary         deposed   that   Sanjiv   Kumar       had\napproached him for purchase of 2 flats in Vasant Kunj, the other flat\nbeing the one purchased by Dr. Rajiv Kumar. He negotiated the deal\nof one flat @ Rs. 28 lacs. Witness further deposed that Sanjiv Kumar\ninitially gave Rs. 5 lacs in cash as advance money to him which he i.e.\nSC Chaudhary handed over to one Rajeev Goel who was the brother­\nin­law of Prasanna Kumar. Thereafter, the balance amount was also\npaid by Sanjiv Kumar to Pramod Kumar Aggarwal in his presence by\nway of Demand Draft of Rs. 10 lacs and further cash of Rs. 13 lacs.\nPW 18 further deposed that all sale negotiations were done by Sanjiv\nKumar, that Dr. Maheshwar Kumar was not present even during the\nexecution of sale deed, the possession of the flat was also handed over\nto Sanjiv Kumar and thereafter, Sanjiv Kumar and his family startedCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 196 of 352residing in this as also the other flat i.e. the one purchased in the name\nof Dr. Rajiv Kumar. Witness even went to the extent of deposing that\ncommon wall of the flats was broken and both the flats were joined\nwhen infact both the flats were duplex and on different levels.119.             At this stage, it is important to highlight the statements of\nPramod Kumar Aggarwal and Rajeev Goel which were recorded by\nthe IO undersection 161Cr.PC because the content of these\nstatements brings out the reason behind dropping both Pramod K.\nAggarwal and Rajeev Goel as prosecution witnesses.120.             Rajeev Goel, in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC,\nmade no mention whatsoever of SC Chaudhary ever giving him any\ncash amount or even that SC Chaudhary approached him for sale\nnegotiations. According to Rajeev Goel, the negotiations for the sale\nof flat no. 6360 were held between Pramod K. Aggarwal and Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar through SC Chaudhary. The sale amount was\nagreed upon as Rs. 10 lacs and the sale deed was accordingly\nexecuted. The sale price of Rs. 10 lacs was paid through 2 demand\ndrafts of Rs. 5 lacs each. This statement of Rajeev Goel thus runs\nabsolutely contrary to what SC Chaudhary deposed before the Court.\nIt is thus understandable as to why was Rajeev Goel dropped because\nhad he come in to depose, he would have spoken the truth as was\nknown to him which would have badly hurt the prosecution case. ItCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others            Page 197 of 352needs a highlight that Rajeev Goel was also a marginal witness in the\nsale deed and hence, no stranger to the sale process. But more than his\nimportance of being a marginal witness, it was incumbent upon the\nprosecution to bring in Rajeev Goel since SC Chaudhary, even in his\nstatement before the IO u/s 161 Cr. PC mentioned about handing over\nRs. 5 lacs to Rajeev Goel whereas Rajeev Goel made no mention at all\nof any contact with SC Chaudhary regarding the sale negotiations.\nFurther, being brother­in­law of the owner Prasanna Kumar, he would\nhave naturally been expected to know the details of the sale\nnegotiations. However, simply because he would not have deposed in\nfavour of the prosecution, Rajeev Goel seemed to have been dropped\nas a witness. It needs a highlight that Rajeev Goel was called for\nquestioning by the IO on 2 occasions - in 2005 and in 2006. In his 2nd\nstatement, with regard to the sale price, Rajeev Goel made a slight\ndeparture from his earlier statement by stating that it is Pramod K\nAggarwal who would be in a better position to tell about the total\namount transacted between the vendee and the vendor. Subsequently,\nstatement of Pramod K. Aggarwal was also recorded.121.             Dropping of Rajeev Goel as a witness appears to be an\nextraneous act of the prosecution which gets corroboration from the\nfact that even Pramod K. Aggarwal was dropped from the list of\nwitnesses even though he was the one who executed the sale deed. HisCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 198 of 352statement u/s 161 Cr. PC also reveals that the sale amount was Rs. 10\nlacs which was paid by way of 2 demand drafts. As in the statements\nof Rajeev Goel, Pramod K. Aggarwal also made no mention at all of\nSanjiv Kumar even being a part of either sale negotiations or him\nhanding over any part of the sale amount to Pramod K. Aggarwal.\nEven if there was any justification to drop Rajeev Goel, there was\nsimply none to drop Pramod K. Aggarwal who was the best witness to\ndepose about the sale price and as to who negotiated the sale process.\nAt this stage of the discussion, it is also relevant to scan the evidence\nregarding the purchase of Flat no. 6357, Pocket B, Vasant Kunj, New\nDelhi which was purchased by Dr. Rajiv Kumar through General and\nSpecial Power of Attorney/Will since the flat was held as a leasehold\nby the original owner/allottee Sh. KK Lal.122.             As in the case of flat no. 6360, same witness (i.e. SC\nChaudhary) was brought in to prove that this flat was also the benami\nproperty of Sanjiv Kumar with Dr. Rajiv Kumar merely acting as a\nfront. It is in this context that it was highlighted at the outset that the\nCourt has not been able to fathom the courtesy extended by the IO to\nDr. Rajiv Kumar by leaving him altogether from the ambit of\ninvestigation. Nevertheless, the testimony of PW 18 SC Chaudhary in\nregard to the sale process of both the flats was composite. Qua flat no.\n6357 also, PW 18 deposed that Rs. 5 lacs in cash was handed over byCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 199 of 352Sanjiv Kumar to him which he then handed over to owner KK Lal,\nthat all negotiations were done by Sanjiv Kumar, that Dr. Rajiv Kumar\nwas never in the picture, that the deal was eventually struck for Rs. 28\nlacs out of which KK Lal agreed to accept Rs. 14 lacs in cash and the\nrest by way of bank instruments, and that balance of Rs. 9 lacs in cash\nwas paid in his presence by accused Sanjiv Kumar to KK Lal.123.             Contrary to this deposition, statement of KK Lal recorded\nby the IO u/s 161 Cr. PC foretells a completely different story.\nAccording to KK Lal, it was Dr. Rajiv Kumar who had come to him\nalongwith SC Chaudhary for purchase of the flat. KK Lal maintained\nthat the sale price of the flat was Rs. 14 lacs which were paid by way\nof 7 bank instruments details of which were given in the statement\nitself. KK Lal further specifically stated that all of these bank\ninstruments were handed over by Dr. Rajiv Kumar to him after the\nexecution of the necessary papers regarding the sale of flat by way of\nGPA, Will, SPA etc. Still further, KK Lal also deposed that the keys\nof the flat in question were handed over to Dr. Rajiv Kumar in the\npresence of SC Chaudhary. It is thus clear that as in the case of Rajeev\nGoel and Pramod K. Aggarwal, KK Lal was also dropped as a\nprosecution witness since his testimony would have been detrimental\nto the prosecution case and hence, the prosecution thought it best to\nleave out the testimony of KK Lal despite the fact that he was the bestCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 200 of 352witness to depose in regard to sale of flat no. 6357. However, this does\nnot form the complete picture regarding acquisition of flat no. 6357.\nAs per the charge­sheet, the total purchase price of Rs. 14 lacs for this\nflat was paid by 3 persons - accused Abha who paid Rs. 6.5 lacs vide\na bank instrument, Rs. 5 lacs by Tika Hasan vide a pay order and 5\ndrafts of Rs. 50K each (totaling Rs. 2.5 lac) by SC Gupta (PW 41).\nProof of payment of Rs. 6.5 lacs by accused Abha Kumar was\nfurnished by PW 22 who was summoned from Oriental Bank of\nCommerce, Panchkula. This witness proved certain debit and credit\nvouchers of a/c no. 6000 in the name of Abha and a/c no. 6064 in the\njoint name of Sanjiv Kumar and Abha Kumar. Alongwith, debit and\ncredit vouchers, he also proved cheque dt. 11.11.99 of Rs. 6,50,975\nissued by accused Abha to 'self' from a/c no. 6000 but which bears an\nendorsement at the back for issuance of a draft in the name of KK Lal.\nThis witness was not cross examined and further, both these accounts\nhave been owned up by accused Abha and Sanjiv since they have\nsought the benefit of interest which accrued in these accounts for the\npurpose of being added in their income during the check period. Even\nin her statement recordedu/s 313Cr.PC, accused Abha admitted the\nissuance of this cheque of Rs. 6,50,975 being a matter of record\nwithout furnishing any explanation as to why was this cheque issued\nor whether this cheque had a corresponding credit entry from Dr.\nRajiv Kumar. So far as payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs to KK Lal by SCCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 201 of 352Gupta (vide 5 drafts) is concerned, SC Gupta admitted that he had got\nthese drafts prepared in the name of KK Lal though he also stated that\nhe didn't know the purpose of these drafts and nor did he know KK\nLal. He further denied that he got the drafts prepared at the asking of\naccused Sanjiv. However, if we tally the details of bank instruments\ngiven by KK Lal in his statement to the IO, which he claims were\nhanded over by Dr. Rajiv Kumar, it is clear that KK Lal received the\nsame 5 drafts from SC Gupta (PW41) regarding which there is a clear\nadmission by PW 41. As will be revealed from the succeeding\ndiscussion in regard to the allegation of share investments by accused\nSanjiv and Abha, there was a clear connect between Abha and SC\nGupta which proves that Dr. Rajiv was merely a front in acquiring the\nflat no. 6357 with the finance for the acquisition of flat coming from 3\ndifferent sources none of which could be traced to Dr. Rajiv but major\npart of which can be clearly linked to Abha and SC Gupta. The\npayment of Rs. 5 lacs by Tika Hasan Mustafa, as alleged in the\nchargesheet, was not proved by the prosecution for the reason best\nknown to it. Tika should have been arrayed as an abettor since there\nwas documentary proof of him having paid a part of the purchase price\nof flat no. 6357 which though was acquired in the name of Dr. Rajiv\nKumar. Even if KK Lal had been cited as a witness, his bank a/c\nstatement would have proved that Dr. Rajiv Kumar did not pay any\npart of the purchase amount. In defense, accused Sanjiv argued thatCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 202 of 352prosecution deliberately did not prove the statement of a/c no. 6064\nOBC, Panchkula (jt. a/c of Abha & Sanjiv) since that would have also\nproved that they received a sum of Rs. 6,93,460 from Dr. Rajiv Kumar\non 8.12.99. To this end, accused Sanjiv also summoned a witness from\nthe OBC, Panchkula to interalia prove that Rs. 6,93,460 was deposited\nby Dr. Rajiv Kumar in the joint account of Abha and Sanjiv as\nreimbursement of Rs. 6.5 lacs paid by her to KK Lal. This Witness i.e.\nDW 5 however deposed that details of cheque/pay­in slip/bank\ninstrument vide which the above amount was credited/deposited in a/c\nno. 6064 was not available being an old record. Accused Sanjiv\navoided getting the account statement of a/c no. 6064 proved from this\nwitness and which really intrigues the Court. Even if the detail of bank\ninstrument was not available with the witness from the Bank, in the\nvery least, accused Sanjiv should have got proved the account credit\nentry of Rs. 6,93,460 from DW 5. During the course of investigation,\nIO recorded statement of Mr. N K Raheja from OBC, Sector 11,\nPanchula who stated that Rs. 6,93,460 was received in the a/c no. 6064\nvide foreign remittance of 1000 GBP on 8.12.1999. This witness was\nsummoned by the prosecution as PW 22. Despite this statement and\nthe statement of account also being collected by the IO which\nnecessarily would have been supplied to the accused as well, this\naccount statement was not proved. If the prosecution shied away from\nproving this account statement, this statement could have been put toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 203 of 352PW 22 in cross­examination but this witness was not cross­examined\nat all. Further, the witness DW 5 could have also been questioned\nwhether the credit was a foreign remittance or an inland bank transfer.\nIf the amount was an inland transfer, accused Sanjiv could have easily\nproved the same by summoning the relevant records from the a/c of\nDr. Rajiv Kumar since Dr. M. Kumar held the power of attorney in\nrespect of the Indian bank account/s of Dr. Rajiv Kumar. It seems that\naccused Sanjiv purposely did not get the credit entry proved and\ninstead has tried to take benefit of the defense witnesses' testimony of\nnon­availability of bank instrument record so as to express his\nhelplessness in proving that Dr. Rajiv deposited this amount. Court\nwould also like to highlight that even if for the sake of argument we\naccept the foreign remittance as per the statement of NK Raheja\nrecordedu/s 161Cr.PC, it still doesn't prove that the foreign\nremittance was by Dr. Rajiv Kumar and going to the extreme, even\naccepting that this remittance was by Dr. Rajiv, it still calls for an\nexplanation from the defense as to why was this foreign remittance\nreceived almost a month after the flat was transferred in the name of\nDr. Rajiv Kumar? Ordinarily, if Dr. Rajiv Kumar had come to India\nscouting for an immovable property and finalized the same, he would\nhave either paid from his HUF funds/bank a/c mantained in India or\nwould have transferred the amount from his bank a/c in UK to his\nIndian a/c. The purchase of 2 flats in the same locality and in closeCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 204 of 352vicinity of each other clearly points towards the fact that purchase of\nthese 2 flats was not a chance occurrence but was a planned venture\nand hence, in the normal course of things Dr. Rajiv would have come\narmed with sufficient funds to purchase the flat. Therefore, this credit\nentry of Rs. 6,93,000/­ was nothing more than a cover up, if at all it\nwas from Dr. Rajiv. It also is surprising that though Dr. Rajiv Kumar\ncould have been summoned as a defense witness to prove this credit\nentry as also to prove that purchase of flat no. 6357 was financed by\nhim, he was not summoned. If accused Sanjiv could summon his\nsister­in­law Shobha Singh as DW 15 to prove that she repaid loan of\nRs. 2.5 lacs, he could have very well brought in his real brother to\ndepose in his defense. Instead, accused Sanjiv Kumar kept on alleging\nIO's malafide in not examining Dr. Rajiv Kumar. Add to the above\nobservations a very relevant fact which is the execution of power of\nattorney by Dr. Rajiv Kumar in favour of Abha Singh to manage the\naffairs of flat no. 6357 which butresses the court's belief that flat no.\n6357 was indeed a benami property of accused Abha and Sanjiv. Dr.\nRajiv had given a power of attorney to his father to manage his HUF\naffairs. The same should have been done in the ordinary course qua\nflat no. 6357 also since his father (Dr. M Kumar) also purchased a flat\nclose to his and was to reside there. Instead, Abha was given the\npower to manage the property including the ''power to dispose off''\nthe same as is clear from the recitals of the power of attorney MarkCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 205 of 352PW46/DC which was put to the IO in his cross­examination. It would\nhave been understandable had Abha been given limited attorney to\nmanage the property but to give her disposing power over the flat\npoints only towards the fact that defacto ownership of the flat was of\naccused Abha. In the face of testimony of PW 22 (bank witness) and\nPW 41 (SC Gupta), Accused should have brought in some credible\nevidence to show that Rs. 14 lacs which KK Lal claims was the sale\nprice, was infact paid by Dr. Rajiv Kumar. All the above facts\ncumulatively point towards flat no. 6357 being the benami property of\naccused Abha and Sanjiv. In view of the above discussion, this Court\nfinds it unable to accept the defense plea that flat no. 6357, Vasant\nKunj was the property acquired by Dr. Rajiv Kumar during the check\nperiod. Further, the fact that ownership of this property has been\ndenied by A-1 and A­2, disentitles them to even explain the\nacquisition of this property from their accepted income during the\ncheck period. However, qua flat no. 6360, this Court accepts the\ndefense plea that it was acquired by Dr. M Kumar. It would also be\nrelevant to highlight at this stage that perusal of Chart C (ii) submitted\nby the accused persons where they have claimed benefit of additional\nincome on the basis of the ITR's of accused Sanjiv, accused Kanak\nLata, Dr. M Kumar, and Dr. Rajiv Kumar shows extraordinary\nrotation of money amongst them, at times in the form of gifts and at\ntimes in the form of loans which really puts these transactions in aCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 206 of 352circle of serious doubt especially when viewed in the backdrop of\nacquisition of significant immovable and movable assets during the\ncheck period by the accused persons. However, these loans and gifts\nare a part of the ITR's of the accused persons which were not put to\nscrutiny during the check period and for which reason, the accused\npersons have tried to take maximum benefit of the same.Of Accused Abha Kumar124.             Flat in Bara Hindu Rao - Prosecution had alleged\nallotment/purchase of a residential flat in Bara Hindu Rao by accused\nAbha Kumar. PW 21 who proved the allotment of flat in the name of\nKanak Lata also brought/proved the relevant records to prove the\ntransfer of allotment of the flat in the name of Abha Kumar. Unlike\nthe allotment of Kanak Lata, the allotment in favour of Abha Kumar\nwas in the form of allotment transfer which is to say that the\nprovisional allotment from the original allottee had been transferred to\nthe subsequent allottees on the subsequent allotee/s having paid the\namount already paid by the initial allottee. As per documents proved\nas Ex. PW 21/B, Abha had taken over the allotment of flat measuring\n1500 sq. metres in proposed DCM Green Acres from 4 joint allottees- Sardar Singh, Mrs. Inderjeet Singh, Charanjeet Singh and\nTajinderjeet Singh. The document further recorded that joint allottees\nhave already received the amount of Rs. 3 lacs from Abha Sinha d/oCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 207 of 352GP Singh which was standing to their credit with a further request that\nthe amount standing in their credit be transferred in the name of Abha\nSinha alongwith transfer of provisional booking. This document bears\nthe signature of accused Abha with her acknowledgment of accepting\nthe booking in terms of the above. There is another document Ex. PW\n21/ DA which was put to the witness in his cross examination which\nshows an account in the name of Abha and credit of Rs. 3 lacs in her\nname. This document was put to the witness since the amount\nreflected therein was paid by the original alotttee Mrs. Anuradha\nAggarwal. The only question put to the witness was whether Abha had\nmade any payment at the time of transfer of booking to which the\nwitness replied that he had no knowledge.125.             So far as the allotment of flat to Abha Kumar is\nconcerned, Witness specified that beyond the provisional booking\ntransfer in the name of Abha Kumar, nothing more has been paid\ntowards this allotment. However, neither ld. PP questioned the witness\nnor the witness himself commented as to whether the booking is still\nsubsisting. The cross­examination of the witness was carried out with\nextreme caution with ld. Counsel craftly avoiding questions about\nwhether the allotment still subsists in the name of Abha Kumar. What\nis relevant is that provisional allotment transfer by accused Abha was\nnot denied i.e. no question or suggestion was given to the Witness toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 208 of 352the effect that Abha never applied for this plot or that provisional\nbooking transfer in the name of Abha was never executed. Witness\nhowever admitted that he had no knowledge whether at the time of\ntransfer of provisional booking, any payment was made by Abha or\nnot. It is obvious that the witness would not have any knowledge of\nthis since the provisional transfer of allotment was done at the time\nwhen the land was under the administration of Kailashnath Assoc.\nProsecution evidence in this regard was circumscribed by compulsion\nsince witness from Kailashnath Assoc. would have served no purpose\nsince all the allotment/booking files had been taken back by DCM\nLtd. leaving no option for the prosecution but to summon witness\nfrom DCM Infra. Ltd. Even though witness could not specify whether\nRs. 3 lacs (amount paid by initial allotee) was paid by accused Abha at\nthe time of booking transfer, the fact that there was no cross­\nexamination on behalf of accused Abha in the manner to deny that she\never applied for the plot makes it evident that she was the subsequent\nallottee. Further, Ex. PW 21/B (file D­65) contains clear and relevant\ndocuments which prove that the initial allotment was made to\nAnuradha Aggarwal who paid Rs. 3 lacs where­after the allotment was\ntransferred to 4 joint allotees and finally from them to Abha. It also\nstands recorded in Ex. 21/B that Rs. 3 lacs has been received from\nAbha by the 4 joint subsequent allottees. Therefore, this Court has no\ndoubt that accused Abha paid Rs. 3 lacs for this immovable propertyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 209 of 352but which nether finds a reflection in her IT returns nor was it ever\nintimated by accused Sanjiv Kumar to his Controlling Government\neither. Since, the Court has concluded that Abha Kumar did pay Rs. 3\nlacs for the Bara Hindu Rao property in July 1996 which is in the\ncheck period, this has to be taken as an expenditure through\nundisclosed resources which has to be attributed to accused Sanjiv\nsince Abha did not own up this expenditure which further disentitles\nher to explain it as a part of her legitimate income.126.             Plot in Sector 28, Faridabad - This plot was also alotted\nto accused Abha from the CM Haryana's discetionary quota in HUDA.\nThe allotment of plot to Abha was on identical terms as that of\naccused Kanak Lata. Without repeating the observations already\nrecorded in case of payment of Rs. 19163 by accused Kanak Lata for a\nsimilar plot allotted to her out of the discretionary quota, the payment\nby Abha of Rs. 19163 cannot be termed as an asset but was rather a\nliability, having paid an instalment and then reached no­where with\nthe allotment.127.             Jewellery found in the joint locker of Dr. Maheshwar,\nMrs. Kanak Lata, and Abha Kumar held in ICICI Bank Vasant\nKunj branch ­ In the charge­sheet, IO attributed the ownership of this\nlocker to Abha Kumar despite it being a joint locker on the groundCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others          Page 210 of 352that it had been operated twice by Abha Kumar. The locker was\nopened on 10.5.2007 and jewelery was found stashed therein.\nValuation of the jewelery was carried out. The valuation was done by\nMr. Vijay Goel PW 2 who opined that 30% of the jewelery was of\npre­1996 period whereas the rest 70% was post­1996 period. The\nvaluation however was carried out at the rates of gold prevailing in\n2005. Mr. Vijay Goel testified as PW 3 and proved the valuation\nreport. In cross­examination, the witness deposed that his opinion\nabout 30% of the jewelery only being of the pre­1996 period was\nbased on the designs in vogue during the relevant times. Significantly\nhowever, he admitted that opinion regarding the period of making of\njewelery was largely a guess work with 50% chance of accuracy.128.             It was argued by accused Sanjiv Kumar that when the\nwitness himself stated about the chances of his valuation being only\n50% correct which is a very high percentage, it is not safe to rely upon\nthe testimony of this witness. It was also asserted that the locker being\njoint was actually holding the streedhan of Kanak Lata, Abha and\nwife of Dr. Rajiv Kumar but as in the case of flats of Vasant Kunj, no\neffort was made by IO to record the statement of wife of Dr. Rajiv\nKumar to ascertain the truth.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 211 of 352129.             I agree with the submission put forth by accused Sanjiv\nKumar in regard to the risk of placing reliance on the valuation of PW\n2 when the witness himself admitted that there was only 50%\nprobability of his opinion about the period of making of jewelery\nbeing correct. While evaluating and appreciating evidence in a\ncriminal trial, the test to be applied is 'of beyond all reasonable\ndoubt'. The testimony of PW 2, however, grossly fails this test. To\nrely on his opinion when there is 50% chance of it being incorrect\nwould be sheer injustice especially when the cardinal principle of\ncriminal law is to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.\nAdditionally, the valuation of jewellery was carried out as per the rates\nof year 2005. This, in the opinion of the Court, was unfair. Without\ncarrying out the essential exercise of working out as to which jewelery\narticle was of which period, to classify the entire lot including the 30%\njewelery which PW2 himself opined to be of pre­1996 period, as per\nrates of 2005 just doesn't stand to any legal logic. The Court is,\ntherefore, unable to accept the evidence of PW 2 as being logical and\ntrustworthy. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be\ngiven to the accused persons and the jewelery found in the ICICI Bank\nlocker has to be taken as that being of pre­1996 period. The value of\njewellery as estimated by PW 2 has to be deducted from the asset\nvalue attributed to accused Abha during the check period. Since, this\njewellery was contended to be stree dhan of Kanak Lata, Abha andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 212 of 352wife of Dr. Rajiv, no value of the same can possibly be ascribed for\nthe pre­check period because no valuation was proved by the defense\neither.Movable Assets:of accused Sanjiv Kumar130.             Transfer of Rs. 15 lacs (in 2 tranches of Rs. 5 lacs and\n10 lacs) from the account of Hukum Singh to the account of Sanjiv\nKumar in March and May 2000 - Accused Sanjiv Kumar has not\ndenied receiving the said amount but has rendered an explanation for\nthe same and as a consequence, claimed that it should be considered\nhis lawful income. It was submitted by accused Sanjiv K. that the\namount was transferred to his account pursuant to a loan agreement\nentered into between Dr. Rajiv Kumar and Hukum Singh who had a\ndoctor­patient relationship. This written loan agreement was entered\ninto on 8th March 2000. In his cross­examination, Investigating Officer\n(IO) as PW 46 admitted that he had sought a copy of the loan\nagreement but did not rely on it since he did not find it truthful. A\ncopy of this loan agreement was exhibited as Mark PW46/ DD and\nDE. Notice dt. 1.12.2007 was issued by the IO to Sanjiv Kumar to\nproduce the rental agreement and settlement agreement between Dr.\nRajiv Kumar and Hukum Singh in regard to flat no. 6357. However,\nthe IO could not furnish any explanation as to what was the basis forCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 213 of 352him not to believe in this loan document. Strangely enough,\nprosecution brought in the official from Gurgaon Grameen Bank,\nJharsa to prove the entries of transfer from the account of Hukum\nSingh in favour of Sanjiv Kumar but Investigating Officer made no\neffort to record the statement of Hukum Singh. In 2005 when the\nofficial of Gurgaon Grameen Bank was questioned by the IO, Hukum\nSingh had already expired by then which is reflected from the\nstatement of relevant witness PW 43 Kanwaljit Singh i.e. statement\nu/s 161 Cr. PC. However, this fact should not have stopped the IO\nfrom questioning the family members of Hukum Singh since as per\nthe loan agreement, in lieu of discharge of loan amount, the flat no.6357 was rented out to Hukum Singh and his family. The loan\ndocument itself mentions that the loan amount is to be used for the\nrenovation of flat no. 6357 and 6360. The subsequent loan discharge\nagreement executed in November 2003 gives details of how the loan\nstood discharged. Once these documents were before the IO, it was\nimperative for the IO to have carried out detailed investigation in this\nregard. At this stage, it again needs a highlight that had the IO\nquestioned Dr. Rajiv Kumar, if not Hukum Singh and his family, IO\nwould have been in a substantiated position to give a fair opinion on\nwhether or not the loan agreement and loan settlement/discharge\ntransaction was truthful. In the absence of any investigation on this\ncount, how does the Court rely on the mere opinion of the IOCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 214 of 352regarding the lack of truthfulness of the loan agreement and settlement\nagreement? Another very relevant aspect of this loan transaction is\nthat it stands recorded in the loan agreement itself that the loan\nagreement shall be disbursed either to Sanjiv Kumar or Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar. Since, Dr. Maheshwar Kumar was residing in\nDhanbad, and Sanjiv Kumar at that point was in a commanding\nposition as an IAS officer in Haryana, it seems only natural that the\nloan amount was transferred to the account of Sanjiv Kumar. The first\ntranche of Rs. 5 lacs was transferred in March 2000 which coincides\nwith the date of loan agreement which also is of March 2000. Further,\nthe loan agreement was for a period of 3 years and accordingly, the\nloan settlement agreement was executed in November 2003. These\nfacts cannot be ignored as mere coincidence and same convey the\nbelief of legitimacy of the loan transaction between Dr. Rajiv Kumar\nand Hukum Singh. Countering the allegation of ld. PP that the loan\nagreement was a fabricated document, accused Sanjiv Kumar was\nforceful in his submission that in March 2000 when the loan\nagreement was executed, it could possibly not have been in anyone's\ncontemplation that few years down the line, he would end up facing a\nbarrage of CBI investigations and thus to save himself, he should have\nprepared and kept with him a false loan document for the CBI to seize.\nThe Court agrees with the submission of accused Sanjiv Kumar on\nthis count. The transfer of Rs. 15 lacs in the account of Sanjiv KumarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 215 of 352from the account of Hukum Singh appears to be result of a loan\ntransaction entered into by his brother Dr. Rajiv Kumar. However, the\nplea of accused Sanjiv Kumar that it should be treated as his income is\nnot tenable, for the following reasons. First, it was a loan amount\nwhich necessarily had to be repaid. Second, and more importantly,\nSanjiv was not a beneficiary of this loan amount since this loan\namount was meant for renovation of the flats Nos. 6357 and 6360, as\nstands recorded in the loan agreement. Hence, this loan cannot be\ntreated as income of accused Sanjiv. Court will also like to clarify that\nthe lack of investigation by IO into the loan agreement does not in any\nmanner affect the finding of the Court that Dr. Rajiv acted as a front\nfor 'benami' acquisition of flat No. 6357 by accused Sanjiv.131.             Share transactions/investments by Sanjiv Kumar to\nthe tune of Rs. 2,51,71,200 crores and Abha Kumar to the tune of\nRs. 75 lacs during the check period - This 'asset' of Rs. 2.51 crores\nforms the nucleus of the allegedly disproportionate assets of Rs.\n4,08,81,202 amassed by Sanjiv Kumar during the check period. The\nsolitary basis for this allegation/charge was the statement recordedu/s\n161Cr.PC of Subhash Chander Gupta who was a share broker. Part\ncorroboration of the statement of SC Gupta was received in the form\nof (161Cr.PC) statement of RK Sharma who was a publisher and was\ninitially in contact with accused Sanjiv Kumar in an official capacityCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 216 of 352relating to award of tender of books when Sanjiv Kumar was the State\nProject Director for the World Bank aided Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan. As\nper RK Sharma who appeared as PW 47, accused Sanjiv Kumar asked\nhim to pay roughly 40% of the tender receipts (ostensibly as bribe\nshare of Sanjiv Kumar) to SC Gupta for investment in shares. RK\nSharma claims to have paid Rs. 96 lacs to SC Gupta on behalf of\naccused Sanjiv Kumar. In his statement to the IO, SC Gupta named\nRK Sharma as the one from whom he had received several tranches of\ncash on behalf of accused Sanjiv Kumar for investment in equities, in\naddition to having received money in cash and cheques from Sanjiv\nKumar and on his behalf from different sources.132.             SC Gupta ran 2 entities which dealt in share broking for\nprivate clients ­ Vandana Investments and AVI Capital. The statement\nof SC Gupta recorded by the Investigating Officer explains in detail as\nto how on multiple occasions and at different places, cash was\ncollected either directly from Sanjiv Kumar or from his family\nmembers, or from his associates including RK Sharma. The statement\nof SC Gupta u/s 161 Cr. PC is a very detailed one especially since he\ngave detailed break­up of all the cash and other amount which he\nallegedly received on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar. This witness is also\ncrucial to the other major limb of prosecution Charge which is\nconcerning investment in shares to the tune of Rs. 75 lacs by AbhaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 217 of 352Kumar in another share broking entity - Cosmos Management\nLimited. A brief mention of the same is being made in the succeeding\npara since it will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence led\nagainst Sanjiv Kumar as also Abha Kumar.133.             In February 2001, as is revealed from the statement of SC\nGupta recordedu/s 161Cr.PC and certain exhibited documents, AVI\nCapital Ltd. wrote to Cosmos Management informing it and owning\nup deposits made by Abha to Cosmos Management i.e. of Rs. 67 lacs\nwhich included Rs. 7 lacs by transfer and rest were cash receipts, by\nstating vide 2 written communications/letters that it had deposited\nvarious 'cash' amounts through Abha from January 2000 to July 2000.\nAccording to SC Gupta, these letters were written at the asking of\nSanjiv Kumar, and he further stated that Sanjiv even gave a draft letter\nfor this purpose. This draft letter, allegedly given by Sanjiv Kumar to\nAVI Capital, was seized by the CBI from the office of SC Gupta and is\na part of exhibited record as Ex. PW 46/D10. Pursuant to these\ncommunications by AVI Capital, all the shares of Abha Kumar held\nby Cosmos Management Ltd. were transferred to the Demat a/c of\nAVI Capital in Standard Chartered Bank. The prosecution case thus\nsubstantially hinged on the testimony of this witness.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 218 of 352134.             There is a 3rd witness in the complex picture of alleged\nshare investments by accused Sanjiv Kumar - Ram Avtar Aggarwal\n(PW 25). He was an acquaintance of accused Sanjiv Kumar.\nProfessionally, he was a chartered accountant and also ran a financial\ninvestment company. His statement recorded by the IO also partly\ncorroborated the prosecution Charge. He informed the IO about\npurchasing 22000 shares of Raymonds from SC Gupta for Rs. 29 lacs.\nApparently, 22000 shares of Raymonds were purchased by SC Gupta\nat the behest of/asking of Sanjiv Kumar for an undisclosed 3 rd person\ni.e. as per the 161Cr.PCstatement of Ram Avtar Aggarwal. However,\nSC Gupta was never paid for these shares either by Sanjiv Kumar or\nthe undisclosed 3rd person. Subsequently, SC Gupta approached Ram\nAvtar Aggarwal requesting him to purchase these 22000 shares. Ram\nAvtar Agggarwal informed the IO about an MOU dt. 1.4.2001 (Ex.\nPW 25/B, file D­35) signed between him and SC Gupta for purchasing\n22000 Raymonds shares belonging to Sanjiv Kumar. This MOU was\nadmitted by Ram Avtar Aggarwal in his court testimony also as PW\n25 but he twisted his stand to depose that these shares had been bought\nby Vandana Investment (owned by SC Gupta) for him. Strangely\nenough, the witness also admitted that his statement was recorded by\nthe CBI officer. However, when he was cross­examined by the ld. PP\n(after being declared hostile), he declined to admit that he had told the\nIO that shares purchased by him from SC Gupta were those which hadCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 219 of 352been purchased by SC Gupta at the behest of Sanjiv Kumar for an\nundisclosed 3rd person. When confronted with the relevant part of his\nstatementu/s 161Cr.PC, he stated it to be incorrect that he had\ninformed the IO about SC Gupta approaching him for purchase of\nshares held by him on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar. Significantly, even\nthough he denied this part of his statement, he did not disown his\nstatement recorded by the IO.135.             Before proceeding further, a special mention is required\nto be made in regard to Witness RK Sharma. This witness was an\naccused along­with Sanjiv Kumar in another case registered by the\nCBI against accused Sanjiv Kumar wherein Sanjiv Kumar had been\nCharged with accepting bribe in discharge of public functions. RK\nSharma was the alleged bribe giver but was made an approver\nsubsequently. The case was tried by a Special Court of CBI at\nChandigarh. However, the trial culminated in acquittal of accused\nSanjiv Kumar and other co­accused. During the course of trial of that\ncase, RK Sharma had alleged giving bribe to accused Sanjiv Kumar in\nthe form of making payments to share broker SC Gupta for investment\nin equities market on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar. The Ld. Special Judge,\nCBI Chandigarh, however, found no truth at all in the testimony of\nRK Sharma resulting in acquittal of Sanjiv Kumar.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 220 of 352136.             Before this Court in 2017, when RK Sharma was sought\nto be brought in as a witness at the stage of final submissions after\nprosecution had moved an applicationu/s 311Cr.PC, accused Sanjiv\nKumar approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi contending that\nRK Sharma had already deposed before the Special Court at\nChandigarh alleging that he had given bribe to him (i.e. Sanjiv K.) on\naccount of award of tender of publishing books and the concerned\ncourt had returned a finding that the witness was not credible at all.\nHowever, in the meanwhile, RK Sharma completed his testimony as\nPW 47. When RK Sharma was cross­examined before this Court by\naccused Sanjiv Kumar, he admitted that he had deposed before the\nSpecial CBI Court at Chandigarh about giving bribe to Sanjiv K. in\nthe form of cash to SC Gupta for investment in the share market.\nResultantly, Hon'ble High Court vide order dt. 24.5.2019, passed in\nCriminal Rev. no. 485 of 2017 gave liberty to accused Sanjiv Kumar\nto produce a copy of the judgment passed by the Ld. Special Judge,\nCBI, Chandigarh (vide which Sanjiv K. was acquitted) before this\nCourt at the stage of final arguments, after observing thatu/s 57of the\nIndian Evidence Act, trial court i.e. this Court was bound by law to\nconsiderthe said judgment. The aspect of RK Sharma's testimony\nbefore this court and before the Special Court of CBI at Chandigarh\nwill be taken up after discussing the testimonies of Ram Avtar\nAggarwal and SC Gupta.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 221 of 352137.             At the stage of deposing before the Court, both SC Gupta\nand Ram Avtar Aggarwal turned hostile.138.             SC Gupta appeared as PW 41. In his examination­in­\nchief, he completely denied having anything to do with Sanjiv Kumar,\nAbha Kumar or Kanak Lata. He out rightly denied having known\naccused Sanjiv Kumar. Though he stated that he might have met\nSanjiv Kumar for whom Tika Hasan Mustafa (known acquaintance of\nSanjiv Kumar and a co­accused in bribery case before Special CBI\nCourt at Chandigarh) had asked the Witness to do some work, he\ncategorically testified that accused Sanjiv Kumar was not the same\nSanjiv Kumar for whom Tika Hasan had asked him to do work. He\nfurther testified that he received cash and cheques from Tika Hasan in\nthe name of Sanjiv Kumar, and that he transacted shares in the name\nof Kanak Lata, Abha and one Amit Kumar on the instructions of Tika\nHasan. He also testified that profit and loss in share transactions were\naccounted for in the names as instructed by Tika Hasan. Having\ntestified so, SC Gupta then feigned ignorance about the names in\nwhich shares used to be transacted at the instance of Tika Hasan. SC\nGupta admitted to seizure of file D­50 by CBI from his office. On\nbeing shown Ex. PW 41/A­1 to A­4 (part of file D­50), SC GuptaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 222 of 352deposed that all (handwritten) details therein 1 were mentioned as per\ninstructions of Tika Hasan and further deposed that he received all\namounts from Tika Hasan and same were posted in different names as\nper instructions of Tika Hasan. On a specific query, he stated that he\nwas not aware as to why was Tika Hasan purchasing shares in\ndifferent names? SC Gupta admitted forward trading in shares list Ex.\nPW 41/ A­6 wherein name of Abha was mentioned but stated that it\nwas so mentioned on the instructions of Tika Hasan. He also admitted\nhaving made corrections in list Ex. PW 41/A­7 wherein name of Abha\nis mentioned and further admitted that the list contained names of\nclients dealing directly with him and those whose accounts were\nopened on the instructions of others. Similarly, though he admitted the\nforward trading difference sheets Ex. PW 41/ A­8 to A ­22 which\nmentions the name Abha, he followed it up by stating that the account\nwas opened as per the instructions of Tika Hasan.139.             In regard to the MOU dt. 1.4.2001 which was entered into\nbetween PW 25 RA Aggarwal and him i.e. SC Gupta, witness deposed\nthat all the shares transferred pursuant to the understanding were those\nof Tika and were transferred to Ram A. Aggarwal on the instructions\n\n1 Handwritten details included cash and cheques received by\nwitness from Sanjiv directly, Kanak Lata and from associates of\nSanjiv Kumar including R.K. Sharma and Nirmal Singh. Nirmal\nSingh was also a co­accused along with Sanjiv Kumar in the\nbribery case tried by the Special Court at Chandigarh.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 223 of 352of Tika Hasan.140.             Significantly, SC Gupta admitted having written 3 letters\nto Cosmos Management (which was the share broking firm in which\nAbha had allegedly paid money for investment in shares) i.e. Ex. PW\n41/B­1 to B­3 (file D ­35).141.             SC Gupta admitted handing over to the CBI forward\ntrading register Ex. PW 41/C (file D­78) and Daily Sauda Register\nsheets Ex. PW 41/D Colly (file D­61). However, witness clarified that\nthe prints were not taken in his presence but were already lying in the\noffice. The exhibition of these sheets was objected to by the accused\nsince these were without any certificate and without signatures.142.             SC Gupta further admitted that his statements were\nrecorded by the CBI officers on his visits to the CBI office but could\nnot confirm whether his statements was recorded on 19.2.2005 and\n3.1.2008.143.             In a very brief cross­examination by the accused persons,\nSC Gupta admitted that all the shares which were transferred from\nCosmos Mngmnt. to AVI Capitals were on the instructions of Tika\nHasan. Nothing more was put to the witness on behalf of the defense.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 224 of 352However, in the understanding of the court, this was the 2 nd most\nappropriate opportunity for the accused to conclusively link up all the\ncash investments by Abha with Tika Hasan. In an ingenious move,\ninstead of confirming from SC Gupta point blank whether the shares\ntransferred to AVI Capitals from Cosmos were the sole/exclusive\nshares purchased out of cash invested by Tika Hasan in Cosmos, SC\nGupta was merely given a suggestion that shares were transferred at\nthe asking of Tika Hasan. This appears to have been done purposely\nso as to create a doubt in the prosecution evidence and consequently,\nin the mind of the Court regarding Abha's involvement in cash deposit\nreceipts with Cosmos which were proved by PW 40 Seema. Infact, the\nCourt can decipher a discernable trend in the manner in which cross­\nexamination has been carried out of the relevant witnesses so as to\ncreate a doubt in their testimonies (instead of meeting out a clear\ndefense) and then to make use of the same at the stage of final\nsubmissions. As will be highlighted shortly hereinafter, prior to cross­\nexamination of PW 41, in case of cross­examination of PW 40 also,\ninstead of examining the witness with a clear defense, ambiguous\nquestions were put to the witness. However, accused persons had a\nsignificant opportunity to forcefully bring out their defense, all of\nwhich banks on Tika Hasan Mustafa's role, but instead only a doubt\nhas been sought to be created in the prosecution evidence. Admittedly,\ncreating a doubt in the prosecution evidence has always been theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 225 of 352primary endeavor of defense since benefit of doubt invariably is given\nto the accused but where a clear defense is available to the accused\nand she/he fails to bring up the defense effectively, merely creating\ndoubt in the prosecution evidence will not suffice especially since the\ndefense has no way to know, till the judgment has been pronounced,\nwhether at all it was successful in creating a doubt in the mind of the\nJudge. If the sole defense of accused Abha was that the cash deposited\nby her with Cosmos was of Tika Hasan, this was something which was\nin the special knowledge of the accused and to prove which, it was\nimperative for her to have brought in Tika Hasan in her defense.\nMaking clever use of the absence of Tika Hasan altogether from the\ncourse of investigation and trial, PW 41 left everything for Tika Hasan\nto explain knowing well that if prosecution did not array Tika Hasan\nas an abettor/accused, it would never have brought in Tika Hasan as a\nprosecution witness either. However, Tika Hasan who could have been\nthe best witness for the defense was not brought in for reasons best\nknown to the accused persons but for which the Court has its reason to\ntake an adverse view.144.             The court testimony of PW 25 Ram Avtar Aggarwal\npatently brings out that he was manifestly suppressing truth. In his\nchief­examination, he claimed that he did not know Subhash Chand\nGupta. However, he admitted the MOU dt. 1.4.2001 executed betweenCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 226 of 352him and SC Gupta on behalf of Vandana Investments. In cross­\nexamination by the ld. PP (after being declared hostile), witness\nadmitted that he had known Mr. Gupta of Vandana Investment since\n1992 when he was working with another share broking firm.\nInterestingly, Ram Avtar Aggarwal admitted that he met SC Gupta of\nVandana Investments at the house of Sanjiv Kumar after he had\nalready purchased the shares from Vandana Investment pursuant to the\nMOU dt. 1.4.2001 but regarding the name of Sanjiv Kumar\nmentioned in the MOU Ex. PW 25/B, offered to explain that Sanjiv\nKumar's name was mentioned in the MOU as a guarantor since he\nwas known to both him and SC Gupta, and there was still a deadlock\nbetween him and SC Gupta as to whether shares would be transferred\nfirst or amount will be paid first. Ram Avtar Aggarwal thus starkly\ncontradicted himself by first stating that he met SC Gupta at the\nresidence of Sanjiv Kumar after he had paid Rs. 29 lacs for the shares\nto Vandana Investments, and then offered clarification qua Sanjiv\nKumar's name in the MOU by stating that he was a guarantor for both\nsides to resolve the deadlock regarding the share transfer. It is clear\nthat he was trying to protect accused Sanjiv Kumar by offering the\nclarification as above. Once he admitted that he came to Sanjiv\nKumar's house and met SC Gupta there, after the share transaction\nhad been paid for to Vandana Investments, there was no occasion toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 227 of 352mention Sanjiv's name in the MOU since the share transaction had\nalready been paid for pursuant to the MOU. However, despite it being\npatent that PW 25 was protecting accused Sanjiv Kumar and further\nthat SC Gupta knew Sanjiv Kumar well2, there is not enough cogent\nevidence to hold beyond all reasonable doubt that these 22000 shares\nmentioned in the MOU dt. 1.4.2001 were held by SC Gupta for Sanjiv\nKumar. It needs a brief recapitulation that PW 25 in his statementu/s\n161Cr.PC had stated that SC Gupta had informed him that he had\npurchased 22000 Raymonds shares at the asking of Sanjiv Kumar for a\n3rd undisclosed person but after the purchase, had not been paid for the\nshares. Assuming the statement of Ram Avtar Aggarwal to be\nabsolutely true, it still doesn't prove either that accused Sanjiv Kumar\npaid money to SC Gupta for the purchase of shares or that the shares\nwere purchased and meant to be retained for accused Sanjiv Kumar.\nGoing a step further, since the MOU has been admitted by PW 25, at\nbest, it only goes to show that Sanjiv Kumar's consent was obtained\n\n2     Accused persons rely on PW 25's hostile testimony which\ndiscloses that PW 25 met SC Gupta at the residence of Sanjiv\nKumar which was possible only if they knew each other well.\nFurther, shares worth of Rs. 29 lacs were purchased by R A\nAggarwal vide the MOU which specifically mentions about Sanjiv\nKumar and which MOU has been admitted by SC Gupta also,\ndespite his hostile testimony. R A Aggarwal offers explanation that\nSanjiv Kumar was to furnish guarantee of both of them i.e. PW 25\nand PW 41 and even if this hostile testimony is to be accepted, it\nonly further proves that Sanjiv Kumar knew both RA Aggarwal and\nSC Gupta very well.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 228 of 352by Ram Avtar Aggarwal to buy out the shares from SC Gupta. To link\naccused Sanjiv Kumar with these 22000 shares, prosecution had to\neither prove supply of finance by him to SC Gupta, or that after Ram\nAvtar Aggarwal had paid Rs. 29 lacs to Sanjiv Kumar, same were\ntransferred to Sanjiv Kumar in some manner or that the cash received\nby SC Gupta in lieu of the shares was transferred to Sanjiv Kumar, in\nfull or part. It must be appreciated that prosecution had to prove a\nreasonable basis for PW 25 Ram Avtar Aggarwal to shell out a huge\nsum of money i.e. 29 lacs just to bail out SC Gupta with whom the\nprosecution has not able to prove any previous dealings of Ram Avtar\nAggarwal except this solitary MOU deal concerning 22000 Raymonds\nshares. Conversely, if the prosecution case is to be taken as un­\nrebutted, it cannot logically be accepted that having taken close to Rs.\n2.5 crores from Sanjiv Kumar and/or his family members and\nassociates, SC Gupta would be in a soup over how to get money from\nSanjiv Kumar for these 22000 shares. Additionally, so far as the MOU\ndt. 1.4.2001 is concerned, prosecution had to give a plausible\nexplanation as to why would have Ram Avtar Aggarwal helped out\nSanjiv Kumar by paying Rs. 29 lacs for the shares of Raymonds.\nProsecution has not led any evidence, infact not even leveled any such\nallegation that accused Sanjiv Kumar had helped Ram Avtar\nAggarwal in his official capacity or bestowed a favour on him in\nreturn of which PW 25 Ram Avtar might have helped accused Sanjiv.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 229 of 352Prosecution has thus sorely failed to lead the missing link evidence.145.             Ld. Public Prosecutor also placed significant reliance on\nthe testimony of SC Gupta who appeared as PW 41 during the course\nof which though he turned hostile and denied any association with\nSanjiv Kumar, Abha Kumar or Kanak Lata, yet he deposed that he\nmade investments in the name of Sanjiv, Abha and Kanak Lata at the\nasking of Tika Hasan Mustafa who, according to the court deposition\nof SC Gupta, was the one to supply all cash and thereafter issue\ninstructions to invest in the name of Sanjiv and Abha. PW 41\nconsistently maintained in his cross­examination by the ld. PP that all\ninvestments in different names were solely as per the instructions of\nTika Hasan. It was however, contended by the ld. PP that close family\nrelationship between Sanjiv Kumar and Tika Hasan has been squarely\nadmitted by the accused persons themselves. Infact, so far as\nallegation/Charge of share investment by Abha Kumar is concerned,\nit has been argued on behalf of accused Abha that the entire\ninvestment of 68 lacs which has been attributed to her was actually the\nmoney of Tika Hasan. With these facts and assertions of the accused\npersons in the back ground, ld. PP tried to build up the argument that\nTika Hasan acted merely as a front for the accused persons, and\nfurther that it would simply not be possible for any share broker to\ninvest money and buy shares in different client accounts even thoughCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 230 of 352he had never even met them! Ld. Sr. PP further highlighted the\nadmission of SC Gupta PW 41 that he had made entries in his own\nhandwriting in Ex. PW 41/A1 to A4 which records money received in\nmultiple tranches from Sanjiv, Kanak Lata, RK Sharma etc.146.             The above argument developed by the ld. PP appears to\nbe quite inviting at the first blush but if analyzed carefully, loses much\nof its sheen and is reduced simply to the status of a strong assumption.\nIn order to prove that SC Gupta's assertion about cash being supplied\nby Tika Hasan was wrong and was made only to save the accused\npersons, prosecution had 2 courses of action before it. First was to\nprove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Sanjiv or his\nallegedly dubious associates, accused Abha Kumar and accused\nKanak Lata paid money in cash/cheques to SC Gupta for investment\nin shares. Second was to bring in Tika Hasan as a PW to prove the\ncase against the accused persons. It is patent that prosecution would\nnot have brought in Tika Hasan as a PW against Sanjiv Kumar since\nTika Hasan himself had been arrayed as an accused along with\naccused Sanjiv Kumar in another CBI trial which was conducted by\nthe court of Special Judge, CBI at Chandigarh. In the said trial, Tika\nHasan was portrayed as a conduit of Sanjiv Kumar for accepting\nillegal gratification. It would have been thus a huge embarrassment for\nthe CBI to bring in Tika Hasan as a prosecution witness. Prosecution,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 231 of 352therefore, adopted the first course which was to try and prove that\naccused Sanjiv Kumar handed over Rs. 2.51 crores to SC Gupta for\ninvestment in shares. Towards this course of action, it cited 4\nwitnesses - Ram Avtar Aggarwal, Devender Kumar, SC Gupta and\nRK Sharma.147.             Testimony of Ram Avtar Aggarwal has already been\ndiscussed above in detail. Same is not helpful to the prosecution since\nhe turned hostile and even his statementu/s 161Cr.PC does not\nprovide any aid to the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused Sanjiv.\nR K Sharma appeared as PW 47 in a very 'strange manner'. This\nwitness was called in to testify at the stage when final arguments had\ncommenced. This is when accused Sanjiv moved to the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi against prosecution's request for bringing in of RK\nSharma as a PW since he had already deposed against Sanjiv Kumar\non similar allegations before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI at\nChandigarh but found to be not worthy of any credibility by the Court.\nNevertheless, his testimony was concluded whereupon Hon'ble High\nCourt gave accused Sanjiv Kumar the liberty to rely upon the\njudgment of Special Court, CBI, Chandigarh. Before this Court, RK\nSharma deposed about paying close to 90 lacs as bribe money to\nSanjiv Kumar but which was routed in the form of cash payments to\nSC Gupta for investment in shares. In his cross­examination, accusedCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 232 of 352Sanjiv Kumar did not contradict him with his previous testimony\nbefore the Special Court, CBI, Chandigarh but instead asked him\nwhether he had deposed about similar facts before the Special Court,\nCBI, Chandigarh. In response, RK Sharma admitted that he had\ndeposed about similar facts before the Special Court, CBI,\nChandigarh. During the course of final submissions, accused Sanjiv\nKumar repeatedly raised the argument of issue­estoppel qua the\ntestimony of RK Sharma so as to discredit his testimony/impress upon\nthe court to discard the same. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI, fairly admitted\nthat principle of issue­estoppel is applicable in criminal proceedings.\nHowever, ld. Sr. PP argued that in order to discredit the testimony of\nRK Sharma, accused Sanjiv had to contradict him with his previous\ncourt testimony. Court is unable to appreciate the argument put forth\nby ld. Sr. PP. The argument raised by accused Sanjiv Kumar was that\nonce the witness has already deposed about the issue of giving bribe to\naccused Sanjiv before another Special Court in a criminal trial where\nalso present accused Sanjiv was the prime accused, and same having\nbeen disbelieved by that Court, CBI could not have brought in RK\nSharma to depose about the same facts against accused Sanjiv Kumar\nin another case i.e. the present one. Accused Sanjiv Kumar's plea is to\ndiscard the testimony of PW 47 RK Sharma on the principle of issue­\nestoppel, and not to reject his testimony because witness has been\ncontradicted with his previous testimony. Accordingly, the plea ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 233 of 352issue­estoppel against the testimony of RK Sharma is available to\naccused Sanjiv Kumar since the witness himself admitted to deposing\nabout similar facts against accused Sanjiv Kumar in another trial\nwhere also the sole purpose of examining RK Sharma as a PW was to\nknow whether he had paid bribe to accused Sanjiv in the form of cash\nto SC Gupta for investment in share market. The Court, however, is of\nthe opinion that even without applying the principle of issue­estoppel,\nRK Sharma's testimony has no value, for the following reasons. In his\ntestimony before this Court, RK Sharma gave details of various cash\ntranches which were delivered by him to SC Gupta on behalf of\naccused Sanjiv Kumar. SC Gupta on the other hand denied having\nreceived any cash at all from RK Sharma on behalf of Sanjiv, Abha or\nKanak Lata. Thus, if the recipient has not supported the prosecution\ncase, the value of RK Sharma's testimony is as good as nothing since\nit is through SC Gupta that prosecution wanted to link up Sanjiv\nKumar with the alleged investment of Rs. 2.51 crores in the equities\nmarket. Once SC Gupta turned hostile and asserted that he was\nsupplied all cash by Tika Hasan, RK Sharma's testimony was a wasted\nexercise. Perusal of chief­examination of RK Sharma before this Court\nreveals that the witness admitted that he was awarded tender through\nthe open system and further that he was paid the dues for the tender of\npublishing books through the accounts department. This witness did\nnot even remotely link accused Sanjiv with the award of tender ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 234 of 352publishing the books or payments received from the Education deptt.\nregarding the tender. The corollary is that there was really no occasion\nfor RK Sharma to pay any bribe to accused Sanjiv, atleast as projected\nby the prosecution. In any case, RK Sharma's testimony as a bribe\ngiver to accused Sanjiv has been absolutely discredited by the Ld.\nSpecial Judge, CBI, Chandigarh. Infact, after RK Sharma was\npermitted to be brought in at a hugely belated stage, permission was\ngranted to accused Sanjiv to recall SC Gupta to further cross­examine\nhim since testimony of RK Sharma of giving bribe on behalf of\naccused Sanjiv was directly linked to SC Gupta. In his further cross­\nexamination, SC Gupta clarified that he knew RK Sharma since he\nwas dealing in shares in his own account. In this regard, an additional\nfact is relevant. There was another witness - Devender Kumar -\nwhose statement was recorded by the IO and which implicated\naccused Sanjiv Kumar in regard to handing over of money in cash by\nRK Sharma to SC Gupta but this witness was not brought in to depose\nfor which again prosecutor has to be blamed. Devender Kumar's\nstatementu/s 161Cr.PC revealed how his office in Niti Bagh was\nallegedly used by accused Sanjiv for handing over of cash to SC\nGupta through RK Sharma on multiple occasions. After being cited in\nthe list of witnesses, he was consciously dropped. When RK Sharma\nwas recalledu/s 311Cr.PC, permission was sought to summon\nDevender Kumar also but application was declined qua DevenderCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 235 of 352Kumar. CBI never went in appeal against the order declining\nsummoning of Devender Kumar despite it being noted by the ld.\nPredecessor in his order dt. 22.2.2017 that prosecution will examine\nthe implication of dropping of these 2 witnesses since the money trail\nfrom Sanjiv Kumar to SC Gupta was routed through these 2 persons. It\nwas after the passing of the above order that prosecution moved\napplication u/s 311 Cr. PC for summoning RK Sharma and Devender\nKumar. It needs a highlight that this Devender Kumar was also a PW\nin the court before the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh but had turned\nhostile. Nevertheless, his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC recorded during the\ninvestigation of this case implicated accused Sanjiv. Ld. Special\nJudge, CBI, Chandigarh while acquitting accused Sanjiv had noted\nthat the money trail between SC Gupta, RK Sharma and Devender\nKumar was not made out. Thus, prosecution at best has been able to\nraise a strong presumption of involvement of accused Sanjiv Kumar in\nshare transactions worth Rs. 2.51 crores, especially if we co­relate the\ntestimony of PW 25 regarding MOU dt. 1.4.2001 which has been\nadmitted by PW 41 also and the admission of PW 41 regarding Ex.\nPW41/A­1 to A­4 which are handwritten entries of money received,\nboth of which establish the familarity between Sanjiv Kumar and PW\n41 but there is simply lack of link evidence to conclude beyond\nreasonable doubt that accused Sanjiv Kumar had actually invested\nsuch money. Additionally, unless PW 41 had testified regarding theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 236 of 352total amount received from Sanjiv or on his behalf, there is no clarity\nas to how much money was invested by Sanjiv Kr.148.             The other important aspect regarding the relationship\nbetween AVI Capitals and Cosmos Management which concerns the\nshare investment of accused Abha Kumar shall now be addressed. It\nhas already been briefly highlighted above that AVI Capitals had\naddressed 2 communications to Cosmos claiming there in that Ms.\nAbha had been investing in AVI capitals on their behalf. Infact, 3\nletters were written by AVI Capitals to Cosmos. The first letter was dt.\n26.12.2000 the content of which conveyed that AVI Capital was\ninvesting on behalf of Abha. Subsequently, 2 more letters dt.\n19.2.2001 were addressed to Cosmos Investments by AVI Capitals\nstating therein that it had been investing through Ms. Abha. In one of\nthese letters, AVI Capitals also gave a list all the cash investments\npurportedly made by Abha on behalf of AVI Capitals and a transfer\ndeposit of Rs. 7 lacs (which the Court assumes was deposited by Tika\nHasan in the account of Abha and which was further routed to Cosmos\nManagement, and qua which PW 40 specifally deposed also but she\nneither gave the date of transfer nor mentioned the receipt date).\nDuring the course of arguments, accused Sanjiv Kumar placed great\nreliance on the letters dt. 19.2.2001 (Ex. PW 41/B­2 and Ex. PW41/B­3) which contained details of cash investments by Abha on behalf ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 237 of 352AVI Capitals to contend that the receipts issued by Cosmos for the\ncash deposited by Abha was never the money of Abha herself. The\nletter dt. 19.2.2001 (Ex. PW 41/B­2 and Ex. PW41/B­3) contained list\nof all the cash deposits made by Abha regarding which PW 40 Seema\nMalhotra had deposed receipt wise except 2 payments which Abha\nKumar had paid for through cheques i.e. Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 1 lac. At\nthis stage of appreciation of evidence, what remains unexplained is\nthe need for AVI capitals to own up all the cash investment made by\nAbha?149.             Throughout the course of final arguments, it was stoutly\nmaintained by accused Sanjiv Kumar (arguing in person) as also by\nMr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir, ld. Counsel (appearing pro bono) for A­2\nand A­4 that all cash investments made by Ms. Abha in Cosmos\n(which stand proved by receipts issued in the name of Abha and\nfurther, admitted by her to have been deposited), was actually the\nmoney of Tika Hasan. Repeated reliance was placed on that part of\nchief­examination of PW­40 Seema wherein she stated that after cash\nwas handed over by Abha, 'it used to be confirmed from Tika Hasan'.\nThis also was the stand of Ms. Abha in her statementu/s 313Cr.PC.\nIn regard to the above highlighted portion of chief­examination of PW\n40, it was argued that when PW 40 mentioned about the fact of\nconfirmation from Tika Hasan qua the amount received from AbhaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 238 of 352Kumar, it was imperative for the ld. PP to have questioned her as to\nwhy would she confirm with Tika Hasan regarding the amount\nreceived from Abha? The absence of this question by the ld. PP forms\nthe basis for the accused persons to infer and conclude that the money\ninvested by Ms. Abha in Cosmos was of Tika Hasan alone.\nAdditionally, accused persons also placed reliance on an undated letter\n(Ex. PW40/A­1/DB), purportedly addressed by Tika Hasan to Seema\nMalhotra, vide which he had authorised Ms. Abha to trade on her\nbehalf. PW 40 Seema, in her cross­examination testimony, though\ninitially expressed ignorance about the authorisation given to Abha by\nTika Hasan, but when photocopy of the above letter was shown to her,\nstated that this letter 'might have been seen by her'. However, what is\nworth noting is the fact that the witness did not state that accused\nAbha Kumar had been authorised by Tika Hasan vide this\nauthorisation letter. Witness merely answered that she might have\nseen the letter. No further suggestion was given to the witness that\ninfact Abha Kumar was authorised vide this letter by Tikka Hasan to\ntrade on his behalf. When this letter was exhibited, the Court\nrecorded its specific observation that the letter was undated and did\nnot bear the seal or signature of Cosmos Mngmnt. as token of its\nreceipt.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 239 of 352150.             It needs a highlight that qua the testimony of PW 40\nSeema in regard to the authorisation letter, another argument was\nraised by accused Sanjiv Kumar. PW 40 Seema had also testified as a\nprosecution witness in another CBI trial against accused Sanjiv Kumar\nin which allegations levelled against him were of accepting illegal\ngratification. The said trial was conducted by Special Court, CBI at\nChandigarh and eventually resulted in acquittal of accused Sanjiv\nKumar alongwith co­accused. It was submitted by accused Sanjiv\nKumar that in the course of testifying before the Special Court, CBI,\nChandigarh, PW 40 Seema Malhotra (here­in) had appeared as PW 5\nand had deposed about investment by Abha Kumar in Cosmos but\ntherein, Seema Malhotra had specifically admitted that Abha Kumar\nhad been authorised by Tika Hasan to trade on his behalf. Relevant to\nhighlight that Tika Hasan was a co­accused alongwith Sanjiv Kumar\nin the above trial. This argument will be addressed a short while later.\nReverting to the testimony of the present trial, PW 40 Seema further\nadmitted that usually, without specific authorisation, one is not\nallowed to trade in the name of another. In the face of a strong pitch\nbeing made for the assertion that accused Abha was merely acting as\nan agent for Tika Hasan, the role of AVI Capitals in owning up all the\nshares purchased through cash investments by Abha remains\ncompletely unexplained? It has not been asserted by any of the\naccused persons that Ms. Abha was an agent of AVI Capitals also. IfCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 240 of 352that be the case, then why did AVI Capitals address letter dt.\n19.2.2001 to Cosmos Mngmnt. giving details of all cash investments\nmade by Abha and own them up with a further request to transfer all\nshare scripts in its Demat account maintained in Standard Chartered\nBank. PW 40 Seema was specifically questioned in cross­examination\non whether a person can trade on behalf of another without\nauthorisation to which she replied that 'ordinarily, this is not\npermissible'. If that be so, on what basis did Ms. Abha invest money\non behalf of AVI Capitals since admittedly, there is no authorisation\non record, brought by way of defense evidence/cross­examination, to\nshow that Abha was given written or even oral authorisation to trade\non behalf of AVI Capitals. Strangely enough, AVI Capitals in its\nletter dt. 19.2.2001 addressed to Cosmos Investments, wrote as under -Please recall the details or transaction done at your share\n          trading division through Mrs. Abha Sinha. We hereby\n          confirm the transactions........151.             The language used was purposely chosen so as to\nconvey/reflect past association of AVI Capitals with Cosmos\nManagement. However, PW 41 SC Gupta deposed nothing about the\ncommercial relationship between                  AVI Capitals and Cosmos\nInvestments. PW 40 Seema on the other hand deposed about Party\nLedger Computer Prints in the name of AVI Capitals which wereCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others            Page 241 of 352handed over to the CBI i.e. Ex. PW40/H­6 to H16 (in file D­55). If\nAVI Capital was already a client of Cosmos, why would it invest cash\nthrough Abha Kumar? The only inference which can be drawn from\nthe above is that AVI Capitals was persuaded to own up the cash\ninvestments of Abha with Cosmos. It also stands opposed to plain\nlogic that being a broker company/firm itself, AVI Capitals would\nopen its own trading account with another broker. Further, if the\nshares which were transferred from Cosmos to AVI Capitals were\nactually of AVI Capitals, then why were delivery instruction slips\nproved as Ex. PW40/F1 to Ex. PW40/F4 (file D­76) carrying the name\nof Abha Sinha? It needs a highlight that PW 40 Seema had\ncategorically deposed that shares used to be transferred from their\ndepository participant account with M/s. Abhipra Capitals vide the\ndelivery instructions. The argument raised by accused Sanjiv Kumar\nthat since no demat account of Abha was specified by the prosecution\nit would show that she was not trading on her own, stands answered\nby the fact that exhibited delivery instruction slips (in file D­76)\nclearly prove that shares in the account of accused Abha were stored\nin Demat form by Cosmos Mngmnt. with Abhipra Capitals which was\na share depository company for safe custody of shares in demat form.\nIn those times i.e. 1999, investors were not mandatorily required to\nhold a demat account as is the case now. Instead, system ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others    Page 242 of 352Depositories evolved.152.             Another fact now needs to be highlighted which shall\nfortify the observation of the Court that AVI Capitals really had no\nconnection with the cash deposited by accused Abha but was\npersuaded to own up the cash deposits. As per party ledger details of\nAbha proved as Ex. PW40/H1 to H16 (file D­55), Abha traded from\n1.4.99 to 31.3.2000 i.e. March 2000. The same document then shows\ntrading by AVI Capitals from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001. What is striking\nis that when AVI Capitals stepped in for trading, it had the same\ncustomer ID number which was given to Abha i.e. CMUS1. This fact\ncannot be a mere coincidence. If we now try to assess the contents of\nletter dt. 26.12.2000 which was the first letter addressed by AVI\nCapitals to Cosmos Management wherein AVI Capitals had\nmentioned that they were trading on behalf of Abha, and link it with\nAbha Sinha and AVI Capitals having the same customer number, it\nclearly shows that the contents of letter dt. 26.12.2000 actually\nrepresented true state of affairs i.e. cash investments/deposits were\nof Abha herself. It also needs a highlight that by the end of 2000, lid\non the JBT recruitment scam had come off and accused Sanjiv was\nbeing hounded by the State Govt. (as alleged by accused Sanjiv).\nInfact, the first vigilance case was registered against accused Sanjiv byCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 243 of 352April 2001 followed by a string of inquiries and FIRs. Thus, there is\nstrong reason to infer that letters dt. 19.2.2001 addressed by AVI\nCapitals to Cosmos owning up the cash deposits of Abha were actually\nan exercise of covering up the tracks of Abha's cash trading with\nCosmos Mngmnt. since by then accused Sanjiv had come on the radar\nof the then State Govt. in Haryana in a very offensive manner. It really\ndoesn't stand to reason that when AVI Capitals already had a trading\naccount with Cosmos Mngmnt. as already highlighted above, where\nwas the need to address letters dt. 19.2.2001, since admittedly the cash\ndeposits of Abha owned up by AVI Capitals also contained certain\ndeposits after March 2000, when AVI Capitals stepped in place of\naccused Abha. There is really no other inference which this Court can\ndraw, to the best of understanding of this Court, that AVI Capitals had\nonly substituted Abha in Cosmos Mngmnt. and was infact trading on\nher behalf after 31.3.2000 but when the Govt. of Haryana turned its\nheat on accused Sanjiv, the entire lot of cash deposits of Abha were\nowned up by AVI Capitals. Infact, accused Abha's continuing\nrelationship with Cosmos Mngmnt. even after 31.3.2000 is proved\nfrom Ex. PW 40/E­1 (colly) (file D­67) which contains forward\ntrading bills in the name of Abha. Some of these sheets i.e. Ex.\nPW41/E­1 (colly) even bear the signature of accused Abha.153.             Accused Sanjiv also argued that the shares transferredCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 244 of 352vide delivery instruction slips Ex. PW40/F1 to F4 were precisely the\nsame which were being shown in the party ledger account of AVI\nCapitals mantained by Cosmos. In this regard, accused Sanjiv should\nhave also pointed out that even Abha was trading in precisely the\nsame shares prior to AVI substituting her which further fortifies the\nconclusion of the Court that AVI Capitals was trading on behalf of\naccused Abha after March 2000 and not the other way around as the\ndefense has tried to project and argue. Surprisingly, on one hand the\nparty ledger account has been strongly objected to and denounced by\nthe defense as being of little evidentiary value on the ground that it is\nonly a bunch of loose sheets and on the other, in its written\nsubmissions, rely on the same party ledger document to contend that\nAVI Capital had an independent trading account with Cosmos. The\nCourt will also like to point out that admitted letters dt.19.2.2001\naddressed by AVI Capitals to Cosmos Mngmnt. owning up the cash\ndeposits by Abha Kumar clearly proves that SC Gupta knew accused\nAbha very well and thus plainly lied to the Court when he testified to\nthe effect that he had never met Sanjiv, Abha or Kanak Lata nor\nreceived any money from them for share investments but was\ntransacting in their names only on the instructions of Tika Hasan.\nInfact, merely by admitting the MOU dt.1.4.2001 executed with PW\n25, PW 41 tied a rope around his legs to trip for sure. The MOU itself\nmentions about how Sanjiv was linked to the 22000 shares which PWCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 245 of 35225 agreed to buy from PW 41 and as a corollary, it has to be inferred\nthat PW 41 knew Sanjiv also every well. The above discussion not\nonly proves the close relationship between AVI Capital/SC Gupta\nwith Abha and Sanjiv, but also proves beyond reasonable doubt the\nforward trading transactions of Abha by Vandana Investment Ex. PW\n41/A­8 to A­22 (file D - 50). The accused persons in their street\nsmartness to link up cash deposits of Abha with AVI Capitals forgot\nthat they are actually negating the beneft of hostile testimony of SC\nGupta. Having observed so, this Court still is unable to return a\nfinding that accused Sanjiv paid/supplied Rs. 2.51 crores to SC Gupta\nsince there is just no money trail to link them, as already highlighted\nabove. Even though SC Gupta's/AVI Capital's link with accused\nAbha and also Sanjiv stands clearly proved as highlighted above, yet\nthere is no clarity at all on how much money was paid by Abha or on\nher behalf, by accused Sanjiv to SC Gupta. Prosecution should have\nbrought in a financial expert to explain to the Court as to how much\nmoney was invested and reaped by Abha through forward trading.\nThough SC Gupta admitted certain entries in Ex. PW41/A­1 to A­4 to\nbe in his own handwriting which clearly mentions the money received\nby him from Kanak lata, RK Sharma, Sanjiv Kumar and Nirmal\nSimgh (he was co­accused with Sanjiv Kumar in bribery trial before\nthe Special CBI Court at Chandigrah), yet this fact is overshadowed\nby his hostile testimony that accused Sanjiv is not the same SanjivCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 246 of 352Kumar for whom he was investing money on the instructions of Tika\nHasan. The best evidence to link accused Kanak Lata with SC Gupta\nwas to prove the relevant account statement of a/c no. 16887 OBC,\nGurgaon (jt. a/c of Abha, Kanak Lata and M. Kumar) which as per the\ncharge­sheet, shows investments of close to 25 lacs by Kanak Lata in\nVandana Investments but for reasons best known to the ld. Prosecutor,\nonly the a/c opening form of the said account was proved leaving out\nthe crucial account statement.154.             Closely interwoven with the above issue is the assertion\nof accused Sanjiv and Abha that all the shares which were transferred\nto AVI Capitals by Cosmos were infact of Tika Hasan. For this\nassertion, accused persons relied upon one­line cross­examination of\nPW 41 SC Gupta wherein he admitted the suggestion that the shares\nwere transferred from Cosmos Mngmnt. to AVI Capitals on the asking\nof Tika Hasan Mustafa. This brief cross­examination was then heavily\nrelied upon by the accused persons to contend that infact whatever\nshares had been transferred from Cosmos to AVI Capitals, were\nactually the property of Tika Hasan. During the course of final\nsubmissions, accused Sanjiv Kumar (arguing in person) repeatedly\nhighlighted that vide a court decree/settlement, Tika Hasan and SC\nGupta had entered into a compromise and all the above shares were\ntransferred from AVI to Tika Hasan or so to say, were owned up byCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 247 of 352Tika Hasan. This Court twice asked accused Sanjiv Kumar to\nfile/produce a copy of the settlement between SC Gupta and Tika\nHasan but both times, the excuse given was that he was trying to get a\ncertified copy of the same but was finding it difficult. It is not\nunderstandable as to why could accused Sanjiv Kumar not simply get\na certified copy from Tika Hasan or ask him to apply for one and then\nproduce it in the Court, especially when Tika Hasan has all along been\nportrayed as the one closest to accused persons and someone who\nstood by Sanjiv Kumar and his family through the trying times. Not\neven an uncertified copy was placed on record.155.             The argument by accused Sanjiv Kumar that shares which\nwere transferred by Cosmos Mngmnt. to AVI Capitals were on the\ninstructions of Tika Hasan is also unacceptable for another strong\nreason. While owning up the MOU dt. 1.4.2001 with PW 25 Ram\nAvtar Aggarwal, SC Gupta deposed (in cross­examination by the ld.\nPP) that vide the said MOU, all shares which were purchased on the\ninstructions of Tika Hasan were transferred to Ram Avtar Aggarwal\nwhen transactions with Tika Hasan ended. He further deposed that it\nwas Tika Hasan who had sent Ram Avtar Aggarwal to him i.e. to SC\nGupta. This testimony of SC Gupta is on an absolutely different\ntangent when compared with the (hostile) testimony of Ram Avtar\nAggarwal who claimed that vide the MOU only those shares wereCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 248 of 352purchased by him which had been bought by Vandana Investment for\nhim. Further, if all shares/share investments of Tika Hasan had been\ntransferred to Ram Avtar Aggarwal by SC Gupta vide the MOU and\nthe transactions with Tika Hasan had ended, then in which context\nwas the court settlement arrived at between SC Gupta and Tika Hasan\nregarding shares which had been transferred from Cosmos to AVI\nCapitals, which SC Gupta claimed, had been transferred on the\ninstructions of Tika Hasan? These questions were for defense to\nanswer but it failed to afford any explanation.156.             Accused Sanjiv further argued that a/c no. 10027752 was\nof Abhipra Capitals and not of Abha Kr. This account number was\nmentioned in the Delivery Instruction Slips booklet of Abhipra\nCapitals ­ file D­76, and Party Legder of Cosmos Management - file\nD-75 A. It was argued that in file D­75 A, a/c no. 10027752 is first\nshown as account of Abhipra Capitals whereas on subsequent pages,\nsame a/c number is mentioned for accused Abha as well. In this\nregard, the Court will like to observe that the argument is plainly and\npurposely misleading. As already highlighted above, Abhipra Capitals\nwas a share depository company which was made use of by share\nbrokers/firms to keep the shares of their clients safe in demat form.\nAccount no. 10027752 was the account of Cosmos Management in\nAbhipra Capitals which is patent from the Delivery InstructionsCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 249 of 352booklet (file D-76). This instruction booklet was issued by Abhipra\nCapital on the top right corner of which it is clearly mentioned that it\noffered Depository Services, in addition to other financial services.157.             As a penultimate argument, accused Sanjiv highlighted\nthat client registration form of Abha was not verified by Cosmos but\nthen neither was that of Tika or his wife, as per PW 40. If accused rely\non Tika's client status with Cosmos to bail out accused Abha, then the\nsame argument has to be applied to Abha's status as a client of\nCosmos. The final argument in regard to this issue which was\naddressed by accused Sanjiv was that being a lawyer, Abha was\nhelping out Tika Hasan with his multiple litigations and that helping\nhim in his share trading was a part of this courtesy. The Court would\nlike to highlight that Abha was a briefless lawyer, if her IT returns\nduring the check period are to be believed. The professional income\ncolumn of the IT returns was conspicuously nil throughout the check\nperiod. If that was the state of her profession, it is anyone's guess that\nhow much would have she been helping out Tika Hasan professionally\nwith his 'multiple litigations' of which also no evidence has been led\nby the accused.158.             It has to be handed out to accused Sanjiv and Abha\nKumar that the manner in which they have tried to tie up all the looseCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 250 of 352ends was truly remarkable. First, all the cash investments of Abha to\nCosmos Management was owned up by AVI Capitals vide their letter\ndt.19.2.2001. Second, it was sought to be established that all the\nshares transferred to AVI Capitals from Cosmos was actually of Tika\nHasan and as a prelude to this line of defense, it was argued that Abha\nwas actually investing Tika Hasan's money. However, their wisdom\nfell short on 2 counts. If the shares which were transferred by Cosmos\nto AVI Capitals were of Tika Hasan, why is that the letter of AVI\nCapitals dt. 19.2.2001 which was addressed to Cosmos mentions about\n"their" transactions through Mrs. Abha and not Tika Hasan. There is\nnothing to even remotely connect Tika Hasan with the transfer of\nshares from Cosmos to AVI Capitals except the brief cross­\nexamination of SC Gupta (highlighted above). PW 40 Seema deposed\nabout transfer of shares vide Delivery Instruction Booklet Ex.\nPW40/F1 to F4 which mentions about Abha Sinha and not Tika\nHasan. Further, there is nothing to infer from the account opening\nform of Abha Kumar with Cosmos that she was to act as an agent of\nTika Hasan or of AVI Capitals for that matter. Infact, if at all she had\nto act as an agent of Tika, she could have simply done so on the basis\nof an authorisation letter. There was simply no need for her to have\nbeen enrolled as a client member with Cosmos unless the intention\nwas to actually trade on her own behalf. In any case, once Tika\nHasan's own wife was enrolled as a client member of Cosmos, in theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 251 of 352common course of things, his investments should have been handled\nby her and not by Abha Kumar, irrespective of how close the\nrelationship between them might have been. It just does not stand to\nreason that an educated wife of a senior officer of the Indian\nAdministrative Services, and herself coming from a highly reputed\nfamily of Dhanbad, would act as a cash courier agent for a friend, and\nespecially, when there is no tangible reason as to why would she even\nagree to act as a cash agent. The explanation given on her behalf that\nshe did it out of friendship and close family relationship is simply\nunacceptable. A lot of emphasis was placed on the 'absence' of a\nspecific question by the ld. PP while examining­in­chief PW 40 Seema\ni.e. why did he not question/probe PW 40 further when she said that\n"after cash was collected from Abha, it used to be confirmed from\nTika Hasan". This argument is a double­edged sword with the cutting\nedge being sharper on the side facing the accused. The Court would\nlike to observe that if it was such a pertinent question, why is that PW\n40 Seema was not cross­examined on this? Was it not the foremost\nrequirement of defense on behalf of Abha Kumar that a specific\nquestion should have been put to PW 40 with regard to the above\nhighlighted statement given by her in chief­examination? If the\naccused Abha was so desperate to prove her innocence, the first\nquestion which should have been put to PW 40 or alternatively,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 252 of 352suggestion given to her should have been whether the cash tranches\ndeposited by Abha was actually the money of Tika Hasan? Instead, in\nher street smartness, accused purposely refrained from questioning\nPW 40 on this issue and thought of making use of the absence of\nquestioning by ld. PP a rallying argument at the stage of final\nsubmissions. To pointedly question PW 40 Seema on this aspect,\nespecially since she had not been declared hostile, was the surest\nmanner for putting forth an effective defense of accused Abha that she\nwas merely an agent of Tika Hasan. However, this was not done since\nthe outcome of this course of action in all likelihood would have been\nadverse to accused Abha Kumar. From a reading of the cross­\nexamination of PW 40, it is not clear as to in what manner was the\nquestion put to her regarding 'confirmation sought from Tika Hasan\nafter cash was received from Abha', but it is clear that a straight\nquestion was deliberately avoided since the response of the same was\nlikely to be detrimental to defense of the accused. Thus, even in cross­\nexamination, a lacunae was left (deliberately by the accused)\nregarding 'confirmation from Tika Hasan after receiving cash from\nAbha Kumar'. How do the accused persons expect the Court to\nbelieve that Abha was merely depositing cash on behalf of Tika Hasan\nsolely on the basis of this one line which PW Seema stated in her chief\nand cross­examination? The presumption or inference which is to be\ndrawn, can be done both ways. The Court is equally entitled to inferCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 253 of 352that since Abha was introduced by Tika Hasan who was a known\ncustomer of Cosmos, every deposit of cash by Abha was cross­\nchecked by Seema with Tika Hasan whether the same has to be\ninvested in purchase of particular shares or for forward trading.\nAdditionally, if PW Seema's role was only to accept cash and none\nfurther as has been repeatedly emphasized by the defense, what\ndifference did it make to her whether cash was coming from Abha or\nsomeone else? Why would she even bother to ask Tika Hasan whether\ncash deposited by Abha was her own money or that sent by Tika\nHasan? And if at all the confirmation sought by Seema from Tika\nHasan was with regard to the source of money, why were the receipts\nissued in the name of Abha and even got signed by Abha and that too\non the next day? Atleast after confirmation from Tika Hasan, the\nreceipts should have been issued in his name if it really had been his\nmoney. It would have still been an arguable point if the receipts had\nbeen issued in the name of Tika Hasan but were signed by Abha as\nacknowledgment of cash deposited. Further, at the stage of leading\ndefense evidence, accused Abha chose not to examine anyone when\nthat was the most opportune moment for her to have brought in Tika\nHasan to fortify her defense. A specific query was put to the accused\nas to why was Tika Hasan not examined in defense of Abha Kumar, in\nresponse to which no convincing response came forth except to\ncontend that since prosecution had failed to discharge the prima facieCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 254 of 352burden of proving that Abha was investing her own money with\nCosmos, there was no need for the accused to bring any defense on\nthat count. Court has not been able to understand as to why was such\na conclusion drawn by the accused persons in the face of detailed\ntestimony of PW 40. Infact, failure of accused Abha Kumar to bring in\nits most effective witness Tika Hasan further confirms the opinion of\nthis Court that Tika Hasan would not have deposed in favour of Abha\nKumar.159.             So far as testimony of PW 40 Seema before the Special\nCourt, CBI, Chandigarh is concerned, it needs a highlight that Ld.\nSpecial Judge returned no finding on the testimony of Seema except\nto simply note that Seema had deposed about investment by Abha in\nshares. This is the reason why the plea of issue estoppel was so\nfervently raised qua the testimony of R.K. Sharma but not qua the\ntestimony of Seema Malhotra. Therefore, her admission before the\nSpecial Court, CBI at Chandigarh regarding Tika's authorisation to\naccused Abha is of no consequence.160.             A lot of stress was also laid on the absence of JL\nMalhotra from the list of witnesses, the person who was supposedly\nrunning the show of Cosmos Management. Highlighting the relevant\npart of testimony of PW 40 Seema, it was argued by accused Sanjiv asCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 255 of 352also by ld. Counsel for accused Abha and Kanak Lata that PW Seema\nadmitted in her court deposition that though she was a Director in\nCosmos Management, her role was confined to accepting cash\npayments and issuance of receipts. She further stated that all\ntransactions and settlements were handled by JL Malhotra and the\ndetails regarding the same would be in the knowledge of JL Malhotra.\nShe further deposed that there was a problem between Tika Hasan and\nJL Malhotra on account of 'bad delivery' of some shares. Relying on\nthe above, it was argued by the defense that prosecution deliberately\ndid not bring in the best witness i.e. JL Malhotra since had he been\nbrought in to testify, it would have been clear that Abha was merely\nan agent for Tika Hasan and did nothing more than deposit cash on\nbehalf of Tika Hasan. In this regard, the Court would like to observe\nthat need for the prosecution to bring in JL Malhotra would have\narisen had the Investigating Officer not been able to find a direct link\nbetween cash investments/deposits and accused Abha. Once the\nprosecution has been able to prove with the aid of PW 40's testimony\nthat Abha had enrolled as an independent client and that subsequently,\nhuge cash was deposited by accused Abha though in tranches (which\nAbha Kumar did not even deny except to offer clarification of being\nan agent of Tika Hasan), it was for the accused to explain the source\nof the money and its legitimacy. Therefore, absence of JL Malhotra as\na PW is of no aid to the defense plea, in the understanding of theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 256 of 352Court. The 'insignificance' of Seema as a PW was also repeatedly\nhighlighted by the defense at the stage of final arguments. The Court\nwould however like to observe that if Seema was really such an\ninsignificant part of Cosmos Mngmnt. and her only job was to accept\nmoney, why is that the purported authorisation letter issued by Tika\nHasan in favour of Abha was addressed directly to Seema and not to\nJL Malhotra?161.              It also needs a highlight that apart from the cash deposits\nby Abha with Cosmos Mngmnt., PW 40 Seema had also proved 2\ndeposits of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 1 lac respectively which deposits were\nmade through Cheques. These 2 cheques were exhibited as Ex.\nPW40/J1 and Ex. PW40/J2. The bank account from which these\ncheques were issued is in the name of Abha Kumar - A/c No. 019598,\nSyndicate Bank, Khan Market. The account statement of this account\nwas proved as Ex. PW26/A. However, instead of proving the relevant\naccount statement showing entries pertaining to these 2 cheques,\nprosecution proved account statement of the period June 2004 to\nJanuary 2005 which had limited relevance. Under 313Cr.PC.\nhowever, when these 2 cheques were put to Abha, her response was -\nI don't know. The Court believes that instead of her tepid response to\nthis important evidence, accused should have effectively denied that\nthese 2 cheques were never issued by her or that the bank accountCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 257 of 352does not belong to her. In the absence of a firm and clear reply from\nthe accused, it has to be taken as an admission on her part that these 2\ncheques were deposited by her from her account with Cosmos\nMngmnt. Relevant to highlight that even though AVI Capitals owned\nup all the cash deposited by Abha with Cosmos, these 2 cheque\ndeposits were conspicuously left out by AVI Capitals in their letter dt\n19.2.2001 to Cosmos. In regard to proof of this account being of\naccused Abha, it was argued by Sanjiv Kumar that the bank account\nwas not proved to be of Abha since the account statement proved by\nPW 26 was of account No. 90432010057525. This argument is not of\nany consequence since in the 161 Cr. PC statement of PW 26 Surjeet\nChopra recorded by the IO on 1.10.2007, he had mentioned old and\nnew account nos. i.e. 19598 and 90432010057525. Infact, both these\naccount nos. have been mentioned by accused themselves in their\nchart of statements A, B, C & D. It needs a highlight that the client\nregistration form of Abha with Cosmos Management which was\nproved by PW 40 also mentions the account No. 19598 from which\nabove 2 cheques were issued by her in favour of Cosmos. The Client\nregistration form of Cosmos Mngmnt. was attested by Syndicate Bank,\nKhan Market, possibly for the purpose of verifying the Bank Account.\nThere is thus no doubt that above mentioned 2 cheques were issued by\nAbha from her account mantained in Syndicate Bank, Khan Market.\nAnother argument raised by accused Sanjiv in regard to this accountCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 258 of 352was that there was no proof that these 2 cheques were deposited in the\naccount of Cosmos Management. It may be highlighted that PW 40\nwas not cross­examined at all on these 2 cheques. Not even a\nsuggestion was given to her that these cheques were never encashed\nby Cosmos. Further, it is inconceivable that Cosmos would have\nissued the receipts without realizing the cheques.162.             At this stage, the Court would like to deal with one\nspecific argument raised by accused Sanjiv on which almost feverish\nstress was laid. It was contended by accused Sanjiv Kumar that\nInvestigating officer had not collected even one share script in the\nname of either Sanjiv Kumar, Abha Kumar or Kanak Lata which was\na major investigative lacunae considering that the 2 major allegations\nof disproportionate assets were actually pertaining to investments by\nSanjiv Kumar and Abha Kumar in share market. Admittedly,\ninvestigation was lacking on that front but that does not form the\ncomplete picture. If we have a careful look at the testimony of PW 40\nand PW 41 and the documents admitted by them, it is revealed that\nAbha Kumar was dealing to a great extent in forward trading in which\nthere is actually no transfer of shares from the seller to the purchaser.\nForward Trading is now known as Future Trading. The modus\nadopted is that the investor simply pays specific margin money and\nbooks a certain number of shares for a future date at the priceCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 259 of 352available on that day. When the date arrives, depending on whether\nthere is rise or fall in share prices, the investor either makes money or\nincurs losses but there is no transfer of shares. This explains that\neven if IO had gone searching for share scripts in the name of Abha,\nhe would not have laid his hands on much. Accused Abha was thus\nsmart enough to invest majorly in forward trading. So far as share\nscripts in the name of accused Sanjiv is concerned, no separate\ninvestment was actually made in the name of Sanjiv but in the name of\neither Abha, Kanak or one Amit Kumar who the prosecution alleges to\nbe the fictitious name of Sanjiv Kumar. However, the IO should have\nstill investigated the Cosmos Mngmnt. account in Abhipra Capitals\nwhich was holding shares of clients of Cosmos Management in Demat\nform but lack of investigation on this count is not detrimental to the\nprosecution case.163.             In view of the above detailed discussion, so far as\ninvestments/deposits of Rs. 68 lacs which includes 2 deposits by\ncheques totaling Rs. 6 lacs by accused Abha with Cosmos\nManagement is concerned, this court has no doubt that the said money\nwas not of Tika Hasan but of accused Abha Kumar. This amount of\nRs. 68 lacs has not been reflected anywhere by Abha Kumar or Sanjiv\nKumar as being from their legitimate source of income. Infact, the\njoint plea of accused Abha and Sanjiv that the above amount was ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 260 of 352Tika Hasan disentitles them both to even contend that this income can\nbe explained. Accused Abha never took the plea that this amount was\nher own self­generated income. Accused Abha and accused Sanjiv\nKumar always had a joint household and therefore the irresistible\nconclusion is that Rs. 68 lacs (including Rs. 6 lacs deposited by\naccused Abha through cheques with Cosmos Management) was given\nto her by accused Sanjiv Kumar. Further, qua the acquisition of Bara\nHindu Rao property, it stands proved that booking of the property was\ngot transferred by Abha in her own name by paying 3 lacs which\nexpense/asset also she has not owned up which necessarily means that\nacquisition of this asset was never informed to the controlling govt.\nunder which accused Sanjiv was employed and further that neither\nSanjiv nor Abha are entitled to even contend that this asset can be\nexplained from their respective individual or combined incomes. Still\nfurther, this Court is of the clear opinion that flat no. 6357, Vasant\nKunj was the benami property of Abha and Sanjiv. Consequently, the\nsaid asset atleast to the extent of Rs. 6.5 lacs plus Rs. 2.5 lacs which\nSC Gupta admitted to have paid to KK Lal, has to be taken to be that\nof Abha and Sanjiv. It may be emphasised that SC Gupta's\nrelationship with both Abha and Sanjiv stands clearly established for\nwhich reason the payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs by SC Gupta to KK Lal\nstands proved to be that of Abha and Sanjiv especially since SC Gupta\nhad no connection whatsoever with KK Lal. In the acquisition of bothCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 261 of 352these immovable assets, accused Abha has actively assisted accused\nSanjiv.Credit of 1000 GBP on 12.8.2004 and 2000 GBP on 28.9.2004 in the\njoint ICICI a/c of Kanak Lata and Maheshwar:164.             The deposit of GBP 3000 in the jt. ICICI Bank account of\nKanak Lata and Maheshwar Kumar having cumulative value of Rs.\n2,48,310 was proved by PW 15. In cross­examination, witness\nclarified 2 important aspects - first, that the transfer of GBP was either\nthrough wire transfer or through foreign Demand Draft, and second,\nthat GBP cannot be deposited in cash. The prosecution has not been\nable to even remotely prove the link between these 3000 GBP and\naccused Sanjiv Kumar. Simply proving deposit of GBP in the jt.\nAccount of A ­3 and A ­4 does not prove in any manner that it was\nSanjiv Kumar's unexplained income. On the contrary, PW 15 proved\nthat the 3000 GBP were foreign remittance.Purchase of GBP 500 and US $ 200 by Maheshwar Kumar for Rs.\n43,627 in cash and purchase of GBP 300 and US $ 500 by Kanak\nLata for Rs. 44,417:165.             Purchase of the above­mentioned foreign currency wasCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 262 of 352not denied by the accused persons as the relevant witness was not\ncross­ examined at all. However, the plea raised was that money to\npurhase this foreign currency was gifted by Dr. Rajiv Kumar (son of\nA­3 & A­4) as reflected in his IT Returns. Prosecution was not able to\nprove that the amount spent on the purchase of this foreign currency\nwas supplied by accused Sanjiv. Even if it is not accepted that the\namount was gifted by Dr. Rajiv Kumar, even then this amount can not\nbe connected with accused Sanjiv. No plausible argument was put\nforth by ld. Sr. PP as to why should this amount spent by A­3 and A­\n4 be included in the expense of accused Sanjiv.Payment of Rs. 87994/­ as electricity bills from March 1999 to\nSeptember 2003 and Rs. 54600 as maintenance charges from June\n1996 to Decemebr 2003 of flat no. 15, Hope Apartments, in the\nname of Sanjiv Kumar:166.             The contention of accused Sanjiv Kumar in regard to the\npayment of the aforesaid electricity bills and maintenance charges was\nthat the same were paid by Mr. Rajeev Kumar (not the brother of\naccused Sanjiv) who had been appointed as an attorney by accused\nSanjiv by executing a power of attorney. Relevant prosecution\nwitnesses i.e. qua electricity bills and maintenance charges - PW 23 &\nPW 27 proved that the bills and receipts were issued in the name ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 263 of 352Sanjiv Kumar since he was the recorded owner of the flat but neither\nof them could specify as to who had paid the charges. PW 27 who was\na clerk in the HOPE Apartments Society did clarify that charges were\npaid by different occupants of the flats (for the above period) though\nreceipts were issued in the name of Sanjiv Kumar. It was thus argued\nthat Rajeev Kumar was a tenant in whose favour power of attorney\nhad been executed. However, perusal of the power of attorney Ex.PW46/D9 does not in any manner record that Rajeev Kumar was a\ntenant in the said Flat. Recitals of the attorney document infact show\nthat attorney holder had been given the power to induct tenants and\neven to dispose off the property by way of sale. There is nothing to\ninfer from the attorney document that Rajeev Kumar was a tenant\ninducted by Sanjiv Kumar. In any case, which landlord executes a\npower of attorney in favour of a tenant so as to give him authority of\nsale? Since Rajeev Kumar was at best a care­taker of the property,\neven accepting that he used to pay electricity bills and maintenance\ncharges, it has to be assumed that he was reimbursed by Sanjiv Kumar\nfor all such charges. So far as payment of maintenance charges are\nconcerned, the testimony of PW 27 does not prove in any manner that\nthe different occupants who paid the charges were actually tenants. No\ntenancy agreement has been brought on record except the power of\nattorney in favour of Rajeev Kumar. No evidence has been led to\nshow that Sanjiv Kumar was receiving rent by way of cheques fromCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 264 of 352different tenants or even from his attorney Rajeev Kumar who he\ncontends to be a tenant. In the very least, Rajeev Kumar could have\nbeen brought in as a defense witness to prove tenancy but the same\nwas not done neither was any other 'occupant' of the flat brought in to\ndepose that he ever occupied the premises as a tenent. As a corollary\nto the above, this Court holds that all electricity and maintenance\ncharges of the Flat for the above period were infact paid by Sanjiv\nKumar.Joint A/c no. 16887 in the name of Abha Kumar, Kanak Lata and\nDr. M. Kumar:167.             In regard to savings a/c no. 16887 in OBC Gurgaon, Rly\nroad branch, PW 24 proved the account opening form as Ex. PW 24/D\n(Colly) which clearly proves that it was the joint account of A - 2, A­3\nand A-4. This is the account in which maximum transactions were\ncarried out during the check period. Even in the charge­sheet, this\nspecific account was highlighted to show that A-4 Kanak Lata had\ninvested close to Rs. 25 lacs i.e. vide 2 cheques of Rs. 18 lacs and Rs.7 lacs, in Vandana Investments owned by SC Gupta. There was also a\ncheque of Rs. 24 lacs issued in favour of PNB and a deposit of Rs. 24\nlacs in this account. Strangely enough, and I must observe that this\nwas a serious flaw on the part of the conducting prosecutor, evenCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 265 of 352though account opening forms were proved (though even here\nprosecutor did not bother to ensure that certified record is brought in)\nthe account statement was not proved at all even though it was\navailable on file which left out the entire period of heavy transactions\nin the account and most importantly, the 2 heavy cheque payments\nvide which Kanak Lata purportedly invested Rs. 25 lacs with\nVandana Investments. Had the prosecutor cared to get the account\nstatement of relevant period proved from PW 24, link evidence to\nconnect Kanak Lata with SC Gupta would have been clear and\nabsolute but for the absence of which, PW 41 SC Gupta was able to\nflatly deny that he ever received any money from Abha or Kanak Lata.Elec. Bills for the period Nov. 2K to feb. 2005 for flats no. 6357 and\n6360 Vasant Kunj and fixed line telephone bills for the above 2 flats\nfor the period 30.4.2001 to 20.1.2005168.             Electricity bill for flat no. 6357 for the above period was\nRs. 44170 issued in the name of recorded owner KK Lal and for flat\nno. 6360 bill was Rs. 146070 issued in the name of recorded owner\nPrasanna Kumar. The bill amounts have been objected to on the\nground that the same were computer generated statements without the\nmandatory certificateu/s 65 Bof the Indian Evidence Act. However,\nperusal of the relevant document shows that for flat no. 6357,\nelectricity bill amounting to Rs. 19,621/­ were handwritten bills andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 266 of 352hence, did not require any certificate u/s 65 B. Similarly, for flat no.\n6360, electricity bill amounting to Rs. 52,117/­ are handwritten bills\nwhich can be considered to be admissible per se since they were\nproved by an official from the electricity department. Since, Sanjiv\nKumar has been held to be in possession of flat no. 6357 being the\nbenami owner, he is held to have paid electricity bills amounting to\nRs. 19,621/- whereas Dr. M. Kumar is held to have paid electricity\nbills amounting to Rs. 52,117/­.Telephone bills generated by MTNL for phones installed in flat no.\n6357 and 6360 Vasant Kunj for the period 24.4.2001 to 28.1.2005.169.             The details of the telephone bills (in file D - 62) were\nobjected to since they were computer generated sheets without\ncertificationu/s 65 Bof the Indian Evidence Act. Rs. 38,052 was paid\nfor the above stated period in respect of telephone in the name of Dr.\nMaheshwar Kumar in flat No. 6360 and Rs. 35214 was paid in respect\nof telephone in the name of Dr. Rajiv Kumar in flat No. 6357.\nHowever, in the opinion of the Court the bills proved by PW 34 are\nadmissible since the bills bear the official stamp of the relevant telcom\nOfficer of the MTNL and have been proved by an official from the\nMTNL. Consequently, expense of telephone bills as above is accepted\nas incurred by Dr. M Kumar and accused Sanjiv respectively.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 267 of 352170.             The Court will now consider the chart A, B, C(i), D and C(ii) which was submitted by the accused persons wherein they have\n    sought benefits of additional income, reduction in asset/asset value\n    and in expenditure for the check period.STATEMENT A (Asset Value before the Check Period)\n\nSl. Detail         of Asset holder Amount as Benefit         Court's Observations\nNo. Assets                          per charge­ claimed by\n                                    sheet       accused\n                                                persons\n                                                vide their\n                                                chart    dt.06.11.2020\n1       Flat no. 15, Sanjiv Kr.     9,82,400    None\n        Hope\n        Apartment,\n        Part       II,\n        Gurgaon\n2       SB A/c no. Sanjiv Kr.       194         None\n        15469      in\n        OBC,     Rly.\n        Road,\n        Gurgaon\n3       A/c no. 7617 Mr.     Sanjiv 1,552       None\n        in Allahabad Kumar\n        Bank, Panipat4       A/c No. 6765 Mr.     Sanjiv 102         Nonein    Canara Kumar\n        Bank,\n        Panipant\n        Main.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 268 of 3525       Abha Sinha        Abha Sinha       8,71,917   None\n        in his income\n        tax return for\n        assessment\n        year 1996­97\n        has\n        mentioned\n        assets     and\n        property\n        worth      Rs.\n        8,71,917 as\n        on 31.03.96\n6       Plot no. 1995     Abha Kumar 19,163           None\n        of 350 Sq\n        Yds, Sector­\n        28,\n        Faridabad,\n        HUDA\n7       SB A/c no.        Abha Kumar 500              None\n        15666        in\n        OBC,      Rly.\n        Road,\n        Gurgaon,\n8       PPF A/c no.       Abha Kumar 20,100           None\n        11/1810      in\n        SBI,        PB\n        Division,\n        Dhanbad\n9       Jewellery         Locker in the 4,00,000      Benefit         Necessary finding already\n        found        in   name of Mrs.                claimed in      given    and    same      is\n        locker     no.    Abha Kumar,                 Chart B at      reproduced in Chart B at sr.\n        609,     ICICI    Smt. Kanak                  sr. no. 20      no. 20\n        Bank, Vasant      Lata and Dr.                i.e. chart of\n        Kunj, Delhi,      M. Kumar of                 assets at the\n        valuated by                                   end        of\n        Govt. valuer                                  check\n        Vijay Goel                                    period\n        PW 2\n10      PPF A/c no.       Dr. M Kumar 5,300           None\n        1310      NewCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 269 of 352no.\n     01P00900557\n     in SBI, PB\n     Division,\n     Dhanbad\n\n11   Building at Dr.                    5,50,000   None\n     Dhanbad        Maheshwar\n     constructed    Kumar\n     by Dr. M\n     Kumar,      on\n     basis       of\n     power       of\n     attorney\n     executed by\n     his\n     daughters­in­\n     law in 1988\n\n12   Pension A/c Dr.                    18,345     None\n     no. 2268 in Maheshwar\n     Allahabad   Kumar\n     Bank,\n     Dhanbad\n\n13   SB A/c no.        Dr.     M. 22,503           None\n     470       in      Kumar and\n     Allahabad         Mrs. Kanak\n     Bank,             Lata\n     Hirapur\n     Branch,\n     Dhanbad\n\n14   Plot no. 1997 Mrs.        Kanak 19,163\n     of 350 Sq. Lata\n     Yds, Sector­\n     28,\n     Faridabad,\n     HUDACC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 270 of 352Total                          29,11,239/\n                                            ­\n15   Patna     Flat                                  Benefit of      The contention of           the\n     No.     438/B                                   Rs.             accused that it is an HUF\n     Boring Kanal                                    5,17,000/­      property is wrong. As per\n     Road (HUF                                       claimed by      the memorandum of partition\n     property)                                       contending      of HUF properties dt.\n                                                     that     this   14.02.1988, HUF stood\n                                                     property        dissolved     and     Property\n                                                     existed         marked as Flat B of Boring\n                                                     prior to the    Canal Road double storied\n                                                     check           property, fell to the share of\n                                                     period but      Kanak Lata alone, as per\n                                                     IO              memo         of      partition.\n                                                     deliberately    Additionally, no defense\n                                                     ignored the     evidence has been led to\n                                                     same.           prove that this property was\n                                                                     sold during the check\n                                                                     period. Accused rely on Dr.\n                                                                     Rajiv's ITR of AY 1998­99\n                                                                     to show sale of a property in\n                                                                     1998 but neither any sale\n                                                                     deed was produced in\n                                                                     defense evidence nor details\n                                                                     of purchaser were furnished.\n                                                                     Additionally, since 438 B\n                                                                     fell to the share of Kanak\n                                                                     Lata, Dr. Rajiv could not\n                                                                     have sold off this property.\n                                                                     Even admitting that this a\n                                                                     pre­check period asset, there\n                                                                     is no proof of the value\n                                                                     addition of Rs. 5,17,000 of\n                                                                     this property prior to the\n                                                                     check                  period.\n                                                                     Consequently, this asset\n                                                                     value cannot be added to the\n                                                                     share of accused persons\n                                                                     collectively    before theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 271 of 352check period.STATEMENT B (Assets at the end of the Check Period)\nSr.    Assets            Assets       Amount         Benefit          Court's Observation\nNo                       holder       as per         claimed by\n                                      charge­        Accused\n                                      sheet\n1      SB A/c no.        Sanjiv Kumar 1,08,729/­     Deduction of     CBI/prosecution has no\n       1410 Vijaya                                   Rs.              objection to this deduction,\n       Bank, Sector­                                 1,08,729/­       as per its reply to the charts\n       34,                                           from       the   submitted      by     accused\n       Chandigarh,                                   assets     has   persons. Hence the amount is\n                                                     been sought      to be deducted from the\n                                                     on         the   assets.ground that\n                                                     Sanjiv     Kr.\n                                                     received his\n                                                     salary in this\n                                                     account and\n                                                     also, interest\n                                                     accrued     in\n                                                     this account\n2      SB A/c no.    Sanjiv Kumar 2,101/­            Deduction of     This account balance was the\n       7617                                          Rs.     2,101    outstanding amount at the\n       Allahabad                                     sought on the    end of the check period and\n       Bank, Panipat                                 ground that it   hence can't be deducted\n                                                     should be a      being an asset. However,\n                                                     part of the      interest of Rs. 549 accrued\n                                                     income      of   in this account during the\n                                                     Sanjiv     Kr.   check period benefit of\n                                                     during check     which is to be given in Chart\n                                                     period.          C which is the income of\n                                                                      accused persons during\n                                                                      check period. Hence, Rs.\n                                                                      549 be added in Chart C inCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 272 of 352the income of Sanjiv Kr..\n3      SB A/c no.    Sanjiv Kumar 17,679/­           Deduction of     Relevant account statement\n       15469                                         Rs. 17,679/­     i.e. Ex. PW4/B (File D 13)\n       Allahabad                                     has      been    shows credit and debit\n       Bank, Hirapur                                 sought on the    entries during the check\n       Br., Dhanbad                                  ground that      period and hence, deduction\n                                                     there were no    cannot be permitted since\n                                                     transaction­s    this     is   the    amount\n                                                     in        this   balance/asset at the end of\n                                                     account          the check period. Hence, the\n                                                     during     the   deduction of Rs. 17,679/­ is\n                                                     check period.    denied.\n4      SB A/c no.    Sanjiv Kumar 1,279/­            Deduction of     CBI/prosecution admits that\n       3610                                          Rs. 1,279/­      the account statement has not\n                     (HUF)\n       Allahabad                                     sought on the    been proved. Hence, Rs.\n       Bank, Hirapur                                 ground that      1,279/­ is to be deducted\n       Br., Dhanbad                                  prosecution      from the asset value of\n                                                     could      not   Sanjiv Kr.\n                                                     prove     this\n                                                     account.\n\n\n5      Six IDBI          Sanjiv Kumar 30,000/­       None             This    is     an    admitted\n       Flexi Bonds                                                    document by the defense i.e.\n       Dated                                                          Ex. Z­54 (file D­74).\n       23.04.01\n\n6      Two ICICI         Sanjiv Kumar 10,000/­       None             This    is     an    admitted\n       Tax Saving                                                     document i.e. Ex. Z­14 &\n       Bonds date                                                     Ex. Z­15 (file D­23).\n       30.04.03\n                                                         CBI/prosecution could not\n7      DDP no 10155 Sanjiv Kumar 1,25,000/ Deduction     prove this account and\n       Allahabad                 ­         of        Rs. hence, amount of Rs.\n                    (HUF)\n       Bank,                               1,25,00/­     1,25,000/   has   to   be\n       Hirapur,                            sought     on deducted from the asset\n                                           the groundCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 273 of 352Dhanbad                                       that           value of Sanjiv Kr.\n                                                     prosecution\n                                                     could      not\n                                                     prove     this\n                                                     account\n8      National          Sanjiv Kumar 5,000/­        None           This     is   an    admitted\n       Saving                                                       document i.e. Ex. Z­37/1\n       Certificate                                                  (file D­21).\n9      NSC no            Sanjiv Kumar 5,000/­        None               This  is     an    admitted\n       21DD001593                                                       document i.e. Ex. Z­76 (D­\n                                                                        22).\n10 Sanjiv Kumar Sanjiv Kumar 50,000/­                Deduction of       The argument of Defense\n   (HUF) in his (HUF)                                Rs. 50,000/­       that no witness or seller has\n   IT Return for                                     as asset           been brought by prosecution\n   assmnt. Yr.                                       sought on the      to prove the asset is is not\n   2000­01 to                                        ground that        tenable as the amount Rs.\n   2004­05 has                                       prosecution        50000/­ is mentioned by\n   mention­ed                                        has not            Sanjiv Kr. in his IT return of\n   one flat at                                       proved this        AY 2005­06, Prosecution\n   Gurgaon                                           asset i.e. Flat    had no requirement to prove\n   (DLF) for Rs.                                     at DLF,            this asset unless Sanjiv\n   50,000                                            Gurgaon.           Kumar denied this IT Return\n                                                                        during the course of trial.\n                                                                        This IT Return was proved\n                                                                        by PW 6 as Ex. PW 6/E and\n                                                                        no question was put to the\n                                                                        witness in a manner to deny\n                                                                        this ITR. Hence, the\n                                                                        deduction of Rs. 50,000/­ is\n                                                                        denied.\n11 National              Sanjiv Kumar 5,000/­        None               This     is  an  admitted\n   Saving                                                               document i.e. Ex. Z­37/4\n                         & Kanak\n   Certificate                                                          (file D­21).\n                         Lata\n   6NS/20DD\n   850782\n12 SB A/c no.            Abha Kumar 40,033/­         Deduction of Prosecution has not been\n   6000 OBC,                                         Rs. 40,033/­ able to prove that this\n   Pkl., Haryana                                     as           amount was the balanceCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 274 of 352no witness      amount in this account at the\n                                                     has proved       end of check period. Hence\n                                                     the said bank    deduction is allowed\n                                                     account\n                                                     statement.\n13 PPF A/c no         Abha              3,35,100/­   Deduction of     There is balance of Rs.\n   11/1810 SBI,                                      Rs.              4,74,889/­ at the end of\n                      Kumar\n   PB Division,                                      3,35,100/­.      check period in this account\n   Dhanbad                                                            proved through Ex. Z­09\n                                                                      (file D­7) & it is an admitted\n                                                                      document. Therefore, asset\n                                                                      value at the end of check\n                                                                      period has to be taken as Rs.\n                                                                      4,74,889. However, out of\n                                                                      this amount, an amount of\n                                                                      Rs. 3,14,000/­ which is the\n                                                                      amount of subscriptions\n                                                                      deposited by Abha during\n                                                                      the check period, has to be\n                                                                      reduced from the expenses\n                                                                      of Abha Kumar as the said\n                                                                      amount has already been\n                                                                      reflected in her ITRs.\n14 SB A/c no.    Abha Kumar 8,779/­                  Deduction of     The account has not been\n   119                                               Rs. 8,779/­      proved by the prosecution\n   Allahabad                                         has been         and hence, Rs. 8,779/­ is to\n   Bank, Hirapur                                     sought on the    be deducted from the assets.\n   Branch,                                           ground that\n   Dhanbad                                           prosecution\n                                                     has not\n                                                     proved the\n                                                     account/acco\n                                                     ­unt\n                                                     statement.\n15 SB A/c no.         Abha Kumar 334/­               Deduction of     This is the amount balance at\n   15666                                             Rs.     334/­    the end of the check period,\n   OBC,                                              sought since     proved thorough Ex.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                      Page 275 of 352Gurgaon                                       the account      PW­4/A (D­14), which is a\n                                                  statement        handwritten document &\n                                                  being            does not require 65­B\n                                                  without 65­      Certificate  under    the\n                                                  B certificate.Evidence Act.      Hence\n                                                                   deduction of Rs. 334/­ is\n                                                                   denied.\n16 Assets             Abha Kumar 2,93,170/­       Deduction of     Statement B includes those\n   movable and                                    Rs.              assets which are in the hands\n   immovable                                      2,93,170/­       of the accused at the end of\n   held at the end                                has      been    check period, irrespective of\n   of check                                       sought on the    whether or not there was any\n   period as                                      ground that      addition during the check\n   shown in the                                   property at      period in the value of the\n   income tax         Rs. 30,000                  Ranchi and       property held before the\n   return filed by                                Gurgaon          check period. Accused want\n                      Rs. 70,000\n   Abha Kumar                                     were      sold   the Court to believe that 2 of\n   for assmnt.        Rs. 1,93,170                off    during    these properties were sold\n   year 2002­03.                                  the     check    during the check period since\n   1.Land at                                      period and       the same do not find a\n   Ranchi                                         also      that   reflection in Abha's ITR's of\n   2.Building at                                  land        at   the check period. However,\n   Dhanbad                                        Dhanbad was      the Court cannot proceed on\n   3.Land and                                     an asset in      this assumption. If the assets\n   House at                                       hand before      had been sold off, the\n   Gurgaon                                        the start of     accused person would have\n                                                  check period     definitely claimed benefit of\n                                                  along with       the same in the 'income\n                                                  properties at    during check period' but this\n                                                  Ranchi and       was evidently not done.\n                                                  Gurgaon.         None of the ITRs as claimed\n                                                                   by defense contains any\n                                                                   receipts of income or capital\n                                                                   gain tax liability. Hence\n                                                                   deduction of Rs. 2,93,170/­\n                                                                   is denied.\n17 Special Term       Abha Kumar 20,000/­         Deduction    If the prosecution has\n   Deposit                                        of       Rs. already granted benefit ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 276 of 352receipt no.                                   20,000/­ has     income on account of\n    776004 for 78                                 been sought      maturity of an investment\n    months                                        on         the   during the check period, the\n                                                  ground that      same cannot be extended to\n                                                  this     Term    mean that if an asset is\n                                                  Deposit was      created from the income, the\n                                                  a          re­   asset value will stand\n                                                  investment       negated. Any asset created\n                                                  of an earlier    during the check period and\n                                                  investment       standing at the end of check\n                                                  which            period will necessarily be\n                                                  matured          taken as asset in the hands\n                                                  during     the   of accused at the end of\n                                                  check            check      period.    Henceperiod. It was   deduction of Rs. 20,000/­ is\n                                                  further          denied.contended\n                                                  that benefit\n                                                  of maturity\n                                                  amount has\n                                                  already been\n                                                  given       to\n                                                  accused\n                                                  Abha        as\n                                                  income\n                                                  during     the\n                                                  check\n                                                  period.18 DCM Estate         Smt.  Abha 3,00,000/­       Deduction of     The acquisition of this\n   Plot               Kumar                       Rs.              'asset' has been discussed in\n                                                  3,00,000/­       detail in the 'Findings' and\n                                                  has     been     Court has concluded that\n                                                  sought on the    this asset was duly proved to\n                                                  ground that      be in the name of accused\n                                                  alleged asset    Abha as also the payment of\n                                                  was        not   Rs. 3 lacs by her to acquire\n                                                  proved in the    this asset. Hence deduction\n                                                  name        of   of Rs. 3,00,000/­ is denied.\n                                                  Abha.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 277 of 35219 Plot no. 1995, Mrs.  Abha 19163/­            Deduction          The acquisition of this asset\n   Sec­28,        Kumar                         of          Rs.    and the asset value has been\n   Faridabad,                                   19163/­ has        discussed in detail in the\n                                                been sought        'Findings'.     Court    has\n                                                on          the    concluded that this amount\n                                                ground that        of Rs. 19163 cannot be\n                                                this allotment     treated as an asset since no\n                                                was prior to       asset was created merely by\n                                                the      check     paying 1 instalment and\n                                                period and         further that this instalment\n                                                that beyond        was paid prior to the check\n                                                the        first   period. Hence, Rs. 19163 is\n                                                instalment,        liable to be deducted from\n                                                nothing            the asset value of Abha.\n                                                more       was\n                                                paid.\n20 Jewellery          Locker in the 14,79,084/­ Deduction of       The asset value of jewelery\n   found in           name       of             Rs.                has been discussed in detail\n   locker no.         AbhaKumar,                14,79,084/­        in the 'Findings'. Court\n   609, ICICI         Kanak Lata                has       been     concluded that testimony of\n   Bank, Vasant       and Dr. M.                sought       on    PW 2 was not logical and\n   Kunj, Delhi        Kumar.                    the ground         credible.      Consequently,\n   valuated by                                  that               this amount is to be\n   Govt. valuer                                 testimony of       deducted from the asset\n   PW 2                                         PW 2 and           value of Abha since the\n                                                his valuation      value of 70% jewelery which\n                                                report is not      was estimated by PW2 to\n                                                trustworthy.       have been acquired in the\n                                                                   check period,       has been\n                                                                   attributed to accused Abha.\n21 Flat no. 6357,     Dr.     Rajiv 14,00,000/­ Deduction          The acquisition of this asset\n   Sector­C,          Kumar (r/o                of         Rs.     has been discussed in detail\n   Pocket­6/7,        UK),                      14,00,000/­        in the 'Findings'. Court has\n   Vasant Kunj,                                 has      been      concluded that this property\n                      purchased on\n   New Delhi                                    sought from        was infact acquired benami\n                      19.11.99\n                                                the assets of      by accused Sanjiv and Abha\n                                                                   with the aid of PW 41 SC\n    In income tax                                 Sanjiv           Gupta and that Dr. RajivCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 278 of 352return for                                    Kumar      on    was merely a front. It has\n    assessment                                    the ground       been further held that it\n    year 2000­01,                                 that             stands proved that Rs. 6.5\n    Mrs. Abha                                     prosecution      lacs was paid from the OBC,\n    Kumar has                                     failed      to   Pkl. a/c of Abha, and Rs. 2.5\n    shown Rs.                                     prove     that   lacs was paid by SC Gupta\n    6,50,000 as                                   this property    with whom Sanjiv and Abha\n    advance for                                   was              had a close link. SC Gupta\n    Flat to Sh. KK                                acquired         further admitted that he had\n    Lal.                                          'benami' by      no link with KK Lal and he\n                                                  Sanjiv           did not even knew him,\n                                                  Kumar.           leading to the irresistible\n                                                                   conclusion that the money\n                                                                   was supplied by Abha and\n                                                                   Sanjiv to SC Gupta for\n                                                                   payment to KK Lal. Hence,\n                                                                   the asset value attributable\n                                                                   to Abha and Sanjiv is Rs. 9\n                                                                   lacs.\n22 SB A/c no.         Mrs.       Abha 1,393/­     Deduction        This account number has\n   19598 (New         Sinha                       of        Rs.    also been discussed in the\n   A/c no                                         1,393/­ has      'Findings' while evaluating\n                      (A/c opened\n   904320100575                                   been sought      evidence qua Abha's cash\n                      on\n   25) in the                                     on        the    investment in share market\n                      22.12.1999)\n   name of Mrs.                                   ground that      through Cosmos Mngmnt.\n   Abha Sinha at                                  relevant         Court has concluded that\n   Syndicate                                      witness PW       account no. 19598 was of\n   Bank, Khan                                     26 could not     accused Abha and further\n   Market, New                                    prove     the    that a/c no. 19598 is the old\n   Delhi                                          said account.    a/c no. of new a/c no.\n                                                                   90432010057525. PW 26\n                                                                   proved the statement of A/c\n                                                                   no 90432010057525 which\n                                                                   contains balance Rs. 1,393/­\n                                                                   at the end of check period.\n                                                                   Hence, this amount cannot\n                                                                   be deducted.\n23 ICICI Bank         Abha Kumar 10,07,365/­ Deduction of This a/c statement is an\n   A/c no.            &    Sanjiv            Rs.          admitted document i.e. Ex.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 279 of 352000701501139 Kumar                            10,07,365/­      Z­38 (file D­27). Amount of\n    , Vasant Kunj,                                has      been    Rs. 10,07,365 is balance at\n    Delhi. A/c                                    sought      on   the end of check period in\n    opened on                                     the ground       this account. Whether the\n    21.03.2003                                    that this a/c    amount reflected in the\n                                                  contains         account       is     legitimate\n                                                  entries     of   savings/receipts or not was\n                                                  sale        by   for the accused to prove but\n                                                  Sanjiv           the amount was validly\n                                                  Kumar       of   taken as asset at the end of\n                                                  his     HOPE     check        period.        The\n                                                  Apartments       prosecution has already\n                                                  flat        in   given benefit of the sale\n                                                  Gurgaon,         amount of HOPE Apartment\n                                                  Rs. 2.5 lac      flat to Sanjiv Kumar. The\n                                                  received         credit entry of Rs. 2.5 lacs by\n                                                  form Shobha      Shobha Singh has not been\n                                                  (DW        16)   added by the Court as an\n                                                  and      from    income since the testimony\n                                                  other            of witness was not found to\n                                                  savings and      be credible. Hence Rs. Rs.\n                                                  legitimate       10,07,365/­. Is not to be\n                                                  sources          deducted.\n\n24 SB A/c no.    Sanjiv Kumar 6,18,671/­          Deduction        Though this amount could\n   6064          &       Abha                     of         Rs.   not be proved by the\n   Oriental Bank Kumar                            6,18,671/­       prosecution at the end of\n   of Commerce,                                   has      been    check period, accused have\n   Panchkula                                      sought     on    claimed benefit of interest of\n                                                  the ground       Rs. 1,21,838/­ in this bank\n                                                  that             account by summoning a\n                                                  statement of     witness from the Bank. It is\n                                                  a/c was not      obvious that the interest is\n                                                  proved     by    paid on principal amount.\n                                                  the              To allow benefit of interest\n                                                  prosecution.     accrued in the account and to\n                                                                   deny the prosecution's\n                                                                   assertion of outstanding\n                                                                   amount in this account at theCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 280 of 352end of check period would\n                                                                  be anomalous. Once this\n                                                                  account is owned up by the\n                                                                  accused persons and the\n                                                                  interest credit entries, of\n                                                                  which the benefit accused\n                                                                  persons seek, is reflected\n                                                                  from the same account\n                                                                  statement which reflects Rs.\n                                                                  6,18,671 at the end of check\n                                                                  period i.e. file D 32 B, the\n                                                                  Court can legitimately take\n                                                                  this amount as an asset at\n                                                                  the end of check period.\n                                                                  Hence this amount cannot\n                                                                  be not deducted but interest\n                                                                  benefit is to be added in the\n                                                                  income chart.\n25 Pension A/c        Dr.Maheshwa 55,901/­        Deduction     The prosecution has not\n   no. 2268 of        r Kumar                     of        Rs. objected to the deduction\n   Dr.                                            55,901/­      claimed. Hence the amount\n   Maheshwar                                                    Rs. 55,901/­ is liable to be\n   Kumar in                                                     deducted\n   Allahabad\n   Bank,\n   Dhanbad\n26 Old A/c no         Dr. M.            1,709/­   Deduction       This amount is stands\n   119, New SB                                    of        Rs.   admitted by accused vide\n                      Kumar\n   A/c no.                                        1,709/­         document Ex. Z­11 (file D­\n   01190007742                                    sought on the   8). No plausible reason has\n   in SBI, PB                                     ground that     been given to include this\n   Div. Dhanbad                                   this amount     outstanding     amount   as\n                                                  is income of    income instead of asset.\n                                                  the accused.    Hence, deduction of Rs.\n                                                                  1,709/­ is denied.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 281 of 35227 PPF A/c no.  Dr.                M. 5,300/­        Deduction        This amount is the balance at\n   1310 New no. Kumar                                of         Rs.   the end of check period. The\n   01P00900557                                       5,300/­          balance before the check\n   in SBI, PB,                                       sought      on   period has been duly\n   Division,                                         the ground       considered in statement A.\n   Dhanbad                                           that     there   However, interest accrual\n                                                     was         no   benefit of Rs. 11,537/­ istransaction in   being given to the accused\n                                                     the account      under the income chart\n                                                     during check     during check period. Hence\n                                                     period and       deduction of Rs. 5,300/­ is\n                                                     only interest    denied.accrued\n                                                     during this\n                                                     period.28 Six ICICI Tax Dr.               M. 30,000/­       Claimed not      This particular amount has\n   Saving Bonds Kumar                                to be a part     been admitted by accused in\n   date 30.04.03                                     of DA.           document Ex. Z­16 (file D­\n   no. 77529                                                          23). The case is to be looked\n   date of                                                            in its entirety for conclusion\n   maturity                                                           whether a particular entry is\n   30.08.2006                                                         to be considered a part of\n                                                                      Disproportionate Assets or\n                                                                      not.\n29 Allahabad          Dr. M.            3,50,000/­   Claimed not      This particular amount has\n   Bank,              Kumar                          to be a part     been admitted by accused in\n   Hirapur,                                          of DA.           document Ex. Z­7 (file D­\n   Dhanbad A/c                                                        24). The case is to be looked\n   no. DDP                                                            in its entirety for conclusion\n   11044                                                              whether a particular entry is\n                                                                      to be considered a part of\n                                                                      Disproportionate Assets or\n                                                                      not.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 282 of 35230 DDP no.            Dr.          M. 59,742/­      Claimed not     This particular amount has\n   11188              Kumar                         to be a part    been admitted by accused in\n   Allahabad                                        of DA.          document Ex. Z­6 (file D­\n   Bank,                                                            24). The case is to be looked\n   Hirapur,                                                         in its entirety for conclusion\n   Dhanbad                                                          whether a particular entry is\n                                                                    to be considered a part of\n                                                                    Disproportionate Assets or\n                                                                    not.\n\n\n\n\n31 Flat no C­         Dr. M.            10,00,000/­ Claimed not     Detailed finding has been\n   6/6360, Vasant                                   to be a part    given qua the acquisition of\n                      Kumar\n   Kunj, Pocket                                     of DA.          this asset and Court has\n   6&7, New                                                         concluded that this cannot\n   Delhi.                                                           be treated as 'benami' asset\n   Purchased in                                                     of Sanjiv.\n   the year Dec.199932 National           Dr.               10,000/­    Claimed not     This particular amount has\n   Saving             Maheshwar                     to be a part    been admitted by accused in\n   Certificate                                      of DA.          document Ex. Z­37/9 (file D­\n                      Kumar\n   6NS/16EE                                                         21). The case is to be looked\n   492062                                                           in its entirety for conclusion\n                                                                    whether a particular entry is\n                                                                    to be considered a part of\n                                                                    Disproportionate Assets or\n                                                                    not..\n\n\n33 National           Dr. M.            10,000/­    Claimed not     This particular amount has\n   Saving                                           to be a part    been admitted by accused in\n                      Kumar\n   Certificate                                      of DA.          document Ex. Z­37 (file D­\n   No. 16EE                                                         22). The case is to be looked\n   459885                                                           in its entirety for conclusion\n                                                                    whether a particular entry isCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 283 of 352to be considered a part of\n                                                                       Disproportionate Assets or\n                                                                       not.\n\n\n34 Dr. M Kumar Dr. M.                   6,32,500/­   Deduction         This particular amount has\n   in his ITR for Kumar                              of         Rs.    been admitted by M. Kumar\n   assessment                                        6,32,500/­        in document Ex. Z­47/2 (file\n   year 2004­05                                      has      been     D­1A).       Defense       has\n   has mentioned                                     sought on the     addressed a very strange\n   following                                         ground            argument that ITR alone\n   movable and                                       that              cannot be the basis for\n   immovable                                         investment        treating an asset of the\n   properties                                        Of Rs. 50 K       accused and the prosecution\n                                                     on flat in        had to prove it even though\n    1. Building at                                   Gurgaon has       the document itself stands\n    Dhanbad                                          not      been     admitted by the accused. It\n                                                     proved      by    needs a highlight that during\n    2. Flat at                                       prosecution,      the     course    of     final\n    Gurgaon                                          that the land     arguments,           repeated\n    (DLF)                                            at Dhanbad        emphasis was laid on the\n                                                     cannot      be    assertion that ITR's have to\n    3. Cordless                                      taken to be       be accepted per se and in this\n    phone set                                        asset created     regard, judgments were also\n                                                     during check      cited. If this argument is\n    4. Microwave      Rs.                            period, and       accepted, the income of the\n                      5,50,000/­*                    cordless          accused persons will have to\n                                                     phone       &     be much reduced as a lot of\n                                                     microwave         benefit of ITR entries has\n                      Rs. 50,000/­*                  are        not    been given to the accused by\n                                                     questionable      the prosecution without\n                                                     assets.           physically verifying the\n                      Rs. 3,000/­*\n                                                     Further,     it   existence of those assets.\n                                                     has      been     Immovable property of Abha\n                      Rs. 29,500/­*                  contended         at Gurgaon and of M. Kumar\n                                                     that      ITR     in Dhanbad fall in this\n                                                     alone             category. Further, Statement\n                                                     cannot      be    B considers assets in the\n                                                     the basis for     hands of accused at the end\n                                                     counting the      of check period, whetherCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 284 of 352asset of Rs. acquired prior to check\n                                                  50000.       period or during the currency\n                                                               of the check period. None of\n                                                               the submissions regarding\n                                                               this deduction is logical.\n                                                               Hence, deduction Of Rs.\n                                                               6,32,500 is not permissible.\n35 Plot no. B­103     Dr.     M 7,76,000/­        Deduction of Amount of Rs. 1,76,000/­\n   in     Sushant     Kumar,                      Rs.          was reservation amount\n   Lok, Gurgaon,      Kanak Lata,                 1,76,000/­   deposited on 31.3.1996,\n   Haryana in the     Snigdha                                  immediately before the start\n   name of Dr.        Kumar UNG                                of check period and hence,\n   M. Kumar dt.       Sanjiv                                   deduction of Rs. 1,76,000/­\n   26.04.96           Kumar.                                   is to be allowed.\n\n\n                                                                It needs a highlight that\n                                                                Snighda Kumar was a\n                                                                beneficiary      of     this\n                                                                immovable       asset   and\n                                                                logically, the proportionate\n                                                                asset value should be\n                                                                transferred     to    Sanjiv\n                                                                Kumar (being her natural\n                                                                guardian) but the same is\n                                                                not being done since the\n                                                                prosecution has not been\n                                                                able to link payment of Rs.\n                                                                6 lacs with Sanjiv Kumar.\n36 SB A/c no. Kanak Lata                4,949/­   Deduction of This balance at the end of the\n   3609                                           Rs. 4,949/­  check period could not be\n   Allahabad                                                   proved by the prosecution\n   Bank, Hirapur                                               and hence, deduction is\n   Branch,                                                     allowed.\n   DhanbadCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 285 of 35237 Two ICICI          Kanak Lata        10,000/­     Claimed not      This amount is admitted by\n   Tax Saving                                        to be part of    accused as Ex. Z­12 (file D­\n   Bonds dt.                                         DA.              23(i)).\n   30.04.03, no\n   77528\n\n38 DDP no.        Kanak Lata            1,50,000/­   Claimed not      This amount is admitted by\n   11232                                             to be part of    accused as per document Ex.\n   Allahabad                                         DA.              Z­3 (file D­24(i)).\n   Bank, Hirapur,\n   Dhanbad\n39 DDP no.        Kanak Lata            50,000/­     Claimed not      This amount is admitted by\n   11297                                             to be part of    accused as document Ex. Z­4\n   Allahabad                                         DA.              (file D­24(i)).\n   Bank,\n   Hirapur,\n   Dhanbad\n\n40 DDP no.            Kanak Lata        1,25,000/­   Deduction of     The prosecution has no\n   10154                                             Rs.              objection to deduction of Rs.\n   Allahabad                                         1,25,000/­       1,25,000/­      claimed   by\n   Bank,                                             has     been     defense. Hence this amount\n   Hirapur,                                          sought on the    is liable to be deducted.\n   Dhanbad                                           ground that\n                                                     this account\n                                                     could not be\n                                                     proved.\n41 Rs. 4,25,000 Kanak Lata              4,25,000/­   Claimed not Acquisition of this     asset has\n   shown in the                                      to be a part been discussed in      detail in\n   sale deed of                                      of DA        the 'Findings' and     held not\n   Plot                                                           to be a 'benami'        asset of\n   purchased by                                                   Sanjiv Kumar.\n   Kanak Lata in\n   Dhumuspur,\n   Gurgaon.\n\n\n42 Valuation                            Rs.          Deduction\n                      Kanak Lata                                      The     defense   has    notCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                      Page 286 of 352Report of                           10,50,000/­ of         Rs.     produced any documentary\n    construction                                    7,50,000/­         evidence in support of this\n    on Dhumus­                                      has      been      claim that Dr. Rajiv invested\n    pur property,                                   sought on the      Rs. 7.5 lacs in construction\n    Gurgaon                                         ground that        of Dhumuspur property.\n    proved by PW                                    Kanak Lata         Rajiv Kumar is said to have\n    16                                              has invested       sold    some      assets   for\n                                                    only Rs. 3         construction of this property\n                                                    lacs whereas       but there is only reference of\n                                                    rest      was      a Maruti car in the statement\n                                                    invested by        of DW­9, which also does\n                                                    son Dr. Rajiv      not specify the amount for\n                                                    as reflected       which the same was sold.\n                                                    in the ITR's.      There is no reference of any\n                                                                       amount in Ex. DW 9/1.\n                                                                       Hence, this amount cannot\n                                                                       be deducted from the asset\n                                                                       value of Kanak Lata.\n43 Plot no. 1997      Kanak Lata        19,163/­     Deduction of      The prosecution assertion\n   Sector­28,                                        Rs. 19,163/­      that said property is duly\n   Faridabad,                                        has       been    reflected in statement A and\n   HUDA,                                             sought on the     subsisted till end of check\n   Haryana                                           ground that       period since the allotment\n                                                     this              was never cancelled, cannot\n                                                     instalment        be accepted. Detailed finding\n                                                     was        paid   in this regard has already\n                                                     pursuant to       been returned by the Court.\n                                                     allotment         Hence Rs. 19,163/­ is liable\n                                                     made prior        to be deducted from the\n                                                     to the check      assets of Kanak Lata.\n                                                     period.\n44 DCM              Kanak Lata          5,00,000/­   Deduction of      The acquisition of this asset\n   residential flat                                  Rs.               has been discussed in detail\n                                                     1,25,000/­        in the 'Findings'. Court has\n                                                     sought       by   given detailed reasons for\n                                                     contending        rejecting the contention thatthat this asset   this property was an HUF\n                                                     was               property. Hence, the amountCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 287 of 352purchased        of Rs. 1,25,000/­ is not to be\n                                                     from     HUF     deducted.funds     and\n                                                     hence is an\n                                                     HUF\n                                                     property\n                                                     having share\n                                                     of Dr. Rajiv\n                                                     to the extent\n                                                     of Rs. 1.25\n                                                     lacs\n45 00853575           Kanak Lata 6,000/­             Deduction        This amount is admitted as\n   SB Vasant          r/o    C­Pkt.                  of        Rs.    per document Ex. Z43/3\n   Kunj Post          627     6360,                  6,000/­          Colly. [file D­19(2)] and was\n   Office, Delhi      Vasant Kunj                    sought on the    the outstanding amount at\n                      Delhi.                         ground that      the end of check period.\n                                                     this amount      Defense version that this was\n                                                     was actually     interest     amount received\n                                                     interest         from MIS 00483817 is not\n                                                     income           tenable as no evidence is\n                                                     received         adduced on this behalf.\n                                                     from MIS a/c\n                                                     no. 483817\n                                                     which       is\n                                                     mentioned\n                                                     below at sr.\n                                                     no. 46.\n\n46 00483817                             3,00,000/­   Investment\n                      Kanak Lata                                    This amount is admitted\n   MIS Vasant                                        was     made through document Ex. Z43/3\n   Kunj Post                                         from           Colly. [file D­19(2)].\n   Office, Delhi                                     legitimate\n                                                     source\n                                                     through\n                                                     Cheque no.\n                                                     637613,\n                                                     ICICI Bank\n                                                     a/c        no.\n                                                     0007012285CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 288 of 3521147 00411659        Kanak Lata            12,500/­   Deduction of     Defense contention that this\n   RD      Vasant                                   Rs. 12,500/­     amount was transferred from\n   Kunj       Post                                  sought on the    the interest received in SB\n   Office, Delhi                                    ground that      a/c 00853575 Vasant Kunj\n                                                    this RD a/c      Post Office, Delhi is not\n                                                    received         tenable as there is nothing to\n                                                    amount from      infer that this a/c received\n                                                    savings a/c      amount from the above\n                                                    no. 853575 at    stated SB account at sr. no.\n                                                    sr. no. 45       45.\n                                                    which in turn    Hence the amount of\n                                                    received         Rs.12,500/­     cannot      be\n                                                    interest         deducted.\n                                                    income from\n                                                    MIS        a/c\n                                                    mentioned at\n                                                    sr. no. 46\n\n48 SB A/c no. Kanak Lata 6,465/­                    Deduction of     Since the prosecution could\n   470 Allahabad &                                  Rs.     6,465    not prove this account, this\n   Bank, Hirapur M. Kumar                           sought on the    amount is to be deducted\n   Branch,                                          ground that      from the assets of Kanak\n   Dhanbad                                          prosecution      Lata and M. Kumar\n                                                    could      not\n                                                    prove     this\n                                                    account.\n\n\n49 A/c no. 16887                   M. 19,052/­      Deduction of\n                      Dr.                                            This amount is required to be\n   OBC,      Rly.                                   Rs. 19,052\n                      Kumar,                                         deducted as the prosecution\n   Rd., Gurgaon,                                    sought on the    has not proved the account\n   A/c opened on      Kanak       Lata              ground that      statement but only the\n   02.06.97           &                             prosecution      Account opening forms &\n                      Abha Kumar                    did not prove    Specimen signature cards\n                                                    the a/c          have been proved. Hence,\n                                                    statement        amount of Rs. 19,052 is to be\n                                                                     deducted.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 289 of 35250 SB A/c no.         Kanak       Lata 2,47,486/­   Deduction        The argument advanced is\n   01960150740        &                             of        Rs.    not tenable. This is the\n   7                                                2,47,486/        balance at the end of the\n                      Dr.          M.\n                                                    sought on the    check period & carries\n                      Kumar\n                                                    ground that      multiple transactions in the\n                                                    Kanak            account, which have been\n                                                    Lata in her      proved through Ex. PW­\n                                                    ITR         of   15/A (file D­34). Hence this\n                                                    2005­06          amount cannot be deducted.\n                                                    mentions Rs.\n                                                    4583        as\n                                                    the balance\n                                                    in        this\n                                                    account.\n\n51 Statement of       Dr.      M. 1,67,288/­        Deduction of     This amount is admitted by\n   Account of SB      Kumar,                        Rs.              accused vide Ex. Z­39/D­28\n   A/c        no.     Kanak Lata,                   1,67,288/­       (Colly.). The said amount is\n   000701228511       Smt.   Abha                   sought     for   the balance at the end of\n    ICICI Bank,       Kumar                         which       no   check period. There is no\n    Vasant Kunj,                                    reason     has   reason to treat this amount as\n     New Delhi                                      been given.      income. Hence the benefit of\n                                                                     deduction of Rs. 1,67,288/­\n                                                                     cannot be given.\n                                                                     Court has given a detailed\n52 Flat no. B2­ Dr.        M. 19,52,000/­ Deduction of               finding on this asset and\n   301,    Power Kumar      &             Rs. 5,05,000               rejected the contention of\n   Welfare                                                           this property being an HUF\n                 Kanak Lata               sought on the\n   Organization,                                                     property. Prosecution has\n                                          ground that\n   Gurgaon                                                           however, not objected to the\n                                          this was an\n   Total cost of                                                     deduction of Rs. 5,05,000/­\n                                          HUF\n   the flat Rs.                                                      as share of Rajiv Kumar,\n                                          property with\n   20,32,300                                                         hence amount of Rs.\n                                          contribution\n                                                                     5,05,000/­ is deducted from\n                                          of         Rs.\n                                                                     the Rs. 19,52,000/­ and the\n                                          5,05,000\n                                                                     net asset of Kanak Lata and\n                                          coming from\n                                                                     M. Kumar reduces to Rs.\n                                          Dr.     Rajiv\n                                                                     14,47,000/­.\n                                          Kumar.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 290 of 352But, as per Ex. PW6/E\n                                                                   which is ITR of Sanjiv\n                                                                   Kumar HUF for the AY\n                                                                   2005­06 and which has not\n                                                                   been     controverted      by\n                                                                   accused     Sanjiv,    Sanjiv\n                                                                   Kumar invested            Rs.\n                                                                   4,51,000 in this property and\n                                                                   hence, Sanjiv Kumar's\n                                                                   asset value is to be added to\n                                                                   extent of Rs. 4,51,000.\n53 DDP        no. Dr.       M. 1,00,000/­         Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   11209          Kumar &                         to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   Allahabad                                      DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n                  Kanak Lata\n   Bank, Hirapur,                                                  any cogent manner, is not\n   Dhanbad                                                         being considered as DA.\n\n\n54 National           Dr.          M. 5,000/­     Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   Saving             Kumar                       to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   Certificate                                    DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n                      2. Kanak Lata\n   6NS/20DD                                                        any cogent manner, is not\n   850780                                                          being considered as DA.\n\n\n55 National           Dr.          M. 5,000/­     Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   Saving             Kumar                       to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   Certificate                                    DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n                      2. Kanak Lata\n   6NS/20DD                                                        any cogent manner, is not\n   850781                                                          being considered as DA.\n\n56 National           Dr.          M. 5,000/­     Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   Saving             Kumar                       to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   Certificate                                    DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n                      2. Kanak Lata\n   6NS/20DD                                                        any cogent manner, is not\n   236404                                                          being considered as DA.\n\n57 National           Dr.          M. 10,000/­    Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar andCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 291 of 352Saving            Kumar                       to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n    Certificate                                   DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n                      2. Kanak Lata\n    6NS/37EE                                                       any cogent manner, is not\n    949346                                                         being considered as DA.\n\n\n58 National           Dr.          M. 5000/­      Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   Saving             Kumar                       to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   Certificate                                    DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n                      2. Kanak Lata\n   6NS/31DD                                                        any cogent manner, is not\n   230529                                                          being considered as DA.\n\n\n59 National           Dr. M Kumar 5,000/­         Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   Saving                                         to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n                      2. Kanak Lata\n   Certificate                                    DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n   6NS/31DD                                                        any cogent manner, is not\n   230530                                                          being considered as DA.\n\n\n60 NSC         no.    Dr.     M. 5,000/­          Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   34DD 961314        Kumar and                   to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   purchased          Mrs. Kanak                  DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n   from Vasant        Lata                                         any cogent manner, is not\n   Kunj       Post                                                 being considered as DA.\n   Office, Delhi\n\n61 NSC         no.    Dr.     M. 5,000/­          Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   34DD 961315        Kumar and                   to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   purchased          Mrs. Kanak                  DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n   from Vasant        Lata                                         any cogent manner, is not\n   Kunj       Post                                                 being considered as DA.\n   Office, Delhi\n\n62 4 no of ICICI M.            Kumar 20,000/­     Claimed not      The assets of M. Kumar and\n   Tax     Saving and          Kanak              to be part of    Kanak Lata, unless linked to\n   Bonds       dt. Lata                           DA               accused Sanjiv and Abha in\n   30.11.99 No.                                                    any cogent manner, is not\n   12276­12279                                                     being considered as DA.\n   matured     onCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 292 of 35220.02.2003 for\n   Rs. 27,965\n63 SB 00853328        Snigdha           11,333/­   Deduction        The defense contention that\n   Vasant Kunj        Kumar                        of Rs.           this amount was transferred\n   Post    Office,                                 11,333/          from the interests received in\n                      d/o   Abha\n   Delhi                                           sought on        a/c no. 00483390 MIS & a/c\n                      Kumar\n                                                   the ground       no. 00483427 MIS\n                                                   that this a/c    SB Vasant Kunj Post Office,\n                                                   received         Delhi is tenable. Hence, the\n                                                   interest         amount of Rs.11,333/­ can\n                                                   accruing         be added to the income of\n                                                   from MIS         Abha Kumar.\n                                                   a/c of\n                                                   Snighda\n                                                   Kumar\n                                                   mentioned at\n                                                   Sr. 66 and\n                                                   67 (below)\n64 00411564           Snigdha           8,000/­    Deduction of     The defense contention that\n   RD      Vasant     Kumar                        Rs. 8,000/       this amount was transferred\n   Kunj       Post                                 sought on the    from the SB a/c 00853328\n                      d/o   Abha\n   Office, Delhi                                   ground that      Vasant Kunj Post Office,\n                      Kumar\n                                                   amount in        Delhi\n                      r/o C­Pkt,627                this RD a/c      is accepted, and hence, the\n                      6360                         was received     amount of Rs. 8000 can be\n                      Vasant Kunj,                 from savings     added to the income of\n                      New                          a/c              Abha.\n                                                   mentioned at\n                      Delhi                        Sr. No. 63.\n65    00411553        Snigdha           12,000/­   Deduction of     For the same reason as\n      RD Vasant       Kumar                        Rs. 12,000/      mentioned in respect of RD\n      Kunj Post                                    sought on the    a/c mentioned at Sr. no. 64,\n                      d/o   Abha\n     Office, Delhi                                 same ground      the contention is accepted.\n                      Kumar\n                                                   as mentioned     Hence, the amount of\n                      r/o C­Pkt,627                in respect of    Rs.12,000 can be added to\n                      6360                         RD a/c           the income of Abha.\n                      Vasant Kunj,                 mentioned at\n                      NewCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 293 of 352Delhi                          sr. no. 64\n66 00483390           Snigdha           2,00,000/­   Claimed not     This particular amount has\n   MIS, Vasant        Kumar                          to be a part    been transferred from a/c no.\n   Kunj       Post                                   of DA.          000701239298 which is in\n                      d/o   Abha\n   Office, Delhi                                                     the name of Snighda Kumar.\n                      Kumar\n                                                                     She had no independent\n                      r/o C­Pkt,627                                  income at that point of time\n                      6360                                           when the MIS was opened.\n                      Vasant Kunj,                                   This amount has thus to be\n                      New                                            attributed to Abha and Sanjiv\n                                                                     The case is to be looked in\n                      Delhi                                          its entirety for conclusion\n                                                                     whether a particular asset is\n                                                                     a DA or not.\n\n67 00483427           Snigdha           1,00,000/­   Claimed not     This particular amount has\n   MIS, Vasant        Kumar                          be a DA         been transferred from a/c\n   Kunj       Post                                                   which is in the name of Abha\n                      d/o   Abha\n   Office, Delhi                                                     and Sanjiv Kumar. The case\n                      Kumar\n                                                                     is to be looked in its entirety\n                      r/o C­Pkt,627                                  for conclusion whether a\n                      6360                                           particular asset is a DA or\n                      Vasant Kunj,                                   not.\n                      New\n                      Delhi\n\n\n68 00411571 RD        Ananya            20,000/­     Deduction of    The relevant document of the\n   Vasant Kunj        Prahersh                       Rs. 20,000      RD confirms the defense\n   Post   Office,                                    sought on the   assertion, and hence, this\n                      s/o   Sanjiv\n   Delhi                                             ground that     amount of Rs. 20000 can be\n                      Kumar\n                                                     this      was   added to the income of\n                      r/o 6360                       invested        Sanjiv.\n                      Vasant Kunj,                   from SB a/c\n                      New                            no.\n                                                     mentioned atDelhi                          Sr. No. 7069 00483431 MIS Ananya                  3,00,000/­   Claimed not     This particular amount hasCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 294 of 352Vasant Kunj Prahersh s/o                       to be a DA    been transferred from a/c\n    Post  Office, Sanjiv Kumar                                   which is in the name of Abha\n    Delhi                                                        and Sanjiv Kumar. The case\n                                                                 is to be looked in its entirety\n                                                                 for conclusion whether a\n                                                                 particular asset is a DA or\n                                                                 not.\n\n70 SB 00853345,       Ananya            10,000/­   Deduction of Defense assertion is correct.\n   Vasant Kunj        Prahersh                     Rs. 10,000/­ Hence, this amount is added\n   Post  Office,                                   sought on the to the income of Sanjiv.\n                      s/o   Sanjiv\n   Delhi                                           grounds that\n                      Kumar\n                                                   the source of\n                      r/o C­Pkt,627                investment\n                      6360                         was transfer\n                      Vasant Kunj,                 of    interest\n                      New                          from a/c no.\n                                                   00483431\n                      Delhi                        MIS, Vasant\n                                                   Kunj     Post\n                                                   Office\n\n71 Saving A/c no.     Ms. Snigdha 12,104/­         Deduction of This amount is the balance at\n   000701239298       Kumar under                  Rs. 12,104/­ the end of check period &\n   in ICICI Bank,                                               admitted. This is liquid asset\n                      Guardian,\n   Vasant Kunj,                                                 available with the account\n                      Abha\n   New Delhi                                                    holder and hence, this\n                      Kumar                                     amount       cannot        be\n                                                                deducted.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 295 of 352STATEMENT C\n                           INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD ­\n                                     01.04.1996 TO 16.02.2005\nS.                                       Amount as Benefit\nN          Particular         Date       per         claimed by       Court's observation\n                                         chargesheet accused\n                                                     persons\n                                                     vide their\n                                                     chart dt.\n                                                     06.11.2020\n        Salary       April 1996          8,363/­     No addition None\n1       income    of                                 claimed\n        Sanjiv Kumar\n                                                                 As per records supplied by\n2       Salary    of May 1996                        Addition of o/o Deputy Commissioner,\n        Sanjiv Kumar to                              Rs. 12000/­ Gurgaon i.e. file D­70 (iv),\n                     09.06.1996                      sought      Sanjiv has drawn salary of Rs.\n                                                                 1753 for the period 01.05.1996\n                                                                 to 21.05.1996. Further, he has\n                                                                 not drawn salary for the\n                                                                 period 22.5.1996 to 9.6.1996.\n                                                                 Hence, Rs. 1,753/­ is added to\n                                                                 his income.\n\n3       Salary      of 10.06.1996 71,355/­           Benefit of     Amount of Rs. 71,355 has\n        Sanjiv Kumar to 24.07.97                     addition of    been culled out from admitted\n        while being                                  Rs. 45,370     document Ex. Z­24(ii) which\n        posted      in                               to income      gives details of various\n        Haryana Civil                                has     been   components       of    salary\n        Secretariat                                  sought on      including gross pay andthe basis of   deductions. Ex. Z­74 on the\n                                                     Ex. Z­79       other hand does not give any\n                                                                    break­up of the salary\n                                                                    components for this period.Since,   both     are   admittedCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 296 of 352documents, the Court will go\n                                                                    by Ex. Z­24 (ii). Hence,\n                                                                    addition of Rs. 45,370 towards\n                                                                    income is denied.\n\n4       Secretariat       25.07.97 to 1,20,210/­     No benefit     None\n        Salary            02.11.98                   of addition\n        income of Sh.                                in income\n        Sanjiv                                       claimed\n        Kumar,\n        received from\n        the       O/o,\n        Administrati\n        ve    Officer/\n        Director\n        Primary\n        Education\n        (HR)\n        Salary                                       No benefit     None\n5       income of Sh.     03.11.1998 75,389/­        of addition\n        Sanjiv            to                         in income\n        Kumar,            15.06.1999                 claimed.\n        received from\n        the        O/o\n        HPSPP,\n        Chandigarh\n                                                                    None\n6       Income from 16.06.99 to 9,655/­              No benefit\n        salary as MD, 30.06.99                       of addition\n        Haryana                                      in income\n        Backward                                     claimed.\n        Classes,\n        Chandigarh\n\n7       Average      01.07.99 to 50,012/­            Addition of  The salary of 16 days at Sr.\n        Salary for 4 10.99                           Rs. 27,228/­ no. 6 was released without\n        months from                                  to income is any     deductions,   possibly\n        July      to                                 claimed on   because of the very short\n                                                                  tenure. However, Ex. Z­26 (3)\n         October                                     the   ground clearly mentions the salary forCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 297 of 352that salary     period from 16.06.1999 to\n                                                 for 15 days     30.06.1999 as well as for\n                                                 as      MD,     07/1999 i.e. July 1999. As per\n                                                 Backward        this exhibit net payable salary\n                                                 Class,          for July 1999 after deductions\n                                                 Haryana (at     is Rs. 11,790/­. Therefore,\n                                                 Sr. No. 6)      multiplying the same by 4, the\n                                                 was       Rs.   correct net salary amount for\n                                                 9655 which      4 months would be Rs.\n                                                 was       the   47,160/­. Infact, there has to\n                                                 immediately     be a deduction of Rs. 2852\n                                                 prior           from Rs. 50,012. Hence salary\n                                                 assignment      of Rs. 47,160/­ is considered\n                                                 of     Sanjiv   for this period of 4 months.\n                                                 Kumar. This\n                                                 amount of\n                                                 Rs.     9655\n                                                 has     been\n                                                 doubled to\n                                                 work      out\n                                                 salary of 1\n                                                 month and\n                                                 then\n                                                 multiplied\n                                                 by 4 (i.e. 4\n                                                 months) to\n                                                 arrive at a\n                                                 figure of Rs.\n                                                 77,240.\n                                                 Thus\n                                                 addition of\n                                                 Rs. 27,228\n                                                 has     been\n                                                 sought\n                                                 being     the\n                                                 amount over\n                                                 Rs. 50,012.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 298 of 3528       Income      as 11.99 to          1,93,999/­    No           None\n        Director Food 05.2000                          additional\n        &      Supply,                                 benefit\n        Haryana,                                       claimed\n        Chandigarh\n        for the period\n        11/99       to05/2000including\n        DA         and\n        Arrears.\n\n9       Salary         06.2000 to Rs.                  No           None\n        income      of 14.01.2001 1,12,030/­           additional\n        Sanjiv Kumar                                   benefit\n        received as                                    claimed\n        State Project\n        Director from\n        the       O/o\n        HPSPP,\n        Chandigarh\n\n10      Income from 15.01.01 to Rs. 92,927/­           No           None\n        salary      as 20.05.01                        additional\n        Joint                                          benefit\n        Secretary                                      claimed\n        Revenue\n        Deptt.,\n        Haryana for\n        the     period\n        15.01.01 to\n        20.05.01,\n        including DA\n        and Arrears\n\n11      Subsistence       21.05.01 to Rs.              Additional As per Ex. Z­78 & Ex. Z­79Rs. 76851 (file D­70 (i)), the contention\n\n        Allowance         31.05.2004      1,01,075/­   is claimed of the defense is tenable as\n        paid                                           on      the the salary for the periodCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 299 of 352ground that     21.05.2001 to 31.05.2004 is\n                                                   relevant        Rs. 1,77,926/­ after adding the\n                                                   bank            sum of salaries for the periods\n                                                   statement       21.05.2001 to 26.06.2001,\n                                                   which           04.12.2001 to 31.10.2002 &\n                                                   reflects the    01.11.2002 to 31.05.2004.credit of the   Hence, total salary/subsistence\n                                                   additional      allowance for this period is Rs.amount has      1,77,926/­.     Consequently,\n                                                   not     been    addition of Rs. 76851 is to\n                                                   considered.     be made in the salary income\n                                                                   of Sanjiv Kumar.\n\n\n12   Detail       of 06.2004 to       Rs. 30,108/­ No\n     salary          02.05                         additional      None\n     received from                                 benefit\n     Haryana                                       claimed\n     Secretariat,\n     Chandigarh.\n\n13   Income on         1. 1997­98     26,940/­     For      AY     The contention of the accused\n     account of                                    1997­98,        persons is without any merit.\n     Rental            2. 1998­99     61,315/­     income          While        depositing     tax\n     /Agriculture                                  claimed is      legitimately due to the Govt.,\n     of Sh. Sanjiv     3. 1999­00     78,500/­     Rs. 65000       they reduced their income by\n     Kumar                                         on the basis    taking benefit of notional\n     (HUF)             4. 2000­01     65,337/­     of income       repairs and now, in order to\n     reflected in                                  of       Rs.    enhance their income since\n     IT Returns of     5. 2001­02     74,666/­     29762     in    they are facing criminal\n     HUF Family                                    AY 1995­96      proceedings, they contend\n     for               6. 2002­03     65,830/­     since ITR of    that the said repairs were only\n     assessment                                    AY 1997­98      notional and hence need to be\n     years in the      7. 2003­04     44,754/­     was     not     added to the income. This\n     check period.                                                 amounts to double cheating.\n                       8. 2004­05     45,031/­                     Contention is accordingly\n                                                                   rejected. Infact, for AY 1997­\n                                                   available.      98 benefit of income cannot\n                       9. 2005­06     40,077/­                     be given since there is no\n                                                   For      AYCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 300 of 352Total          5,02,450/­   1998­99,     proof of filing of the IT\n                                                  income of return for this AY. There is\n                                                  Rs.67315 is just no basis to take the\n                                                  claimed.     income of AY 1997­98 as Rs.\n                                                               65000. Hence, the income\n                                                  For      AY\n                                                               benefit on the basis of these\n                                                  1999­2000,\n                                                               ITR's is restricted to Rs.\n                                                  income of\n                                                  Rs. 84500 is 4,75,510.\n                                                  claimed.\n\n                                                  For      AY\n                                                  2000­2001,\n                                                  income of\n                                                  Rs. 77201 is\n                                                  claimed.\n\n                                                  For      AY\n                                                  2001­2002,\n                                                  income of\n                                                  Rs. 79,666\n                                                  is claimed.\n\n                                                  For      AY\n                                                  2002­2003,\n                                                  income of\n                                                  Rs. 65832 is\n                                                  claimed.\n\n                                                  For      AY\n                                                  2003­­2004,\n                                                  income of\n                                                  Rs. 44,754\n                                                  is claimed.\n\n\n                                                  For     AY\n                                                  2004­2005,\n                                                  income of\n                                                  Rs. 45,301CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 301 of 352is claimed.\n\n                                                 For      AY\n                                                 2005­2006,\n                                                 income of\n                                                 Rs. 40,077\n                                                 is claimed.\n\n                                                 Total\n                                                 addition in\n                                                 income\n                                                 claimed is\n                                                 Rs. 96,698.\n\n                                                 This\n                                                 enhancem­\n                                                 ent has been\n                                                 sought on\n                                                 the ground\n                                                 that       IO\n                                                 wrongly\n                                                 took     into\n                                                 considerati­\n                                                 on        the\n                                                 deduction\n                                                 benefit\n                                                 claimed by\n                                                 accused\n                                                 towards\n                                                 1/3rd\n                                                 notional\n                                                 repairs\n                                                 permissible\n                                                 under theIT\n                                                 Act.       In\n                                                 other\n                                                 words,\n                                                 accused\n                                                 personsCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 302 of 352want     the\n                                                    notional\n                                                    repair\n                                                    deductions\n                                                    to be added\n                                                    to     their\n                                                    income.\n\n14   Patna Flat 1997 to               10,75,000/­   Addition of    Dr. Rajiv Kumar is not an\n     sold       by 2000                             Rs.3,25,000    accused in the present case.\n     whole                                          /to      the   So his share of Rs. 3,25,000/­\n     family    i.e.                                 income has     cannot be considered as a part\n                                                    been sought    of family income. Sanjiv\n     Dr.       M.\n                                                    on       the   Kumar         claims that he\n     Kumar,\n                                                    ground that    declared Rs. 3,25,000 as part\n     Kanak Lata,                                    this    was    of sale proceeds received bySh.    Sanjiv                                  share of Dr.   him in AY 2001--02. Be that\n     Kumar                                          Rajiv and      as it may, this flat cannot be\n     &Dr. Rajiv                                     hence          treated as an HUF property\n     during the                                     should be      since the HUF was dissolved\n     period 1997                                    added to the   in 1988 and there is no proof\n     to 2000                                        family         that a new HUF was\n                                                    income.        constituted consisting of M.\n                                                                   Kumar and his family. There\n                                                                   is no detail of which Patna flat\n                                                                   was sold for Rs. 14 lacs.    As\n                                                                   per the family partition deed,\n                                                                   the Boring Canal Road\n                                                                   property was divided into 4\n                                                                   parts. There is no clarity which\n                                                                   flat was sold so as to claim it\n                                                                   to be an HUF property.However, the IO has given\n                                                                   benefit of sale amount of Rs.10,75,000/­ to the\n\n                                                                   accused person in the charge­\n                                                                   sheet. Even though there is no\n                                                                   mention of any sale deed/saleCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 303 of 352date nor there is any\n                                                               observation of the IO that he\n                                                               checked up the documents\n                                                               pertaining to the sale of this\n                                                               property     but      since   the\n                                                               prosecution has also not\n                                                               objected to this income, the\n                                                               Court is allowing the benefit\n                                                               despite there being serious\n                                                               doubts about the authenticity\n                                                               of this sale transaction.Further, in Statement C of the\n                                                               charge­sheet, Sanjiv Kumar\n                                                               alone has been given income\n                                                               benefit of Rs. 10,75,000\n                                                               during the check period which\n                                                               is incorrect. Sanjiv Kumar's\n                                                               income      share      is   being\n                                                               restricted to Rs. 3,25,000 from\n                                                               the sale of this flat as has been\n                                                               claimed by him in his ITR.The remainder amount is\n                                                               being divided between M.\n                                                               Kumar and Kanak Lata. It also\n                                                               needs a clarification that\n                                                               merely because Dr. Rajiv\n                                                               Kumar had given a POA to\n                                                               Dr. M. Kumar to manage his\n                                                               HUF affairs in India would not\n                                                               mean that his income should\n                                                               also be added to that of M.\n                                                               Kumar.15   Survival                                     No           None\n     benefit of Rs. 28.04.2002 40,000/­           additional\n     40,000/­                                     benefit\n     received by                                  claimed\n     Sanjiv Kumar\n     against    his\n     LIC PolicyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 304 of 352no.\n     171578323.\n\n16   Price of flat                                  No\n     no. 15, Hope 2003                Rs.           additional   None\n     Apartment                        10,71,000/­   benefit\n     sold by Sh.                                    claimed\n     Sanjiv Kumar\n     in year 2003\n     to       Shri\n     Subhash\n     Saini.\n                                                                 This interest certificate was\n17   Interest        04.08.99 to 12,036/­           Rs. 3,330/­ proved by DW 2 to which no\n     earned from 05.02.2004                         is sought to objection was raised by the\n     Salary                                         be added to prosecution.    Hence,     Rs.\n     account no.                                    the income. 3,330/­ is to be added to the\n     1410        of                                              income.\n     Sanjiv Kumar\n     in      Vijaya\n     Bank,       br.\n     Chandigarh\n\n     2 ICICI Tax\n18   Saving Bonds                                   No\n     vide            28.02.2003 Rs. 13,983/­        additional   None\n     certificate no.                                benefit\n     12274         -                                claimed.\n     12275,\n     invested on\n     30.11.1999\n     by Sanjiv and\n     Kanak Lata.\n\n\n                                                                 Argument of adding notional\n\n19   Income      on Asst. Year        74,683/­      Additional repair deduction in the\n     account     of 1997­98                         income     income is meritless and\n     Rental etc. of                   65,355/­      benefit of amounts to cheating the Govt.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 305 of 352Smt.     Abha     1998­99                     Rs. 3,34,359   However, Ex. DW 19/3\n     Sinha       as                   1,03,281/­   has     been   shows gross total income of\n     reflected in      1999­00                     sought on      accused      Abha    as   Rs.\n     Income Tax                       62,725/­     the ground     1,48,129/­ & DW 19/4 shows\n     Returns for       2000­01                     that      IO   gross total income of Abha as\n     the       year                   65,886/­     wrongly        Rs. 1,34,011/­. Hence, benefit\n     1996, Income      2001­02                     considered     of Rs. 2,82,140/­ is added to\n     for the year                     78,361/­     notional       the income of Ms. Abha.\n     1997­98,          2002­03        5,75,250/­   repair         After addition her income\n     Income for        1999                        deductions     becomes Rs. 14,41,887/­\n     the       year                   1,34,206/­   of the ITR\n     1998­99,          2005­06                     and further\n     Income for                       11,59,747/   that income\n     the       year    Total                       for the year\n     1999­00,                                      2003     and\n     Income for                                    2004     was\n     the year                                      not\n     2000­01,                                      considered\n     Income for                                    by the IO as\n     the       year                                per his own\n     2001­02                                       admission.\n\n     Loans raised\n     in 1999 from\n     Sister  Smt.\n     Poonam\n     Singh,\n\n     Income for\n     the     year\n     2004­05\n     LIC Policy\n     no.                                           No\n20   60341988     April 2004          Rs.          additional     None\n     matured and                      1,04,900/­   income\n     Rs.                                           benefit\n\n     104900.00                                     claimed\n     was received\n     by     AbhaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 306 of 352Sinha.\n     Survival\n     benefits  of                                  No\n21   Rs. 20,000/­           Rs. 20,000/­           additional      None\n     received by 23.04.2002                        income\n     Abha     Kr.                                  benefit\n     against  her                                  claimed\n     LIC Policy\n     no.\n     171578339\n\n22   Dr.        M.     1998­99        1,50,920/­   Additional      Argument of adding standard\n     Kumar ­ his       1999­00        1,54,845/­   income          deduction amount to the\n     income from                                   benefit of      income of the accused M.\n     all    sources    2000­01        1,76,229/­   Rs.             Kumar is tenable. Standard\n     which he has                                  6,29,100/­ is   Deduction (SD) is the untaxed\n     mentioned in      2001­02        2,21,238/­   sought to be    income in the hands of the\n     IT return.                                    added     on    assessee.\n                       2002­03        1,99,215/­   the ground\n                                                   that income     For the AY 1998­99, Rs.\n                       2003­04        2,12,945/­   for the year    12000 as SD is to be added,\n                                                   1996­97 and     Rs. 20000 for AY 1999--00,\n                       2004­05        2,13,163/­   2004­2005       AY 2000­2001, AY 2001­02,\n                                                   has not been    AY 2002­03 and AY 2003­04.\n                       Total          13,28,555    considered      It needs a highlight that SD\n                                                   by the IO.      was raised to 30000 in the\n                                                   Further,        budget of 2003 and hence\n                                                   IO has not      benefit of 30000 SD was\n                                                   added           available for AY 2004­05\n                                                   Standard\n                                                   Deduction       Income for the year 1996­97\n                                                   limit           has not been considered by the\n                                                   amount to       IO since the ITR is not\n                                                   the income      available even with the\n                                                   of accused.     defense.    No     proof    of\n                                                                   furnishing of ITR of AY 1997­\n                                                                   98 has been furnished.\n                                                                   Therefore, plea of adding\n                                                                   average income of Rs.\n                                                                   1,70,000 for FY 1995­96 isCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 307 of 352declined. However, income\n                                                                   for the year 2004­2005 is to be\n                                                                   added as per the ITR of\n                                                                   AY 2005­2006 Ex. Z­47.\n                                                                   Consequently,          income\n                                                                   benefit of Rs. 4,49,099 is to\n                                                                   be given to Dr. M, Kumar\n\n     Dr.         M.                                No\n23   Kumar      has 2004­2005         92,000/­     additional      None\n     shown loans                                   benefit\n     and advance                                   claimed.\n     taken as per\n     IT Return for\n     assessment\n     year 2004­05\n     Interest                                      Addition of     The contention of defense that\n24   earned by Dr. 28.02.02 to        Rs. 3867     Rs. 764/­ to    Rs. 764/­ be added to the\n     M. Kr. in his 31.08.04                        the income      income as per Ex. DW 13/2 is\n     pension                                       has     been    correct & hence Rs. 764 is\n     account                                       sought.         added to the total income of\n     no.2268      in                                               M. Kumar.\n     Allahabad\n     Bank\n     Dhanabad\n                     1998­1999        75,785/­     Additional      The defense contention that\n25   Mrs. Kanak 1999­2000                          benefit of      income of Rs. 75,000/­ may be\n     Lata in his IT 2000­2001         1,11,798/­   Rs. 84,479/­    taken as an average for AY\n     Returns has 2001­2002                         to        the   1997­98 is not tenable as\n     mentioned       2002­2003        84,720/­     income of       there is no proof of income of\n     the following 2003­2004                       Kanak Lata      Kanak Lata for FY 1996­97.\n     income          2004­2005        79,496/­     has     been    Defense      has    also   not\n     including       2005­2006                     sought on       produced ITR of Kanak Lata\n     agriculture                      72,004/­     the ground      for AY 1997­98.\n     income          Total                         that Rs. 75K\n                                      59,374/­     should be       As per ITR of AY 2005­06,\n                                                   taken      as   the amount spent on repairs is\n                                      73,688/­     income for      Rs. 7,027/­ & not Rs. 9479/.\n                                                   AY 1997­98      The amount of Rs. 7027 is an\n                                      1,17,702/­   even though     expense. Hence, no benefit ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 308 of 352there is no income can be given        as6,74,567/­   proof of the claimed by the defense.same\n                                                   furnished by\n                                                   defense.Also,\n                                                   benefit of\n                                                   notional\n                                                   repairs of\n                                                   Rs. 9479 for\n                                                   AY 2005­06\n                                                   has been\n                                                   sought.26   Kanak Lata 2003­2004             65,000/­     No             None\n     has       also                   1,00,000/­   additional\n     mentioned                                     benefit\n     the following                                 claimed.\n     gift and loan\n     received in IT\n     Return     for Total\n     assessment                       1,65,000/­\n     year    2003­20044 ICICI Tax                                   No\n     Saving Bond                                   additional\n27   vide            28.02.2003 Rs. 27,965/­       benefit        None\n     certificate no.                               claimed.\n     12276­12279\n     invested on\n     30.11.1999\n     by Dr.\n     Maheshwar\n     Kumar and\n     Kanak Lata.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 309 of 3522 ICICI Tax\n28      Saving Bonds 28.02.2003 Rs. 13,983/­            No\n        vide                                            additional     None\n        certificate no                                  benefit\n        12280­12281                                     claimed.\n        invested on\n        30.10.1999\n        by      Kanak\n        Lata and Dr.\n        Maheshwar\n        Kumar\n\n\n\n\n                                      STATEMENT - D\n                       EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIODCHECK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 16.02.2005\nS.     Detail      of Name            Date       Amount Benefit              Court's Observations\nN      Expenditure                               as     per\n                                                        claimed by\n                                                 chargesh­\n                                                        accused\n                                                 eet    persons\n                                                        vide their\n                                                        chart    dt.06.11.2020\n1      1/3            Sanjiv          During 2,88,374/­ Accused              The defense plea is\n       expenditure of Kumar           check             contends             meritless. The IT Returns\n       Rs. 8,65,123/­                 period            that all his         filed by accused are of\n       against Non                                      expenditure          Sanjiv HUF. Not even a\n                                                        has been             single IT Return of Sanjiv\n\n       verifiable                                             duly shown     Kumar in his individual\n       expenditure                                            in the IT      capacity as a public servant\n       from salary of                                         Returns of     has been filed. Moreover,\n       Sanjiv Kumar                                           the chceck     subsistence allowance for\n       during     the                                         period and     the period May 2001 till\n       check period                                           hence, there   May 2004 has been paid toCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 310 of 352is no logic Sanjiv Kumar which has\n                                                           of making a been considered by this\n                                                           further         Court    while    granting\n                                                           education to additional income benefit.the extent of\n                                                           1/3rd.Accused\n                                                           further\n                                                           contends\n                                                           that he has\n                                                           not     been\n                                                           paid salary\n                                                           from June\n                                                           2001       to\n                                                           December\n                                                           2001, and\n                                                           subsistence\n                                                           allowance\n                                                           from\n                                                           December\n                                                           2001      till\n                                                           June 2004.\n2      Expenditure Sanjiv             During 40,440/­      Expenditure There is no denial of this\n       incurred     on Kumar          June                 incurred forexpenditure. Amount of Rs.\n       credit card use                99­00                the benefit 40,440/­ has been rightly\n       during 1999­                                        of niece       considered as expenditure.\n       00 (Citi Bank\n       Credit Card\n       No.\n       54255686020\n       50009 in the\n       name         of\n       Sanjiv\n\n       Kumar for the\n       period\n       23.06.99 till\n       closure.)\n3      LIC      Policy Sanjiv         June    1,54,728/­                 The contention of defense\n       No.             Kumar          2001 to                            that Rs. 38,682/­ was paidCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 311 of 352113007203­                     June                           subsequent to the check\n       YLY                            2004                           period on 29.06.2005 is\n       Date:                                                         correct and, hence the said\n       28.06.01                                                      amount be deducted from\n       Policy                                                        the expenses. Therefore,\n       amount ­ Rs.                                                  the net expense of Rs.\n       5,00,000/­                                                    1,16,046/­ is       to be\n                                                                     considered.\n\n       LIC     Policy     Sanjiv      Nov.    17,815/­   Expenditure Rs. 17,815/­      correctly\n       No.                Kumar       1999 to            not objected considered              as\n4      550644860­                     Nov.               to.          expenditure.\n       YLY                            2004\n       Date:\n       14.11.88\n       Policy\n       amount ­ Rs.\n       1,00,000/­\n5      LIC     Policy     Sanjiv      April   1,00,996/­ Expenditure Rs. 1,00,996/­    correctly\n       No.                Kumar       1998 to            not          considered              as\n       171578323­                     April              objected to. expenditure.\n       YLY                            2004.\n       Date:28.04.9\n       7       Policy\n       amount ­ Rs.\n       2,00,000/­\n\n6      Expenditure        Children April    3,95,280/­ Expenditure Rs. 3,95,280/­      correctly\n       on education       of       96    to            not          considered                as\n       of children of     Sanjiv   Jan 05              objected to. expenditure.\n       Sanjiv Kumar       Kumar\n       during     the\n       check period\n       from March\n       1998 to Jan\n       2005.\n       Rs. 1,99,345/­\n       for        Ms.\n       Snigdha and\n       Rs. 1,95,935/­CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 312 of 352for    Master\n       Ananya\n       Prahersh\n\n7      Payment    of Sanjiv           11.06.     1,10,000/­ Expenditure Rs. 1,10,000/­       correctly\n       fees of Sr. Kumar              2003                  not          considered                 as\n       Advocate in                                          objected to. expenditure.\n       the matter of\n       Sanjiv Kumar\n       listed     on\n       12.06.2003\n       before\n       Supreme\n       Court\n\n8      Payment      of Sanjiv         March 87,994/­        Expense of      Detailed finding in this\n       Electricity bill Kumar         1999 to               Rs. 87,994/­    regard has already been\n       of Flat No. 15,                Sep.                  is to be        returned in the main body\n       Hope                           2003                  rejected as     of judgment. The Court has\n       Apartment,                                           the     same    discarded accused Sanjiv\n       Sector      15,                                      was paid by     Kumar's plea that this\n       part­II,                                             tenant.         amount was paid by\n                                                            Power      of   tenants.\n                                                            attorney of     Thus, expenditure has been\n                                                            this     Flat   rightly considered.\n                                                            executed in\n                                                            favour     of\n                                                            Rajeev\n                                                            Kumar (not\n                                                            the brother\n                                                            of     Sanjiv\n                                                            Kumar)\n\n\n                                                            relied upon\n                                                            as      also\n                                                            testimony of\n                                                            PW 23.\n9      Maintenance        Sanjiv      08/98      54,600/­   Rejection of Accused Sanjiv relied on\n       charges            Kumar       to                    Rs.54,600/­ testimony of PW 27 aboutCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 313 of 352against                        06/03                 from       the\n                                                                      flat being occupied by\n    FlatNO. 15,                                          expenses for different persons from\n    Hope                                                 the     same 2000 to Dec. 2003. The\n    Apartment,                                           reason as in contention of the defense\n    Sector      15,                                      case        of\n                                                                      that the flat was under the\n    part­II,                                             payment of   occupancy of the tenant\n    Gurgaon paid                                         electricity  who was paying the\n    by       Sanjiv                                      charges.     maintenance charges is not\n    Kumar.                                                            plausible as they have not\n                                                                      produced        any      rent\n                                                                      agreement        or      rent\n                                                                      receipts. Detailed finding\n                                                                      has already been given for\n                                                                      this    expenditure     also.\n                                                                      Hence, expenditure of Rs.\n                                                                      54,600       is     correctly\n                                                                      considered.\n10 Sh.      Sanjiv      Sh.        2002­      9,224/­    Expenditure Expenditure of Rs. 45,526\n   Kumar      has       Sanjiv     03         14,791/­   not          correctly considered.\n   mentioned the        Kumar      2003­      7,025/­    objected to.\n   following            (HUF)      04         14,486/­\n   expenses     in                 2004­\n   his IT Return                   05         45,526/­\n   for assessment                  2005­year                            06Total\n11 Payment      of Sanjiv          25/5/98 77,885/­     Deduction         The expense could not be\n   bills of mobile Kumar           to                   of        Rs.     proved. Hence, this amount\n   no.                             26/07/               77,885/­          is    deducted        from\n   9814088370                      2000                 sought            expenses.\n                                                        since    this\n                                                        expense\n                                                        could     not\n                                                        be proved.\n12 PW             41 Sanjiv        1999­      2,22,71,2 Deduction         Detailed finding in this\n   Subhash           Kumar         2001       00/­      of       this     regard has already been\n   Chander                                              expenditure       given. Court has held that\n   Gupta                                                sought on         prosecution was unable to\n   received       Rs.                                   the ground        link accused Sanjiv withCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 314 of 3522,51,71,200/­                                     that            this alleged investment offrom Sanjiv                                       prosecution     Rs. 2,51,71,200. Hence,\n    Kumar and his                                     could     not   this expenditure is to be\n    men in cash as                                    prove this      deducted.well as cheque                                    allegation.\n    for        the\n    investment in\n    the      Share\n    Market\n    during     the\n    period 1999­\n    2001 and he\n    invested\n    2,33,71,200/­\n    in the Share\n    Market      for\n    Sanjiv Kumar.\n\n13 Payment    of Sanjiv            15.11.2 7,953/­    Deduction       The relevant document file\n   water bill of Kumar             000 to             of       Rs.    D­71 was not proved and\n   flat no. C­                     22.12.2            7,953/­ as      hence, the contention of\n   6&7/6357                        000                the     bills   defense to deduct Rs.\n   Vasant Kunj,                                       could    not    7,953/­ is justified. This\n   New Delhi in                                       be proved.      amount is thus deducted\n   the name of                                                        from expenses.\n   K.K.      Lal\n   which     was\n   sold during­\n   1999 in the\n   name of Dr.\n   Rajiv Kumar.\n   (Occupied by\n\n\n    Sanjiv\n    Kumar)\n\n14 Payment      of Sanjiv          Jan.    44,170/­   Discarding      The bill statement exhibit\n   electricity bill Kumar          2002 to            Rs.             PW32/B­1        is      a\n   of flat no. C­                  Feb.               44,170/­        handwritten     document,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 315 of 3526&7/6357                       2005               from      the duly signed by the\n    Vasant Kunj,                                      expenses.     witness and thus, does not\n    New Delhi in                                                    require certificate u/s 65­B\n    the name of                                                     IEA for further proof.\n    K.K.      Lal                                                   As per this statement,\n    which     was                                                   bills worth Rs. 19621\n    sold during­                                                    were paid for flat no.\n    1999 in the                                                     6357. Thus expenditure to\n    name of Dr.                                                     the extent of Rs. 19621 is\n    Rajiv Kumar.                                                    to be added to the expense\n    (Occupied by                                                    of Sanjiv Kumar. It has\n                                                                    already been held in the\n    Sanjiv                                                          main body of judgment\n    Kumar)                                                          that flat no. 6357 was the\n                                                                    benami property of Sanjiv\n                                                                    and Abha. The contention\n                                                                    of the defense that PW 32\n                                                                    has not brought the\n                                                                    relevant record from where\n                                                                    the                 aforesaid\n                                                                    record/docum­ents       have\n                                                                    been prepared is not\n                                                                    tenable since the the\n                                                                    handwritten record appears\n                                                                    to     be    the     original\n                                                                    record, and hence, the\n                                                                    argument is rejected.\n15 2 ICICI Tax         Sanjiv      Date of 10,000/­   Discarding The contention of the\n   Saving Bonds        Kumar       invest             Rs.           defense that they have\n   Date:               and         m­ent              10,000/­      already     included     this\n   30.11.1999          Kanak       30.10.             from      the expense at Sl. No. 41 of\n   No. 12274­          Lata        1999               expenses as Statement D is not tenable\n   12275                                              these have because this is a separate\n   Redemption                                         already been expense which is not\n   dated                                              considered included in ITR 2003­\n   28.02.2003                                         in        the 2004.       Rs.      39,253/­\n   for        Rs.                                     expense of mentioned as expense in\n   13,983/­                                           Kanak Lata ITR is sum of personal\n                                                      as per her expenses, Bank Charges &\n                                                      ITR's.        TDC. Hence, amount ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 316 of 352Rs. 10,000/­ can not be\n                                                                         discarded.\n\n16 Abha Sinha Abha                 1996­      32,454/­  Deduction        Detailed    finding    has\n   has mentioned Sinha             97         59,803/­  of        Rs.    already been given qua this\n   the following                   1997­      55,983/­  6,50,000         expense of Rs. 6,50,000.\n   expenditure in                  98         53,407/­  sought on        Court has held that this\n   her IT Return                   1998­      45,920/­  the ground       amount was paid by Abha\n   for assessment                  99         79,692/­  that     this    to KK Lal as part purchase\n   years                           1999­      57,678/­  expenditure      money for flat no. 6357.\n                                   00         6,50,000  has       not    The expenditure has thus\n                                   2000­      55,220/­  been shown       correctly             been\n                                   01                   in               considered.\n                                   2001­      10,90,157 subsequent\n                                   02                   ITR's which      However, expense of Rs.\n                                   2002­                meant that       3,14,000      being       the\n                                   03                   this\n                                                                         subscription        amount\n                                   1999­                expense was\n                                                                         deposited by accused\n                                   00                   squared off.\n                                                                         Abha in her PPF a/c\n                                   2005­\n                                   06                                    during the check period is\n                                                                         being reduced, as the\n                                   Total                                 outstanding amount in the\n                                                                         PPF a/c at the end of\n                                                                         check     period,     which\n                                                                         includes       subscription\n                                                                         amount, has been taken as\n                                                                         asset value at Sr. no. 13 of\n                                                                         Statement                  B.\n                                                                         Consequently,           the\n\n                                                                         expense taken under this\n                                                                         entry is Rs. 776157.\n17 LIC    Policy Abha              Feb     Rs.17,34      Deduction       Prosecution      has      no\n   No.           Sinha             1999 to 4/­           of        Rs.   objection to deletion of this\n   550573541­                      Feb                   17,344/­        expense since it has\n   YLY                             2004                  sought on       already been considered as\n                                                         the ground      a part of her expenses\n                                                         that     this   claimed in the ITR's.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 317 of 352expense has     Hence, Rs. 17,344/­ is\n                                                     already been    deducted   from    the\n                                                     considered      expenses.\n                                                     as a part of\n                                                     expense\n                                                     shown by\n                                                     Abha in her\n                                                     ITR's i.e. atSr. No. 16above\n18 LIC    Policy Abha              During 1,13,790/­ Deduction       The contention of defense\n   No.           Sinha             2002 to           of        Rs.   that Rs. 37,930/­ was paid\n   113017747­                      March             37,930/­        after the check period is\n   YLY                             2004              sought on       agreed     to     by    the\n                                                     the ground      prosecution. Hence Rs.\n                                                     that      Rs.   37,930/­ is to be deducted\n                                                     37930 was       and amount of           Rs.\n                                                     paid    after   75,860/­       is    being\n                                                     the    check    considered as expenses.\n                                                     period.\n19 LIC    Policy Abha              During Rs.        Deduction       The contention of defense\n   No.           Sinha             1999­ 43,980/­ of           Rs.   has not been objected to by\n   540418972­                      04                43,980/­        the prosecution.\n   YLY                                               sought on       Hence Rs. 43,980/­ is to be\n                                                     the ground      deducted         from the\n                                                     that     this   expenses.\n                                                     amount has\n                                                     already been\n                                                     included atsl. No. 16of       this\n                                                     statement.\n20 LIC    Policy Abha              Apr.    45,640/­ Deduction        The prosecution has not\n   No.           Sinha             1998 to           of        Rs.   objected to the defense\n   171578339­                      Apr.              14,491/­        assertion for deduction ofYLY                             2004              sought on       Rs. 14,491. Thus, Rs.the ground      14,491/­ is to be deducted\n                                                     that it was     from expenses and net\n                                                     paid    after   amount of Rs. 31,149/­ is\n                                                     the    check    to be considered. Hence,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 318 of 352period i.e.       amount of Rs. 31,149/­ is\n                                                     on                to be considered as\n                                                     23.02.2006        expense.\n21 Temporary      Abha             During 14,000/­   Deduction         Defense has not brought\n   loan to Mr. Sinha               2002­             of         Rs.    any evidence on record\n   Ranjeet Singh                   03                14,000/­ has      which could prove that\n   (As per IT                                        been sought       the loan was returned by\n   Return for the                                    on         the    the loanee. Deduction\n   assessment                                        ground that       cannot be permitted on\n   year 2002­03)                                     subsequent        vague assumptions. Hence,\n                                                     ITR's do not      the contention of defense\n                                                     reflect this      for deduction of Rs.\n                                                     liability.        14,000/­ is denied.\n\n22 Loan        Abha                During 6,000/­    Deduction         Defense has not brought\n   advanced to Sinha               2002­             of         Rs.    any evidence on record\n   Vibha Sinha                     03                6,000/­has        which could prove that the\n                                                     been sought       loan was returned by the\n                                                     on         the    loanee. Deduction cannot\n                                                     ground that       be permitted on vague\n                                                     subsequent        assumptions. Hence, the\n                                                     ITR's do not      contention of defense for\n                                                     reflect this      deduction of Rs. 6,000/­ is\n                                                     liability.        denied.\n\n\n23 Loan                Abha        During 2,37,000/­ Deduction         Defense has not brought\n   advanced to         Sinha       2002­             of                any evidence on record\n\n    G.P Singh, as                  03                Rs.               which could prove that the\n    per IT Return                                    2,37,000/­        loan was returned by the\n    Smt.    Abha                                     has      been     loanee. Deduction cannot\n    Sinha      for                                   sought on         be permitted on vague\n    assessment                                       the ground        assumptions. Hence, the\n    year    2002­                                    that              contention of defense for\n    03.                                              subsequent        deduction        of    Rs.\n                                                     ITR's       do    2,37,000/­ is denied.\n                                                     not reflect\n                                                     this liability.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 319 of 352An amount of Abha               Jan.    75,00,000 Deduction           Court       has      already\n24 Rs.           Sinha             2000 to /­        of                  returned a detailed finding\n   75,00,000/­                     July              Rs.68,00,00         that this amount of Rs. 68\n   was paid by                     2002              0/­ sought          lacs was of accused Abha\n   Abha Sinha to                                     on       the        Kumar        and      further\n   M/s                                               ground that         concluded that there is\n   Cosmos                                            this amount         reason to infer beyond any\n   Management                                        was of Tika         doubt that      this amount\n   Services                                          Hasan               was given to her by\n   Pvt.,    Khan                                     Mustafa, a          accused Sanjiv.          The\n   Market, New                                       family              contention of defense that\n   Delhi                                             friend    of        this money belongs         to\n                                                     accused             Tika Hasan Mustafa stands\n                                                     Sanjiv and          negated vide a detailed\n                                                     Abha.               finding in the main body of\n                                                                         judgment. Hence amount\n                                                                         of Rs. 68,00,000/­ is\n                                                                         rightly considered as\n                                                                         expense.\n25 Account no. Abha                02.09.     Rs.        Expense of      Defense plea is correct.\n   16887,        Sinha             1997       1,81,727/­ Rs.             Only the account opening\n   Oriental Bank                                         1,81,727/­ is   form Ex.PW24/D (Colly.)\n   of Commerce,                                          to        be    has been proved and not\n   New Railway                                           discarded as    the statement of account.\n   Road,                                                 account         Hence this amount is to\n   Gurgaon                                               statement       be deducted from the\n                                                         could not be    expenses.\n                                                         proved.\n\n26 SB A/c no.          Sanjiv 01.03.2 14,00,000 Deduction                The prosecution has not\n   6064    OBC,        Kumar 001                of       Rs.             been able to prove the\n   Panchkula in        & Smt.                   14,00,000/­              expense of Rs. 140000.\n   the name of         Abha                                              The Debit vouchers of Rs.\n   Sanjiv Kumar        Sinha                                             4,40,000/­ & Rs. 50,000/­\n   &       Abha                                                          though proved as Ex.\n   Kumar                                                                 PW22/A­3 & Ex. PW22/A­\n                                                                         5 could not be related by\n                                                                         the prosecution to any\n                                                                         specific     expenditure.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 320 of 352Hence, this expenditure is\n                                                                     not being considered.27 LIC    Policy Dr. M. 28.03.                24,270/­   Deduction The contention of defense\n   No.           Kumar 2001                              of          that this amount has\n   542268876                                             Rs.24,270/­ already been included at\n                                                                     Sr. No. 36 of statement D\n                                                                     has not been objected to by\n                                                                     the prosecution. Hence,\n                                                                     this amount has been\n                                                                     deducted      from      the\n                                                                     expenses.28 Stamp Duty Dr. M. 20.12.                   80,000/­   Deduction The contention of defense\n   paid by Dr. Kumar 1999                                of       Rs. that this expenditure has\n   Maheshwar                                             80,000/­     already been considered\n   Kumar       for                                                    at Sr. No. 36 of statement\n   the                                                                D is not tenable as the\n   registration of                                                    same is not mentioned in\n   flat No. 6360,                                                     the ITRs. This is a distinct\n   Sector­C,                                                          expenditure     which     is\n   Pocket      6­7                                                    proved by Ex.      PW18/B\n   Vasant Kunj,                                                       (file D­26C). Hence, the\n   New Delhi.                                                         contention of defense is\n                                                                      denied and Rs. 80,000/­\n                                                                      is considered as expense.29 Payment of    Dr. M.            12.11.2 2,583/­       Deduction These bills could not be\n   water bill of Kumar             002 to                of           proved and hence, Rs.flat no. C­                     22.11.2               Rs.2,583/­ 2,583/­ is deducted from\n   6&7/6360                        004                   sought on the expenses.\n   Vasant Kunj,                                          the ground\n   New Delhi in                                          that water\n   the name of                                           bills could\n   Sh. Prashnna                                          not       be\n   Kumar which                                           proved.\n   was sold in\n   1999 to Dr.\n   Maheshwar\n   Kumar.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 321 of 35230 Payment      of Dr. M. Nov.    Rs.                Deduction         The contention of defense\n   Electricity bill Kumar 2000 to 1,46,070/­         of       Rs.      to deduct Rs. 1,46,070/­ is\n   of flat no. C­         2005                       1,46,070/­        not tenable as Ex. PW\n   6&7/6360                                          sought.           32/B­5 is a handwritten\n   Vasant kunj,                                                        document which does not\n   New Delhi in                                                        require certificate u/s 65­B\n   the name ofIndian    Evidence       Act.\n   Sh. Prashnna                                                        As per Ex. PW 32/B­5,\n   Kumar                                                               Rs. 52,117/­ is the part of\n                                                                       total   bill    expenditure.\n                                                                       Contention of defense to\n                                                                       deduct the entire amount is\n                                                                       denied. Consequently, an\n                                                                       amount of Rs. 52,117/­ is\n                                                                       taken as expenditure\n                                                                       incurred on electricity\n                                                                       bills.\n\n\n31 Payment       Sh. M.            24.04.2 Rs.       Deduction         The contention of defense\n   Against       Kumar             001 to 35,214/­   of         Rs.    that the said document is a\n   Telephone no                    28.01.2           35,214/­          computer           generated\n   26123876                        005               sought on         document & the entire\n   installed  at                                     the ground        amount is to be deducted\n   flat no 6360,                                     that       bill   being       without      the\n   C­6&7,                                            statement is      certificate issued u/s 65­B\n   Vasant Kunj,                                      not               IEA is not tenable as Ex.\n   New Delhi in                                      accompanie        PW34/B has been certified\n   the name of                                       d           by    by the Telecom Officer of\n   Dr. M. Kumar                                      certificate       MTNL which bears his\n                                                     u/s 65 B of       stamp and signatures.\n                                                     theIE Act.       Hence amount of Rs.\n                                                                       35,214/­       has     been\n                                                                       correctly       taken     as\n                                                                       expenditure.\n\n32 Insurance of Dr. M. 14.11.2 9,126/­               Deduction         The contention of defense\n   Car No. BR­ Kumar 002 to                          of                that this expenditure hasCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 322 of 35217C 9991 in                    17.02.2        Rs.9,126/­      already been considered at\n    the name of                    005                            Sr. No. 36 of statement D\n    Dr.                                                           is not tenable as Rs.\n    Maheshwar                                                     1,560/­ only has been\n    Kumar                                                         shown in ITR of 2004­05,\n                                                                  and no car insurance\n                                                                  expense has been shown in\n                                                                  ITR of 2003­04. The\n                                                                  contention of defense to\n                                                                  deduct      the     entire\n                                                                  expenditure is denied but\n                                                                  Rs. 1560 is deducted from\n                                                                  alleged          expenses.\n                                                                  Consequently, Rs. 7,566/­\n                                                                  has been considered as\n                                                                  expenditure under this\n                                                                  head.\n\n33 Payment    to Dr. M. 28.06.1 Rs.               No              Expenditure     of    Rs.\n   Oriental      Kumar 999      2,177/­           deduction       2,177/­          correctly\n   Insurance                                      claimed         considered.\n   Company Ltd.\n   Chandigarh as\n   Mediclaim\n   Worldwide\n\n    for    Policy\n    no.\n    231200/2000/\n    66.\n\n\n34 Purchase of Dr. M. 19.07.2 43,627/­            Deduction       The contention of defense\n   Foreign       Kumar 001                        of              that this expenditure has\n   Currency by                                    Rs.43,627/­     already been considered\n   Sh.       Dr.                                  sought on       at Sr. No. 36 of statement\n   Maheshwar                                      the ground      D has not been objected\n   Kumar from                                     that      his   to by the prosecution as it\n   M/s                                            expense has     has been reflected in the\n   PherozeFramr                                   already beenCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 323 of 352oze&                                                   considered ITR of 2002­03. Hence\n    Company Pvt.                                           as reflected this amount of Rs.Ltd. UGF­8,                                            in the ITR. 43,627/­ is liable to\n    IndraprakashB                                                       deducted.\n    idg, 21 on\n    19.07.2001\n\n\n35 Certificate u/s Dr. M. Nov.                Rs.        No              Rs. 3,33,000/­ is correctly\n   68(2) of the Kumar 1997                    3,33,000/­ deduction       considered      as      the\n   voluntary                                             claimed.        expense.\n   disclosure of\n   income\n   scheme,199736 Dr.            Dr. M.           1998­      No details No              Rs. 5,85,860 has been\n   Maheshwar      Kumar            1999                  deduction       correctly considered as\n   Kumar in his                                          claimed.        expenses as per the ITR's.\n   IT returns has                  1999­      79,645/­\n   mentioned the                   2000\n   following\n   expenditure.                    2000­      83,650/­20012001­      66,390/­20022002­      1,82,84120032003­\n                                   2004       71,775/­\n\n                                   2004­\n                                   2005       1,01,559\n\n                                              Total    ­\n                                              Rs.\n                                              5,85,860CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                      Page 324 of 35237 LIC     Policy Kanak            28.03.     Rs.        Deduction       Prosecution does not object\n   No.            Lata             01         24,100/­   of              to this defense       plea.\n   542268677                                             Rs.24,100/­     Hence, this amount of Rs.\n   Policy                                                sought on       24,100/­ is liable       to\n   amount ­ Rs.                                          the ground      deducted.\n   25,000/­                                              that     this\n                                                         expenditure\n                                                         has\n                                                         previously\n                                                         been\n                                                         considered.\n38 Purchase of Kanak               19.07.     Rs.        Deduction       The contention of defense\n   Foreign       Lata              2001       44,417/­   of        Rs.   that this expenditure has\n   Currency by                                           44,417/­        already been considered\n   Mrs. Kanak                                            sought     as   at Sr. No. 41 of statement\n   Lata from M/s                                         this            D is tenable as this expense\n   PherozeFramr                                          expense has     is mentioned in ITR 2002­\n   oze&                                                  already been    03 of Kanak Lata as\n   Company                                               accounted       "Foreign       Tour      Rs.\n   Pvt. Ltd.                                             for        in   50,000/­". Hence, amount\n                                                         statement D     of Rs. 44,417/­ is liable to\n                                                         at sr. no.      be deducted from the\n                                                         41.             expenses.39 Stamp duty Kanak                03.06.     53,125/­   Deduction The contention of defense\n   paid by Mrs. Lata               1997                  of       Rs. that this expense has\n   Kanak Lata                                            53,125/­     already been declared in\n   for        the                                                     ITR for AY 2005­06 is not\n   registration                                                       tenable as this    expense\n                                                                      has not been mentioned in\n   of 8 Kanal\n                                                                      the said ITR but has been\n   land         at\n                                                                      duly proved vide EX.Dhumuspur                                                          PW10/A      (file   D­36).\n   village.                                                           Hence, the contention of\n                                                                      defense is denied and an\n                                                                      amount of Rs. 53,125/­ is\n                                                                      considered as expense\n                                                                      incurred.\n40 Payment         to Kanak        28.06.1 Rs.           No           Rs.    2,177/­    correctlyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 325 of 352Oriental        Lata           999        2,177/­      deduction       considered as expense.\n    Insurance                                              claimed\n    Company Ltd.\n    Chandigarh as\n    Mediclaim\n    Worldwide\n    for      Policyno.231200/2000/6741 Kanak      Lata Kanak           2001­      57,359       No              Rs. 3,16,535/­ correctly\n   has mentioned Lata              2002                    deduction       considered as expense as\n   the following                                           claimed.        per ITR's.\n   expenditure                     2002­      1,10,366\n   shown in her                    2003\n   IT returns.\n                                   2003­      39,25320042004­\n                                   2005       28,344\n\n                                   2005­      81,2132006Totel      Total    ­\n                                              Rs.\n                                              3,16,535\n\n   Dr.                 Dr. M. During Rs.        Deduction                  This amount has not been\n42 Maheshwar           Kumar June    1,02,687/­ of Rs. Rs.                 proved.   Hence,     the\n   Kumar     and       and Smt. 1999            1,02,687/­                 amount of Rs. 1,02,687/­\n   Smt. Kanak          Kanak                    as expense                 is deducted from the\n   Lata      had       Lata                     not proved.                expenses.\n   purchased\n   two        Air\n   Tickets    on\n   26.06.1999 of\n   Rs. 1,02,687/­\n   from      M/sCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                        Page 326 of 352Travel\n    Heights,\n    Barakhamba\n    Road,    New\n    Delhi for Air\n    travel   from\n    Delhi­\n    London­\n    Delhi on Air\n    India\n\n\n43 Dr.                 Dr.      During Rs.        No          Rs. 1,03,678/­ is correctly\n   Maheshwar           Mahesh June     1,03,678/­ Deduction   taken     as   expenditure\n   Kumar      and      war      1999              claimed     incurred.\n   Smt. Kanak          Kumar\n   Lata       had      and Smt.\n   visited United      Kanak\n   Kingdom in          Lata\n   the month of\n   July 1999 for\n\n    which     they\n    had\n    purchased\n    foreign\n    currency     of\n    Rs. 49,757/­,\n    Rs. 2,082/­,\n    Rs. 49,757/­\n    and         Rs.\n    2,082/­\n    (Dollar      &\n    Pound) from\n    M/s       New\n    Found Land\n    Enterprises\n    Pvt.      Ltd.\n    against Cash\n    MemosCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others           Page 327 of 352COURT'S OBSERVATION ON THE INCOME OF THE\n  ACCUSED PERSONS WHICH ACCORDING TO THEM HAS\n                 NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE I.O.STATEMENT - C (II)\nSl.                              Amount/Benefi  Exhibit & Court's Observation\nNo.   Particulars     Asset       t Claimed    Document No.\n                      Holder\n                                                               The contention of defense1. SB A/c 7617 Sanjiv Rs. 549/­                  Ex.    PW­1/ that Rs. 549/­ may be added\n   Allahabad    Kumar                            (file    D­16 to income has not been\n   Bank Panipat                                  colly)        objected    to    by     the\n                                                               prosecution\n                                                               Hence Rs. 549/­ is added to\n                                                               the income of Sanjiv\n                                                               Kumar.The contention of defense2. OBC,               Joint  Rs. 1,21,838/­      Ex. DW 5/3    that Rs. 1,21,838/­ may be\n   Panchkula          a/c of                                   added to income as per Ex.A/c       no.      Sanjiv                                   DW 5/3has not been\n   6064.              Kumar                                    objected    to    by     the\n                      & Abha                                   prosecution. However, the\n                      Kumar                                    prosecution has claimed that\n                                                               admission of A/c No. 6064\n                                                               by the accused 1 & 2 and\n                                                               perusal of Ex. DW 5/3 & D­\n                                                               32 B would show that the\n                                                               figures mentioned in Ex.\n                                                               DW 5/3 have been taken\n                                                               from those mentioned in D­\n                                                               32 B which shows the\n                                                               account balance of Rs.\n                                                               6,18,671/­ in the saidCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 328 of 352account at the end of check\n                                                                 period. The argument of\n                                                                 prosecution is logical.\n                                                                 Accrual of interest is\n                                                                 possible only if there is\n                                                                 principal amount in the\n                                                                 account. Since the interest\n                                                                 entries as proved in Ex.\n                                                                 DW5/3 are the same which\n                                                                 have been taken from\n                                                                 account statement File D­32\n                                                                 B, the account statement has\n                                                                 to be taken as admitted by\n                                                                 accused persons. Hence, the\n                                                                 income of Rs. 1,21,838/­ is\n                                                                 added to income but Rs.\n                                                                 6,18,671/­ at sl. No. 24 of\n                                                                 statement B is also taken as\n                                                                 joint asset of Sanjiv Kumar\n                                                                 and Abha Kumar at the end\n                                                                 of check period. The\n                                                                 additional interest income is\n                                                                 being     divided     between\n                                                                 accused Sanjiv and Abha i.e.\n                                                                 Rs. 60919 to each.\n\n                                                                 Gifts cannot be considered\n3. Gift     from Sanjiv Rs. 20,000/­             ITR of Kanak    as income for public\n   accused       Kumar                           Lata for AY     servants and their immediate\n   Kanak Lata                                    02­03 (D­6),    dependents since gifts can be\n   to    accused                                 (D­33)    and   a backdoor entry for gaining\n   Sanjiv Kumar                                  (Ex. DW2/1).    illegitimate income. Unless\n                                                                 due intimation of the gifts is\n                                                                 given     to    the    parent\n                                                                 department by the public\n                                                                 servant, it cannot be\n                                                                 considered as legitimate\n                                                                 income. Accused Sanjiv has\n                                                                 meticulously filed his HUF\n                                                                 returns and that of AbhaCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 329 of 352Kumar over the years in\n                                                                view of which it has to be\n                                                                presumed that he would\n                                                                have also intimated all gifts\n                                                                to his parent department and\n                                                                maintained proper records of\n                                                                such intimations. However,\n                                                                accused Sanjiv has not\n                                                                furnished any proof that any\n                                                                gift or loan received by him\n                                                                was ever intimated to his\n                                                                parent     Govt./department.\n                                                                Hence, benefit of income\n                                                                received from gifts cannot\n                                                                be given to the accused.\n\n4. Gift from late Sanjiv Rs. 20,000/­            Ex. DW 2/1     Gifts cannot be considered\n   mother­        Kumar                                         as income for public\n                                                                servants       and       their\n    in­law    of                                                immediate dependents since\n    accused                                                     gifts can be a backdoor entry\n    Sanjiv    to                                                for gaining illegitimate\n    Sanjiv Kumar                                                income.       Unless      due\n                                                                intimation of the gifts is\n                                                                given     to    the    parent\n                                                                department by the public\n                                                                servant, it cannot be\n                                                                considered as legitimate\n                                                                income. Accused Sanjiv has\n                                                                meticulously filed his HUF\n                                                                returns and that of Abha\n                                                                Kumar over the years in\n                                                                view of which it has to be\n                                                                presumed that he would\n                                                                have also intimated all gifts\n                                                                to his parent department and\n                                                                maintained proper records of\n                                                                such intimations. However,\n                                                                accused Sanjiv has not\n                                                                furnished any proof that anyCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 330 of 352gift or loan received by him\n                                                                was ever intimated to his\n                                                                parent     Govt./department.\n                                                                Hence, benefit of income\n                                                                received from gifts cannot\n                                                                be given to the accused.\n\n5. Income      of Sanjiv Rs. 5000/­              Not added as In the absence of any proof\n   accused        Kumar                          income.      brought on by the defense so\n   Sanjiv Kumar                                               as to consider income of\n   through                                                    Rs.5,000/­       out       of\n   investments                                                investments & tax saving\n   and        tax                                             instruments              like\n   saving                                                     FD/NSC/MEP,               the\n   instruments                                                submission     of    defense\n   not added.                                                 cannot be accepted and\n                                                              income benefit of Rs.\n                                                              5,000/­ cannot be granted.\n\n6. 438/B,                       Rs. 2,62,896     Ex.  DW6/1,    The contention of defense\n   Boring Canal                                  Mark           to add Rs. 2,62,896 to\n   Road, Patna -                                 PW46/DA ,      income for the whole family\n   Saving from                                   Mark           as being savings is denied as\n   Rental                                        PW46/DB        there is no           account\n   Income of the                                                statement to prove these\n   entire family                                                savings from rental income.\n   for two years.                                               Further, the property at\n                                                                Boring Canal Road, Patna\n                                                                was partitioned in 1988\n                                                                before the check period and\n                                                                was not HUF property any\n                                                                more. It has already been\n                                                                highlighted in the 'Findings'\n                                                                that Flat B of Boring Canal\n                                                                Road fell to the share of one\n                                                                of the HUF members.\n                                                                Hence, no benefit of\n                                                                savings income can be\n                                                                given to the whole family.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 331 of 3527. Savings from                 Rs. 2,40,000/­                    The contention of defense to\n   Agricultural                                                   add Rs. 2,40,000/­ to the\n   income      of                                                 income is not acceptable. It\n   the     entire                                                 is not comprehensible as to\n   family     for                                                 on what ground is this\n   two years                                                      income sought to be added\n                                                                  for the whole family.\n                                                                  Agriculture lands were also\n                                                                  partitioned in 1988 and\n                                                                  thereafter, each of the 4\n                                                                  'erstwhile HUF' members\n                                                                  have been filing separate\n                                                                  returns claiming individual\n                                                                  benefit     of    agricultural\n                                                                  income. There is nothing to\n                                                                  even        suggest       that\n                                                                  agricultural Income of the\n                                                                  accused persons was pooled\n                                                                  and put in a savings a/c.\n                                                                  Hence, the contention of\n                                                                  defense      to   add     Rs.\n                                                                  2,40,000/­ to the income is\n                                                                  denied & no benefit is\n                                                                  given.\n   Savings from Sanjiv Rs. 2,50,000/­                             The contention of defense to\n8. salary before Kumar                                            add Rs. 2,50,000/­ to the\n   the     check                                                  income of Sanjiv Kumar\n   period    and                                                  from pre­check savings is\n   cash in hand                                                   not supported by any\n                                                                  evidence. Hence, benefit of\n                                                                  additional savings income\n                                                                  cannot be given.\n   Oriental           Sanjiv    Rs. 6,93,860/­                    The contention of defense to\n   Bank      of       Kumar     from      brother   DW­ 5, DW­ add Rs. 25,58,000/­to the\n9. Commerce,          & Abha    Rajiv     Kumar     5/1, D­32 (B) income is not tenable, for the\n   Panchkula          Kumar     transferred                       following reasons. Despite\n   A/c no. 6064                 from U.K [D­                      opportunity, accused Sanjiv\n   standing in                  32(B)]       (Pg.                 did not get the account entryCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 332 of 352the name of                 2698)                of Rs. 6,93,860 proved\n    Sanjiv Kumar                                     which was purportedly\n    and     Abha                Rs. 3,40,000/­       transferred by his brother\n    Kumar                       remitted by Late     Rajiv from UK, benefit of\n                                Sh. DNP Singh        which is now being claimed.\n                                [file D­32 (B)]      Further, credit entry from\n                                                     DNP       Singh       whether\n                                                     accepted as gift or loan,\n                                Rs.     25,000/­     cannot be taken to be\n                                from       DNP       legitimate income unless\n                                Singh (File D­       duly disclosed to the parent\n                                32 (B)]              department of the public\n                                                     servant, of which no proof\n                                Rs. 15,00,000/­      has been furnished by\n                                from    Hukum        Sanjiv. At the cost of\n                                Singh as per         repetition, it is being\n                                Mark       PW­       highlighted that it is not\n                                46/DD,      and      believable that Sanjiv has\n                                Mark       PW­       not      maintained        any\n                                46/DE,\n                                                     records of intimation sent\n                                                     to his parent department\n                                Total benefit\n                                                     of gifts received. Further,\n                                claimed -\n                                                     the credit of Rs. 3,40,000\n                                Rs. 25,58,000/­\n                                                     made over to Sanjiv Kumar\n                                                     was in his individual\n                                                     capacity and not to Sanjiv\n                                                     Kumar HUF and hence, if\n                                                     this amount was actually a\n                                                     legitimate transfer, must\n                                                     have been shown in his IT\n                                                     return as an IAS Officer but\n                                                     no such IT Return has been\n                                                     furnished. It has already\n                                                     been observed above that\n                                                     Gifts can be a backdoor\n                                                     entry     for     illegitimate\n                                                     income. Defense had to also\n                                                     prove that DNP Singh had\n                                                     transferred this amount fromCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 333 of 352his legitimate sources. So far\n                                                                    as receipt of Rs. 15 lacs\n                                                                    from Hukum Singh is\n                                                                    concerned, same cannot be\n                                                                    treated as income, for\n                                                                    which detailed finding has\n                                                                    already been given in the\n                                                                    main body of the judgment.\n                                                                    Hence, no benefit of\n                                                                    income is being given.\n    ICICI Bank,        Abha      Rs. 3,00,000/­                     The contention of defense to\n10. Vasant Kunj,       Kumar     from Manorama       DW­16          add Rs. 9,39,994/­ to the\n    New     Delhi      &         Sinha, mother       Simanti        income has to be denied for\n    A/c                Sanjiv    of Abha Kumar       Banerjee       the following reasons. For\n    0007015011         Kumar                         Ex. DW­16/3 claiming benefit of these\n    39 standing                  Rs. 2,50,000/­      Ex. Z­38 colly credit entries from relatives,\n    in the name                  from   hobha        (file D­27)    accused persons had to\n    of      Abha                                                    prove the purpose of these\n    Kumar and                    Singh,    eldest                   credit transfers as also the\n    Sanjiv Kumar                 sister of Abha                     legitimacy of the source of\n                                 Kumar                              these funds. DW 15\n                                                                    deposed that she returned\n                                 Rs.    75,000/­                    Rs. 2.5 lacs which was loan\n                                 from Poonam                        extended by Sanjiv to her for\n                                 Singh, sister of                   the marriage of her daughter\n                                 Abha Kumar                         but there is no corresponding\n                                                                    entry from Sanjiv Kumar to\n                                 Rs. 1,00,000/­                     Shobha Singh.\n                                 from Dr. M.                        No      reason     has     been\n                                 Kumar                              explained for transfer of Rs.\n                                                                    3 lacs from Manorama Singh\n                                 Rs. 1,41,000/­                     to this joint account. There is\n                                 (1,00,000/­     +                  no proof that this gift was\n                                 41,000/­) from                     intimated by Sanjiv Kumar\n                                 Dr.         Rajiv                  to his parent department or\n                                 Kumar                              reflected in his ITR filed as\n                                                                    an IAS officer in his\n                                                                    individual capacity. This\n                                 Bank Interest of                   Court         has       already\n                                 Rs.    73,994/­                    highlighted its           doubtCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 334 of 352(file DW­18/1)                       regarding the legitimacy of\n                                                                     Dr. M Kumar's income and\n                                Total benefit                        hence,         any       credit\n                                claimed - Rs.                        transfer/gift from him will\n                                9,39,994/­                           be in a circle of doubt unless\n                                                                     the source is explained and\n                                                                     the reason for transfer is also\n                                                                     explained. Again, no reason\n                                                                     has been given for transfer\n                                                                     of funds from Rajiv Kumar\n                                                                     to this joint account. Hence,\n                                                                     no benefit of claimed\n                                                                     income can be given.\n\n11. Cash amount Abha      Rs. 37,930/­             Ex. Z­53 Colly    The contention of defense\n    of          Rs. Kumar                          ­ Declaration     for adding Rs. 37,930/­ in\n    37,930/­                                       Certificate by    income on the basis of self­\n    received by                                    Kanak Lata in     declaration in ITR cannot be\n    Abha Kumar                                     her ITR of        taken as proof when such\n    as a gift from                                 AY­2005­06        receipt was not intimated by\n    her mother­                                                      the accused Public Servant\n    in­law                                                           to the controlling Govt.\n                                                                     Hence, the contention of\n                                                                     defense is unacceptable.\n    Gift of Rs. M.              Rs. 3,00,000/­     Ex. Z­47 {file    For the reason already\n12. 3,50,000/­ by Kumar         on 04.10.2004      D­1(A)} ITR       explained above, contention\n    Maheshwar                   and Rs. 50,000/­   of Dr. M.         of defense for adding Rs.\n    Kumar      to               on 10.04.2004      Kumar of AY       3,50,000/­ in income on the\n    grand­                                         2005­06, relied   basis of self­declaration in\n    daughter                                       upon by the       ITR cannot be taken as proof\n    reflected in                                   prosecution       when such receipt was never\n    his ITR AY                                     and admitted      intimated by the father of\n    2005­06                                        by the accused)   Ms. Snigdha Kumar to his\n    through Abha                                                     controlling\n    Kumar,     as                                  File D­29,        govt./department. If this\n    grand­                                         Ex.        Z­40   course is permitted, every\n    daughter was                                   (Colly)           public servant can inflate his\n    a minor.                                                         income by showing gifts\n                                                                     from      relatives    whoseCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                   Page 335 of 352accounts and income have\n                                                       not been put to scrutiny and\n                                                       thereafter, explain his assets\n                                                       on the basis of such income.\n                                                       This amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs\n                                                       thus cannot be taken as\n                                                       income of Sanjiv or Abha\n                                                       during the check period.\n                                                       Hence, the contention of\n                                                       defense is declined.Bank interest Abha  Rs. 9,694/­ (Rs. Ex. DW 5/2 The contention of defense13. of   Oriental Kumar 5192/­ interest Certificate of that Rs. 9,694 may be added\n    Bank       of       from             Interest      to income as per Ex. DW 5/2\n    Commerce,           30.06.2000 to                  has not been objected to by\n    Panchkula           31.12.2004    +                the prosecution.A/c no. 6000        Rs. 4,502/­)                   Hence the income of Rs.in the name                                                        9,694/­ is added to income.of      Abha\n    Kumar.\n    Amount      in Abha         Rs.     4,52,880    File        D­7    There is balance of Rs.\n14. PPF of Abha Kumar           being         the   ­Prosecution       4,74,889/­ at the end of\n    Kumar                       amount added        relied upon this   check period in this account\n    bearing A/c                 during     check    document,          proved through Ex. Z­09\n    no. 11/180­                 period       and    admitted as Ex.    (file D­7) which is anDhanbad                     hence, sought to    Z­9.               admitted document. It is an\n    Branch                      be included in      Additionally,      asset reflected at Sl. No.13\n                                the income of       Ex. DW 4/1         of Statement of B and hence,\n                                Abha Kumar          and Ex. DW         cannot be treated as income.4/2                However, Rs. 3,14,000\n                                                                       which is the subscription\n                                                                       amount deposited during the\n                                                                       check period, is being\n                                                                       reduced from the expense of\n                                                                       Abha, having already been\n                                                                       shown as a part of her IT\n                                                                       Returns. Further, benefit of\n                                                                       interest income of Rs.\n                                                                       1,38,880 accrued duringCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                     Page 336 of 352check period is being given\n                                                                   to Abha Kumar.\n    VDIS               M.    Rs. 11,10,000/­ File D­ 1 (B),        Though Rs. 11,10,000/­ was\n15. declared in        Kumar                 relied upon by        disclosed under the VDIS,\n    Year 1997 by                             the prosecution       Rs. 3,30,000 was paid as tax\n    Late Sh. M.                              and admitted          on this income. Hence,\n    Kumar                                    by accused as         benefit of Rs. 7,80,000 is\n    (Certificate                             Ex. Z­44              added to the income of Dr.\n    dated                                                          M. Kumar.\n    6.12.97)\n    Gifts              M.    Rs. 1,05,000/­      AY 2000­01  Of these gifts, gift of Rs.\n16. received by        Kumar (1,00,000/­ +       (Ex.    Z­50);\n                                                             1,05,000 by Dr. Rajiv\n    Late Sh. M.              5,000/­) from       (file D­25(ii),\n                                                             Kumar;       Rs.     2,06,700\n    Kumar        as          Rajiv    Kumar      Ex.      46/9)\n                                                             (transfer of GBP 3000 from\n    reflected in             (HUF)               (Account    UK by Dr. Rajiv Kumar)\n    his ITRs.                                    Statement ofand Rs, 1,58,420 from Dr.\n                                 Rs.    30,000/­ Rajiv Kumar)Rajiv Kumar are supported\n                                 from BP Singh               by corresponding bank\n                                                             transfers. Additionally, giftRs.   98,564/­ AY­ 2001­02 of Rs. 1000 from Sanjiv\n                                 from     Rajiv (Ex. Z­49/2) being a nominal amount can\n                                 Kumar                       also be accepted as a gift.Rs.     75,000/­ AY 2001­02 Accordingly,       additional\n                                 from     Sandip (Ex. Z­49/2)  income benefit of Rs.Arora                         4,71,120 is being given to\n                                                               Dr. M Kumar.\n                                 Rs. 1000/­ from AY 2001­02\n                                 Sanjiv Kumar     (Ex. Z­49/2)\n\n                                 Rs.     75,000/­\n                                 (Rs. 65,000/­) AY 2002­03\n                                 and Rs. 10,000/) Ex. PW 6/C\n                                 from       RajivKumar (HUF) Ex. DW 11/16From       RajivKumar        Rs. Ex. DW 12/12,06,700/­\n                                 (3000    British AY 2003­04,CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 337 of 352Pounds)           Ex. Z­46\n\n                                Rs. 1,00,000/­\n                                from     Rajiv AY 2003­04,\n                                Kumar (HUF), Ex. Z­46\n\n                                Rs.   31,852/­\n                                from     Rajiv AY 2004­05,\n                                Kumar          Ex. Z­45/2\n\n                                Rs. 4000/­ from\n                                Rajiv Kumar     AY 2005­06,\n                                                Ex. Z­47/2\n                                Rs. 1,98,420/­\n                                (Rs. 1,58,420/­ AY 2005­06,\n                                + 40,000/­)     Ex. Z­47/2\n\n                                From      Kanak\n                                Lata\n                                Rs. 3,14,942/­\n\n                                Total benefit\n                                claimed ­ Rs.\n                                11,40,478/­\n\n17. Loans       M.    Rs. 1,17,875/­              Ex. Z­47     The ITR of AY 2005­06\n    received by Kumar                                          says that it is brought\n    Sh.      M.                                                forward but ITR of AY\n    Kumar from                                                 2004­5 does not reflect any\n    Rajiv Kumar                                                such    loan.   No     other\n    HUF in AY                                                  document is produced as\n    2005­06                                                    evidence to claim the\n                                                               benefit of Rs. 1,17,875/­ as\n                                                               income. Hence, the benefit\n                                                               of Rs. 1,17,875/­ to the\n                                                               income of M. Kumar is not\n                                                               being given.\n\n19. Loans             M.        Rs. 63,275/­      Ex. Z­47     This is a loan broughtCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others               Page 338 of 352received by Kumar                                            forward as per ITR of AY\n    Sh.       M.                                                 2005­06 of Dr. M. Kumar\n    Kumar from                                                   whereas ITR of AY 2004­\n    Sanjiv Kumar                                                 05 does not reflect so. Mere\n    HUF in AY                                                    declaration in ITR without\n    2005­06                                                      any other document to\n                                                                 claim the benefit of Rs.\n                                                                 63,275/­ as income is not\n                                                                 tenable. Hence, the benefit\n                                                                 of Rs. 63,275/­ to the\n                                                                 income of M. Kumar is\n                                                                 not being given.\n\n    Loans             M.    Rs. 3,09,000/­       Ex. Z­45/2      Mere declaration in ITR\n20. received by       Kumar                                      without any other document\n    Sh. M.                                                       is not sufficient to claim the\n    Kumar from                                                   benefit of income of Rs.\n    Kanak Lata                                                   3,09,000/­. There is no\n    in AY 2004­                                                  account to account transfer\n    05                                                           also to support this loan\n                                                                 amount. Hence, the benefit\n                                                                 of Rs. 3,09,000/­ to the\n                                                                 addition in income is not\n                                                                 being given.\n\n21. Loan        Kanak           Rs. 2,75,000/­   Ex.       Z­53 Mere declaration in ITR\n    received by Lata                             (Colly)        without any other document\n    Kanak Lata                                                  is not sufficient to claim the\n    from Sanjiv                                                 benefit of income of Rs\n    Kumar                                                       2,75,000/­. There is no\n    (HUF)    AY                                                 account to account transfer\n    2005­06                                                     also to support this loan\n                                                                transaction. It is surprising\n                                                                that a suspended public\n                                                                servant had so much funds\n                                                                to loan to his mother.\n                                                                Throughout the trial, Sanjiv\n                                                                Kumar has tried to take\n                                                                maximum benefit of hisCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                Page 339 of 352HUF ITR's without bringing\n                                                                    on record in which Bank\n                                                                    account were such HUF\n                                                                    funds      parked/deposited.\n                                                                    Hence, the benefit of Rs.\n                                                                    2,75,000/­ is not being\n                                                                    given towards the income.\n    Gifts          Mrs.          From       Rajiv File D­25 (ii); Of the total additional\n22. received by Kanak            Kumar      HUF Ex.            46/9 income benefit of Rs.\n    Kanak Lata Lata              AY 2000­01 = Account               Rs.5,72,310/­ claimed by\n    from     sons,               Rs. 10,000/­     Statement of Kanak Lata, only the\n    and others                                    Rajiv Kumar       following gifts are supported\n                                 From       Rajiv                   by bank transfers ­\n                                 Kumar (HUF) AY 2001­02,\n                                                                    1. Rs. 10000 by Dr. Rajiv\n                                 Rs. 40,000       Ex. Z­ 52 HUF on 2.2.1999(Colly.) (file 2. Rs. 2,48,310 by Dr. Rajiv\n                                 From Santosh D­6/1)\n                                 Rs. 75,000/­                       Hence, benefit of addition\n                                                  AY 2001­02, of Rs. 258310 in the income\n                                 From       Rajiv Ex. Z­ 52         of Ms. Kanak Lata is being\n                                 Kumar            (Colly.) (file\n                                                                    given.Rs. 50,000       D­6 (1), Pg.1849From      Sanjiv\n                                 Kumar (HUF) AY 02­03, Ex.\n                                 Rs. 1,15,000/­ Z­ 52 (Colly.)\n                                 (Rs. 65,000/­ + (file D­6 (1)\n                                 Rs. 50,000/­)\n                                                  AY 03­04, (Ex.\n                                 From       Rajiv Z­52) (Colly.)\n                                 Kumar (HUF)\n                                 Rs. 34,000/­\n                                                  AY 04­05,\n                                 From       Rajiv ITR, 1877 (Ex.\n                                 Kumar            Z­52) (Colly.)\n                                 Rs. 2,48,310/­\n                                 (Rs. 1,64,740 +\n                                 Rs. 83,570)      AY 05­06 (Ex.\n                                                  Z­53) (Colly.)CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                  Page 340 of 352Total\n                                additional\n                                income benefit\n                                claimed ­\n                                Rs. 5,72,310\n    Money                       Amounts               File D­29 (Ex   The contention of defense to\n23. received in                 received      on      Z­40)           add Rs. 1,62,032/­ to the\n    the account                 06.04.2004­           Ex. DW­16/2     income as sum of different\n    of daughter                 Rs. 37,451/­;         Ex. DW­18/2     amounts       received    as\n    of        Abha              Rs. 31,284/­;                         dividends from Unit Trust of\n    Kumar, A/c                  Rs. 42,300/­;                         India is not tenable as the\n    no.                                                               prosecution has raised an\n    00070123929                 Rs. 25,583/­                          objection that Ms. Snigdha\n    8,       ICICI                                                    admittedly was a minor\n    Bank, from                  Amount                                having no source of income\n    Unit Trust of               received    on                        and any investment in her\n    India                       05.10.2004­ Rs.                       name had not been explained\n    Dividend on :               2537/­                                by the accused. Any\n    (i) 6.04.2004                                                     amounts       received    as\n    (ii) 5.10.2004              Rs. 1877/­                            interest/maturity     amount\n    (iii)                       (interest)                            against investment in her\n    2.09.2004                   received         on                   name need to first satisfy\n                                02.09.2004                            that the said investment was\n                                                                      from a legitimate source of\n                                Total                                 income of the public servant.\n                                additional                            Neither such source nor any\n                                income benefit                        details of investment amount\n                                claimed ­                             have been brought on record\n                                Rs. 1,62,032/­                        by accused.        Hence, in\n                                                                      absence of bringing on\n                                                                      record the details of the\n                                                                      investments       made    by\n                                                                      guardian in the name of Ms.\n                                                                      Snigdha Kumar, the benefit\n                                                                      of Rs. 1,62,032/­ cannot be\n                                                                      given as additional income.\n                                                                      Hence, the contention of\n                                                                      the defense is denied.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 341 of 35224. FD in the Sh. M. Rs. 1,40,000/­              File D­ 25 (1)     The contention of defense\n    name of Sh. Kumar                                               for adding Rs. 1,40,000/­ to\n    M.      Kumar                                                   the income is denied for the\n    done        on                                                  reason that maturity date and\n    29.04.1995,                                                     amount has not been\n    matured     in                                                  mentioned nor can the same\n    the       year                                                  be deciphered from the a/c\n    1996 during                                                     statement of Dr. M. Kumar.\n    the      check                                                  It is also surprising that\n    period.                                                         instead of asking for\n                                                                    maturity amount        to be\n                                                                    added in the additional\n                                                                    income benefit, accused are\n                                                                    seeking to add the principal\n                                                                    amount which was deposited\n                                                                    in 1995 in the pre­check\n                                                                    period. In absence of any\n                                                                    details of maturity amount,\n                                                                    benefit of Rs. 1,40,000/­ to\n                                                                    the income of Dr. M. Kumar\n                                                                    cannot be given.\n\n    Interest          Mrs                        File D­25 (1)      The contention of defense\n25. accrued   in      Kanak     Rs. 7,347.30/­   Ex­DW 13/5         that Rs. 7,347/­may be\n    account no.       Lata                                          added to income as per Ex.\n    470       in                                                    DW 13/5has not been\n    Allahabad                                                       objected    to    by     the\n    Bank,             &                                             prosecution. However, the\n    Dhanbad                                                         prosecution submits that\n                      M.                                            admission of A/c No. 470 D­\n                      Kumar                                         25(1) by the accused and\n                                                                    perusal of Ex. DW 13/5 &\n                                                                    D­25(1) would show that t\n                                                                    he figures mentioned in Ex.\n                                                                    DW 13/5 have been taken\n                                                                    from those mentioned in D­\n                                                                    25(1) & the corresponding\n                                                                    amount of Rs. 6,465/­ at Sl.\n                                                                    No. 48 of statement B be\n                                                                    also taken as admitted.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                    Page 342 of 352However, perusal of D­25\n                                                                 (1) does not reflect the\n                                                                 amount of Rs. 6465 as\n                                                                 contended       by        the\n                                                                 prosecution. Further, except\n                                                                 for the figure of Rs. 2448,\n                                                                 none of the other interest\n                                                                 income figures match with\n                                                                 the account statement in\n                                                                 File        D­25         (1).\n                                                                 Consequently,        accrued\n                                                                 interest of Rs. 7,347.30 in\n                                                                 this account during the\n                                                                 check period is added to the\n                                                                 joint income of Mrs. Kanak\n                                                                 Lata and Dr. M Kumar\n                                                                 whereas the plea of\n                                                                 Prosecution stands denied.\n\n26. Interest          Dr. M. Rs. 9,722/­ (Rs. File D­28, Ex      The defense has contended\n    accrued     in    Kumar, 8677/­ +1045/­) Z­39, Ex. DW­       to add Rs. 9,722/­ as income\n    Account no.       Kanak                   18/3               and the prosecution has not\n    0007012285        Lata,                                      objected to it. Hence, benefit\n    11,      ICICI    Abha                                       of Rs. 9,722/­ as interest\n    Vasant Kunj       Kumar                                      income is added and\n                                                                 divided amongst 3 accused\n                                                                 i.e. Rs. 3241 to each\n                                                                 account holder.\n\n27. PPF A/c No. Dr. M. Rs. 11,537/­              File D­10       Defense has contended to\n    1310        Kr                               Ex. Z­10        add Rs. 11,537/­\n                                                                 as     income    and     the\n                                                                 prosecution has agreed to it.\n                                                                 Hence, benefit of Rs.\n                                                                 11,537/­ as income is to be\n                                                                 given.\n    Interest    Mrs.            Rs. 2207/­       Ex. DW­13/3     The contention of defense\n28. accrued  in Kanak                                            that Rs. 2207/­ may be\n    Account No. Lata                                             added to income as per Ex.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 343 of 3523609,                                                          DW 13/3 is tenable as\n    Allahabad                                                      interest income has not been\n    Bank                                                           given. However, Prosecution\n                                                                   contends that the admission\n                                                                   of A/c No. SB 3609 D­\n                                                                   25(ii) by the accused andcomparison of Ex. DW 13/3(interest certificate) and D­\n                                                                   25(ii) (unexhibited account\n                                                                   statement) shows that the\n                                                                   interest    income      figuresmentioned in Ex. DW 13/3have been taken from those\n                                                                   mentioned       in    D­25(ii).\n                                                                   Consequently,               the\n                                                                   corresponding amount of Rs.\n                                                                   4,949/­ at Sl. No. 36 of\n                                                                   statement B be also taken as\n                                                                   admitted which is the\n                                                                   outstanding amount at the\n                                                                   end of check period.\n                                                                   However, the figure as\n                                                                   claimed by the prosecution\n                                                                   is not borne out from file D\n                                                                   - 25 (II). Hence, defense\n                                                                   plea of adding interest of Rs.\n                                                                   2207 to the income of Kanak\n                                                                   Lata is allowed whereas\n                                                                   prosecution submission is\n                                                                   declined.\n\n                                                                   Hence, Rs. 2207/­ is added\n                                                                   to income of Kanak Lata.\n    Interest                                     Ex.       Z­11    Defense seeks to add Rs.\n29. accrued   in Abha Rs. 2255/­                 Interest from     2255/­ as income from\n    Account no. Kumar                            Jan' 03 to Jan'   accrued interest to which the\n    0119000774                                   05                prosecution has agreed.\n    2, SBI PB                                    Ex. Z­11 -        Hence benefit of Rs. 2255/­\n    Div. Dhanbad                                 Interest from     as income is to be given to\n    of Ms. Abha                                  Dec' 01 - Dec'    Abha Kumar.CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 344 of 352Kumar                                        02Ex. DW ­ 13/4\n                                                 (Interest from\n                                                 March' 89 to\n                                                 March'2000)\n    Amount       of   Sanjiv Rs. 1,32,500/­      Ex. PW­ 9/A    The contention of defense to\n30. Rs.               Kumar                                     add Rs. 1,32,500/­ as income\n    1,32,500/­                                                  is not plausible as this loan\n    towards                                                     was re­paid in installments\n    repayment of                                                during the check period,\n    car       loan,                                             which is the expenditure\n    wrongly                                                     incurred in repaying the\n    deducted as                                                 installments of loan. Hence,\n    expenditure                                                 this amount has been\n    during      the                                             correctly    taken         as\n    check period                                                expenditure.\n    while\n    calculating\n    net income of\n    the Sanjiv Kr.\n    Amount       of   Sanjiv Rs. 2,63,940/­      Ex. PW­9/A      The contention of defense to\n    Rs.               Kumar                                      add Rs. 2,63,940/­as income\n31. 2,63,940/­                                                   is not plausible as this house\n    towards                                                      loan     was     re­paid    in\n    repayment of                                                 installments     during the\n    house loan,                                                  check period, which is the\n    wrongly                                                      expenditure incurred in\n    deducted as                                                  repaying the installments of\n    expenditure                                                  loan. Hence, this amount\n    during      the                                              has rightly been taken as\n    check period                                                 expenditure.\n    while\n    calculating\n    net income of\n    Sanjiv\n    Kumar.171.             It has already been highlighted above that source ofCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others                 Page 345 of 352acquisition of immovable assets by Abha and contentious expenditure\nincurred by her during the check period has to be attributed to accused\nSanjiv. Accused Sanjiv Kumar and Abha Kumar have always had a\njoint household. There has been no assertion of the defense that\naccused Abha had sufficient income of her own to be able to manage\nher household independent of accused Sanjiv Kumar. In any case, the\nacquisition of contentious assets and contentious expenditure incurred\nby Abha has been flatly denied by the defense which disentitles\naccused Abha Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar to even explain them from\ntheir declared income, which observation has already been recorded in\nthe preceding paras by the Court. The findings returned in the\npreceding paras leave no doubt that the income, expenditure and asset\nvalue of Sanjiv and Abha cannot be segregated. Hence, the\nexpenditure incurred by Abha during the check period and the value of\nassets acquired by her during the check period are being clubbed with\nthe asset value acquired by accused Sanjiv during the check period as\nalso the expenditure incurred by accused Sanjiv during the check\nperiod. As a corollary, their incomes during the check period are also\nbeing clubbed. In view of the detailed discussion above and the\nfindings returned by this Court, and after due consideration of the\nchart submitted by the accused persons where­in they have sought\ndeduction of certain expenses, variation in the value of Assets, and\nclaimed additional income, of which benefit has been given whereverCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others      Page 346 of 352was found due and legitimate, the Court's conclusion is as under -Total Income of accused Sanjiv Kumar during the check period is\nassessed as - Rs. 29,66,211\n\nTotal Income of accused Abha Kumar during the check period is\nassessed as - Rs. 18,74,028\n\n\nTotal asset value of accused Sanjiv Kumar at the end of the check\nperiod is assessed as - Rs. 19,98,402\n\nTotal asset value of accused Abha Kumar at the end of the check\nperiod is assessed as - Rs. 28,58,567\n\nTotal expenditure incurred by accused Sanjiv Kumar during the\ncheck period is assessed as - Rs. 12,81,692\n\nTotal expenditure incurred by accused Abha Kumar during the\ncheck period is assessed as under - Rs. 79,40,166\n\nResultantly,1.  Total assets of Accused Sanjiv Kumar and Abha\n        Kumar at the beginning of the check period - Rs. 18,95,9822.   Total joint income of Accused Sanjiv Kumar and\n        Abha Kumar during the check period ­ Rs. 48,40,2393.   Total joint assets value of Accused Sanjiv Kumar and\n        Abha Kumar at the end of the check period - Rs. 48,56,969CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 347 of 3524.   Total joint expenses of Accused Sanjiv Kumar and\n          Abha Kumar during the check period - Rs. 92,21,858\n\n    Hence, the calculation of Disproportionate assets of accused\n    Sanjiv Kumar is assessed as under -(a)          Total joint assets acquired during the check period =\n                 Value of joint assets at the end of the check period -\n                 value of joint assets at the beginning of check period\n                 i.e. Rs. 48,56,969 - 18,95,982 = Rs. 29,60,987(b)          Total joint expenses during the check period = Value\n                 of joint assets acquired during the check period +\n                 joint expenditure incurred during check period\n                 i.e. Rs. 29,60,987 + Rs. 92,21,858 = Rs. 1,21,82,845(c)          Disproportionate assets acquired during the check\n                 period = Total joint expenditure - Total joint income\n                 Rs. 1,21,82,845 - Rs. 48,40,239 = Rs. 73,42,606(d)          Percentage of Disproportionate Assets = (Total\n                 disproportionate assets / Total income) x 100\n                 (7342606/4840239) x 100 = 151.69%\n\nThe calculation qua combined income, assets and expenditure of\nKanak Lata and Dr. M. Kumar is as under:(A)       Total assets of Dr. M. Kumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata at\n          the beginning of the check period - Rs. 6,15,312\n\n(B)       Total joint income of Dr. M. Kumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata\n          during the check period ­ Rs. 50,98,707CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others       Page 348 of 352(C)     Total joint assets of Dr. M. Kumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata at\n        the end of the check period - Rs. 67,25,263\n\n(D)     Total joint expenses of Dr. M. Kumar and Mrs. Kanak Lata\n        during the check period - Rs. 15,76,449172.             It is clear that even qua Dr. M Kumar and Kanak Lata,\nthe joint assets value at the end of check period and joint expenditure\nincurred by both during the check period i.e. C + D far exceed the\ntotal joint income earned by both of them during the check period.However, since the prosecution has not been able to lead any clear\nevidence against Kanak Lata so as to prove her role as an abettor in\nrelation to accused Sanjiv Kumar, she is given benefit of doubt and\nhence, acquitted. No finding is being returned against Dr. M. Kumar\nsince he expired during the currency of the trial.173.             Before concluding, it needs to be clarified as to why has\nthis Court bifurcated the income and expenditure of accused Kanak\nLata and accused Maheshwar Kumar from that of accused Sanjiv\nKumar. Apart from the reasons that Dr. Maheshwar Kumar was a\nretired civil servant, prosecution itself led evidence to show that he\nwas running his private medical practice as a surgeon. Although the\nendeavour of the prosecution was to highlight that Dr. MaheshwarCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others         Page 349 of 352Kumar hardly earned from his private medical practice, the\nprosecution was unable to substantiate anything in this regard. On the\ncontrary, prosecution evidence was helpful in establishing defense\nassertion to the effect that Dr. Maheshwar Kumar was running his\nprivate clinic as a general surgeon and even performed surgeries in\nother medical establishments. Prosecution was also unable to prove\nthat Dr. Maheshwar and Mrs. Kanak Lata had a joint household with\naccused Sanjiv or that they were dependents of Sanjiv Kumar in any\nmanner. But apart from these basic reasons, there is another\nsignificant reason for not clubbing the expenditure of Dr. Maheshwar\nand Kanak Lata with that of accused Sanjiv. All the big ticket\nexpenditures of Kanak Lata on purchase of immovable properties i.e.\nin Bara Hindu Rao, Sushant Lok and Dhumuspur village were in the\nyear 1996­97. In end of 1997, Dr. Maheshwar disclosed previously\nunaccounted income of more than Rs. 11 lacs under the VDIS floated\nby the deptt. of Income Tax and paid Rs. 3,30,000 as tax on the same.\nThis fact is undisputed. 11 lacs was a huge amount in the year 1997\nwhen the total take home salary of accused Sanjiv, a mid­level IAS\nofficer was about Rs. 12000. Since he is no more, I do not wish to\ncomment on whether Dr. Maheshwar earned this undisclosed income\nby fair or foul means, or whether accused Sanjiv was supplying him\nunaccounted cash for converting the same into white money but the\nfact that he possessed such a huge unaccounted amount coupled withCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others     Page 350 of 352acquisition of multiple immovable assets by his wife Kanak Lata\nduring the same period when unaccounted money was disclosed gives\nsufficient reason for this Court to believe that Dr. Maheshwar Kumar\nhad much more than he actually declared. If we co­relate the\ndisclosure of this 11 lacs with the acquisition of immovable properties\nby Kanak Lata, it becomes quite clear that Dr. Maheshwar was using\nhis unaccounted income for purchase of immovable properties and\nafter having acquired a decent number of properties in the name of his\nwife, tried to come clean by disclosing Rs. 11 lacs as unaccounted\nincome. So far as purchase of flat by Dr. Maheshwar Kumar in Vasant\nKunj, New Delhi is concerned, Prosecution concentrated its evidence\nto prove that it was accused Sanjiv Kumar who paid the entire\npurchase money but which endevaour of the prosecution fell short of\nrequired level of proof. For the above reasons, this Court concludes\nthat Dr. Maheshwar Kumar was possessed of sufficient means, legal\nor illegal, to finace the acquisition of immovable assets by his wife\nand his own assets during the check period.174.             As a corollary to the above discussion, the Court holds\naccused Sanjiv Kumar proven as guiltyu/s 13 (2)of the Prevention of\nCorruption Act 1988 read withsection 13 (1) (e)of the Prevention of\nCorruption Act 1988 and accused Abha proven as guiltyu/s 109of the\nIPC read withSection 13(2)read withSection 13(1) (e)of the PC ActCC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others        Page 351 of 3521988, and consequently, both stand accordingly convicted. Accused\nKanak Lata however is acquitted for lack of cogent link evidence.Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT                          AJAY          by AJAY GULATI\nON 22nd JANUARY 2021                             GULATI        Date: 2021.01.25\n                                                               15:13:20 +0530\n\n                                                    (AJAY GULATI)\n                                                 Special Judge (PC­Act) CBI­12\n                                                 RADCC/ New Delhi/22.01.2021CC No. 271/2019 CBI Vs Sanjiv Kumar and others              Page 352 of 352