Dr. Ch. V.R.R Varaprasad

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CBI CASES, HYDERABAD

Friday, the 31st day of March, 2023

PRESENT:Dr.Ch.V.R.R.Varaprasad,

I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

FAC III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

CBI CASES, HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.02 of 2011

Between:

State represented by Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE,

Hyderabad.... Complainant

AND Kavadi Narasimha S/o K.Bakkaiah Aged 59 years Occ: Former I.A.S. Officer R/o Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, Telangana State.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 16.03.2023 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Dr.K.Anil Kumar, Public Prosecutor for CBI/Complainant and of Sri.Badeti Venkata Rathnam, counsel

for Accused and after hearing the arguments and perusing the

material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of RC.26(A)/06 of CBI, ACB, Hyderabad registered against accused, the then Secretary, Government of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 2

Mizoram, for offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for short ‘the Act’, on the basis of source information that accused amassed wealth and in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

2.The allegations made against accused, as unfolded in charge sheet and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as follows:

2.1Accused hails from rural background. His father K.Bakkaiah and his brother K.Yelleswar are agricultural labourers besides being marginal farmers. Accused joined in Indian Administrative

Service in 1991 and he was allotted to Arunachal Pradesh, Goa,

Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre and worked in various capacities at different places in India. At the time of joining Indian Administrative Service (IAS) accused reported that his father was having income of Rs.1200/- per month. Father of accused and his family were white ration card holders from the years 1990 to 2005 as their annual income was less than

Rs.5,500/-. Father and brother of accused were issued pink colour ration cards in the year 2006 since they declared their annual income as Rs.36,000/- per annum. Father and brother of accused

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 3 were not the Income Tax Assessees. Accused studied B.Sc.

(Agriculture) in Agricultural College, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad from 1982 to 1986 and drawn post-metric social welfare scholarship for scheduled tribe student. Even in the declaration annexed to the said application form annual income of father of accused from all sources was declared as Rs.2,400/-. K.Madhavi (wife of accused) is not gainfully employed. K.Anirudh and

K.Akshay are the sons of accused.

2.2 Accused came in contact with Umashankar Das, Deputy

General Manager, UMAK Investment Company Private Limited (PW6), who hails from Bhubaneshwar, while the former was working as Private Secretary to the Minister for Tribal Welfare,

Government of India, New Delhi. PW6 introduced Dr.Ramesh

Kapoor, Chairman and Managing Director of Raddison Hotel, New

Delhi (PW5) to accused. PW5 is an industrialist having hospitality industry. When accused was posted as Secretary, Tourism,

Government of Mizoram PW5 had shown interest in making investment in the hospitality industry at Mizoram with the help of accused. PW5 also expressed interest in making investments in real estate business in and around Hyderabad.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 4 2.3Accused and PW5 travelled together from Delhi in same flight on 10.10.2006 and stayed in Hotel Manohar, near Begumpet

Airport, Hyderabad. Accused occupied Room No.311 as guest of

PW5. Accused introduced his friend and classmate K.Venkat

Reddy as real estate agent to PW5. PW5 left Hyderabad on 11.10.2006 for Delhi. On 18.10.2006 PW6 joined accused in Room

No.311 by coming from Bhubaneswar. On 19.10.2006 when PW5 arrived in Begumpet Airport, Hyderabad from Delhi, Income Tax authorities detained him while he was found carrying cash of

Rs.2.88 Crores. Pursuant to the information given by PW5 Income

Tax authorities led by K.John Vikram, the then Deputy Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Hyderabad (PW1) conducted searches. During the course of searches, an amount of

Rs.50.00 Lakhs was seized from the bag of PW6 while an amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs and key of locker No.2 were seized from the briefcase of accused. From the said locker, which was allotted to accused, cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs was seized. Laptop of accused was also seized. Certain documents relating to agreements of sale, sale deeds, etc. and a draft agreement between PW5 and

K.Venkat Reddy (in the handwriting of accused) in respect of lands around Hyderabad were also seized. During the searches

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 5 conducted in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar, accused was not present.

2.4 PW5 declared unaccounted amount of Rs.19.00 Crores, tax to be paid thereon being Rs.6.39 Crores, and accordingly paid

Rs.2.81 Crores as tax and requested the Income Tax authorities to adjust the remaining amount of Rs.3.58 Crores seized by Income

Tax Department towards payment of tax of Rs.6.39 Crores.

2.5From the laptop of accused it came to light that there was a draft agreement executed between S.Sunder Raj and

L.R.Bhuvaneshwar Reddy (brother of Neeraja Reddy, who is family friend of accused) regarding dry agricultural land, situated at

Thindivanam Village, Tamil Nadu State. While the accused was working in Pondicherry he had mediated the said deal but it did not materialize since it was a government land. Accused actively involved in real estate business, besides mediating/negotiating land dealings on behalf of PW5.

2.6 In the personal diary of accused seized by Income Tax authorities, several entries pertaining to real estate transactions were found in the handwriting of accused but he refused to give details. Field verification revealed that accused, T.Satyanarayana (PW39) and T.Neeraja Reddy were doing real estate business

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 6 jointly and identified lands at Medipally Village, Nalgonda District belonging to Vishwanath Goud. Agreement of Sale was entered into between PW39 and M.Balaram, who is brother-in-law of

Viswanath Goud, for purchase of land at Medipally Village for sale consideration of Rs.1.30 Lakhs per acre and paid Rs.5.00 Lakhs as advance. Even before the registration of the said land, accused and his associates tried to sell the said property to a third party in

Bibinagar, which party in turn wanted to sell the same to some other third party, but it did not materialize. The details of amounts paid to Viswanath Goud were reflected in the diaries of accused and PW39. During field verification and investigation, several movable and immovable properties surrounding

Hyderabad in the names of accused and his family members were unearthed.

2.7 Father of accused had no assets, except a thatched house and about 06 acres of land, out of which 1.5 acres is wet land while 4.5 acres is dry land. No cultivation was done in dry land but in wet land 21 quintals per annum could be produced.

Therefore, no worthwhile assets were available at the beginning of check period and the annual income of the family of accused was very meager. Accused had not even submitted Statements 1 to 6 to the Department despite the reminders.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 7 2.8During the check period from October, 1993 to 19.10.2006 accused amassed wealth by indulging in corrupt activities and acquired several movable and immovable assets in his name and in the names of his wife, parents and family members.Accused is in possession of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.83,60,474/-. Sanction was also accorded by Central Government as required under Section 19(1) of the Act to prosecute accused. Therefore, accused is liable for punishment for offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

3.Cognizance was taken by the Court of Principal Special

Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 20.01.2011 for offence under

Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and made over the case to this court for disposal.

4.Accused was furnished with copies of documents as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing both sides charge under Section 13(2) r/w

Section 13(1)(e) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 8

6.PW1 to PW60 were examined and Exs.P1 to P119 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the Appendix of Evidence.

7.Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material available against accused was put forth to him. Accused admitted Question Nos.5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 24, 28, 36, 55 to 58, 74 to 81, 83, 86, 95, 98, 102 to 104, 110, 114, 136, 149, 151, 158, 192 to 194, 203 to 209, 266 and 277 to 281 to be true and correct. In reply to Q.No.12, accused admitted that his statement was recorded under Ex.P1 on 24.10.2006 by Income

Tax authorities. In reply to Q.No.14, accused stated that he was not present at the time of search in Room No.311 of Hotel

Manohar on 20.10.2006 and seizure of Ex.P78 Personal Diary.

Accused admitted his marriage with K.Madhavi. In reply to

Q.No.40, accused stated that under Exs.P16 to P25 sale deeds registration fee was paid by the vendors. In reply to Q.Nos.49 to 52, 54, 66, 105, 107, 108, 258 and 259, accused submitted that transfer allowances, transfer grants, transfer TA and other perks were not included in salary particulars and PW55 had not collected any documents in that regard. In reply to Q.Nos.67, 68, 93, 94, 104, 124 to 128 and 182 to 191, accused submitted that outstanding balance amounts in the bank accounts and PPF

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 9 accounts include accrued interest and they were not taken into consideration by PW55. In reply to Q.No.69, accused stated that he had not paid the telephone charges for telephone No.243235 of Anataram village, Bhongir Mandal. In reply to Q.Nos.70, 71 and 73, accused denied to have any concern with the purchase of properties in the names of his parents and his brother K.Yelleswar.

In reply to Q.No.82, accused stated that Gurram Sadananda

Reddy (PW32) repaid Rs.7,70,000/- to him before 19.10.2006. In reply to Q.Nos.163 and 164, accused submitted that his wife

K.Madhavi got the property covered by Ex.P17 under gift from her father. Accused also submitted that the details mentioned in

Statements A to D by PW55 are not true and correct. However, the plea of accused is a total denial with regard to the offence proper.

8.DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D14 were marked on behalf of accused, the details of which are mentioned at the Appendix of Evidence.

9.Accused filed written statement on 08.11.2021 along with

Statement of Personal Loan Account No.30059541303 of accused maintained with State Bank of India, Aizawl, certified copies of sanction orders of TA/DA and medical reimbursement for the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 10 years from 2004-05 to 2006-07 issued by Government of Mizoram and photostat copies of bills for TA and medical reimbursement for the period from 19.01.2004 to 31.03.2004 issued by

Government of Puducherry.

9.1In written statement, accused, inter alia, stated that he has not committed any offence; he is not in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income; investigating officer failed to verify all the known sources of income and under- estimated the sources of income of accused and his wife; values of assets were boosted, expenditure was exaggerated, ignored all the known sources of income and short accounted the income of accused; CBI unnecessarily tagged Rs.20.20 Lakhs as asset of accused under Statement-B contrary to the evidence of PW5 and

PW6; CBI tagged movable and immovable assets belonging to his father K.Bakkaiah, mother K.Rajamma and his brother K.Yelleswar as assets in Statement-B, their incomes in Statement-C and their expenditure in Statement-D to accused without any basis; TA, DA, transfer TA, LTC, etc., of accused were not taken into consideration; no fair investigation was conducted by CBI; and that accused is not in possession of any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income as alleged by prosecution.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 11

10.Heard Dr.K.Anil Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor and

Sri.B.Venkata Rathnam, learned counsel for accused, who filed written arguments as well along with citations, which are perused by court.

11.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Act?

POINT:

Necessary ingredients of offence under Section 13(2) r/w

Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and degree of burden of proof:

12.Charge framed against accused is under Section 13(2) r/w

Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. As per

Explanation to Section 13(1) of the Act, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 12 servant. Section 13(2) of the Act is a punitive section providing minimum imprisonment of one year, maximum imprisonment being seven years, and fine.

13.Learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharastra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar reported in AIR 1981 SC 1186, wherein it was held that the provisions contained in Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is a self contained provision: the first part of the section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused. The language of

Section 13(1)(e) of the Act is in ‘pari materia’ to Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The necessary ingredients to establish the offence under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were succinctly stated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision as follows:

1.Prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant.

2.The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property found in his possession have to be established.

3.Prosecution must prove as to what were the known sources of income of public servant i.e. known to the prosecution.

4.Prosecution must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the public

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 13 servant were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

It was further held that the accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt and all that he needs is to bring out a preponderance of probability regarding his innocence.

14.Learned counsel for accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Kumar v.

State of Orissa reported in AIR 1977 SC 170, wherein it was held that in a criminal trial it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purposes of proving his version, he can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. It was further held that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down. Following three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence were reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision:

1. The onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case.

2. In a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty, and

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 14

3. The onus of the prosecution never shifts.

It was further held that it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as envisaged by Section 5 of the Evidence Act. There cannot be any two opinions in respect of the above legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

15.In an offence of this nature, prosecution has to establish that the various items which are attributed to the public servant are held by him directly or indirectly. Where the properties stand in the name of public servant they do not pose any problem provided he is able to explain satisfactorily to the court that he had earned those properties from known sources of income.

However, in cases where the properties are held in the names of persons other than the public servant, necessary evidence has to be adduced to establish that the public servant is the true owner of the said assets, though they stand ostensibly in the name of different persons. These legal principles have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence on record.

Requirement of consent or otherwise of State Government

to investigate the case by CBI

16.Accused contended that under Section 6 of the Delhi

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 15

Special Police Establishment Act no consent of either Government of Mizoram or the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh was obtained by CBI to investigate the case and on that ground alone the entire case of prosecution falls to the ground. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that since accused is a member of Indian Administrative Service being the Central

Government Employee, CBI has jurisdiction to investigate this case and no consent of State Government concerned is required to be taken to investigate the case.

17.Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act reads as follows:

“6. Consent of State Government to exercise powers and jurisdiction — Nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.”

PW55 deposed in cross-examination that CBI was constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and as per

Section 6 of the said Act, consent of the State Government concerned has to be obtained to investigate the cases by CBI in that particular State. PW55 also deposed that as on the date of registration of the case in RC.26(A)/2006-CBI/HYD accused was working as Secretary to Government in State of Mizoram. PW55

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 16 also admits that no specific consent of the Government of

Mizoram or the Government of Andhra Pradesh was obtained in this case. PW55 explained that no consent of the State

Government concerned is required to investigate the case by CBI as accused was under AGMUT Cadre and does not belong to

Mizoram Cadre alone and, therefore, CBI has jurisdiction since accused is a Central Cadre Officer, particularly as the case was registered basing on the instructions of CBI Head Office, Delhi. As rightly contended by learned counsel for accused, there is no mention in Ex.P77 FIR that the case was registered as per the instructions of CBI, Head Office, Delhi. Though the prosecution has not filed any document along with charge sheet to show that accused belongs to Central Government cadre the fact remains that accused is not disputing that he is the Member of Indian

Administrative Service having been allotted to AGMUT cadre. That apart, Ex.P118 and the evidence of PW60 disclose that accused is a Member of Indian Administrative Service of 1991 having been allotted to AGMUT cadre. It cannot be disputed that accused being the Member of Indian Administrative Service is a Central

Government employee, besides being the public servant. CBI has jurisdiction over the Central Government employees to investigate into the case.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 17

18.The above contention of learned counsel for accused can be

judged from another angle. Ex.P118 is the prosecution order

issued by PW60, who is the competent authority, for prosecution of accused as required under Section 19(1) of the Act. Contents of Ex.P118 have been duly proved by prosecution by the evidence of PW60. Though accused has cross-examined PW60 nothing could be elicited in his favour. When sanction of prosecution as in

Ex.P118 is obtained by CBI as required under Section 19(1) of the

Act it cannot be stated that CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate the case and the police report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.

is invalid. Since accused is a Member of Indian Administrative

Service CBI has jurisdiction to investigate this case. Consent of

Government of Mizoram or erstwhile Government of Andhra

Pradesh is not required to investigate the case by CBI.

19.There is another reason to reject the above contention of learned counsel for accused. Accused filed Criminal Revision Case

No.210 of 2014 in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and it was allowed quashing the proceedings in this case mainly on the ground that since the accused was State Government employee without obtaining sanction from the State Government,

CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence. CBI preferred

Criminal Appeal No.802 of 2017 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 18 against the order dt. 20.03.2014 in Criminal R.C.No.210 of 2014 of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By order dt.

26.04.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal

No.802 of 2017 and set aside the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal R.C.No.210 of 2014 categorically holding that since accused is an employee of Central Government

CBI is competent to conduct investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Act. In view of the said order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the above contention of learned counsel for accused holds no water. This court is of the considered opinion that in view of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court accused cannot contend that CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate this case.

Variation of check period between FIR and charge sheet

and its effect:

20.Learned counsel for accused contended that there is no clarity in the case of prosecution with regard to check period and that the investigating agency must fix check period to assess the

Assets, Income and Expenditure to establish whether accused was in possession of any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period. As per Ex.P77, check period was taken from 15.09.1991 to 19.10.2006. The genesis for

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 19 registration of FIR in this case is the search conducted by Income

Tax authorities in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar, Begumpet,

Hyderabad. In charge sheet check period was taken from

October, 1993 to 19.10.2006 and accordingly PW55 finalized

Statement-A to Statement-D taking the said check period into consideration. No doubt, fixing of check period is an important aspect in arriving at value of assets, income and expenditure in a disproportionate assets case. The question is whether the act of

PW55 in taking the check period from October, 1993 to 19.10.2006 is correct or not.

21.The main contention of learned counsel for accused is that

PW55 ignored to take into consideration the income from salary of accused from September, 1991 to September, 1993 and, therefore, PW55 ought not to have taken the check period from

October, 1993 to 19.10.2006. PW55 deposed that as per Ex.D3 accused had drawn gross salary of Rs.3,07,642/- and net salary of

Rs.2,91,790/- for the period from September, 1991 to May, 1992.

PW55 pleaded his ignorance to state whether accused worked as

Assistant Collector, Bastar District, Jagdhavpur, Madhya Pradesh

State from June, 1992 to 13.06.1993. PW55 admitted Ex.D7 letter

dt. 02.12.1993 of Collector, Bastar District, along with salary

statement. PW55 also admitted that income prior to check

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 20 period, if any, must be shown as opening balance in the income statement of accused. Whether opening balance in the income statement of accused has to be taken into consideration or not will be gone into while dealing with Statement-C. Court is of the considered opinion that PW55 is at liberty to change the check period from FIR to charge sheet.

22.Merely because a particular check period is mentioned in

FIR it need not be necessarily continued during the course of investigation. If the facts and circumstances demand, during the course of investigation, certainly PW55 is entitled to change the check period. In the present case, basing on the facts and circumstances came to light during the course of investigation

PW55 changed the check period to October, 1993 to 19.10.2006 from September, 1991 to 19.10.2006. No prejudice is caused to accused if the check period is taken from October, 1993 to 19.10.2006. For these reasons, court is unable to accept the contention of accused that there is no clarity in the case of prosecution with regard to check period. Specific check period has been taken by PW55 basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and no exception can be taken in this regard.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 21

ASSETS BEFORE THE CHECK PERIOD(STATEMENT-A):

23. PW55 mentioned in Statement-A that K.Bakkaiah(father of accused and K.Rajamma(mother of accused) were holding land of

Ac.3.15¾ Gts. and Ac.3.14¾ Gts. respectively, the total extent being Ac.6.30½ Gts. and the value of the said land was not known as they were un-registered properties and, therefore, they were not shown in Statement-B. It is also mentioned in Statement-A that out of Ac.6.30½ Gts., Ac.1.35 Gts. is alone wet land and cultivable. Exs.P79 and P80 reflected the above extent of land standing in the name of K.Bakkaiah in Survey Nos.73, 74, 88 and 89 of Anantaram Village. Exs.P29 and P30 show that K.Bakkaiah and K.Rajamma were holding Ac.3.15¾ Gts. and Ac.3.14¾ Gts., total extent being Ac.6.30½ Gts. In Survey Nos.73, 74, 88 and 89 vide Khata Nos.268 and 269 respectively in Anantaram Village, which is the native place of accused. K.Rajamma died 5 years prior to 19.10.2006, which is evident from Ex.P7. However, there is no registered document under which these lands were purchased nor there are any details of purchase, including the date of their acquisition. As such, their value was rightly not taken by PW55 and it was not shown in Statement-B. In fact, this aspect was not disputed by accused as well. Therefore, value in

Statement-A is taken as Nil.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 22

ASSETS AT THE END OF THE CHECK PERIOD I.E. AS ON

19.10.2006 (STATEMENT-B):

24.In Statement-B annexed to charge sheet 19 immovable assets and other movable assets were mentioned. Movable assets include amounts in bank accounts, PPF accounts, investments in bonds and shares, Tractor and Hero Honda motorcycle. Cash of Rs.17,20,000/- recovered from the locker in

Hotel Manohar and cash of Rs.3.00 Lakhs recovered from the suitcase of accused in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar were also shown as assets in Statement-B. Total value of these assets is shown at Rs.94,67,770/- by PW55. Court proceeds to deal with recovery of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs first and then deal with other assets in Statement-B.

Seizure of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs from Hotel Manohar and

whether it can be tagged to accused as asset (Item Nos.4

and 5 of assets in Statement-B under the caption

”Vehicles and bank balances”):

25.Searches conducted by PW1, who is Income Tax official, is the main genesis for this case. With regard to seizure of cash of

Rs.17.20 Lakhs from Locker No.2 of Hotel Manohar and Rs.3.00

Lakhs from the suitcase of accused in Room No.311 of Hotel

Manohar, evidence of PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW55 and Exs.P1 to

P5, P10, P14, P15, P77, P102, P103, P104, P105 and Ex.D2 are

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 23 relevant. PW5 is the Chairman and Managing Director of

Raddison Blue Plaza Hotel, Delhi. PW6 is the close associate of

PW5. PW5 and PW6 are also the close associates and friends of accused. PW55 is the investigating officer.

26.PW1 deposed that on 19.10.2006 on receipt of information from Air Intelligence PW1 and his team visited Begumpet Airport and conducted searches under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.

During the said search, PW1 found PW6 present in Airport to receive PW5, who was coming from Delhi and carrying money with him. About Rs.3.00 Crores was seized by PW1 from PW5 at about 12.00 Noon. During the course of examination of PW5, it came to light that PW6 and accused were staying in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar. Basing on the said information, PW1 and his team went to Room No.311 during evening hours and found PW6 present in the room.

27.A bag containing cash of about Rs.50.00 Lakhs was found in

Room No.311 while cash of Rs.3.00 Lakhs was found in briefcase of accused. With the locker key found in the suitcase of accused, the locker in Hotel Manohar was opened and PW1 seized cash of

Rs.17,00,000/-. Evidence of PW1 in this regard is also corroborated by the evidence of PW5 and PW6. Seizure of cash of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 24

Rs.17.20 Lakhs from the locker and Rs.3.00 Lakhs from the suitcase of accused is clinchingly established by the prosecution by the evidence of PW5 and PW6.

28.Seizure of about Rs.3.00 Crores in cash from PW5 and about

Rs.50.00 Lakhs from PW6 during the searches conducted by PW1 is not in dispute. The said fact is also evident from the evidence of

PW1, PW5 and PW6. Admittedly, cash of about Rs.3.00 Crores seized from PW5 and about Rs.50.00 Lakhs seized from PW6 is not tagged to accused. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary for the court to dilate further on these amounts. Amount of Rs.20.20

Lakhs alone has been tagged to accused, which is the subject matter in this case.

29.PW38 is an important witness regarding stay of accused in

Hotel Manohar. He has furnished Safe Deposit Locker Register (Ex.P59) of Hotel Manohar for the period from 30.05.2006 to 29.10.2006 to CBI. PW38 deposed that as per Ex.P59 Locker No.2 was allotted to accused during his stay in Room No.311 from 10.10.2006 to 20.10.2006 in Hotel Manohar. PW38 also deposed about the Income Tax officials conducting search in Room No.311 and Locker No.2 and recovery of cash during the said search.

According to PW38, Room No.311 was booked by PW5 of Raddison

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 25

Company, Delhi. In Page No.17 the name of accused is reflected against Room No.311. PW38 deposed in cross-examination that as per Page No.16, 20 and 22 of Ex.P59, Locker No.2 was in the name of Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of Hotel Manohar and the name of the guest was mentioned as Ms.Shanthi, who is the Secretary to CMD. Page No.26 of Ex.P59 shows that the key of Locker No.2 was handed over to PW1 on 20.10.2006 and his signature is appearing in the said page. It is true that the entries in Page No.17 of Ex.P59 are not in chronological order. On the said discrepancy alone court cannot disbelieve the case of prosecution.

30.PW38 admitted in cross-examination that the bills of Room

No.311 were settled by PW5. Though accused stayed in Room

No.311 of Hotel Manohar from 10.10.2006 to 20.10.2006 no amount was paid to the said Hotel for his stay. Evidence on record establishes that PW5 provided accommodation to accused in Hotel Manohar for his stay for 10 days. It is not known why

PW5 had to incur the bill of Room No.311 for the stay of accused.

Though accused stated to have booked room in Government

Guest House in Hyderabad the fact remains that he stayed only in

Room No.311 from 10.10.2006 to 20.10.2006 at the cost of PW5.

Accused being IAS officer is not expected to stay in the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 26 accommodation provided by PW5. It speaks volumes about the close association and connivance between accused and PW5.

That apart, accused is not disputing the factum of his stay in

Hotel Manohar at the relevant time.

31.Regarding allotment of Locker No.2 in Hotel Manohar and its operation by accused at the relevant time there is other evidence as well. Ex.P102 is the statement of P.Shanti, the then Secretary to CMD of Hotel Manohar, recorded by P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Deputy

Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad on 20.10.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. P.Shanti has clearly stated in Ex.P102 that Locker No.2 was allotted to accused, who was the guest in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar. Ex.P105 is the statement of V.Renjunair, the then Front Officer/Cashier of Hotel

Manohar, recorded by the same Income Tax official, wherein he stated that Locker No.2 was allotted to accused and he had operated the same on 12.10.2006 and 14.10.2006. Naturally, when the locker is operated accused alone would be present to maintain secrecy and the hotel officials will wait outside. Though

P.Shanti and V.Renjunair were neither cited nor examined by prosecution court can rely on Exs.P102 and P105 because they were recorded by Income Tax official and not by police officer.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 27

32.Learned counsel for accused contended that there is the clinching evidence of PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW55 by way of admissions to the effect that Rs.20.20 Lakhs was also claimed by

PW6 as his amount and paid tax to the Income Tax Department on all the unaccounted amounts seized from PW5 and PW6 in

Hyderabad and Delhi and assessment order was passed by the

Income Tax Department and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination the amount of Rs.20.20 Lakhs can be tagged to accused as asset and PW55 committed grave error in this regard.

Refuting the said contention, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that amount of Rs.17.20 Lakhs was seized from the locker allotted and maintained by accused in Hotel

Manohar, the locker was opened with the key found in the briefcase of accused, and that cash of Rs.3.00 Lakhs was seized from the briefcase of accused and, therefore, the said total amount of Rs.20.20 Lakhs has to be taken as asset of accused.

33.Statements of PW5, PW6 and accused have been recorded by the Income Tax authorities (PW1). On multiple occasions their statements were recorded by PW1. Exs.P4 and P5 are the statements of PW5 and Exs.P2 and P3 are the statements of PW6 recorded by PW1 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act on 19.10.2006. Exs.P14 and P15 are also the statements of PW6

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 28 recorded by PW1 and another Income Tax official on 24.10.2006 and 06.11.2006 respectively. Ex.P1 is the statement of accused

dt. 24.10.2006 recorded by PW1 under Section 131 of the Income

Tax Act. Learned counsel for accused contended that statements of PW5, PW6 and accused are hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and they cannot be looked into by court. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that since PW1 and the other Income Tax official are not the Police Officers Section 162 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the statements of PW5, PW6 and accused.

34.Section 162 of Cr.P.C. deals with the statements given to

Police and use of such statements in evidence. Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. empowers a Police Officer to examine a witness. No signature of a witness can be obtained by Police Officer when he records such statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, as laid down by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. The term ‘Police Officer’ is nowhere defined in Cr.P.C. The Indian Police Act is relevant in this regard.

The word ‘Police’ includes, who shall be enrolled under the Police

Act, 1861, as per Section 1 of the said Act. Admittedly, PW1 is not the Officer, who was enrolled under the Police Act. PW1 is admittedly working as Deputy Director (Investigation), Income Tax

Department, Hyderabad at the relevant time. He has recorded the above statements of PW5, PW6 and accused under Section

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 29 131 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, PW1 is not a Police Officer and consequently the statements of PW5, PW6 and accused recorded by PW1 are not hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. They can be safely looked into by court, particularly as PW1 was examined, who recorded those statements.

35.In Ex.P1 accused admitted about his stay in Room No.311 of

Hotel Manohar from 10.10.2006 to 19.10.2006. Accused also stated in Ex.P1 that PW6 joined in Room No.311 on 17/18.10.2006. Accused stated in detail in Ex.P1 as to how he acquainted himself to PW5 and PW6. With regard to cash of

Rs.20.20 Lakhs, accused stated in Ex.P1 that PW5 came to

Hyderabad on 10.10.2006 and while leaving for Delhi on 11.10.2006 he has handed over a packet for being handed over to

PW6, who was expected to arrive in Hyderabad on 12.10.2006 and as PW6 did not turn up on 12.10.2006 accused put the packet inside the locker on 12.10.2006 without checking the contents and opened the locker on 14.10.2006 and checked the contents of the packet and found it to be containing currency bundles. It was further stated by accused in Ex.P1 that the locker was closed, key was kept in his briefcase and handed over the same to PW6 while the accused was leaving for his village on the forenoon of 19.10.2006. Accused further stated in Ex.P1 that he has no

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 30 connection with cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs found in the locker and the said amount belongs to PW5. Accused also further stated that he did not know anything about the cash of Rs.3.00 Lakhs available in his suitcase, it does not belong to him and if at all any cash was available in the briefcase PW6 might have kept the same. It must be noted that this version of accused was given four days after the search and seizure at Hotel Manohar.

36.Ex.P2 is the statement of PW6 which was first recorded by

PW1 in Begumpet Airport. Ex.P2 shows that PW6 carried cash of about Rs.53,80,000/- which belongs to PW5. In Ex.P2 PW6 revealed about the factum of accused staying in Room No.311 of

Hotel Manohar. PW6 further stated in Ex.P2 that the baggage in

Room No.311 belongs to accused since he was found using them.

Ex.P3 is the statement of PW6 recorded by PW1 in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar. In Ex.P3 also PW6 reiterated that the suitcase, briefcase and one laptop belong to accused, who was staying in the same room along with PW6. PW6 deposed about the diary of accused (Ex.P78) found in briefcase of accused. The factum of recovery of locker key from the briefcase of accused is also stated by PW6 in Ex.P3. PW6 explained in Ex.P3 in detail regarding his acquaintance with accused. In reply to Q.No.20 in Ex.P3 about cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs found in the locker, PW6 stated that he

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 31 had no idea about the cash found in Locker No.2. It is clear from these statements of PW6 that the briefcase belongs to accused, locker key was found in the briefcase of accused and he had pleaded his ignorance about the source of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs.

37.Ex.P4 is the statement of PW5 recorded by PW1 in

Begumpet Airport. PW5 admitted about his carrying cash of

Rs.2.80 Crores from Delhi to Hyderabad, at which time he was caught by Income Tax authorities. He has stated so many details with regard to cash of Rs.2.80 Crores which is not relevant. PW5 further stated in Ex.P4 that he was expected to sign sale deed for some land and agreement of sale for land of about 300 to 400 acres on Warangal Highway in the outskirts of Hyderabad and that

PW6 was coordinating the said work. Ex.P5 is the statement of

PW5 recorded in Begumpet Airport itself on 19.10.2006. PW5 stated in Ex.P5 that he came to Hyderabad on 19.10.2006 for registration of about 40 acres of land in Bhongir, Nalgonda District in the name of M/s.Umak Investment Company Private Limited, which belongs to his family and he was carrying Rs.2.80 Crores for payment to landlords. PW5 further stated that PW6 of SRB

Associates, Bhuvaneswar was arranging the real estate deals for him in Hyderabad. He also stated that PW6 came to Hyderabad on 18.10.2006 and staying in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 32 along with one of his friends(accused). Q.No.23 and its answer given by PW5 is very important. It reads as follows:

Q.23: Please state whether you have given cash to anybody in the last few days? Ans: I cannot answer this question at this point of time, as I cannot recollect at this point of time.

Even with regard to the cash given to PW6, same answer was given by PW5 in Q.No.24. Even when the statement of PW6 was confronted to PW5 about his version of PW5 handing over cash of

Rs.50.00 Lakhs to PW6, PW5 has given evasive answer by stating that he was unable to recollect. PW5 further stated in Ex.P5 that he was unable to explain the source of cash of Rs.2.88 Crores, it may be seized but he may be allowed a chance to explain the source of the said cash in due course. In loose papers confronted to PW5 certain details of land in Bhongir area, Nalgonda District, which he intended to purchase, are mentioned. Even in these statements of PW5 he has nowhere stated about his handing over packet containing cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs to accused. Hence, it is clear that the cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs seized from locker belongs to accused only.

38.Ex.P14 is the statement of PW6 recorded by PW1 on 24.10.2006. In Ex.P14 PW6 stated that Rs.3.00 Lakhs found in the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 33 suitcase of accused was kept by himself for safety purpose. He has also stated that out of Rs.53.00 Lakhs brought from PW5 in

New Delhi to Hyderabad via Bhuvaneswar he has kept Rs.50.00

Lakhs in his trolley bag and kept Rs.3.00 Lakhs in the suitcase of accused. Even in Ex.P14 also PW6 has nowhere stated about PW5 handing over packet containing Rs.17.20 Lakhs to accused and the accused keeping the same in Locker No.2 of Hotel Manohar.

Ex.P15 is the statement of PW6 recorded by Income Tax official on 06.11.2006 during the course of search of Locker No.24 in UTI

Bank, Satyanagar, Bhuvaneswar. In Ex.P15 also there is no whisper about source of cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs seized from locker in Hotel Manohar.

39.Ex.D2 is the carbon copy of panchanama, carbon copy of

Annexure-B/1 and Annexure-B/2. It was marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW6. Ex.D2 was furnished by

PW1 to PW6 at the time of search and seizure. Ex.D2 contains the acknowledgement of PW6. The factum of seizure of cash of

Rs.17.20 Lakhs from Locker No.2 in Hotel Manohar with currency notes denomination are mentioned in Annexure-B/2 (Part of

Ex.D2). Similarly, in Annexure-B/1 (Part of Ex.D2) the factum of seizure of Rs.50.00 Lakhs from the trolley of PW6, Rs.50,000/- from the briefcase of accused and Rs.2.50 Lakhs from the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 34 suitcase of accused are mentioned. In respect of Rs.17.20 Lakhs there is no mention that PW6 stated before PW1 that the said amount belongs to PW5. However, in respect of Rs.3.00 Lakhs there is a mention in Annexure-B/1 of Ex.D2 that PW6 claimed the said amount to be belonging to him. As already stated, when his statement was recorded by PW1, PW6 nowhere stated that

Rs.3.00 Lakhs belongs to him only. Hence, Ex.D2 infact is helpful to the prosecution.

40.Ex.P86 is the covering letter dt.11.06.2007 of S.Rahman,

Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Air Intelligence

Unit, Delhi sending Annexure A1 consisting of 80 pages and

Annexure A2 consisting of 78 pages to CBI but they were not filed in court. They were seized from the residence of accused in New

Delhi in connection with income tax case of PW5. Certainly prosecution ought to have filed them in court. However, mere non-filing of those documents is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Other evidence on record has to be looked into by court.

41.Merely because accused stated in Ex.P1 at Q.No.35 that he had no connection with the cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs found in

Locker No.2 court cannot accept the said version of accused. It is

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 35 not a case where accused was available in the hotel at the time of search and seizure and gave explanation on the spot to PW1 with regard to source of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs. Though PW5 stated in his previous statement recorded by PW55 that he had given packet containing Rs.17.20 Lakhs to accused on 11.10.2006 for being handed over to PW6 in Hyderabad it was given by PW5 as an after thought to help accused. The statement of PW5 was recorded by PW55 after 21.12.2006. Though in the statement of

PW5 the date of examination was not mentioned by PW55 it must have been recorded only after the registration of FIR in Ex.P77 (21.12.2006).

42.PW5 deposed that Rs.17.20 Lakhs and Rs.53.00 Lakhs seized by Income Tax authorities at Hotel Manohar belongs to him and it is not the amount of accused. PW5 also admitted to have stated before PW55 that he has declared additional income of

Rs.19.00 Crores to the Income Tax Department and paid tax by way of cheques and Income Tax Department passed assessment order for the assessment year 2007-2008 regarding Rs.53.00

Lakhs and Rs.17.20 Lakhs as the amounts belonging to him and he paid the tax. In cross-examination by prosecution, PW5 stated that he had not taken any acknowledgment from accused for handing over Rs.17.20 Lakhs in cash, did not note down the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 36 currency note numbers anywhere and could not describe the nature of packet handed over to accused. PW5 could not state that the same amount, which he had given to accused, was seized from the locker in Hotel Manohar. PW5 also stated that he could not recollect whether he has provided any documents to CBI showing the source of Rs.17.20 Lakhs and Rs.53.00 Lakhs seized from Hotel Manohar.

43.The purpose and object of passing assessment order by

Income Tax authorities is to collect tax on unaccounted money as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is true that PW5 claimed Rs.20.20 Lakhs as well belonging to him and paid tax to the Income Tax Department. Merely because assessment order has been passed by the Income Tax Department and tax was collected on Rs.20.20 Lakhs from PW5 this court is not debarred from going into the source of said cash and give an independent finding regarding the possession of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs by accused.

44.Merely because the Income Tax Department passed an assessment order on Rs.20.20 Lakhs also and the tax was paid by

PW5, it cannot be automatically stated that accused has no concern with the said amount. Had it been a case where PW5 and

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 37

PW6 at the first instance in their statements recorded by PW1 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act stated about the source of Rs.20.20 Lakhs and the factum of handing over cash of

Rs.17.20 Lakhs by PW5 to accused court could have certainly accepted the version of defence. There was ample time for accused, PW5 and PW6 to make deliberations among themselves and put forth a false version to bail out the accused, particularly as they are close associates and friends and engaged in real estate dealings in and around Hyderabad.

45.Evidence on record establishes that PW5 came to

Hyderabad on 10.10.2006 along with accused and left Hyderabad on 11.10.2006. It is born out by the evidence that in New Delhi itself PW5 handed over Rs.53.00 Lakhs to PW6, who carried them to Bhuvaneswar and returned to Hyderabad on 18.10.2006. If really the version of accused is correct, the amount of Rs.17.20

Lakhs could have been handed over by PW5 to PW6 along with

Rs.53.00 Lakhs. Accused being the IAS Officer cannot afford to receive a packet from PW5 without verifying the contents. No reasonable or prudent man can accept the contention of accused that he had not seen the contents of packet handed over to him by PW5 from 12.10.2006 to 14.10.2006. Accused is aware of the legal consequences if he is found in possession of unaccounted

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 38 money. The story of PW5 handing over packet to accused was introduced as an after thought.

46. It is also born out by record that PW6 occupied Room

No.311 of Hotel Manohar on 18.10.2006 and stayed along with accused and left for Airport on 19.10.2006 after the accused left the Hotel in the early hours of 19.10.2006. If really the cash of

Rs.17.20 Lakhs contained in packet given by PW5 to accused was intended for being handed over to PW6, accused ought to have immediately handed over either the locker key or the cash of

Rs.17.20 Lakhs by taking out the same from the locker to PW6 either on 18.10.2006 or at least on the early hours of 19.10.2006, which is the normal behavior of a reasonable or prudent man.

Since the cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs belongs to accused only he had not handed over the same to PW6. The factum of accused securing locker in Hotel Manohar, keeping the locker key in his possession and the operation of locker by accused on 12.10.2006 and 14.10.2006 speak volumes about the ownership of cash of

Rs.17.20 Lakhs by accused. Hence, there can not be any doubt to hold that the cash of Rs.17.20 Lakhs seized from locker No.2 in

Hotel Manohar belongs to accused and it is the unaccounted money.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 39

47.The version of PW6 that he had kept Rs.3.00 Lakhs in the suitcase of accused is unbelievable. When PW6 kept huge cash of

Rs.50.00 Lakhs in his trolley nothing prevented him to keep

Rs.3.00 Lakhs also in the same trolley and there is no special reason why PW6 had to keep Rs.3.00 Lakhs in the briefcase of accused. Unless the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs belongs to accused the question of its presence in the suitcase/briefcase of accused does not arise. It is not a case where Rs.10,000/- or some small amount was found in the briefcase of accused. Such huge cash of

Rs.3 Lakhs can not be kept by accused for his personal use. Since the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs belongs to accused he had kept it in his briefcase. Accused by absconding himself for 05 days after 19.10.2006 knitted a false story disowning the cash of Rs.20.20

Lakhs. There is no explanation from accused regarding the source of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs. Court is of the considered opinion that

Rs.20.20 Lakhs has to be taken as the asset of accused in

Statement-B.

48.Learned counsel for accused contended that non-production of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs and locker key is fatal to the case of prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that cash of

Rs.20.20 Lakhs and locker key are in the custody of Income Tax

Department and, therefore, they could not be produced in this

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 40 court. The seizure of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs and locker key gave rise to two proceedings i.e. one by the Income Tax Department to collect tax on the unaccounted money and another is the present case registered by CBI. Since the above amount and locker key are under the custody of Income Tax Department, their non- production in this court is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

Moreover, the seizure of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs and locker key is clinchingly established by prosecution. Though accused disowned

Rs.20.20 Lakhs he had not disputed the factum of seizure of cash of Rs.20.20 Lakhs and locker key from Hotel Manohar.

Undisputed items in Statement-B:

49.Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of Immovable Assets and Item

Nos.1 to 3 under the caption “Investments and Bonds and Shares” in Statement-B are not disputed by accused. Evidence of PW55 and PW59 and Ex.P82 are relevant in respect of Plot No.G-23 in

Greater Noida, U.P. (Item No.1) standing in the name of accused worth Rs.13,55,842/-. Evidence of PW2 and PW55 and Ex.P11 are relevant in respect of Plot No.134 in Sy.Nos.125 to 131, admeasuring 1000 Sq. Yards, situated at Bhongir Town and

Mandal, Nalgonda District (Item No.2), worth Rs.1,14,000/- stands in the name of accused. Evidence of PW9, PW55 and Ex.P16 are

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 41 relevant in respect of Plot Nos.5 to 8 in Sy.No.596, admeasuring 600 Sq. Yards, situated at Bibi Nagar Village, Nalgonda District (Item No.4), worth Rs.1,20,000/- standing in the name of

K.Madhavi (wife of accused). Evidence of PW9, PW55 and Ex.P17 are relevant in respect of Plot No.4 in Sy.No.596, admeasuring 150

Sq. Yards, situated at Bibinagar Village, Nalgonda District (Item

No.5), worth Rs.30,000/- stands in the name of wife of accused.

Evidence of PW9, PW55 and Ex.P18 are relevant in respect of Plot

No.13 in Sy.No.596, admeasuring 366 Sq. Yards, situated at

Bibinagar Village, Nalgonda District (Item No.6), worth Rs.36,600/- stands in the name of wife of accused. Evidence of PW17, PW18,

PW31, PW41 and PW55 and Exs.P36, P37, P50, P51 and P64 are relevant in respect of Bonds and Shares for total value of

Rs.75,000/- covered by Item Nos.1 to 3 under the caption “Investments in Bonds and Shares”. Since these items are not disputed by accused no further discussion is required. Suffice it to say, the values mentioned against these items in Statement-B have to be taken into consideration as true and correct.

Item Nos.3, 7 to 14 & 16 to 19 (Immovable Assets) in

Statement-B:

50.Item No.3, 13, 16, 17 and 18 stand in the name of

K.Yelleswar (brother of accused). Item Nos.7 to 12 and 19 stand

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 42 in the name of K.Bakkaiah (father of accused). Item No.14 stands in the name of Rajamma (mother of accused). Item No.3, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are the agricultural lands, total admeasuring

Ac.20.13½ Guntas, situated in erstwhile Nalgonda District, stand in the name of brother of accused, their registration value as shown in Statement-B being Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.2,63,500/-,

Rs.77,000/-, Rs.49,000/- and Rs.47,000/- respectively, total value of these assets being Rs.7,86,500/-.

51.Item No.7 is the plot admeasuring 1466 Sq. Yards in

Sy.No.301 of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal standing in the name of father of accused. Item No.9 is H.No.2-11 (old house) in 650 Sq. Yards situated in Anantaram Village, standing in the name of father of accused. Item Nos.8 and 10 to 12 are the agricultural lands situated in Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District, total admeasuring Ac.7.39 Guntas, stand in the name of father of accused. For Item No.9 the value of constructions was assessed by PW19 at Rs.13,40,000/- while the value of plot as in Ex.P21 is Rs.32,500/-. Thus, Item Nos.7 to 11, 12 and 19 were valued at Rs.12,500/-, Rs.1,07,000/-, Rs.32,500/-,

Rs.62,000/-, Rs.62,000/-, Rs.56,600/- and Rs.13,40,000/- respectively, their total value being Rs.16,72,600/-, being the immovable assets standing in the name of father of accused.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 43

52.Item No.14 is Flat No.301 in Hemanth Apartments at Bapuji

Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad standing in the name of Rajamma (mother of accused). Its registration value is mentioned as

Rs.1,90,000/- as per Ex.P49 registered sale deed.

53.The case of prosecution is that Item Nos.3, 7 to 14 and 16 to 19 were acquired by accused in the names of his father, mother and brother, who are the ostensible owners, besides being the benamies of accused. It is also the case of prosecution that till 2005 father, mother and brother of accused are the white ration card holders, they had no income/financial source to acquire these properties and that the accused himself purchased these properties in the names of his parents and brother and, therefore, the values of these properties have to be tagged to accused. On the other hand, it is the case of accused that he has nothing to do with these properties and they exclusively belong to his parents and brother and PW55 has unnecessarily tagged these assets to accused.

54.Exs.P25, P26, P47, P45 and P46 relate to Item Nos.3, 13, 16, 17 and 18 respectively standing in the name of brother of accused. PW9, the then Sub-Registrar, Bhongir, deposed about

Exs.P25 and P26. In cross-examination PW9 deposed that under

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 44

Exs.P25 and P26 sale deeds K.Yelleswar (purchaser) paid sale consideration and the registration fee was paid by the respective vendors. PW22, the then Village Revenue Officer of Jangampally

Village, deposed about Ex.P39, which reflected the names of vendors in respect of Item Nos.16 to 18 and that the said lands are the dry lands. PW27, the then Sub-Registrar of Yadagirigutta, deposed about Exs.P45 to P47, which are the registered sale deeds executed in the name of K.Yelleswar (brother of accused).

Under Exs.P45 to P47 total amount of Rs.16,435/- was paid towards stamp duty and registration fee. While Exs.P45 and P46 were executed on 16.11.2005 Ex.P47 was executed on 15.11.2005. PW27 deposed in cross-examination that sale consideration and stamp duty under Exs.P45 to P47 were paid by

K.Yelleswar and registration fee of Rs.865/- was paid by the vendors.

55.Exs.P19, P20, P21, P22, P23, and P24 relate to item Nos.7 to 12 respectively of Statement-B standing in the name of

K.Bakkaiah (father of accused). Ex.P79 and Ex.P80 are the

Pattadhar Passbook and Title Deed of K.Bakkaiah in respect of these Items of properties and other properties mentioned in

Statement-A. PW9 deposed about Exs.P19 to P24, which are the certified copies of registered sale deeds dt. 07.04.1999,

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 45 12.12.1996, 30.10.2000, 17.12.1998, 17.12.1998 and 27.01.1997 respectively. From 1996 to 2000 these properties were purchased in the name of father of accused. PW9 deposed in cross- examination that as per Exs.P19 to P24, purchaser (K.Bakkaiah) paid sale consideration and the registration fee was paid by the vendors.

56.Ex.P49 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.

31.07.1997 executed in favour of K.Rajamma (mother of accused) in respect of Item No.14. PW33 deposed about Ex.P49. PW33 deposed that as per Ex.P49 an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was paid by purchaser (K.Rajamma) as sale consideration and Rs.22,720/- was paid towards stamp duty and registration fee. PW33 also deposed that the stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.22,720/- was paid by vendor by name Ch.Ramchandra Reddy, authorized representative of R.V.Nirman Private Limited (PW30).

57.Before examining the aspect whether the above properties are the benami properties of accused or they were actually acquired by the parents and brother of accused from their independent sources of income, it is just and necessary to take note of the relevant legal provisions of the Prohibition of Benami

Property Transactions Act, 1988 and the decisions of the Hon’ble

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 46

Supreme Court in that regard.

58.Section 2(9) of the Prohibition of Benami Property

Transactions Act, 1988 defines the term “benami transactions” as follows:

“(A) a transaction or an arrangement—

(a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and

(b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration, xx xx xx xx xx xx xx or (B) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property carried out or made in a fictitious name; or (C) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the owner of the property is not aware of, or, denies knowledge of, such ownership; (D) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the person providing the consideration is not traceable or is fictitious.

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx “

If any of the above clauses is established it is sufficient to call a particular transaction as a benami transaction. All the above four clauses need not be established.

59.Learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaydayal Poddar v.

Bibi Hazra reported in AIR 1974 SC 171, wherein at Para No.6

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 47 it was held as follows:

“It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact or benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. Though the question, whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining this question, no absolute formulae or acid tests, uniformly applicable in all situations, can be laid down; yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the courts are usually guided by these circumstances : (1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of the title-deeds after the sale and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.

The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless No.1, viz. the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 48 source whence the purchase money came, is by far the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another.”

Learned counsel for accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidyadhar Krishnarao

Mungi v. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani reported in AIR 1974

SC 658, wherein it was held that the fact that the consideration

was paid by the husband to the seller does not necessarily prove that the amount came from his own pocket and it is quite probable that the wife had entrusted the amount to him for payment to seller. Learned counsel for accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Federal Court in

Gangadara Ayyar v. Subramania Sastrigal reported in AIR 1949 FEDERAL COURT 88, wherein it was held that the onus of establishing that a transaction is benami is on the person asserting benami nature of the transaction and it must be strictly made out and that the decision of the court can not rest on mere suspicion but must rest on legal grounds and legal testimony.

These three decisions arose out of civil suits.

60.Learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnand Agnihotri

Appellant v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1977

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 49

SC 796, wherein it was held that the burden of showing that a

particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. Learned counsel for accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Krishna Reddy v. State reported in 1993 Criminal Law

Journal 308, wherein the same legal principles laid down in

Krishnanad Agnihotri’s case have been reiterated. Learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.Govardhan v. State

of A.P. reported in 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 886 (AP), wherein it was held that on the mere ground that the alleged benamidars have no sufficient income of their own to purchase the properties, they can not be assumed to have been obtained with the funds of accused. Learned counsel for accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in M.Sreeramulu v.

State of A.P. reported in 2003 CRL.L.J.2956, wherein it was held that prosecution has to establish that the various items which it attributes to the public servant are held by him directly or

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 50 even indirectly. In the background of these legal principles, court proceeds to examine whether Item Nos.3, 7 to 14 and 16 to 18 of

Statement-B are the benami properties of accused or not.

61.Above Sale Deeds show that the above immovable assets stand in the names of parents and mother of accused. None of these documents show the dates of payment of sale consideration and that the amount was paid either by cheque or Demand Draft or through Bank transfer. All the sale deeds in respect of properties standing in the names of parents and brother of accused show that the sale consideration was paid even prior to the date of registration of respective sale deeds. Had it been case where the sale consideration covered by above sale deeds was paid by way of cheque/demand draft/bank transfer there could have been the possibility of availability of documentary evidence. Since the sale consideration was paid by cash naturally prosecution could not file documentary evidence regarding transfer of amounts by accused with regard to these transactions.

62.It is true that stamp duty under above sale deeds was stated to have been paid by the parents and brother of accused, whose names are appearing in sale deeds, while the registration fee has been paid by respective vendors. Stamp duty and

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 51 registration fee are not significant amounts and they were not taken into consideration by PW55 in Statement-B. However, the aspect of stamp duty and registration fee covered by these items of properties will be discussed a little later while dealing with expenditure in Statement-D.

63.The important fact is whether parents and brother of accused had sufficient income at the relevant time so as to purchase above properties. Ample evidence was adduced by the prosecution regarding the poor economical background and poor financial status of parents and brother of accused. Ex.P12 is the declaration form-cum-household information sheet of father of accused for the year 2006. Ex.P13 is the attested copy of key register of Anantaram Village of Bhongir Mandal. As per Ex.P12, father of accused declared his annual family income at

Rs.36,000/-, father of accused being the head of the family while

Yelleshwar (Brother of accused), his wife and two children are the other members of the family. As per Ex.P13, the annual income of father of accused was Rs.5,500/-. The name of mother of accused is also reflected in Ex.P13 and the age of accused, whose name was deleted, is mentioned as 25 years. Though it is not clear from Ex.P13 as to to which year it relates to, as per the details mentioned therein it has to be taken that it relates to the year of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 52 1990-1991. From Exs.P12 to P13 it is clear that the annual income of family of father of accused was Rs.5,500/- till 2005 and in the year 2006 it was Rs.36,000/-. There was no separate income for the brother of accused as per Exs.P12 and P13 because he is the member of joint family. Exs.P12 and P13 were duly proved by the evidence of PW4. PW4 was not even cross examined by accused. Hence, the contents of Exs.P12 and P13 have to be taken into consideration as true and correct.

64.Ex.P29 reflected the details of agricultural lands in

Sy.Nos.73, 74, 88 and 89 of Anantaram Village standing in the names of father and mother of accused. Ex.P30 reflected the details of lands standing in the name of father of accused in

Sy.Nos.24/EE, 25/EE and 71, admeasuring Ac.1.09 Gts, Ac.3.04

Gts and Ac.2.35 Gts respectively. As per Ex.P30, father of accused was holding Ac.14.30 Gts. and brother of accused was holding Ac.8.30½ Gts. in Anantaram Village. Exs.P29 and P30 are proved by the evidence of PW11 and PW21. As per Ex.P29, paddy was cultivated in lands in Sy.Nos.73 and 74 and no crop was raised in the lands in Sy.Nos.88 and 89. The total extent of cultivable land in Sy.Nos.73 and 74 standing in the names of parents of accused was only Ac.1.38 Gts. In cross-examination

PW21 deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 53 crops raised in the said lands prior to 2008. PW21 deposed evidence basing on revenue records. Hence, Exs.P29 and P30 and the evidence of PW11 and PW21 can not be disbelieved.

65.PW36, the then Secretary, Agriculture Marketing

Committee, Bhongir, deposed about Ex.P56 containing the information relating to market price of paddy for the period from 1991-1992 to 2007-2008 maintained by the Agriculture Market

Committee, Bhongir. Ex.P56 is proved by the evidence of PW36.

Basing on the prices of paddy in Ex.P56 the agricultural income and expenditure of father of accused has been calculated. From 1996-1997 to 2006-2007 the total net agricultural income of father of accused was taken at Rs.2,09,715/- by PW55 in

Statement-C. PW36 deposed in cross-examination that the prices mentioned in Ex.P56 are not applicable to the paddy sold out side the market. The farmers are expected to sell their agricultural produce in agriculture market established by the Government.

Therefore, even if the agricultural produce is sold by a farmer to an agent court has to take into consideration the prices fixed by

Agriculture Market Committee only. Hence, the court has to rely on Ex.P56.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 54

66.PW47, the then Agricultural Officer, Bhongir deposed that paddy is cultivated with the help of bore well, and red gram, green gram and castor are cultivated with rain water in

Anantaram Village. Two crops of paddy are cultivated annually and castor, etc. is cultivated between June and September months. PW47 deposed that the yield of paddy crop is around 21

Quintals per acre per crop. The price of paddy during the period between 2002 and 2006 was around Rs.1,000/- per quintal on and average, while the cost of cultivation of paddy during the above period was around Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per acre. Though

PW47 had not given any documents to PW55 during the course of investigation his oral evidence can be relied upon. Though PW47 had no personal knowledge about the crops raised in the subject lands his evidence cannot be disbelieved because he worked as

Agricultural Officer in Bhongir Mandal at the relevant time.

67.PW50, the then District Tribal Welfare Officer, Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Districts, deposed about Exs.P70 and P71. Ex.P70 is the application of accused for sanction of post metric scholarship for the academic year 1982-1983. Ex.P71 contains particulars of disbursement for payment of post metric scholarship to accused for the academic year 1982-1983. In cross-examination PW50 deposed that scholarship and other

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 55 amounts were sanctioned to accused as he belongs to Scheduled

Tribe. The fact that accused studied B.Sc. (Agriculture) in A.P.

Agricultural College, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad is not in dispute.

In the income declaration form (Part of Ex.P70) father of accused declared his total annual income at Rs.2,400/- in the year 1982- 1983, in which year accused was studying 1st year B.Sc.

(Agriculture). It is true that accused being a member of Scheduled

Tribe is entitled for scholarship while he was studying in

Agricultural College. However, the income declared by father of accused in Ex.P70 is very important to know the financial status of family of father of accused at the relevant time. Ex.P70 establishes that the annual income of family of father of accused was only Rs.2,400/-.

68.Ex.P84 is the Descriptive Roll of accused collected by CBI from Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration,

Mussoorie, in which at Column No.11 accused has mentioned the monthly income of his father as Rs.1200/- per month and his occupation is shown as farmer. Ex.P84 is dated 15.09.1991. It was given by accused to the above Academy when he reported for training on his selection as IAS officer. It means that as on the date of induction of accused into Indian Administrative Service the annual income of father of accused was Rs.14,400/-. Accused

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 56 cannot dispute Ex.P84 though the prosecution has not examined

Ranjana Chopra, Deputy Director of Lal Bahadur Shastri National

Academy of Administration, Mussoorie.

69.Above oral and documentary evidence establishes that the parents and brother of accused had no sufficient income to purchase the above properties standing in their names. All the above properties standing in the names of parents and brother of accused were purchased from 1996 to 2005. It is an admitted fact that accused joined as IAS officer in 1991. It means, the above properties were purchased 5 years after the accused joined as IAS officer and the purchases continued over a period of 9 years.

Certainly the poor financial background of parents and brother of accused has to be taken into consideration as one of the important circumstances in favour of prosecution.

70.As rightly contended by learned counsel for accused, prosecution has not examined the parents and brother of accused. Rajamma (mother of accused) died prior to the present case and the question of examining her by PW55 does not arise.

Even if father and brother of accused are examined by prosecution, no useful purpose will be served because they will not support the case of prosecution and naturally they will

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 57 support the defence of accused. Hence, non-examination of father and brother of accused by prosecution is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

71.There is another piece of evidence in favour of prosecution to show that the above properties standing in the names of father, mother and brother of accused are benami properties.

PW1, who is the Income Tax official, has recorded the statements of father and brother of accused. Exs.P6 and P9 are the statements of brother of accused recorded by PW1 on 15.11.2006 and 23.10.2006 respectively under the provisions of the Income

Tax Act. Similarly, Ex.P7 is the statement of father of accused recorded by PW1 on 15.11.2006 under Section 131 of the Income

Tax Act. Contents of these statements have been duly proved by prosecution by the evidence of PW1. Court has already given the reasons as to how the statements recorded by PW1 under the

Income Tax Act are not hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C.

72.In Ex.P7 K.Bakkaiah (father of accused) stated that his sons

Narsimha (accused) and Yellesh (brother of accused) look after his expenses. He further stated that he has about 15 Acres of land, out of which 10 acres is wet land and 5 acres is dry land. He has two sons and two daughters and his wife died about 5 years prior

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 58 15.11.2006, on which date his statement was recorded, and that he has performed the marriages of his two daughters. Regarding his income, father of accused stated that in 10 acres he raises two crops of paddy and one crop of red gram and gets yield of 100 Bags of 70 Kg. each per year per acre and that he has 10 milk giving buffaloes and his annual income is about Rs.5 Lakhs to

Rs.5.5 Lakhs. He also stated that his family is a joint family. Father of accused further stated in Ex.P7 that about one year prior to 15.11.2006, which is the date of recording his statement, he sold out 3/4 acres of land in Anantaram Village and gave Rs.2 Lakhs to accused, and that father of accused used to give and take money from accused. Parents of accused were having nearly 7 acres of land prior to the check period, as mentioned in Statement-A.

Father of accused nowhere stated about purchase of above immovable properties covered by Item Nos.7 to 12 of Statement-B nor he deposed about Item No.14 standing in the name of mother of accused. If really father of accused purchased these properties from his independent sources of income he could have stated so in Ex.P7.

73.Ex.P9 is the statement of brother of accused recorded by

PW1 on 23.10.2006. He stated that they had about 10 acres of agricultural land acquired by his father long back and paddy is

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 59 grown in the said land. In reply to Question No.3, brother of accused stated that he has no properties such as land or buildings. Brother of accused was asked in Question No.4 as to whether he or his family members, including his father, had acquired any properties during the last 6 years i.e. prior to 23.10.2006 and he replied in negative.

74.Ex.P6 is another statement of brother of accused dated 15.11.2006 recorded by Income Tax official, wherein for the first time he has stated that he has total income of about Rs.6 Lakhs, besides stating about giving Rs.65,000/- or Rs.50,000/- to accused by his father. The fact remains that in the first statement under

Ex.P9 given to PW1 brother of accused nowhere stated about either himself or his father or mother acquiring above immovable properties, which means that they were ignorant of the above properties and only for the name sake in the sale deeds of above properties their names were mentioned. If really parents and brother of accused purchased Item Nos.3 and 7 to 14 and 16 to 18 from their independent sources of income the same could have been stated in their statements given to PW1 by father and brother of accused. Exs.P6, P7 and P9 support the case of prosecution to establish that Item Nos.3 and 7 to 14 and 16 to 18

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 60 were not purchased by parents and brother of accused and therefore, they are the benami properties of accused.

75.It is true that no original registered sale deeds of immovable properties covered by Item Nos.3 and 7 to 14 and 16 to 18 were recovered from accused. Since parents and brother of accused are close family members the question of keeping the documents with accused does not arise. It is not a case where father and brother of accused have enmity with accused. As already stated, for 5 days from 19.10.2006 accused could not be secured by PW1 because accused might have got information about searches and seizure in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar by Income Tax authorities and during that period there was every possibility for accused and his family members to keep the original documents in secret place without the reach of either Income Tax department or CBI. Non-seizure of original documents of Item Nos.3 and 7 to 14 and 16 to 18 can not be the ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

76.In Ex.P1 statement accused was confronted with his Diary (Ex.P78) seized from Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar and certain notings therein, in respect of which he pleaded his ignorance and did not give specific reasons. Even in reply to Question No.44 in

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 61

Ex.P1 regarding certain amounts received by accused, he had not stated anything but simply stated that he did not remember.

Accused is the best person to state about the details mentioned in

Ex.P78 but he did not choose to give the details mentioned in

Ex.P78. Court has perused Ex.P78 and noticed that he has mentioned about shop of Yellesh (brother of accused) on 09.05.2005 and details of certain properties in Banjarahills, including their rates. It is not known why accused did not

honestly state the details of the notings in Ex.P78 before PW1.

There was no opportunity for prosecution to confront Ex.P78 to accused because he can not be compelled to examine himself unless he voluntarily comes into the witness box.

77.Accused admitted in Ex.P1 about the document belonging to K.Venkat Reddy found in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar occupied by accused. Ex.P101 is the statement of K.Venkat

Reddy recorded by PW1 on 20.11.2006. This witness stated about certain real estate transactions relating to Subash Goel, his visit to Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar on 18.10.2006 and about certain documents given to PW5 in the said Hotel. In fact K.Venkat

Reddy falsely stated in Ex.P101 about giving documents to PW5 in

Room No.311 on 18.10.2006 instead of accused because PW5 was not in Hyderabad on 18.10.2006. However, certain recitals in

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 62

Ex.P1 and Ex.P101 regarding land document found in Room

No.311 of Hotel Manohar occupied by accused were tallying with each other.

78.Evidence of PW39, who is classmate of accused, is important. PW39 deposed that in the year 2004-2005 he has purchased land of 12 Acres in Ralla Jangaon Village, Yadagirigutta

Mandal and brother of accused also purchased land in same area.

PW39 further deposed that at the request of accused he has helped brother of accused to purchase land in the said village.

This witness turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution and resiled from the contents of his previous statement recorded by PW55 as in Ex.P62. In Ex.P62 PW39 stated

before PW55 that accused also purchased land of 12 acres in the

same locality (Ralla Jangaon Village) in the name of his brother

Yelleshwar. Since PW39 is the classmate of accused he did not choose to support the case of prosecution. As already stated, in

Ex.P9 brother of accused stated that himself and his family members had not purchased any properties. Hence, Ex.P62 has to be taken into consideration to come to a conclusion that accused purchased 12 acres of land in Ralla Jangaon Village in the name of his brother K.Yellesh.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 63

79.PW39 was cross-examined by prosecution. PW39 admitted that CBI officials searched his house in the year 2007 situated at

PBR Estate, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and he had identified the bunch of papers seized by CBI officials during the search of his house. PW39 admitted and identified Exs.P60 and

P61 paper slips. Ex.P60 paper slip contains the endorsements “K.Narshima, paid to him 2/1/06 800000=00” and “K.Narishima,

IAS, paid to him 20/12/05 80,000=00”. Ex.P61 paper slip contains the endorsement “80,000=00 Rs. For land registration of

K.Narsimha”. Endorsements in Ex.P60 and P61 show that Rs.8

Lakhs was given by accused to PW39 on 02.01.2006 and

Rs.80,000/- was given by accused on 20.12.2005. The total sale consideration of Item Nos.3, 13 and 16 to 18 covered by Exs.P25,

P26, P47, P45 and P46 respectively comes to Rs.7,86,500/-, which figure is very close to Rs.8 Lakhs mentioned in Ex.P60 paper slip seized from the house of PW39. Rs.25,860/- and Rs.19,630/- were paid under Exs.P25 and P26 respectively towards stamp duty and registration fee. Under Exs.P45 to P47 Rs.4,410/-, Rs.4,230/- and

Rs.6,930/- respectively were paid towards stamp duty. From

Exs.P45 to P47 it is not clear as to how much amount was paid towards registration fee. However, PW27 deposed that under

Exs.P45 to P47 total amount of Rs.16,435/- was paid towards

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 64 stamp duty and registration fee. The total amount of stamp duty and registration fee covered by Exs.P25, P26 and P45 to P47 comes to Rs.61,925/-, which amount is also almost tallying with the amount mentioned in Ex.P61 paper slip written by PW39.

80.Exs.P25 and P26 were registered on 20.12.2005. Exs.P45 and P46 were registered on 16.11.2005. Ex.P47 was registered on 15.11.2005. On 20.12.2005, which is the date of execution of

Exs.P25 and P26, Rs.80,000/- was given by accused to PW39.

Ex.P60 shows that very nearer to the date of above 5 registered

Sale Deeds Rs.8 Lakhs was given by accused to PW39. Though there were certain notings in the personal diary of accused he has not revealed the details in Ex.P1 because he wanted to hide the sale transactions. The details in Exs.P60 and P61 clinchingly establish that the sale consideration, stamp duty and registration fee of the immovable properties in Item Nos.3, 13 and 16 to 18 were paid by accused himself in cash to PW39 but the sale deeds were obtained in the name of K.Yelleshwar (brother of accused).

Merely because the amount of Rs.8 Lakhs was paid by accused to

PW39 on 02.01.2006 i.e. after the date of execution of sale deeds under Exs.P25, P26 and P45 to P47 it can not be stated that the said amount had no connection to these transactions. PW39 is the classmate of accused. There was every possibility of either

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 65

PW39 paying the amounts to the vendors before hand and collect the amount later from accused or there was also possibility of sale consideration being paid to respective vendors after obtaining registered sale deeds. Be that as it may, Exs.P60 and P61, coupled with Ex.P62, and the evidence of PW39 clinchingly establish that the immovable properties in Item Nos.3, 13 and 16 to 18 standing in the name of Yelleshwar (brother of accused) are the benami properties of accused.

81.Ex.P107 is the search list dated 16.05.2008 in respect of the searches conducted by PW55 in Flat No.A203, PBR Estate,

Nallakunta, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad under which Exs.P108 to

P110, apart from other documents, were seized. PW39 admitted about the search and seizure in his house. Therefore, court can rely on Exs.P108 to P110 though they were marked through

PW55. Ex.P108 is the pocket note book in which PW39 mentioned payment of Rs.50,000/- to accused on 09.07.2005. It also contains a recital about payment of Rs.50,000/- to accused on 19.10.2005 by G.Suresh. In Ex.P109 in respect of the date 01.12.1997 there is a mention about payment of Rs.80,000/- in respect of registration of land of accused. In respect of 02.12.1997 there is an entry regarding land of Ac.5.05 Gts.

registered in the name of K.Yelleshwar situated at Ralla Janagaon.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 66

In Ex.P110 also an amount of Rs.80,000/- against the date 20.12.2005 and Rs.8 Lakhs against the date 02.01.2006 as payments by accused to PW39 are mentioned. There are several entries in these documents regarding land transactions of different persons, including brother of accused, PW49, PW39 and others, running into several amounts and several extents of land at different places around Hyderabad. Thus, some of the entries in Exs.P108 to P110 also corroborate to the recitals in Exs.P60 and

P61. These documents also establish that above properties were purchased by accused in the name his brother through PW39 as he is a real estate agent and classmate of accused.

82.PW8 deposed that in the year 2007 himself and his parents purchased around 70 acres of land at Ralla Jangaon Village at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre for the purse of stone crushing business. He deposed that an IAS officer purchased some lands adjacent to his lands. Though the name of accused is not deposed by PW8 the designation of accused as IAS officer is deposed. As already stated, the properties covered by Item Nos.16 to 18 of

Statement-B standing in the name of K.Yelleshwar (brother of accused) are situated in Ralla Jangaon Village of Jangampally

Mandal, where the lands of PW8 are situated. Hence, there can

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 67 not be any doubt to hold that the said IAS officer referred to by

PW8 is none else than accused.

83.Though PW48 was examined by prosecution his evidence is of no value because no sale transaction of immovable property was materialized though PW48 had acquaintance with accused.

PW48 wanted to purchase land in Pondichery prior to 2006, where accused worked for some time.

84.PW49 deposed that in the year 2006/2007 she purchased 11 to 12 acres of land in Ralla Jangaon Village and that

Satyanarayana (PW39) and Yelleshwar also purchased land in the said Village. She further deposed that PW39 was the mediator for purchasing the land. Accused is the classmate of husband of

PW49. PW48 is the brother of PW49. PW49 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. In Ex.P69 PW49 stated before

PW55 that accused informed PW49 that he was purchasing land in

Ralla Jangaon Village. In Ex.P61 the name of PW49 is mentioned against the amount of Rs.6 Lakhs. In Ex.P110 also PW39 has mentioned about these lands. In order to help accused PW49 turned hostiles. As already stated, accused purchased Item

Nos.3, 13 and 16 to 18 of Statement-B in the name of his brother and they are the benami properties of accused.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 68

85.PW56 is also the classmate of accused and resident of

Anantaram Village. Accused, PW57 and Yelleshwar (brother of accused) are the members in Nestam Society of Anantaram

Village. PW56 deposed about purchase of 10 acres of land in

Anantaram Village in the name of Nestam Society in the year 2002. PW58 deposed about his entering into agreement of sale for purchase of about 8 acres of land situated in Ananataram

Village with one Anil Kumar, PW56 and one Yedla Raji Reddy being the mediators. He also deposed that because of certain disputes in the land the said agreement was cancelled. Evidence of PW56 and PW58 is not so helpful to the prosecution, except to establish that PW58 is the classmate of accused. PW49 deposed that

PW39 and PW56 had shown land to them for purchase, which means that PW39 and PW56 were in real estate business.

86.Item No.14 of Statement-B stands in the name of mother of accused, which was purchased under Ex.P49 Sale Deed dated 31.07.1996 for sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. PW30 is the vendor of Ex.P49. PW30 deposed that the sale consideration under Ex.P49 was paid by K.Rajamma. PW33, the then Sub-

Registrar, Uppal, deposed that as per Ex.P49 Rs.1,90,000/- was paid by the purchaser towards sale consideration and Rs.22,720/- was paid towards stamp duty and registration fee. He also

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 69 deposed that PW30 paid stamp duty and registration fee. As already stated, K.Yelleshwar (brother of accused) and K.Bakkaiah (father of accused) nowhere stated in Exs.P6, P7 and P9 about the factum of K.Rajamma (mother of accused) purchasing Item No.14 of Statement-B. As already stated, the family of father of accused had no financial source as on the date of Ex.P49 to purchase Item

No.14 of Statement-B. Hence, it has to be taken that Item No.14 of Statement-B was purchased by accused in the name of his mother and it is a benami transaction.

87.In view of the finding that the immovable properties in Item

Nos.3, 7 to 14 and 16 to 18 are the benami properties of accused they were rightly tagged by prosecution to accused. Accordingly, the values in Statement-B against these items have to be taken as true and correct.

88.Then comes the value of Rs.13,40,000/- mentioned against

Item No.19 in Statement-B. The said value mentioned by PW55 is the construction value for the constructions made on Item No.9, which is the house property standing in the name of K.Bakkaiah (father of accused). Evidence of PW19 is relevant in this regard, who worked as Executive Engineer in Income Tax Department,

Hyderabad at the relevant time. Ex.P38 is the valuation report

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 70

dated 11.08.2008 of PW19. He had taken measurements of two

storeyed building found in Item No.9. He has arrived the value of the building and modifications at Rs.13.40 Lakhs. The value of the old house was taken as Rs.32,500/- as per the sale deed. No order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Department is required for valuation of the building by PW19. On the specific request of

PW55, PW19 valued the said house and furnished valuation report. Merely because PW19 had not enclosed to Ex.P38 the measurements and did not mention about the factum of giving copy of sale deed it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW19. Though it is not mentioned in Ex.P38 that

K.Yelleswar informed PW19 about modifications made subsequent to purchase of house it is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

PW19 being the expert in civil engineering by seeing the building can assess the modifications and approximate age. All the minute details with values are mentioned in Ex.P38. Non- enclosure of supporting document regarding the rates adopted by

PW19 is not fatal to the case of prosecution because PW19 has adopted the rates prevailing at the relevant time.

89.Ex.P27 is the attested copy of house tax receipt for House

No.2-23 in the name of father of accused for the period from 1999-2000 to 2002-2003 for Rs.3,151/- paid on 05.11.2003.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 71

Ex.P28 is the certificate dated 25.06.2007 issued by the Extension

Officer in respect of same house. PW10 deposed about these two documents. However, it is not clear whether H.No.2-23 referred to in Exs.P27 and P28 and Item No.9 of Statement-B are one and the same or not. Even if Exs.P27 and P28 are totally eschewed from consideration, they do not affect the case of prosecution.

90. It was difficult for father of accused to spend huge amount of

Rs.13,40,000/- towards modifications and constructions of the building since he had no economic status. In Exs.P6, P7 and P9 father and brother of accused nowhere stated that they themselves made the said constructions and modifications.

Hence, it has to be taken that Rs.13,40,000/- was rightly tagged as asset of accused at Item No.19 of Statement-B.

Item No.15 of Statement-B standing in the name of

K.Madhavi (Wife of accused):

91.Item No.15 of Statement-B consists of Plot Nos.12 and 13, admeasuring 248 Sq.Yads in Sy.No.86/2, situated at

Sowbhagyalakshmi Nagar, Almasguda, Saroornagar Mandal,

R.R.District standing in the name of K.Madhavi (wife of accused) covered by Ex.P52 sale deed. PW34, the then Sub-Registrar of

Champapet, Hyderabad, deposed about Ex.P52. K.Narasamma

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 72

W/o Late K. Muthyala Swamy, K.Babu Rao, K.Ashok Kumar and

K.Radha Krishna, Sons of Muthyala Swamy are the vendors to

Ex.P52. PW34 deposed that the vendors developed the agricultural land of 5 Acres in Sy.No.86/2 of Almasguda Village and divided the same into various Plots. PW57 deposed about development of the said land, making into plots and sale of the same under Ex.P52 by his father to K.Madhavi. PW57 admitted that his father purchased the above land from the legal heirs of

Late Muthyala Swamy i.e. Narsamma, Babu Rao, Ashok Kumar and Radha Krishna. PW57 admitted that K.Madhavi is the daughter of Narsamma and Muthyala Swamy.

92.The main contention of accused is that this item of property was given as a gift to wife of accused and, therefore, it can not be tagged to accused. No doubt, PW57 deposed that as per the terms of purchase of 5 Acres of land, some plots have to be registered in the name of land owner or their nominees and accordingly Plot Nos.12 and 13 were registered in the name of

K.Madhavi. PW57 deposed in cross-examination contrary to the contents of Ex.P52. Ex.P52 dated 18.04.2006 shows that sale consideration of Rs.1,49,000/- was already paid by K.Madhavi to father of PW57(vendor). Hence, certain statements deposed by

PW57 in cross-examination regarding gift can not be accepted as

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 73 true and correct, which are contrary to the contents of Ex.P52.

PW57 can not depose contrary to the contents of Ex.P52. It is not a case where a development agreement was entered into between father of PW57 and legal heirs of late Muthyala Swamy and others. That apart, father of PW57 purchased 5 Acres of land in Sy.No.86/2 of Almasguda Village under registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2267/2005 dated 11.03.2005. Therefore, the question of development or share of land to the legal heirs of late Muthyala Swamy does not arise. PW7, who is the wife of brother of K.Madhavi, also did not depose that this item of property was given as gift to K.Madhavi in marriage. In these circumstances, it has to be held that PW55 has rightly taken the value of item No.15 as Rs.1,49,000/- as the immovable asset of accused during the check period. Therefore, the contention of accused that this item has to be excluded from the assets of accused is rejected.

Immovable properties standing in the name of PW39 and

his wife T.Uma:

93.It is mentioned in Page Nos.15 and 16 of charge sheet that accused possessed 40 items of immovable and movable properties in the names of PW39 and his wife T.Uma, they did not have financial background to purchase those properties worth

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 74

Rs.1 Crore (as per registered value). Ex.P111 is the salary and income particulars of PW39 furnished by M/s. Ganga Kaveri Seeds

Private Limited, Hyderabad, which is not capable of establishing that those properties were acquired by accused in the names of

PW39 and his wife. There is no evidence produced by prosecution to tag these properties to accused. In fact, in Statement-B also

PW55 has not mentioned about these properties. Merely because there is a strong suspicion, as mentioned in Page No.17 of charge sheet, that accused acquired those properties in the names of

PW39 and his wife, it can not be accepted as true and correct.

MOVABLE ASSETS IN STATEMENT-B:

Item No.1 of movable assets under the caption “Bank

Accounts”:

94.This item relates to Bank balance in S.B.Account

No.10763667052 in SBI, Aizawl Branch, Mizoram standing in the name of accused. PW40 deposed about Ex.P63 statement of account for the period from 17.02.2005 to 22.10.2006. PW40 deposed that as per Ex.P63 the balance was Rs.1,62,778.09 Ps. as on 22.10.2006. Rs.10,044.84 Ps. was credited towards interest during the said period. There was credit of Rs.5 Lakhs on 10.07.2006 by way of transfer to this account from Loan Account

No.30059541303. PW40 also deposed that the outstanding

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 75 amount in the account was after debit/credit of the amounts like salary, loan and interest.

95.No doubt, interest of Rs.10,044.84 Ps. has to be taken as income in Statement-C but it was not taken by PW55. Though

Rs.1,77,778/- is mentioned by PW55 in Statement-B against this item the actual outstanding balance amount as on 22.10.2006 as per Ex.P63 was Rs.1,62,778.09 Ps. and from the said amount interest of Rs.10,044.84 Ps. has to be deducted and then the amount comes to Rs.1,52,733.25 Ps. It is true that income can not be shown as an asset. Court intends to take interest of

Rs.10,044.84 Ps. as income of accused in Statement-C. Under this item, an amount of Rs.1,52,733.25 Ps. has to be taken in

Statement-B.

96.DW1 deposed about Ex.D11 Statement of Personal Loan

Account No.30059541303 of accused in SBI, Aizawl, Mizoram for the period from 10.07.2006 to 26.08.2021. Ex.D11 shows that

Rs.5 Lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed to accused as personal loan on 10.07.2006 i.e. during the check period. Learned Public

Prosecutor contended that DW1 is incompetent to issue Ex.D11 since he is not working as Branch Manager in SBI, Aizawl. It is true that DW1 is working in SBI, BHEL, R&D Branch, Balanagar,

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 76

Hyderabad as on the date when he deposed evidence. DW1 deposed that at the request of accused for repayment of loan amount he had issued Ex.D11 Statement of Account. One can not deny that the Banking operations are conducted online. A Bank

Manager of a particular Branch can access the accounts of other branches all over India on computer system. Ex.D11 is certified by DW1 under Section 2A of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

Therefore, the objection of prosecution on Ex.D11 is overruled.

Evidence of PW40, DW1, Ex.P63 and Ex.D11 establish that personal loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed to accused and it was credited in the salary account of accused.

PW55 also admitted this aspect in cross-examination. PW55 also admitted that he had not shown the said loan amount of Rs.5

Lakhs as income of accused in Statement-C. Hence, Rs.5 Lakhs has to be taken as income of accused in Statement-C.

97.PW55 admitted in cross-examination that he had not deducted the salary credits of accused from the outstanding balance in Item No.1 of Movable assets under the heading “Bank

Accounts” in Statement-B. In the very next sentence PW55 explained that there is no necessity to deduct the salary credits from the outstanding balance shown in Ex.P63. In fact, there is no necessity to deduct the salary credits from the outstanding

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 77 balance. Under this item Rs.1,52,733.25 Ps. has to be taken as against Rs.1,77,778/-.

Item No.2 of movable assets under the caption “Bank

Accounts”:

98.This item relates to outstanding balance amount in

S.B.Account No.10650680398 maintained with SBI, Rajpur Road,

Delhi in the name of accused. PW53 deposed about Ex.P75 statement of this account for the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.10.2006. As per Ex.P75, there was balance amount of

Rs.1,82,824.99 Ps. as on 17.10.2006. PW53 admitted that as per

Ex.P75 an amount of Rs.186/- was credited towards interest on 30.06.2006. This amount has to be shown as income in

Statement-C. The contention of accused that outstanding amount in this account cannot be shown as an asset cannot be accepted.

After deducting Rs.186/- from Rs.1,82,824.99 Ps. under this item, an amount of Rs.1,82,638.99 Ps. has to be taken as asset of accused in Statement-B and Rs.186/- has to be taken as income in

Statement-C.

Item No.3 of movable assets under the caption “Bank

Accounts”:

99.This item relates to balance amount in SB

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 78

A/c.No.10650682668 in SBI, Rajpur Road, Delhi in the name of

K.Madhavi (wife of accused). PW55 has taken Rs.2,07,148/- under this item. PW53 deposed that as per Ex.P73 as on 19.10.2006 the balance amount was Rs.2,07,148.36 Ps. in this account. He has admitted in cross-examination that an amount of Rs.20,962.38 Ps.

was credited towards interest from June, 1999 to June, 2008.

PW55 also admitted that accrued interest amount of Rs.20,962.38

Ps. was not shown as income in Statement-C and did not deduct the said interest amount from the outstanding balance. After deduction of Rs.20,962.38 Ps. from Rs.2,07,148.36 Ps. under this item the amount comes to Rs.1,86,185.98 Ps. As against

Rs.2,07,148/- an amount of Rs.1,86,185.98 Ps. has to be taken under this item. Rs.20,962.38 Ps. has to be taken as income in

Statement-C.

Item No.4 of movable assets under the caption “Bank

Accounts”:

100. This item relates to outstanding amount of Rs.5,01,685/- in

SB A/c.No.6901026675 in ICICI Bank, Habsiguda in the name of accused. Learned counsel for accused submits that there is no evidence produced by prosecution to prove that accused was having this account in ICICI Bank, Habsiguda and that there was outstanding balance amount of Rs.5,01,685/- in the said account.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 79

Ex.P119 is the Statement of Account along with certificate in respect of this item, which was got marked through PW55(I.O).

Since prosecution filed Ex.P119 in respect of this item court cannot accept the contention of accused that no document is filed in respect of this item. Merely because Bank official was not examined in respect of Ex.P119 it cannot be stated that Ex.P119 cannot be looked into. PW55 collected Ex.P119 and it is a bank document and it can be relied upon by court. The outstanding balance amount as per Ex.P119 as on 03.10.2006 is

Rs.5,01,685.45 Ps. There were some credits towards SB account interest totalling to Rs.1,295/-.

101. PW55 admitted that PW32 stated before him that he has availed hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from accused through Cheque

No.28363 of SBI, Aizawl Branch and as per Ex.P63 it was encashed on 22.07.2006. PW55 also admitted that cheque of

Rs.7,00,000/- was cleared from the account of accused on 22.07.2006 i.e. after the credit of Rs.5,00,000/- from the personal loan into the account of accused. PW55 admitted that PW32 stated before him that out of Rs.7,00,000/- loan availed by him from the accused, he has given an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 11.09.2006 to K.Venkat Reddy on the instructions from accused for depositing the same in his ICICI Bank account. PW55 also

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 80 admitted that repayment of loan amount received by accused cannot be shown as asset. PW55 also admitted that outstanding balance shown in Ex.P119 includes the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash on 11.09.2006. PW55 further admitted that an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- deposited in cash on 11.09.2006 and SB account interest amounting to Rs.1295/- have to be deducted from the outstanding balance of Rs.5,01,685.45 Ps. shown in Ex.P119 and amount under this item must be reduced to Rs.295.45 Ps.

102. PW32 deposed that he had borrowed an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- from accused for his business purpose as hand loan through cheque drawn on SBI, Aizawl

Branch and in cash respectively. PW32 encashed the same in his

SB account in SBI, Vidyanagar Branch, Hyderabad. PW32 also deposed that he had repaid the said amount in 2006/2007 i.e.

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash through K.Venkat Reddy, who is relative of

PW32 and classmate of accused, Rs.2 Lakhs through cheque drawn in the name of accused and Rs.70,000/- in cash through

K.Venkat Reddy. On being recalled, at the instance of accused,

PW32 stated that the entry against the date 11.09.2006 in

Ex.P119 relates to the said cash deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs. Though

PW32 claimed to have accompanied K.Venkat Reddy to ICICI

Bank, Habsiguda it is an omission since it was not stated before

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 81

PW55. What all PW32 deposed in cross-examination dated 29.09.2022 are omissions and they were introduced by PW32 as an after thought. These aspects were not even stated by PW32 when he was first examined in court on 11.12.2017.

103. K.Venkat Reddy, who alleged to have deposited cash of

Rs.5,00,000/- in ICICI Bank, Habsiguda Branch was not examined as his whereabouts are not known and his evidence was closed on 22.10.2019. Even the cash deposit slip is not filed in court.

However, PW1 has examined K.Venkat Reddy on 17.11.2006 and recorded his statement as in Ex.P8 under Section 131 of the

Income Tax Act. In Ex.P8 he stated that he is a real estate agent working for commission. He has admitted that accused is his classmate upto 10th class. He has admitted his acquaintance with

PW5 through accused and proposed lands to him for purchase.

He admitted to have received cash of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW5. He also deposed about land purchased by Subhash Goel through

K.Venkat Reddy. He also stated about his visit to Room No.311 in

Hotel Manohar on 18.10.2006 and along with other papers agreement copy was also given to the person present(PW6) as per the direction of PW5. Even in Ex.P119 K.Venkat Reddy stated

before PW1 that he went to ICICI Bank and deposited cash of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 82

Rs.5,00,000/- in the account of accused.

104. PW55 was recalled, at the instance of prosecution, after

PW32 was recalled. PW55 deposed that PW32 did not state before him that K.Venkat Reddy requested him to accompany him to

ICICI Bank, Habsiguda Branch to deposit the amount on 11.09.2006 and PW32 did not state that he was present in ICICI

Bank, Habsiguda Branch along with K.Venkat Reddy when amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was deposited in Bank on 11.09.2006 in the account of accused. PW55 was further cross-examined by accused on these aspects. PW55 did not collect the credit voucher of Rs.5

Lakhs dated 11.09.2006 from ICICI Bank, Habsiguda Branch.

Since accused is claiming that the said deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is towards repayment of loan by PW32 accused ought to have filed credit voucher in court, particularly as counter foil will be available with PW32/K.Venkat Reddy, but it was not filed.

However, in view of the categoric admissions made by PW55 amount under this item has to be restricted to Rs.295.45 Ps. as against Rs.5,01,685/-.

Item No.5 of movable assets under the caption “Bank

Accounts” in Statement-B:

105. This item relates to outstanding balance in S.B.Account

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 83

No.60007010020119 in Vijaya Bank, Kamala Nagar, Delhi in the name of accused. PW24 deposed about Ex.P42 Statement of this account for the period from 29.10.2005 to 08.05.2007 and from 23.07.2001 to 29.10.2005. The total outstanding balance amount in this account was Rs.4,257.99 Ps. as on 03.10.2006. PW24 admitted that there were total interest credits to the tune of

Rs.252/-. PW55 also admitted that Rs.252/- has to be shown in

Statement-C as income and the said amount has to be deducted from outstanding balance of Rs.4,257.99 Ps. Therefore, value under this item has to be taken as Rs.4,005.99 Ps. as against

Rs.4,258/-.

Item No.6 of movable assets under the caption “Bank

Accounts” in Statement-B:

106. Accused is holding S.B.Account No.13688 in Canara Bank,

Bhongir Branch at the relevant time. PW25 deposed about details of this account. S.B. account opening form, statement of account for the period from 07.06.1993 to 20.09.2007 and bunch of debit and credit vouchers were marked as Ex.P43 through PW25. The outstanding balance in this account as on 03.09.2001 was

Rs.3,643/- which is mentioned by PW55 in Statement-B. PW25 admitted that there was accrued interest of Rs.284.39 Ps. PW55 admitted that he had not shown Rs.284.39 Ps. as income in

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 84

Statement-C nor he has deducted the said amount from the outstanding balance of Rs.3,643/- in this account. Therefore, under this item Rs.3,358.61 Ps. has to be taken as against

Rs.3,643/- and Rs.284.39 Ps. has to be taken as income in

Statement-C.

Item No.1 of movable assets under the caption “PPF

Account” in Statement-B:

107. Accused maintained PPF Account No.10650728354 in SBI,

Rajpur Road, New Delhi at the relevant time. PW55 has shown

Rs.7,81,258/- under this item. PW53 deposed about this item.

Ex.P76 is the statement of this account for the period from 01.01.2006 to 03.05.2007. As on 31.10.2006, the outstanding balance amount in this account was Rs.7,81,258.78 Ps. PW53 admitted that interest amount of Rs.2,68,706.78 Ps. was credited towards interest from March, 2001 to March, 2006. PW55 also admitted about the factum of credit of interest amount of

Rs.2,68,706.78 Ps. in this account from March, 2001 to March, 2006. PW55 admitted that he had shown the said interest amount as income in Item No.5 of Statement-C. However, PW55 had not deducted the said interest amount from the outstanding balance under this item though he has admitted that it has to be deducted. Therefore, interest amount of Rs.2,68,706.88 has to be

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 85 deducted from Rs.7,81,258/-. Accordingly, the amount under this item has to be taken as Rs.5,12,551.22 Ps. as against

Rs.7,81,258/-.

Item No.2 of movable assets under the caption “PPF

Account” in Statement-B:

108. K.Madhavi (wife of accused) maintained PPF Account

No.10650728343 in SBI, Rajpur Road, New Delhi at the relevant time. PW55 has shown Rs.3,72,981/- under this item. PW53 deposed about this item. Ex.P74 is the statement of this account for the period from 01.01.2006 to 03.05.2007. As on 31.10.2006, the outstanding balance amount in this account was

Rs.3,72,981.88 Ps. PW53 admitted that interest for the period from March, 2001 to March, 2006 to the tune of Rs.1,33,418.88

Ps. was credited in this account. PW55 also admitted about the factum of credit of interest amount of Rs.1,33,418.88 Ps. in this account from March, 2001 to March, 2006. PW55 admitted that he had shown the said interest amount as income in Item No.5 of

Statement-C. However, PW55 had not deducted the said interest amount from the outstanding balance under this item though he has admitted that it has to be deducted. Therefore, interest amount of Rs.1,33,418.88 Ps. has to be deducted from

Rs.3,72,981.88 Ps. Accordingly, the amount under this item has

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 86 to be taken as Rs.2,39,563/- as against Rs.3,72,981.88 Ps.

Item No.3 of movable assets under the caption “PPF

Account” in Statement-B:

109. K.Anirudh (son of accused) maintained PPF Account

No.01P00900205 in SBI, Nacharam Industrial Area Branch,

Hyderabad at the relevant time. PW55 has shown Rs.93,500/- under this item. PW37 deposed about this item. Ex.P57 is the statement of this account for the period from 11.03.1999 to 31.03.2007. As on 31.10.2006, the outstanding balance amount in this account was Rs.1,67,018.90 Ps. PW37 deposed that interest amount of Rs.73,518.90 Ps. was accrued during the said period. Admittedly, the period from 11.03.1999 to 19.10.2006 is covered by the check period. PW55 also admitted about the factum of credit of interest amount of Rs.73,518.90 Ps. in this account. PW55 admitted that he had not shown the said interest amount as income in Statement-C. However, PW55 admitted that he had deducted the said interest amount of Rs.73,518.90 Ps.

from the outstanding balance in this account. Court has made these calculations and reached the figure of Rs.93,500/- under this item, which is tallying with the amount shown under this item by PW55 in Statement-B. Therefore, PW55 has correctly taken

Rs.93,500/- under this item and no interference is required.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 87

Item No.4 of movable assets under the caption “PPF

Account” in Statement-B:

110. K.Akshay (son of accused) maintained PPF Account

No.01P00900210 in SBI, Nacharam Industrial Area Branch,

Hyderabad at the relevant time. PW55 has shown Rs.93,500/- under this item. PW37 deposed about this item. Ex.P58 is the statement of this account for the period from 24.03.1999 to 31.03.2007. As on 31.10.2006, the outstanding balance amount in this account was Rs.1,69,517.80 Ps. PW37 deposed that interest amount of Rs.76,017.80 Ps. was accrued during the said period. Admittedly, the period from 24.03.1999 to 19.10.2006 is covered by the check period. PW55 also admitted about the factum of credit of interest amount of Rs.76,017.80 Ps. in this account. PW55 admitted that he had not shown the said interest amount as income in Statement-C. However, PW55 admitted that he had deducted the said interest amount of Rs.76,017.80 Ps.

from the outstanding balance in this account. Court has made these calculations and reached the figure of Rs.93,500/- under this item, which is tallying with the amount shown under this item by PW55 in Statement-B. Therefore, PW55 has correctly taken

Rs.93,500/- under this item and no interference is required.

Item No.4 of movable assets under the caption

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 88

“Investments in Bonds and Shares” in Statement-B:

111. PW55 has shown Rs.14,825/- under this item. This item relates to National Savings Certificate (NSC) as mentioned in the

Income Tax Return of accused for the assessment year 2005- 2006. PW18 deposed about Ex.P37, which is Form 2D of Income

Tax Return of accused for the assessment year 2005-2006 along with computation statement and Form No.16 along with copies of insurance premium receipts, PPF and ICICI Bank Bond. It is noticed that in Statement-B annexed to charge sheet under this item PW55 has mentioned the assessment year as 2004-2005 instead of 2005-2006. Rs.2,32,766/- was shown as total income of accused in Ex.P37. PW18 deposed in cross-examination that as per Ex.P37 an amount of Rs.14,825/- was paid towards LIC premiums and there were no payments towards NSC. PW55 also admitted this aspect in cross-examination. PW55 also admitted that he has not collected any evidence to show that accused purchased NSCs during the check period. He further admitted that LIC premiums paid by accused during the check period were shown as Item Nos.12 to 14 in Statement-D. He further admitted that this item in Statement-B has to be deleted. Since no evidence whatsoever is produced by prosecution regarding investment of Rs.14,825/- by accused in NSC during the check

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 89 period, much less during the assessment year 2005-2006, this item has to be deleted in Statement-B and I accordingly do so.

Item No.1 of movable assets under the caption “Vehicles

and Bank Balances” in Statement-B:

112. The value of Rs.4,47,000/- towards purchase of HMT Tractor by father of accused in the year 2005 is shown under this item and tagged to accused by PW55. Learned counsel for accused submits that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that this asset was purchased by accused in the name of his father from his funds. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that since father of accused was white ration card holder till the year 2005 he had no sufficient income to purchase the Tractor and, therefore, it has to be taken that the said amount was given by accused himself.

113. PW35, the then Manager, SBH, Bhongir, deposed that on 08.07.2005 tractor loan of Rs.4,25,000/- was sanctioned and released in favour of K.Bakkaiah vide loan account

No.52121195268 and the amount was paid to M/s. Maheswar

Agencies and Sri Srinivasa Engineering Works and Rs.6,875/- was debited to the loan account towards insurance of the tractor and the collateral security of agricultural land of Ac.14.30 Gts. of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 90

Anantaram village was taken. The said collateral security is covered by the properties of K.Bakkaiah under Exs.P79 and P80.

As already stated, even prior to the check period K.Bakkaiah and his wife Rajamma had nearly 7 acres of land. PW35 also deposed that the loan amount was repaid to an extent of Rs.61,813/- on different dates till February, 2007. Exs.P53 to P55, which are deposed by PW35, relate to this item. Subsidy was given to father of accused by the Government. PW35 admitted that tractor loan was sanctioned to father of accused based on his financial capacity and collateral security furnished by him. He also admitted that in the above loan transaction no other person was involved.

114. PW55 deposed that father of accused had agriculture income and obtained loan for purchase of tractor on his name from SBH, Bhongir Branch. As discussed supra, though the parents and brother of accused had no sufficient income to acquire immovable properties, father of accused had certain agricultural lands, which are mentioned in Statement-A and had agriculture income to the tune of Rs.2,09,715/- during the check period as shown in Statement-C. Father of accused had the benefit of subsidy from Government in repayment of tractor loan.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 91

Taking into consideration all these circumstances, court is of the considered opinion that amount of Rs.4,47,000/- shown under this item has to be deleted.

Item No.2 of movable assets under the caption “Vehicles

and Bank Balances” in Statement-B:

115. Rs.33,950/- has been shown by PW55 under this item towards the cost of Hero Honda motorcycle purchased by

K.Yelleswar (brother of accused). PW55 tagged this item to accused. PW20, Manager of HDFC Bank, Begumpet Branch,

Hyderabad, deposed that at the request of CBI, he has furnished information about vehicle loan of Rs.33,950/- sanctioned to

K.Yelleswar for motorcycle bearing registration No.AP24F 6550 on 13.08.2005. He further deposed that the said loan amount was repaid in monthly installments at the rate of Rs.1,697/- per month and total amount of Rs.45,145/- was paid, which includes interest.

In cross-examination PW20 admitted that the loan was sanctioned based on repayment capacity of the borrower. PW55 admitted the factum of brother of accused purchasing Hero Honda motorcycle by availing loan from HDFC Bank. Though PW55 has neither collected nor filed any documentary evidence regarding the vehicle loan obtained by brother of accused, court has to take into consideration the oral evidence of PW20 and PW55. It is true

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 92 that K.Yelleswar is a member of joint family along with his father residing in Anantaram village. The cost of the above motorcycle is a small amount. Even an agricultural coolie can easily pay

Rs.1697/- per month towards repayment of loan amount.

Moreover, by taking loan only brother of accused purchased the said motorcycle and not with the money given by accused.

Moreover, there are certain entries in Ex.P72 showing that certain monthly installments were paid by brother of accused under bank transfer to the said account. Hence, amount of Rs.33,950/- shown under this item has to be deleted in Statement-B.

Item No.3 of movable assets under the caption “Vehicles

and Bank Balances” in Statement-B:

116. K.Yelleswar (brother of accused) is the holder of S.B.Account

No.6761 in Yadagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Cooperative

Urban Bank Limited, Bhongir, which is evident from the evidence of PW51 and Ex.P72, which is the certified true copy of statement of said S.B. account for the period from 27.07.2005 to 19.10.2006. PW51 deposed that as per Ex.P72 there was balance of Rs.3,878/- as on 19.10.2006. PW51 admitted that on 10.07.2006 Rs.60,000/- was credited to the said account in clearing of cheque issued by Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda.

However, as per Ex.P72, the said amount of Rs.60,000/- was

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 93 credited in the above account on 03.07.2006 on clearing of cheque of Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda. It also shows that on 04.07.2006 under self cheque Rs.55,000/- was withdrawn.

Brother of accused was maintaining this account personally, as per PW51. Therefore, this item has to be deleted in Statement-B.

Value of assets of accused at the end of check period as

per the findings of court:

117. Court has given the findings in respect of assets in

Statement-B and the values reached by court are as follows:

Sl.No. Description Amounts

Rs.

1.Immovable properties (Item Nos.1 to 44,54,542.00 19)

2.Movable assets under the caption “Bank Accounts” Item No.1 1,52,733.25 Item No.21,82,638.99 Item No.31,86,185.98 Item No.4295.45 Item No.54,005.99 Item No.63,358.61

3.Movable assets under the caption “PPF Accounts” Item No.15,12,551.22 Item No.22,39,563.00 Item No.393,500.00 Item No.493,500.00

4.Movable assets under the caption “Investments in Bonds and Shares”

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 94

Item No.150,000.00 Item No.25,000.00 Item No.320,000.00 Item No.400

5.Movable assets under the caption “Vehicles and Bank balances” Item Nos.1 to 300 Item No.4 - Cash recovered from17,20,000.00 locker No.2 in Hotel Manohar Item No.5 - Cash recovered from the 3,00,000.00 briefcase of the accused in Room No.311 of Hotel Manohar Total 80,17,874.49

Thus, the total value of assets of accused during the check period is Rs.80,17,874.49 Ps.

INCOME OF ACCUSED DURING THE CHECK PERIOD AS PER

STATEMENT-C:

Item No.1 of Statement-C:

118. This item relates to the net salary income of accused from

October, 1993 to 31.10.2006 to the tune of Rs.24,02,297/-.

Evidence of PW12 to PW14, PW16, PW23 and PW42 to PW44 and

PW55 and Exs.P31 to P33, P35, P40, P41 and P65 to P67 are relevant on this item. Court has carefully perused this part of the evidence in so far as it relates to this item. During the course of cross-examination accused has not disputed the income of accused from salary. However, these witnesses were cross-

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 95 examined with regard to TA, transfer grant, LTC, TTA and medical reimbursement. These witnesses admitted that the salary particulars covered by these documents did not include TA, transfer grant, LTC, TTA and medical reimbursement. Along with written statement certified copies and photostat copies are filed with regard to TA, transfer grant, LTC, TTA and medical reimbursement. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that these documents cannot be looked into since they were not legally proved. Mere filing of these documents along with written statement of accused does not amount to legal proof. Even if the amounts covered by these documents in respect of TA, transfer grant, LTC, TTA and medical reimbursement drawn by accused are taken into consideration as true and correct they can not be taken as income of accused as they were actually spent by accused.

TA, transfer grant, LTC, TTA and medical reimbursement were given to accused, being IAS officer, and those amounts were actually spent by accused. Therefore, TA, transfer grant, LTC, TTA and medical reimbursement drawn by accused during the check period cannot be taken as income.

119. PW55 has taken net salary income of accused from

October, 1993 to 31.10.2006 under this item as Rs.24,02,297/-.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 96

In fact, during the course of arguments learned counsel for accused has not disputed the act of PW55 taking net salary income in this item. Court is of the considered opinion that net salary income of accused has to be taken under this item.

Therefore, the net salary income of accused from October, 1993 to 31.10.2006 has to be taken as Rs.24,02,297/- under this item and I accordingly do so.

Item No.2 of Statement-C:

120. PW55 has taken Rs.64,670/- as income of wife of accused basing on the Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004. Learned counsel for accused contended that Exs.D1, D8 and D9 and the evidence of PW18 and PW55 establish that during the check period wife of accused had total income of Rs.5,76,447/- and the said amount has to be taken under this item.

121. In cross-examination of PW18 Ex.D1 was marked by accused, which consists of copies of assessment orders and IT returns for the assessment years from 2001-2002 to 2007-2008 of

K.Madhavi (wife of accused) along with covering letter. PW18 deposed that the income of K.Madhavi for the assessment years

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 97 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008 was Rs.1,15,730/-, Rs.82,112, Rs.92,077/-,

Rs.33,537/-, Rs.33,490/-, Rs.36,391/- and Rs.2,02,102/- respectively, total income being Rs.5,95,439/-, as per the assessment order dt.31.12.2008 passed by him. He further deposed that K.Madhavi also claimed Rs.43,902/- as income for the assessment year 2007-2008 apart from the above amounts.

PW18 further deposed that the above income was assessed and taxed as per his orders. In reexamination by prosecution, PW18 deposed that the copies of IT returns covered by Ex.D1 do not contain the signature of the official who received the IT returns and that acknowledgement copy for the assessment year 2007- 2008 does not bear the signature of receiving official.

122. PW55 admitted that under Item No.2 of Statement-C he has considered the income of wife of accused as per her IT returns for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 at Rs.64,670/- and he has not taken income of wife of accused for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 relating to the check period. PW55 identified and admitted Exs.D8 and D9 and stated that wife of accused declared her income as Rs.1,02,400/- and Rs.81,670/- for

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 98 the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively.

PW55 categorically admitted that as per Exs.D1, D8 and D9, the total income of wife of accused during the check period comes to

Rs.5,76,417/- and it has to be taken as income of wife of accused under this item. In view of the said categoric admission of PW55, no further discussion is required on this item. Suffice it to say, income under this item has to be taken as Rs.5,76,417/- as against Rs.64,670/- and I accordingly do so.

Item Nos.3 to 8 of Statement-C:

123. In respect of these items evidence of PW17, PW18, PW31,

PW53 and PW55 and Exs.P36, P37, P50, P51, P57, P58, P76 and

Ex.D1 are relevant. Court has carefully perused the evidence of these witnesses and above documents. PW55 has taken income of Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.2,68,806, Rs.1,33,418/-, Rs.3,300/-,

Rs.27,200/- and Rs.3,850/- against Item Nos.3 to 8 respectively in

Statement-C. Accused has not disputed these items. No further discussion is necessary on these items. Hence, they can be accepted as true and correct.

Item Nos.9 to 13 of Statement-C:

124. Under Item No.9, income from agricultural lands of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 99

K.Bakkaiah (father of accused) was taken at Rs.2,09,715/-.

Evidence of PW36, PW47 and PW55 and Ex.P56 establishes the agricultural income of father of accused at Rs.2,09,715/- during the check period.

125. Rs.4,31,878/- is shown under Item No.10 as the loan obtained by father of accused for purchase of HMT tractor from

SBH, Bhongir. Evidence of PW35 and PW55 and Exs.P53 to P55 is relevant in this regard, which was discussed at length in Para

Nos.112 to 114 of the Judgment and court has given finding that father of accused himself purchased HMT tractor by taking loan from the Bank and paid small amount after availing subsidy given by government and held that the value of HMT tractor to the tune of Rs.4,47,000/- can not be tagged to accused. Consequently, under this item zero value has to be taken and I accordingly do so.

126. Rs.1,10,000/- was taken by PW55 under Item No.11 as income of father of accused from sale of old house in Anantaram

Village. Learned counsel for accused contended that there is absolutely no evidence with regard to this item. Prosecution has filed photostat copy of sale letter dated 17.02.2001 of G.Balaraju in respect of sale of old H.No.3-123 of Ananataram Village. The

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 100 said photostat copy was not marked as it was disputed by accused. There is no oral and documentary evidence with regard to this item. Moreover, accused is seriously disputing the income under this item. Therefore, this item has to be deleted.

127. Under Item No.12 PW55 has shown Rs.4,24,900/- as income of father of accused for maturity proceeds of Margadarsi Chit

No.REFL-T001TTK-18. Evidence of PW28 and PW55 and Ex.P48 are relevant in this regard. Ex.P48 shows that father of accused paid an amount of Rs.3,81,728/- towards subscription of the chit and he was paid an amount of Rs.4,24,900/- as prize amount. PW28 further deposed that father of accused paid all the subscription amounts in cash. PW28 deposed in cross-examination that

K.Narsimha has nothing to do with subscription of the chit or furnishing sureties. Court has given finding that father of accused has no sufficient income and the immovable properties standing in the name of father of accused are benami properties of accused. Therefore, PW55 has correctly taken Rs.4,24,900/- under this item as income of father of accused.

128. Rs.33,200/- was taken by PW55 as income of K.Yelleshwar (brother of accused) under Item No.13. Evidence of PW20 and

PW55 is relevant in this regard. Court has dealt with this part of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 101 evidence at Para No.115 of the Judgment and given finding that brother of accused himself purchased Hero Honda Motor Cycle with the loan obtained from HDFC Bank, Secunderabad and the said asset can not be tagged to accused. Therefore, as a necessary corollary, this item has to be deleted in Statement-C and I accordingly, do so.

Additional income from LIC Money Back Policies:

129. Learned counsel for accused contended that Rs.77,500/- has to be taken as income from LIC Money Back Policy

Nos.642644840 and 380255051 at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and

Rs.35,000/- respectively. Evidence of PW3 and PW55, Ex.P112 and Exs.D4, D6 and D10 are relevant in this regard. PW3, the then Branch Manager, LIC of India, Bhongir Branch, deposed about premiums paid by accused under Policy Nos.642643195, 380255051 and 642644840 to the tune of Rs.37,204/-,

Rs.47,878.40 Ps. and Rs.70,873/- during the check period. In cross-examination PW3 admitted that accused received

Rs.75,000/- under money back Policy Nos.642644840 and 380255051 during the check period. PW55, by seeing Ex.P112, also admitted this aspect. PW55 further admitted that the amounts received by accused under above money back policies

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 102 have to be shown as income of accused during the check period.

However, PW55 failed to show this amount as income in

Statement-C. Therefore, Rs.77,500/- has to be added as income of accused from LIC Money Back Policy Nos.642644840 and 38025505 in Statement-C.

Additional Income towards interest accrued on PPF

Accounts of sons of accused:

130. Learned counsel for accused contended that interest of

Rs.1,49,536.70 Ps. accrued on PPF Accounts of Anirudh and

Akshay (sons of accused) has to be taken as income in Statement-

C. In this regard, evidence of PW37 and PW55, Exs.P57 and P58 are relevant. The fact that sons of accused were holding PPF

Account Nos.01P00900205 and 01P00900210 in SBI, Nacharam,

Hyderabad is not in dispute. PW37 and PW55 admitted that interest of Rs.73,518.90 Ps. and Rs.76,017.80 Ps. was accrued as per Exs.P57 and P58 as on 31.03.2006. PW55 also admitted that he had not shown these amounts as income in Statement-C though they must be shown. These amounts have to be added as income in Statement-C because these amounts were received during the check period. Thus, total amount of Rs.1,49,536.70 Ps.

has to be added as additional income in Statement-C.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 103

Additional Income towards interest earned on SB

Accounts:

131. Accused contended that Rs.31,729.61 Ps. has to be taken as

additional income in Statement-C towards interest accrued on SB

Accounts. In this regard, evidence of PW24, PW25, PW40, PW53 and PW55 and Exs.P42, P43, P63 and P73 to P76 are relevant, which was dealt with by court while discussing Item Nos.1 to 6 of

Movable Assets under the caption “Bank Accounts” at Para Nos.94 to 106 and gave finding that interest accrued in SB Account

No.10763667052 in SBI, Aizawl of accused to the tune of

Rs.10,044.84 Ps., SB Account No.10650680398 in SBI, Rajpur

Road, Delhi of accused to the tune of Rs.186/-, SB Account

No.10650682668 in SBI, Rajapur Road, Delhi of wife of accused to the tune of Rs.20,962.38 Ps., SB Account No.60007010020119 in

Vijaya Bank, Delhi of accused to the tune of Rs.252/- and SB

Account No.13688 in Canara Bank, Bhongir of accused to the tune of Rs.284.39 Ps., total amount being Rs.31,729.61 Ps., has to be shown as income in Statement-C. PW55 has made categoric admissions in this regard. Therefore, Rs.31,729.61 Ps. has to be taken as additional income in Statement-C.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 104

Additional Income towards interest earned on ICICI Bonds:

132. Learned counsel for accused contended that Rs.1,163/- towards interest earned on ICICI Bonds has to be added as

additional income of accused. In this regard, he has drawn the

attention of court to the evidence of PW41 and Ex.P64. PW41 deposed about Ex.P64 regarding ICICI Safety Bonds standing in the name of accused. Ex.P64 shows that value bonds worth

Rs.20,000/- were allotted to accused on 30.04.2005, for which the amount was paid by accused through cheques. PW41 deposed in cross-examination that an amount of Rs.1,163/- was paid towards interest to accused on 01.05.2006 on the above bonds. Ex.P64 also reflected the said amount paid to accused towards interest.

PW55 also admitted this aspect in cross-examination. PW55 admitted that this amount must be shown as income of accused in Statement-C. In view of the said categoric admission of PW55, an amount of Rs.1,163/- has to be taken as income of accused in

Statement-C.

Personal loan taken by accused from SBI, Aizawl:

133. Learned counsel for accused contended that PW55 has not taken personal loan amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs taken by accused vide Loan Account No.30059541303 from SBI, Aizawl as income in

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 105

Statement-C. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of court to the evidence of PW40, PW55, DW1, Ex.P63 and Ex.D11. Court has dealt with this part of oral and documentary evidence at Para Nos.94 to 97and gave finding that

Rs.5.00 Lakhs as the personal loan taken by accused from SBI,

Aizawl has to be taken as income. PW55 had not shown this amount as income of accused in Statement-C. Admittedly, the said loan amount was taken on 10.07.2006, which comes within the check period. Therefore, Rs.5.00 Lakhs has to be taken as income in Statement-C.

Net salary income of accused earned prior to the check

period:

134. Accused contended that he joined as IAS officer on 15.09.1991 and drawn salary from 15.09.1991 to September, 1993 whereas the check period was taken by PW55 from October, 1993 to 19.10.2006, but PW55 has not taken the income of accused during the said period as opening balance and, as such, an amount of Rs.3,71,028/- has to be taken as opening balance in

Statement-C. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that PW55 has rightly not taken the salary income of accused from 15.09.1991 to September, 1993 as the said amount might have been spent away by accused.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 106

135. PW55 admitted in cross-examination that accused has drawn salary from 15.09.1991 to September, 1993, i.e. prior to check period and the said income was not shown. The explanation given by PW55 is that the said amount is not significant. At the same time, PW55 admitted that income prior to check period, if any, must be shown as opening balance in the income statement of accused. In view of the said categoric admission of PW55 and as the law requires to take the income of accused prior to check period as opening balance, there cannot be any doubt to hold that the net salary income of accused from 15.09.1991 to September, 1993 has to be taken as opening balance in Statement-C.

136. Then comes the question as to what is the quantum of salary income of accused prior to check period. Ex.D3 was confronted to PW55 and he has admitted the same. PW55 deposed that as per Ex.D3 accused had drawn gross salary of

Rs.3,07,642/- and net salary of Rs.2,91,790/- for the period from

September, 1991 to May, 1992. During the said period accused underwent training in Lal Bahadhur Sastry National Academy of

Administration, Mussorie as Probation IAS officer. Ex.D7 was also confronted by accused to PW55. Accused worked as Assistant

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 107

Collector, Baster District from June, 1992 to 13.06.1993 and drawn net salary of Rs.79,238/-, which is evident from Ex.D7.

Though the authors of Exs.D3 and D7 were not examined by defence, court is inclined to rely on them since they were admitted by PW55. Net salary income of Rs.3,71,028/- drawn by accused from September, 1991 to September, 1993 has to be taken as opening balance in Statement-C and I accordingly do so.

Summary of details of income of accused as per above

findings:

Sl.Amount Description No.(Rs.) 1Salary income from October, 1993 to 31.10.200624,02,297.00 2Income of K.Madhavi (wife of accused)5,76,447.00

Income from PPF withdrawals of accused and his 31,80,000.00 wife

Income from interest accrued in the PPF account of 42,68,806.00 accused

Income from interest accrued in the PPF account of 51,33,418.00 K.Madhavi (wife of accused)

Interest towards IDBI Flexi bonds purchased in 63,300.00 2004

Interest received in respect of 4 IDBI bonds 727,200.00 purchased in the year 2000 on their redemption Income from dividends received on SBI shares 83,850.00 during check period

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 108

Income from agricultural lands of K.Bakkaiah 92,09,715.00 (father of accused)

Loan towards purchase of HMT Tractor from SBH, 100 Bhongir by K.Bakkaiah (father of accused)

Income towards sale of old house at Anantharam 110 village by K.Bakkaiah (father of accused)

Maturity proceeds of Margadarsi Chit No.REFL- 124,24,900.00 T001TTK-18 of K.Bakkaiah (father of accused)

Loan taken by K.Yelleswar from HDFC Bank towards 130 purchase of Hero Honda Motorcycle

Additional Income (Not shown by PW55 in

Statement-C but taken by court) 14Income from LIC Money Back Policies 77,500.00

Interest accrued on PPF Accounts of Anirudh and 151,49,536.70 Akshay (sons of accused) 16Interest earned on SB accounts 31,729.61 17Interest earned on ICICI Bonds1,163.00

Personal loan taken by accused from SBI, Aizawl 185,00,000.00 vide Loan Account No.30059541303

Gross salary income of accused prior to check 193,71,028.00 period i.e. from 15.09.1991 to September, 1993

Total 53,60,890.31

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 109

EXPENDITURE DURING THE END OF THE CHECK PERIOD –

STATEMENT-D:

Item No.1 - Household expenditure:

137. PW55 has taken household expenditure of Rs.9,66,831/- as 1/3rd of gross salary on Rs.29,00,495/-. Learned counsel for accused contended that household expenditure has to be taken on net salary only because it is the take home salary of accused, which he is expected to spend. Refuting the said contention, learned Public Prosecutor contended that on gross salary of accused household expenditure has to be taken into consideration. In support of his contention, learned Public

Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in

AIR 1964 SC 464. In fact, there is no mention in this decision that household expenditure has to be taken on gross salary income or net salary income. Gross salary income includes GPF deduction, etc. which amounts to savings by accused. Hence, there is nothing wrong to take gross salary for calculation of household expenditure. On Rs.29,00,495/- 1/3rd has to be taken as household expenditure under this item, which comes to

Rs.9,66,831.67 Ps., rounded of to Rs.9,66,832/-. Therefore, under this item Rs.9,66,832/- is taken as household expenditure.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 110

Item No.2 - Educational expenditure of sons of accused in

Vignan Vihar School, Gudilova, Visakhapatnam:

138. Rs.1,86,500/- is shown in Statement-D by PW55 towards educational expenditure of Anirudh and Akshay (sons of accused) in Vignan Vihar School, Gudilova, Visakhapatnam during the check period. Exs.P88 and P89 relate to this item of expenditure.

They were got marked through PW55. The amount taken by PW55 under this item is found tallying with the amounts mentioned in

Exs.P88 and P89. Accused has not disputed the educational expenditure spent by him for his sons in the said school.

Therefore, amount of Rs.1,86,500/- is taken as expenditure under this item.

Item No.3 - Educational expenditure of sons of accused in

Bala Bharathi School, Pusa Road, Delhi :

139. Rs.1,09,730/- is shown in Statement-D by PW55 towards educational expenditure of Anirudh and Akshay (sons of accused) in Bala Bharathi School, Pusa Road, Delhi during the check period.

Ex.P90, which was got marked through PW55, relates to this item of expenditure. The amount taken by PW55 under this item is tallying with the amount mentioned in Ex.P90. Accused has not disputed the educational expenditure spent by him for his sons in the said school. Therefore, amount of Rs.1,09,730/- is taken as

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 111 expenditure under this item.

Item No.4 - Traveling expenditure of accused through

Omega Travels, Aizawl:

140. PW55 has taken Rs.5,18,234/- as traveling expenditure of accused through Omega Travels, Aizawl. Learned counsel for accused contended that no witness was examined by prosecution to prove this item of expenditure but got marked Ex.P91 through

PW55, which cannot be taken into consideration. He also contended that a communication made to investigating officer during the course of investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C.

and Ex.P91 cannot be looked into by court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaliram v. State of

Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773. Learned

Public Prosecutor contended that Ex.P91 is not hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for accused is not applicable to the present case.

141. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the scope of Section 162 of Cr.P.C. The question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the letter addressed by Constable to the Station House Officer

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 112 containing the narration of what was informed to him by accused, would constitute the statement for the purpose of Section 162 of

Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the said letter would attract Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it was not relied upon. It is true that statement made by a person to a Police

Officer in the course of investigation is inadmissible, except for the purposes mentioned in Section 162 of Cr.P.C.

142. Ex.P91 was furnished by Sri.Zohmingthanga, General

Manager of Omega Travels, Aizawl to PW55 (IO) in reply to letter dt.26.02.2007. It is the duty of Investigating Officer to collect necessary documents from concerned Departments/Firms/Officials during the course of investigation. Such documents or information furnished by 3rd party to the case do not fall within the ambit of

Section 162 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where accused gave statement to either PW55 or some other 3rd party and reduced it into writing, as was done in Kaliram’s case. Therefore, Section 162 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted to Ex.P91. Accordingly, the above contention of learned counsel for accused holds no water.

143. It is true that prosecution has not examined

Sri.Zohmingthanga, General Manager of Omega Travels, Aizawl though he was cited as a witness at Sl.No.45 of the list of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 113 witnesses. He was not examined by prosecution since he died during the pendency of case and the said fact was recorded in docket order dt.25.09.2017. There is impossibility for prosecution to examine the author of Ex.P91. In those circumstances, Ex.P91 was got marked through PW55. Ex.P91 relates to the period from 18.03.2005 to 29.09.2006 in respect of travel of accused, his wife and sons to various places in India, including Hyderabad. The total amount covered by Ex.P91 is Rs.5,18,234/-, which was taken into consideration by PW55. The details of other traveling expenditure of accused for the remaining part of check period could not be collected by PW55.

144. Learned counsel for accused contended that PWs.12 to 14, 16, 23 and 42 to 44, who spoke about pay/salary particulars of accused, confirmed that the said salary particulars do not include

TA, TTA, Transfer Grant, LTC, Medical Reimbursement, etc. No doubt, these witnesses deposed that IAS officer is entitled for TA and other allowances to travel by air on official duties and LTC, TA and Transfer grant. PW55 also deposed that accused will be reimbursed the expenditure incurred for official tours and LTC as per rules. PW55 also admitted that he had not enquired with the departments of accused with regard to travel expenses shown in

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 114

Ex.P91, as it is not required. PW55 also admitted that if the travelling expenses under this item are incurred on official tours or LTC or on transfer, they cannot be shown as expenditure in

Statement-D.

145. The question is whether the amounts covered by Ex.P91 were reimbursed to accused or not, in respect of which no evidence is available before the court. Exs.D12 to D14 were got marked through DW2, who was working as Superintendent in

Tourism Department, Puduchurry. Exs.D12 to D14 relate to salary particulars, recoveries and last pay certificates of accused during his tenure as Secretary to Government of Pondicherry covering the period from June, 2004 to 30.11.2004. Even if these documents are taken into consideration as true and correct, they are not helpful to accused because there is no nexus between

Ex.P91 and Exs.D12 to D14. On a perusal of Ex.P91, court is of the considered opinion that it relates to personal tours of accused and his family members and not official tours. Therefore, accused getting reimbursement of the amounts covered by Ex.P91 does not arise. That apart, accused has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the amounts covered by Ex.P91 were reimbursed to him, in which case court could have certainly

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 115 deleted this item. Though the bunch of attested copies/xerox copies are filed by accused along with written statement regarding his travelling allowances, LTC, medical reimbursement, etc., they also do not match with Ex.P91. Judging from any angle, court is unable to accept the contention of accused that he got reimbursement of amounts covered by Ex.P91. In these circumstances, I hold that PW55 had rightly taken an amount of

Rs.5,18,234/- under this item and no interference is required by court.

Item No.5 - Expenditure on Credit Card No.5421 7688

0100 1134 of Vijaya Bank, Kamala Nagar Branch, Delhi:

146. This item relates to expenditure on Credit Card No.5421 7688 0100 1134 of Vijaya Bank, Kamala Nagar Branch, Delhi and

PW55 has shown Rs.57,160/- under this item. PW46 deposed about this item. Ex.P68 is the Credit Card Expenditure Statement of accused for the period from 10.10.2001 to 05.03.2007, which shows that an amount of Rs.57,160/- was spent by accused during the said period. Ex.P114, got marked through PW55, shows that accused made credit card purchase of sony audio on 24.12.2005 for Rs.6,780/-. Though this item of expenditure covered by Ex.P114 is not reflected in Ex.P68 it can be taken into consideration because from some other credit card accused

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 116 made the said transaction during the check period. This amount of Rs.6,780/- has to be added in this item of expenditure. Amount of Rs.237/- spent on 05.03.2007 is beyond the check period and it has to be deducted from Rs.57,160/-. Consequently, it comes to

Rs.63,703/-.

147. There is no necessity for PW55 to verify the purpose for which the above amounts were paid through credit card by accused. The fact remains that the amount was spent by accused during the check period and the purpose is insignificant. PW55 deposed that if the payments covered by Ex.P68 made through credit card already covered by the assets shown, it amounts to double entry and it cannot be shown as expenditure. This answer was given by PW55 to the hypothetical question put by accused.

In the absence of evidence before the court, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the above amount covered by Ex.P68 was already covered by assets. Suffice it to say, this amount was not taken as an asset by PW55. I hold that Rs.63,703/- has to be taken as expenditure under this item as against Rs.57,160/-.

Item No.6 - Stamp duty and registration fee paid under

Document No.4316 of 1998 of SRO, Bhongir:

148. PW55 has taken expenditure of Rs.13,391/- towards stamp

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 117 duty and registration fee paid in respect of Document No.4316 of 1998 (Ex.P11). Vendor of this document examined as PW2 by prosecution, is one of the Directors of M/s. Palaka Estates Private

Limited. He has not stated anything about payment of stamp duty and registration fee by him. He has only deposed about his receiving sale consideration of Rs.1,14,000/- under Ex.P11 from accused. Acquisition of property covered by Ex.P11 is not disputed by accused. It is true that the Sub-Registrar concerning

Ex.P11 was not examined. PW55 deposed that as per Ex.P11 registration charges of Rs.841/- were paid by the vendor and not by the accused and that Rs.841/- has to be deducted from

Rs.13,391/- under this item. Though accused has not cross- examined PW2 on this aspect court has to take into consideration the admission of PW55, particularly as there is a recital on the overleaf of Page No.1 of Ex.P11 that the vendor of Ex.P11 paid registration fee of Rs.841/-. Therefore, from Rs.13,391/-, Rs.841/- has to be deducted. Consequently, an amount of Rs.12,550/- has to be taken as expenditure under this item towards payment of stamp duty by accused.

Item No.7 - Stamp duty and registration fee paid under

documents in Exs.P16 to P26:

149. This item relates to expenditure on stamp duty and

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 118 registration fee of immovable properties covered by Item Nos.3 to 11 of Statement-B under Exs.P16 to P25. Properties under

Exs.P16 to P18 covered by Item Nos.4 to 6 of Statement-B stand in the name of wife of accused. Accused has not disputed these items. It is true that Exs.P19 to P24 sale deeds relating to Item

Nos.7 to 12 of Statement-B were registered in the name of father of accused and Ex.P25 sale deed relating to Item No.3 of

Statement-B was executed in the name of brother of accused.

PW55 deposed that he had included the stamp duty and registration charges of Exs.P19 to P25 as expenditure under this item. Learned counsel for accused contended that stamp duty and registration charges of Exs.P19 to P25 have to be deducted since they cannot be tagged to accused. Learned Public

Prosecutor contended that since they are benami properties they should be taken into consideration under this item. Court has given finding on Statement-B that these properties are the benami properties of accused.

150. Court has carefully perused the evidence of PW9 and PW55 and Exs.P16 to P25. PW9 admitted that under Exs.P16 to P25 registration charges were paid by the vendors. Registration fee of

Rs.855/-, Rs.305/-, Rs.375/-, Rs.565/-, Rs.775/-, Rs.350/-, Rs.580/-,

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 119

Rs.580/-, Rs.555/- and Rs.1750/- for Exs.P16 to P25 respectively was paid, which is evident from Ex.P92. Total registration fee of

Rs.6,690/-, which was paid by the vendors, has to be deducted from the expenditure under this item. Since these properties are held to be the benami properties of accused it has to be taken that stamp duty of Rs.79,880/- has been paid by accused.

Consequently, Rs.79,880/- has to be taken as expenditure under this item as against Rs.86,570/-.

Item No.8 - Stamp duty and registration fee paid under

Document No.6714 of 2005 of SRO, Bhongir:

151. This item of expenditure of Rs.19,520/- relates to payment of stamp duty and registration fee of immovable property covered by Item No.13 of Statement-B under Ex.P26. Property under

Ex.P26 covered by Item No.13 of Statement-B stands in the name of brother of accused. PW55 deposed that he had included the stamp duty and registration charges of Ex.P26 as expenditure under this item. Accused contended that stamp duty and registration charges of Ex.P26 have to be deducted since they cannot be tagged to accused. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that since they are benami properties they should be taken under this item. Court has given finding on Statement-B that this property is the benami property of accused.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 120

152. Court has carefully perused the evidence of PW9 and PW55 and Ex.P26. PW9 admitted that under Ex.P26 registration charges were paid by the vendor. Actual registration fee paid under

Ex.P26 was not deposed by PW9. However, there is a letter dt.

01.05.2008 of SRO, Bhongir enclosed to Ex.P26 showing that stamp duty of Rs.18,200/- and registration fee of Rs.1,320/-, total amount being Rs.19,520/-, was collected under Ex.P26. Since registration charges were paid by the vendor of Ex.P26 the amount of Rs.1,320/- has to be deducted from the expenditure under this item. Since this property is held to be the benami property of accused it has to be taken that stamp duty of

Rs.18,200/- has been paid by accused. Consequently, Rs.18,200/- has to be taken as expenditure under this item as against

Rs.19,520/-.

Item No.9 - Stamp duty and registration fee paid under

Document No.4309 of 1997 of SRO, Uppal:

153. This item of expenditure of Rs.22,721/- relates to payment of stamp duty and registration fee of immovable property covered by Item No.14 of Statement-B under Ex.P49. Property under

Ex.P49 covered by Item No.14 of Statement-B stands in the name of mother of accused. PW55 deposed that he had included the stamp duty and registration charges of Ex.P49 as expenditure

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 121 under this item. Learned counsel for accused contended that stamp duty and registration charges of Ex.P49 have to be deducted since they cannot be tagged to accused. Learned Public

Prosecutor contended that since it is the benami property of accused it should be taken into consideration under this item.

Court has given finding on Statement-B that this property is the benami property of accused.

154. Court has carefully perused the evidence of PW33 and

PW55 and Exs.P49 and P93. PW33 deposed that under Ex.P49 stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.22,720/- was paid by

Ch.Ramchandra Reddy (vendor). Ex.P93 also shows that stamp duty of Rs.21,500/- and registration fees of Rs.1,221/- was paid by the party. There is no mention in Ex.P93 as to whether vendor or vendee paid stamp duty and registration fee. Hence, the above statement of PW33 has to be taken into consideration by court. In view of the specific admission of PW33 that the stamp duty and registration fee were paid by the vendor of Ex.P49 court has to exclude this item of expenditure. Accordingly, expenditure under this item is deleted in Statement-D.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 122

Item No.10 - Stamp duty and registration fee paid under

Document No.8605 of 2006 of SRO, Champapet:

155. This item of expenditure of Rs.14,260/- relates to payment of stamp duty and registration fee of immovable property covered by Item No.15 of Statement-B under Ex.P52. Property under

Ex.P52 covered by Item No.15 of Statement-B stands in the name of wife of accused. PW55 has shown stamp duty and registration fee paid under Ex.P52 as expenditure under this item. Learned counsel for accused contended that stamp duty and registration charges of Ex.P52 have to be deducted since they cannot be tagged to accused, particularly as the said property was given as gift towards the share of wife of accused by her parents. Learned

Public Prosecutor contended that since it is the benami property it should be taken into consideration under this item. Court has dealt with the evidence of PW34, PW55 and PW57 and Ex.P52 on

Statement-B and given finding that this property is the benami property of accused and that Ex.P52 is not gift deed and it is a sale deed under which sale consideration was paid.

156. PW34 deposed that Rs.13,410/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.100/- were paid towards stamp duty, registration fee and user charges respectively. He further deposed that registration fee of Rs.750/- was paid by the vendor of Ex.P52. PW34 expressed his inability to

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 123 state, from Ex.P52, as to who paid the stamp duty and user charges. Even in Ex.P94, there is no mention as to which party paid stamp duty and user charges. PW34 deposed that non- judicial stamp worth Rs.100/- was purchased in the name of wife of accused (vendee) and deficit stamp duty was paid by challan.

Instead of non-judicial stamp papers for the remaining amount, amount was paid by challan in lieu of non-judicial stamps.

Therefore, it has to be taken that stamp duty has been paid by the vendee (wife of accused) only. Consequently, after deducting

Rs.750/- towards registration fee, which was stated to have been paid by the vendor, the stamp duty and user charges of

Rs.13,510/- have to be taken as expenditure under this item as against Rs.14,260/-.

Item No.11 - Stamp duty and registration fee paid under

Document Nos.1975/2005, 1995/2005 and 1999/2005 of

SRO, Yadagirigutta:

157. This item of expenditure of Rs.16,435/- relates to payment of stamp duty and registration fee of immovable properties covered by Item Nos.16 to 18 of Statement-B under Exs.P47, P45 and P46 respectively. These properties stand in the name of brother of accused. PW55 deposed that he had included the stamp duty and registration charges of Exs.P45 to P47 as

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 124 expenditure under this item. Learned counsel for accused contended that stamp duty and registration charges of Ex.P45 to

P47 have to be deducted since they cannot be tagged to accused.

Learned Public Prosecutor contended that since they are benami properties they should be taken into consideration under this item. Court has given finding on Statement-B that these properties are the benami properties of accused purchased in the name of his brother.

158. Court has carefully perused the evidence of PW27 and

PW55 and Exs.P45 to P47 and Ex.P95. As per Ex.P95, stamp duty of Rs.15,570/- and registration fee of Rs.865/-, total amount being

Rs.16,435/-, were paid under Exs.P45 to P47 executed in the name of brother of accused. PW27 deposed that stamp duty was paid by the vendee and registration fee was paid by the vendors under Exs.P45 to P47. Since the transactions covered by Exs.P45 to P47 are the benami transactions, brother of accused being the ostensible owner, it has to be taken that accused paid stamp duty.

After deducting registration fee of Rs.865/-, which was stated to have been paid by the vendors under Exs.P45 to P47, court has to take Rs.15,570/-. Consequently, Rs.15,570/- is taken as expenditure under this item as against Rs.16,435/-.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 125

Item No.12 - LIC premium payments for Policy

No.112579060 of accused:

159. Under this item PW55 has taken Rs.81,723/- as expenditure during the check period. Evidence of PW15, PW55 and Ex.P34 are relevant for this item. PW15 deposed about Ex.P34 Statement of

Account in respect of LIC Policy No.112579060 of accused.

Evidence of PW15 and Ex.P34 disclose that at the end of check period (19.10.2006) an amount of Rs.71,330/- was paid at the rate of Rs.10,190/- per annum for 7 years. PW55 admitted that he cannot add the payments made after the check period. Last instalment of Rs.10,393/- paid by accused on 23.06.2007 has to be deducted from Rs.81,723/- since the said payment was made after check period. Therefore, expenditure under this item has to be restricted to Rs.71,330/- and I accordingly do so.

Item No.13 - LIC premium payments for Policy

Nos.642643195 and 380255051 of accused:

160. Under this item PW55 has taken Rs.1,13,361/- as expenditure during the check period. Evidence of PW3, PW55,

Ex.P96, Exs.D4 and D5 are relevant. Learned counsel for accused contended that except the oral evidence of PW3 there is no documentary evidence in respect of this item. Though Ex.P96 was available in case file unfortunately prosecution did not get it

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 126 marked through PW3 and it was later got marked through PW55.

That apart, a fact can be proved not only by documentary evidence but also by oral evidence, which is admissible under

Section 59 of the Evidence Act. Court cannot ignore the oral evidence of PW3. PW3 deposed that the above two Money Back

Policies were in the name of accused. He also deposed that total amount of Rs.33,421/- was paid as premium for Policy

No.642643195 till 19.10.2006 (end of check period). He also deposed that by the end of check period, an amount of

Rs.39,453/- was paid for Policy No.380255051. These details deposed by PW3 are amply corroborated with the contents of

Ex.P96. Hence, Ex.P96 cannot be disputed though it was got marked through PW55. Evidence of PW3 and Ex.P96 establish that during the check period total amount of Rs.72,874/- was paid by accused towards premiums of above two LIC policies.

161. Exs.D4 and D5 were got marked by defence through PW55 which relate to above two policies. They also reflected the same details as in Ex.P96. Exs.D4 and D5 were also admitted by PW55.

After deducting the premium amounts paid after the check period an amount of Rs.72,874/- was paid by accused, as rightly contended by learned counsel for accused. Therefore, an amount

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 127 of Rs.72,874/- has to be taken as expenditure under this item as against Rs.1,13,361/-.

Item No.14 - LIC premium payments for Policy

No.642644840 of accused:

162. PW55 has shown an amount of Rs.70,873/- as expenditure under this item. Evidence of PW3, PW55, Ex.P112 and Ex.D6 are important in respect of this item. PW3 deposed that total amount of Rs.70,873/- was paid for Policy No.642644840 from March, 1996 to March, 2006, annual premium amount being Rs.6,443/-.

In cross-examination PW3 admitted that an amount of

Rs.68,398.90 Ps. was paid for this policy till 22.03.2006. Though

Ex.P112 was issued by PW3 himself it was not got marked through him by oversight. It was got marked through PW55 (IO).

The details of payments made towards this policy deposed by

PW3 were found tallying with Ex.P112. Ex.D6 also relates to the above policy under this item. PW55 admitted Ex.D6. PW55 also admitted that as per Ex.D6 premium was paid quarterly at the rate of Rs.1,661/- for two installments on 07.10.1997 and 22.12.1997 and thereafter, the installments were paid yearly at the rate of Rs.6,443/-. PW55 also admitted that as per the information given by PW3 in Ex.P112 accused paid Rs.6,443/- per annum for 11 years from 28.03.1996 to 28.03.2006. (In the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 128 deposition of PW55 by oversight 11 months is mentioned). From the evidence on record, it is clear that accused initially paid

Rs.1,661/- per quarter for two installments and later he has converted the policy to yearly premium of Rs.6,443/-. Hence, the total premium amount paid by accused under this policy during the check period comes to Rs.64,430/- only and not Rs.70,873/- as taken by PW55. Therefore, Rs.64,430/- is taken as expenditure under this item as against Rs.70,873/-.

Item No.15 – Expenditure on telephone No.243235 at

Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District for

the period from 13.12.1999 to 13.04.2006:

163. PW55 has taken Rs.23,641/- as expenditure towards payment of telephone bills for telephone No.243235 of Anantaram

Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District for the period from 13.12.1999 to 13.04.2006. Evidence of PW26, PW55 and Ex.P44 are relevant for this item. PW26, the then Deputy General

Manager (Vigilance) of Telephone Department, Hyderabad, deposed that telephone No.243235 of Anantaram Village, Bhongir

Mandal, Nalgonda District was standing in the name of accused.

He also deposed that as per Ex.P44 an amount of Rs.23,641/- was paid towards telephone charges for the period from 13.12.1999 to 13.04.2006. Ex.P44 is duly proved by prosecution by the evidence

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 129 of PW26. PW26 deposed that he has no idea that above telephone connection was provided under special category as IAS

Officer. He further deposed that the receipt is issued for payment of telephone charges in the name of subscriber only even if the amount is paid by any person.

164. PW55 deposed that the above telephone was installed in the house of father of accused at Anantaram Village. He pleaded his ignorance as to whether the said telephone connection was obtained under special category by accused as he is an IAS

Officer for the benefit of his father. Learned counsel for accused submits that expenditure under this item was unnecessarily tagged to accused though the telephone charges were paid by father of accused himself and accordingly, this item has to be deleted. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was no financial capacity for father of accused to pay telephone charges and it has to be taken that they were paid by accused himself.

165. Whether the above telephone was obtained by accused under special category as IAS Officer or it was allotted in normal course is of no consequence. The fact remains that the above telephone stands in the name of accused and he is the subscriber

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 130 of the said telephone installed in the house of father of accused in

Anantaram Village, which is the native place of accused. Once the telephone stands in the name of accused, it necessarily follows that he himself paid the telephone charges. PW55 has rightly taken amount of Rs.23,641/- as expenditure under this item towards payment of telephone charges for land phone

No.243235 and it cannot be interfered with by court.

Item No.16 – Electricity charges for Service Connection

K.No.31200130817 in Government Quarter No.33/34, G-11,

Rajpur Road, Delhi for the period from January, 1999 to

September, 2006:

166. Rs.62,300/-, as reflected in Ex.P83, is taken as expenditure under this item by PW55 on the ground that accused occupied

Government Quarter No.33/34, G-11, Rajpur Road, Delhi and paid the said amount towards electricity charges for the period from

January, 1999 to September, 2006. Learned counsel for accused contended that prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove the expenditure under this item, except the sole testimony of PW55, and that Ex.P83 cannot be looked into by court since it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. This contention of accused was already answered by court at Para Nos.140 to 142and given finding that the details collected by Investigating Officer from the departments concerned will not attract Section 162 of Cr.P.C.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 131

167. There is no other mode for PW55 to collect information from

Electricity Department except by way of addressing letter. In reply to letter dt. 18.12.2008 of PW55 Ex.P83 was furnished. It is true that Rithesh Kumar Singh, Manager, Commercial (D), North Delhi

Power Limited, who issued Ex.P83, was not examined by prosecution though he was cited as a witness at Sl.No.61 of list of witnesses. On 05.07.2018 prosecution has given up the evidence of this witness on the ground that his address could not be traced.

Later prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.918 of 2019 to summon this witness and it was allowed on 30.09.2019 with conditional order.

However, prosecution failed to produce this witness and accordingly, his evidence was closed on 24.10.2019. It appears that prosecution has taken necessary steps to examine this witness but invain since his present whereabouts are not known.

There is impossibility for prosecution to examine this witness.

168. The fact that accused being an IAS Officer is not in dispute.

In Ex.P1 recorded by PW1 accused specifically admitted that he had official residence with No.33/34, Rajpur Road, Delhi and whenever he visits Delhi he used to stay there. Evidence of PW55 and Ex.P83 in this regard are corroborated by Ex.P81 statement of accused recorded by PW1. Since accused occupied the above

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 132 quarter in Delhi it has to be taken that he himself paid the electricity charges for the said house. Therefore, Rs.62,300/- was rightly taken by PW55 as expenditure under this item and it cannot be disturbed.

Item No.17 – Educational expenditure in respect of two

children of K.Yelleswar (brother of accused)

169. An amount of Rs.27,135/- was taken by PW55 as educational expenditure in respect of two children of K.Yelleswar (brother of accused). Learned counsel for accused contended that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever with regard to this item except the self serving testimony of PW55 and Exs.P97 and P98 cannot be relied upon by court since they were not duly proved and hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. As already stated, court has given finding at Para Nos.140 to 142holding that the information collected from different departments by Investigating

Officer in writing will not attract Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for accused that Exs.P97 and

P98 being hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. is untenable.

170. Ex.P97 was furnished by Head Master, India Mission High

School, Bhongir stating that K.Harini (daughter of brother of accused) studied LKG to VI Class in the said school from the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 133 academic year 2001-2002 to 2008-2009. Similarly, Ex.P98 shows that K.Harsha (daughter of brother of accused) studied UKG to IV

Class in same school from the academic year 2004-2005 to 2008- 2009. Exs.P97 and P98 covered the period beyond the check period also. Therefore, the school fee paid for two daughters of brother of accused has to be restricted to the check period. PW55 has taken the fees mentioned in Exs.P97 and P98 only till the academic year 2006-2007, which covered the check period, which comes to Rs.17,095/- and Rs.10,040/- respectively, the total amount being Rs.27,135/-.

171. The main contention of learned counsel for accused is that in the absence of any evidence regarding payment of above school fee for the children of brother of accused by accused the said amount cannot be tagged to accused. PW55 deposed that there is no evidence to show that the expenditure under this item was incurred by accused. No doubt, court has given finding that

Item Nos.3, 13 and 16 to 18 (immovable properties) in Statement-

B are the benami properties of accused purchased in the name of his brother. By the said finding itself court cannot automatically conclude that this item of expenditure was also spent by accused.

Exs.P6 and P9 are the statements of brother of accused recorded

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 134 by PW1 wherein he has stated about his paying school fee for his children. Since prosecution has not produced any evidence that accused paid the school fee of children of his brother, this item of expenditure cannot be tagged to accused. Accordingly, this item has to be deleted.

Item No.18 – Household expenditure of K.Bakkaiah and

family:

172. Under this item PW55 has taken Rs.2,500/- per month as household expenditure of K.Bakkaiah (father of accused) and his family for 10 years from 1996 to 2006 consisting of four members and two children, total amount being Rs.3,00,000/-. Learned counsel for accused contended that without there being any basis and evidence PW55 under sheer imagination has tagged this item of expenditure to accused and, therefore, it has to be deleted.

Refuting the said contention, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that since father and brother of accused were holding white ration cards till 2005 it has to be taken that the expenditure under this item was spent by accused only.

173. Father of accused stated in Ex.P7 (recorded by PW1 on 15.11.2006) that his wife died about 05 years prior to the said date, which means that K.Rajamma (mother of accused) died in

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 135 the year 2001 approximately. However, PW55 has counted mother of accused also as a member in the joint family led by father of accused. The act of PW55 in counting mother of accused as a member in the family even after her death is untenable. PW55 committed mistake in this regard. After 2001, K.Bakkaiah,

K.Yelleswar, his wife and his two daughters only consisted of joint family while from 1996 to 2001, wife of Bakkaiah was also a member in their family.

174. PW55 admitted that there is no evidence to show that the expenditure under this item was incurred by accused. No doubt, court has given finding that Item Nos.3, 13 and 16 to 18 (immovable properties) in Statement-B are the benami properties of accused purchased in the name of his brother and that Item

No.7 to 12 and 19 are also the benami properties purchased in the name of father of accused and Item No.14 was purchased in the name of mother of accused. By the said findings court cannot automatically conclude that this item of expenditure was also incurred by accused. Exs.P6 and P7 are the statements of brother of accused recorded by PW1 wherein he has stated about getting paddy from the land possessed by his father and some income from milk giving buffaloes. Similarly, in Ex.P7, father of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 136 accused stated about some nominal income being earned on agriculture and buffaloes. Though father of accused stated in

Ex.P7, in reply to Q.No.3, that accused and brother of accused were looking after the entire monthly expenditure, it cannot be the sole ground to tag this item of expenditure to accused unless there is specific evidence in that regard. It is the moral duty of accused to give some amount to his parents every month for their expenses and such amount, if any paid by accused, cannot be tagged to him under this item. Means of parents and brother of accused to purchase immovable properties are different from meeting household expenditure. In these circumstances, court is of the considered opinion that this item of expenditure cannot be tagged to accused and accordingly, it has to be deleted.

Item No.19 – Repayment of HMT Tractor Loan to SBH,

Bhongir by K.Bakkaiah and Item No.20 - Insurance paid to

UIIC, Bhongir for HMT Tractor of K.Bakkaiah:

175. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken by PW55 under this item as the amount paid towards repayment of HMT Tractor loan taken by father of accused from SBH, Bhongir. Similarly, PW55 has taken Rs.10,125/- under Item No.20 as the amount paid towards insurance to UIIC, Bhongir for HMT Tractor purchased by father of accused. It is the case of prosecution that accused has

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 137 incurred the said expenditure under Item Nos.19 and 20. Court has dealt with these items at Para Nos.112 to 114 by dealing with the evidence of PW35, PW55 and Exs.P53 and P54 and given a finding that the loan obtained by K.Bakkaiah to the tune of

Rs.4,47,000/- from SBH, Bhongir for purchase of HMT Tractor cannot be tagged to accused. The payment of insurance amount (Item No.20) also forms part of transaction of purchase of tractor by father of accused. Consequently, without any further discussion on these items, it has to be held that PW55 has unnecessarily tagged these two items of expenditure to accused.

Therefore, expenditure under Item Nos.19 and 20 has to be deleted in Statement-D.

Item No.21 - Payments made towards Margadarsi Chit

No.LT001TTK-18 of K.Bakkaiah:

176. PW55 has taken Rs.3,81,728/- as expenditure under this item towards payment of monthly installments for Margardarshi

Chit No.LT001TTK-18 in the name of father of accused. Learned counsel for accused contended that there is no evidence that the monthly installments of the said chit were paid by accused.

PW55 no doubt deposed that there is no evidence to show that this item of expenditure was incurred by accused. It is not a case where this item relates to household expenditure, in which case it

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 138 can be stated that father and brother of accused had some income from agricultural lands possessed by father of accused since prior to the check period and from buffaloes. It will be difficult for father of accused to pay such huge amount as installments to Margadarshi Chit Funds. Court has given finding at Para No.127 holding that the act of PW55 in tagging this item as income of accused in Statement-C is correct. Consequently, it has to be held that this item of expenditure was incurred by accused. Rs.3,81,728/- under this item has to be taken as expenditure.

Item No.22 - Repayment of Hero Honda Motorcycle loan to

HDFC Bank, Secunderabad by K.Yelleswar:

177. Rs.45,145/- was taken as expenditure under this item towards repayment of loan taken by brother of accused from

HDFC Bank, Secunderabad Bank for purchase of Hero Honda motorcycle. Item No.2 of Statement-B under the caption “Vehicles and Bank Balances” relates to this item. In Para No.115 court has dealt with the evidence of PW55 and Ex.P87 relating to this item and held that the transaction of purchase of Hero Honda motorcycle by brother of accused cannot be tagged to accused.

Consequently, without any further discussion, I hold that this item

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 139 of expenditure cannot be tagged to accused and it has to be deleted in Statement-D.

Item No.23 - Payments made towards mobile phone

No.9848358973 of K.Yelleswar:

178. PW55 has taken Rs.8,555/- under this item as expenditure towards payment of cell phone charges for cell phone

No.9848358973 of K.Yelleswar (brother of accused) stated to have been paid by accused. Learned counsel for accused contended that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to establish that accused met this item of expenditure and accordingly, this item has to be deleted. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that since there was no financial capacity for brother of accused, it has to be taken that this item of expenditure was incurred by accused himself.

179. Ex.P99, which was got marked by prosecution through

PW55, is the relevant document in respect of this item, which was issued by Arun Madhav Bhagavathula, Senior Manager (Legal) and Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular. He was cited as the witness in charge sheet but in his place PW22 was examined since he was not working in Hyderabad at the time when the summons were issued by court. However, in respect of Ex.P99 there is no

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 140 certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and, accordingly, it was not marked through PW52. However, it was got marked by prosecution as Ex.P99 through PW55. Be that as it may, the fact that above cell phone standing in the name of brother of accused is not in dispute. PW52 deposed that it is a pre-paid connection and the subscriber was using the cell phone by making recharge. As already stated, brother of accused has some income, though not being capable to purchase immovable properties, and it is not difficult for him to recharge his cellphone by paying money by himself, particularly as it is a small amount.

That apart, PW55 deposed in cross-examination that there is no evidence to show that expenditure under this item was incurred by accused. Accordingly, I hold that this item of expenditure has to be deleted in Statement-D.

Summary of findings on Statement-D regarding

expenditure:

180. Summary of findings with regard to expenditure in Statement-D is as follows:

Sl. Description Amount (Rs.) No.

Household expenditure @ 1/3 of gross salary of 9,66,832 1Rs.29,00,495/-

Educational expenditure of sons at Vijnana Vihar 21,86,500 School, Gudilova, Visakhapatnam

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 141

Educational expenditure of sons at Bala Bharathi 31,09,730 School, Pusa Road, Delhi

Travelling expenditure of accused through Omega 45,18,234 Travels, Aizawl

Credit card expenditure on credit card No.5421 7688 563,703 0100 1134 of Vijaya Bank and on another credit card

Stamp duty and registration fee, etc. paid in respect of 6Doc.No.4316/98, SRO, Bhongir vide Lr.No.316/2008 dt.12,550 20.11.2008 of SRO, Bhongir

Stamp duty and registration fee, etc. paid in respect of 7the properties purchased at Bhongir as per79,880 Lr.No.217/2008 dt. 18.07.2008 of SRO, Bhongir

Stamp duty and registration fee, etc. paid in respect of 8the property purchased vide Doc.No.6714/2005 of18,200 SRO, Bhongir as per Lr.No.131/2008 dt. 01.05.2008

Stamp duty and registration fee, etc. paid in respect of 9the property purchased vide Doc.No.4309/97 of SRO,0 Uppal

Stamp duty and registration fee, etc. paid in respect of 10the property purchased vide Doc.No.8605/06 of SRO,13,510 Champapet

Stamp duty and registration fee, etc. paid in respect of 11the property purchased vide Doc.Nos.1975/95,15,570 1995/05 & 1999/05 of SRO, Yadagirigutta

LIC premium payments towards Policy No.112579060 1271,330 in the name of accused

LIC premium payments towards Policy Nos.642643195 1372,874 and 380255051 of accused

LIC premium payments towards Policy No.642644840 1464,430 in the name of accused

Telephone expenditure of accused vide Telephone 15No.243235 at Anantharam Village, Bhongir, Nalgonda23,641 District for the period from 13.12.1999 to 13.04.2006

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 142

Electricity charges for Govt. Quarter No.33/34, G-11, 1662,300 Rajpur Road, Delhi (K.No.31200130817) for the period from January, 1999 to September, 2006

Educational expenditure in respect of two children of 170 K.Yelleswar(brother of accused) 18Household expenditure of K.Bakkaiah and family 0

Repayment of HMT Tractor Loan to SBH, Bhongir by 190 K.Bakkaiah(father of accused)

Insurance paid to UIIC, Bhongir for HMT Tractor of 200 K.Bakkaiah(father of accused)

Payments made towards Margadarsi Chit No.LT001TTK- 213,81,728 18 of K.Bakkaiah(father of accused)

Repayment of Hero Honda Motorcycle loan to HDFC 22Bank, Secunderabad by K.Yelleswar(brother of0 accused)

Payments made towards Mobile Phone No.9848358973 230 of K.Yelleswar(brother of accused)

Total 26,61,012

Determination of Disproportionate Assets:

181. Calculation of disproportionate assets is as follows:

Income - Expenditure ‘ = Total Savings

53,60,890/-26,61,012/-26,99,878/-

Assets - Savings ‘ = DA

80,17,874/-26,99,878/-53,17,996/-

DA / Income * 100 Total percentage (%)

of DA 53,17,996/-53,60,890/-*10099.19 %

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 143

The percentage of disproportionate assets possessed by accused is 99.19%.

182. Learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnand Agnihotri v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 796, wherein it was held that if the disproportionate assets is less than 10% of the total income, it has to be treated as comparatively small and marginal and accused is entitled for acquittal. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Polluji Darabshan Darawala reported in AIR 1988 SC 88, wherein it was held that a liberal view is required to be taken as to what proportion of assets in excess of known sources of income constitutes “disproportion”. In the present case, the percentage of disproportionate assets is far beyond 10 per cent and no liberal view can be taken. Therefore, the above decisions are not applicable to the present case.

Defects or otherwise in the investigation conducted by

PW55:

183. Ex.P77 is the FIR, on the basis of which the criminal law was set into motion. Investigation was conducted by PW55, whose evidence was discussed at length in the preceding paragraphs.

S.P, CBI, Hyderabad issued authorizations as in Exs.P115 to P117

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 144 to Sri.M.T.Mang, Inspector of Police, CBI, Shilong to inspect and seize Banker’s Books, Sri.K.Raja, Inspector of Police, CBI, Chennai to investigate this case and Sri.K.R.Kabui, Inspector of Police, CBI,

Guwahati to investigate this case. For the sake of convenience these authorizations were given to above CBI officials to collect certain documents in those places. It would be difficult for PW55 to visit above far of places from Hyderabad. Authorizations in

Exs.P115 to P117 were issued by SP, CBI, Hyderabad under

Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

184. Learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that fair investigation was not conducted by PW55, which caused serious prejudice to accused. In support of his contention, learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State, Inspector of Police,

Vishakapatnam v. Suya Sankaram Karri reported in (2006) 7

Supreme Court Cases 172, wherein it was held that fair investigation is expected from the prosecution and that investigation has to be carried out not only from the stand of prosecution, but also the defence, particularly in view of the fact that the onus of proof may shift to the accused at a later stage. It was further held that proceedings can not be quashed only on the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 145 basis of illegal investigation unless miscarriage of justice is shown. Court has discussed the evidence of PW55(Investigating

Officer) in the preceding paragraphs. Court finds no flaw in the investigation conducted by PW55. Almost all the relevant witnesses were examined and relevant documents were collected and filed. Certainly, there are certain minor mistakes committed by PW55 while taking into consideration the values of assets, income and expenditure, which did not occur intentionally on the part of PW55 and they have to be taken as natural aberrations, which are quite normal in a case of this nature, particularly in view of the complexity involved in this case. Fair investigation was conducted by PW55. Hence, the above decision relied upon by learned counsel for accused is not applicable to the present case.

Non-filing of Annual Property Statements by accused

during the check period and their effect:

185. Itis thecase of prosecution that though the CCS Rules require accused to file annual property returns to his department he had not filed them, except for one time, and it has to be taken against the accused since he has concealed his properties being disclosed to the department. On the other hand, learned counsel

for accused contended that non-filing of annual property

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 146 statements by accused will not amount to an offence and it may give rise to disciplinary action and it can not be a circumstance to be taken against the accused in this case. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim reported in 2011 Criminal Law Journal 1770, wherein it was held that non-filing of returns under a rule would entail in disciplinary proceedings against the employee under service jurisprudence and it will not amount to criminal offence. However, failure on the part of accused to file annual property statements to his department or non-mentioning of all his properties and the properties of his family members, who are depending on him, is certainly a corroborative circumstance in this case, which goes in favour of prosecution.

186. PW55 deposed that he had written letter dt.30.01.2008 to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to submit

Annual Property Returns submitted by accused for the period from 1991 to 2006. In response to the said letter, PW55 received endorsement from the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India as in Ex.P100, mentioning that the Ministry had received the Annual Property Return of accused only for the

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 147 year 1997, a copy of which was enclosed. Photocopy of Annual

Property statement of accused for the year 1997 was not marked since it was objected by accused. No doubt, photostat copy of a document is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the said photocopy cannot be looked into by court. However, Ex.P100 endorsement is sufficient to conclude that accused had not submitted annual property statements during the check period, except for the year 1997. Accused concealed the properties standing in his name and in the name of his family members without disclosing them to his department. Certainly, it has to be taken as a corroborative circumstance favorable to the prosecution.

Sanction of prosecution:

187. Section 19 of the Act requires that sanction for prosecution of accused has to be issued by the competent authority. PW60, the then Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training,

Government of India, issued Ex.P118 sanction order for prosecution of accused. He deposed that the Government of India (Authentication of Orders) Rules, 2002, notified by the Ministry of

Home Affairs, authorizes the officers of the rank of Under

Secretary and above to convey the decision of the Hon’ble

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 148

President of India by way of signing the required orders and accordingly, PW60 signed on Ex,P118. The competent authority had gone through the material placed before it and granted sanction for prosecution of accused. Though accused has cross- examined PW60 at length nothing could be elicited to dislodge his evidence.Therefore, in the present case Ex.P118 sanction order was issued by the competent authority as per Section 19 of the

Act.

Discharge or otherwise of reverse burden by accused:

188. Court has discussed the degree of proof by prosecution and accused at Para Nos.12 to 15. Prosecution clinchingly proved by cogent and trustworthy evidence that accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily account for such possession of disproportionate assets, as laid down in Section 13(1)(e) of the

Act. There is absolutely no satisfactory account from the accused with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by him.

Though the accused set up the defence that he has noting to do with the properties standing in the name of K.Bakkaiah (father of accused), K.Rajamma (mother of accused) and K.Yelleshwar (brother of accused) the said defence was rejected by court since

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 149 it was not duly proved. On the other hand, evidence on record established that accused acquired properties in the names of his parents and brother and they are the ostensible owners for name sake only. It is true that the degree of proof by accused is based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of principle of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, as in the case of prosecution. However, in the present case accused failed to discharge the burden as he could not satisfactorily account for the possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Finding:

189. Above discussion leads me to conclude that accused is found in possession of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income and the percentage of disproportionate assets during the check period is 99.19%. Prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Point is accordingly answered in favour of prosecution.

190. In the result, accused is found guilty for offence under

Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 150

Act, 1988. He is liable to be convicted under Section 248(2) of

Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Sd/-

I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad FAC III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad

191. Accused is questioned on the quantum of sentence to be imposed. He submits that he has no job for the last 5/6 years; he is presently staying in his native place at Anantaram; he is a chronic diabetic patient for the last 28 years and on insulin for the last more than 10 years; he is aged more than 59 years; his two children are not yet settled and that he has to look after his two sons. Thus submitting, accused prayed court to take lenient view.

Reiterating the above mitigating circumstances submitted by accused, learned counsel for accused also prayed the court to take lenient view. Learned Public Prosecutor prayed the court to impose appropriate sentence of imprisonment and fine having regard to the gravity of the offence.

192. Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Act provides for minimum sentence of imprisonment of one year and maximum sentence of imprisonment upto seven years and fine. Accused is

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 151 now aged 59 years. He has no job for the last 5/6 years. He is stated to be a chronic diabetic patient for the last 28 years and he is on insulin for the last more than 10 years. This is the first offence proved against accused. Prosecution reported that there are no other pending criminal cases against accused. In

Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. Dr.Manmohan Singh and

another (Civil Appeal No.1193/2012, dt. 31.01.2012), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that corruption in India not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance but also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the rule of law and that no lenient view can be taken in respect of offences under the Act. In an offence of this nature court cannot invoke provisions of either Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or the provisions of the

Probation of Offenders Act. At the same time, taking into consideration the gravity of offence proved against accused and the mitigating circumstances submitted by him, court has to strike a balance so as to meet the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, court is inclined to impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) against accused which would meet ends of justice.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 152

193. Accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Accused is entitled for set off under Section 428 of

Cr.P.C. for the remand period (04.06.2008 to 13.06.2008). Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

194.An amount of Rs.53,17,996/-, which is assessed as the value of disproportionate assets of accused at the end of check period (19.10.2006), shall be confiscated to the State after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad FAC III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 153

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1K.John Vikram, Former Deputy Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Hyderabad.

PW-2Kurimilla Narasimha, Proprietor of M/s. Sai Sowbaghya Builders, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

PW-3S.Syed Peer, Branch Manager, LIC of India, Bhongir Branch, Nalgonda District.

PW-4Smt.G.Jyothi, the then Senior Assistant, Office of Tahsildar, Bhongir District

PW-5Dr.Ramesh Kapur, Chairman and Managing Director of Radisson Blue Plaza Hotel, Delhi Airport

PW-6Umashankar Das, Deputy General Manager, UMAK Investment Company Private Limited

PW-7Smt.K.Swaroopa Rani, Senior Accountant, Office of the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Abids, Hyderabad. (Sister-in- law of wife of A1)

PW-8A.Bhagya Raju, Proprietor of Haribinger Enterprises (Stone Crushers), Kesara, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-9M.Ravinder, the then Sub-Registrar, Bhongir.

PW-10R.Raji Reddy, the then Panchayath Secretary, Anantharam Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. (Native village of Accused)

PW-11Kethavat Kistu, the then Junior Assistant O/o Tahsildhar, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 154

PW-12V.Koteswara Rao, the then Accounts Officer, Office of Deputy Commissioner (SW), KAPASHERA Old Tax Terminal, NCT of Delhi.

PW-13Sonthosh Kumar Sharma, the then Under Secretary/Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi.

PW-14A.K.Saha, the then Under Secretary, Ministiry of Tribal Affiars, Government of India, New Delhi

PW-15Rajender Kumar Bhat, the then Branch Manager, LIC of India, Unit-118, 64, Janpath, New Delhi

PW-16V.Kannabiram, the then Under Secretary to Government of Pondicherry, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Pondicherry.

PW-17Manoj Patil, Legal Officer, Datamatrics Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

PW-18P.D.Kanunjna, the then Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, ARA Center, E2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.

PW-19P.Sridhar, the then Executive Engineer, Valuation-1, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-20M.Gnaneshwar, Manager, HDFC Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad

PW-21J.Anantha Reddy, the then Village Revenue Officer, Anantharam Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District.

PW-22Ch.Srinivas, the then Village Revenue Officer, Jangampalli, Peddireddy gudem, Dattarapalli Villages, Nalgonda District.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 155

PW-23Shampa Das, Assistant Section Officer, Personnel Department, Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itinagar.

PW-24Ajay Kumar Khosla, the then Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank Kamala Nagar Branch, Delhi

PW-25K.Vijaya Bhaskar, the then Officer, Canara Bank, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

PW-26G.Veeraiah, the then Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) O/o Chief General Manager of Telephones (CGMT), A.P.Circle, Hyderabad.

PW-27Ghulam Dastagiri, the then Sub-Registrar, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda

PW-28Ch.Srinivasa Rao, the then Manager, Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad.

PW-29A.Rama Chandra Murthy, the then Principal, Vijnana Vihara Residential School, Gudilova, Vishakhapatnam District

PW-30Ch.Ramchandra Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. R.V.Nirmaan Private Limited, Hyderabad.

PW-31M.S.S.Sastry, the then Assistant General Manager, IDBI Bank, Chappal Road Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-32Gurram Sadananda Reddy, Proprietor of Bhagyanagar Drillers, Hyderabad

PW-33Ahmed Abdul Rawoof, the then Sub-Registrar, Uppal, Hyderabad.

PW-34Vittal Goud, the then Sub-Registrar, Champapet, Hyderabad.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 156

PW-35N.Narsinga Rao, the then Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhongiri Branch, Nalgonda District.

PW-36A.Anil Kumar, the then Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

PW-37K.Ram Babu,the then Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

PW-38Vijay Kumar Tenneti, the then General Manager, Hotel Manohar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-39T.Satyanarayana, the then Marketing Manager, Ganga Kaveri Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad. (Classmate of accused in M.Sc Agriculture)

PW-40P.Mohan Roy, the then Manager (PBD), State Bank of India, Aizwal Branch, Mizoram

PW-41D.Ganesh, the then Senior Manager, 3i Infotech Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

PW-42Ruma Mugli, the then Financial Accounts Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Administration, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh State.

PW-43Gopal Mishra, the then Accounts Officer, General Administration Department (GAD), Government of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi.

PW-44K.S.Gupta, the then Accounts Officer and Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Sports Authority of India, New Delhi

PW-45Laksh Vir Sehgal, Principal, Bal Bharati Public School, New Delhi

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 157

PW-46M.B.Nanjappa, the then Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Kamala Nagar Branch, Delhi

PW-47N.Sriramulu, the then Agricultural Officer, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District.

PW-48L.R.Bhuvaneswar Reddy, Businessman in Chemical Manufacturing, Mahaboobnagar District.

PW-49Smt.P.Neeraja Reddy, Social Worker and the Member of Legislative Assembly, State of Andhra Pradesh from 2009 to 2014 and purchaser of land in Rallajanagama Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, Satyanarayana (Classmate of accused) being the mediator.

PW-50G.Peter, the then District Tribal Welfare Officer, Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Districts

PW-51Chenna Venkatesham, Managing Director, Yadagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

PW-52A.V.K.Naidu, Legal, Regulatory and Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited, Andhra Pradesh & Telangana States

PW-53Neeraj Kumar, the then Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, Delhi

PW-54Sabihur Rahman, the then Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-1, Delhi.

PW-55G.Sudhakar, the then Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad.

PW-56Ch.Chandraiah, Real Estate Businessman, Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri, Bhongir District (erstwhile Nalgonda District).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 158

PW-57M.Maheswar Reddy, Real Estate Businessman and resident of Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad

PW-58Ch.Krishna Reddy, Businessman in sale of tractors and resident of Ankushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

PW-59Jalaj Srivastava, the then Executive Director (Finance), Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and the Secretary, Civil Service Officers Welfare Housing Society, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

PW-60Sarat Chandra Mulchandaney, the then Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defence:

DW-1P.Prem Kumar, Branch Manager, SBI, BHEL R&D Branch, Balanagar, Hyderabad.

DW-2C.Shiam Sunder, Superintendent, O/o Tourism Department, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 159

EXHIBITS MARKED

Documents marked by Prosecution:

Ex.P1Statement of K.Narasimha (Accused) in question and answer form recorded on 24.10.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1(10 sheets).

Ex.P2Statement of Uma Shankar Das (PW6) in question and answer form recorded on 19.10.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at the domestic arrival hall, Begumpet Airport, Hyderabad (06 sheets).

Ex.P3Statement of Uma Shankar Das (PW6) in question and answer form recorded on 19/20.10.2006 under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at Room No.311, Manohar Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad during the course of search proceedings (08 sheets).

Ex.P4Statement of Ramesh Kapoor (PW5) in question and answer form recorded on 19.10.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at the airport arrival hall, Begumpet Airport, Hyderabad (07 sheets).

Ex.P5Statement of Ramesh Kapoor (PW5) in question and answer form recorded on 19.10.2006 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at airport arrival hall, Begumpet Airport, Hyderabad (11 sheets).

Ex.P6Statement of Yelleshwar (Younger brother of accused) in question and answer form recorded on 15.11.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at the house of Yelleshwar in Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (02 sheets).

Ex.P7Statement of Bakkaiah (Father of accused) in question and answer form recorded on 15.11.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at the house of Bakkaiah in Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (03 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 160

Ex.P8Statement of K.Venkat Reddy in question and answer form recorded on 17.11.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at Room No.470, 4th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad (07 sheets).

Ex.P9Statement of K.Yellesh (Younger brother of accused) in question and answer form recorded on 23.10.2006 under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at the residence of K.Bakkaiah (Father of accused) in Anantaram Village (04 sheets).

Ex.P10Statement of S.P.Manmohan, Front Office Cashier of Hotel Manohar, Begumpet, Hyderabad in question and answer form recorded on 20.10.2006 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act by PW1 at Hotel Manohar, Begumpet, Hyderabad (04 sheets).

Ex.P11Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.4316 of 1998 dt.30.07.1998 executed by M/s.Bhavani Enterprises, represented by its Directors Dr.J.Amarender and Kurimilla Narsimha in favour of accused in respect of Plot No.134 in Sy.Nos.125 to 131, admeasuring 1000 Sq.Yards, situated at Bhongir Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District (07 sheets).

Ex.P12Declaration Form-cum-Household Information Sheet, Nalgonda District in respect of Kavadi Bakkaiah S/o Agaiah of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal relating to the year 2006.

Ex.P13Attested extract copy of relevant pages of Key Register of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, reflecting the name of father of accused and his family members at Sl.No.230 with house No.4-21 (2 sheets).

Ex.P14Sworn Statement of Uma Shankar Das(PW6) in question and answer form recorded on 24.10.2006 by PW1 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act in Room No.470 of Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad (5 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 161

Ex.P15Sworn Statement of Uma Shankar Das(PW6) in question and answer form recorded on 06.11.2006 by the Authorized Officer of Income Tax Department during the course of search of locker No.24, UTI Bank, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar (3 sheets).

Ex.P16Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.4829/1996 dt. 26.08.1996 executed by T.Laxmaiah and T.Venkatesh in favour of Smt.Kavadi Madhavi(Wife of accused) in resepct of Plot Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 in Sy.No.596, admeasuring 600 Sq.Yards, situated at Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District (3 sheets).

Ex.P17Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.4717 of 1996 dt. 20.08.1996 executed by Wasimunnisa Begum and Mohd. Shayan in favour of Smt.Kavadi Madhavi(Wife of accused) in respect of Plot No.4, admeasuring 150 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.596, situated at Bibinagar village and Mandal (3 sheets).

Ex.P18Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.4716/1996 dt. 20.08.1996 executed by Wasimunnisa Begum and Mohd. Shayan in favour of Kavadi Madhavi(Wife of accused) in respect of Plot No.13, admeasuring 366 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.596, situated at Bibinagar village and Mandal (3 sheets).

Ex.P19Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.1248/1999 dt. 07.04.1999 executed by Chintala Raja Narsimha Reddy in favour of Kavadi Bakkaiah(Father of accused) in respect of land of 1466 Sq.Yards situated in Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (6 sheets).

Ex.P20Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.6524/1996 dt. 12.12.1996 executed by Vittal Ramaiah and Vittal Satyanarayana in favour of Kavadi Bakkaiah(Father of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.2.35 Gts. In Sy.No.71, situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (4 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 162

Ex.P21Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.4183/2000 dt. 30.10.2000 executed by Macha Raghu Kumar in favour of Kavadi Bakkaiah(Father of accused) in respect of dilapidated H.No.2-11, admeasuring 650 Sq.Yards, situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (7 sheets).

Ex.P22Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.8130/1998 dt. 17.12.1998 executed by Jinna Narsimha in favour of Kavadi Bakkaiah(Father of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.1.22 Gts in Sy.No.69/A, situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District(4 sheets).

Ex.P23Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.8129/1998 dt. 17.12.1998 executed by Jinna Ramulamma in favour of Kavadi Bakkaiah(Father of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.1.22 Gts in Sy.No.69/AA, situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District(4 sheets).

Ex.P24Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.352/1997 dt. 27.01.1997 executed by Vittal Srinivas, Vittal Natesh Kumar and Vittal Naveen Kumar in favour of Kavadi Bakkaiah (Father of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.1.09 Gts in Sy.No.24/A, 24/AA and 24/E and Ac.0-31 Gts. In Sy.No.25/A, 25/AA and 25/E, situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (4 sheets).

Ex.P25Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.6713/2005 dt. 20.12.2005 executed by Gummadi Dharma Reddy, Gummadi Narsi Reddy, through their GPA Holder K.Avil Kumar, in favour of Kavadi Yelleshwar (Younger brother of Accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.5.00 Gts. in Sy.No.328 and Sy.No.329 situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (6 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 163

Ex.P26Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.6714/2005 dt. 20.12.2005 executed by Kallem Bal Reddy, Kallem Sathi Reddy, Kallem Venkat Reddy and Kallem Ranga Reddy, through their GPA Holder K.Avil Kumar, in favour of Kavadi Yelleshwar (Younger brother of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.3-30 Gts. in Sy.No.327 situated at Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (5 sheets).

Ex.P27Attested copy of house tax receipt dt. 05.11.2003 for the house No.2-23, in the name of Kavadi Bakkaiah (Father of accused) for the period 1999-2000 to 2003- 2004 for Rs.3,151/- issued by Panchayath Secretary, Anantaram.

Ex.P28Certificate dt. 25.06.2007 issued by Extension Officer, Panchyath Raj and Rural Development, Mandal Parishad, Bhongir for payment of house tax of Rs.3,151.60 on 05.11.2003 in respect of House No.2- 23 of Kavadi Bakkaiah (Father of accused) of Anantaram Village.

Ex.P29Certified true copies of Pahanies for the years 1989- 90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (7 sheets).

Ex.P30Certified true copy of Pahani for the year 2003-04 of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. (3 sheets).

Ex.P31Pay particulars of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 23.12.1997 to 31.12.1998 during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner in NCT of Delhi.

Ex.P32Pay particulars of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 19.11.1999 to 29.02.2000 during his tenure as Private Secretary in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, (Erstwhile Ministry of Welfare), Government of India, New Delhi.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 164

Ex.P33Salary particulars of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from March, 2000 to August 2001 during his tenure as Private Secretary in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, (Erstwhile Ministry of Welfare),Government of India, New Delhi (3 sheets).

Ex.P34Statement of Account dt. 29.08.2007 in respect of LIC policy No.112579060 of K.Narasimha (Accused) (2 sheets).

Ex.P35Salary particulars of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 19.01.2004 to 31.05.2004 and for the period from 01.06.2004 to 03.12.2004 during his tenure as Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry, along with covering letter dt. 06.06.2007 (3 sheets).

Ex.P36Certified true copy of application dt. 25.02.2008 of K.Narasimha (Accused) for equity shares of State Bank of India.

Ex.P37Income Tax Returns in Form No.2D of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the assessment year 2005-06 along with computation of income statement containing signature of assessee and Form No.16, andcopies of insurance premium receipts of LIC, PPF and ICICI Bank Bond(9 sheets).

Ex.P38Valuation Report dt. 11.08.2008 submitted to CBI Police, Hyderabad by P.Sridhar, Executive Engineer-I, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Hyderabad (3 sheets).

Ex.P39True copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 in respect of Sy.Nos.263/A, 366/A, 370, 371/A, 373 of Jangampally Village (2 sheets).

Ex.P40Attested copy of particulars of pay and allowances of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 03.09.1993 to 23.12.1993 during his tenure as Assistant Commissioner, O/o Deputy Commissioner,

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 165

Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh(2 sheets).

Ex.P41Photostat copy of particulars of pay and allowances of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from July, 1996 to September, 1997 during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, West Komeng District, Bombila.

Ex.P42TruecopyofStatementofS.B.A/c. No.600701010020119 of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 29.10.2005 to 08.05.2007 and from 23.07.2001 to 29.10.2005 maintained with Vijaya Bank, Kamala Nagar Branch, Delhi, along with Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (4 sheets).

Ex.P43Certified copies of S.B. Account opening form, Statement of Account for the period from 07.06.1993 to 20.09.2007, Cash Credit Voucher dt. 04.10.1995 for Rs.2.00 lakhs, Debit Voucher dt. 01.03.1996 for Rs.2.00 Lakhs, Credit Voucher dt. 10.08.1996 for Rs.2,08,326/-, Debit Voucher dt. 07.08.1996 for Rs.2.00 Lakhs, Debit Voucher dt.23.08.1996 for Rs.12,000/-, Credit Voucher dt. 19.03.2001 for Rs.12,500/-, Credit Voucher dt. 29.03.2001 for Rs.20,000/-, Debit Voucher dt. 16.05.2001 for Rs.10,000/-, Debit Voucher dt. 03.09.2001 for Rs.20,000/- relating to S.B.A/c.No.13688 of K.Narasimha (Accused) maintained with Canara Bank, Bhongir Branch, Nalgonda District (15 sheets).

Ex.P44Payment particulars pertaining to land telephone No.243235, Ananthram Village, Bhongir in the name of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 13.12.1999 to 13.04.2006 total amount being Rs.23,641/-.

Ex.P45Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.1995/05,dt.16.11.2005executedby BhushamainaAnjammaandBhushamaina Ramulamma in favour of Kavadi Yelleshwar (Younger brother of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.3-10 1/2 Gts. in Survey Nos.263/A, 366/AA and

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 166 371/A situated at Ralla Jangoam, Hamlet of the Jangampally Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District (6 sheets).

Ex.P46Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.1999/05, dt. 16.11.2005 executed by Medaboina Pentaiah in favour of Kavadi Yelleshwar (Younger brother of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.3-03 Gts. in Survey No.370, situated at Ralla Jangoam, Hamlet of the Jangampally Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District (6 sheets).

Ex.P47Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.1975/05, dt. 15.11.2005 executed by Deshaboina Chandraiah, Deshaboina Kishtaiah and Deshaboina Pochamma in favour of Kavadi Yelleshwar (Younger brother of accused) in respect of agricultural land of Ac.5-05 Gts. in Survey Nos.263/AA, 366/A and 373/AA, situated at Ralla Jangoam, Hamlet of the Jangampally Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District (7 sheets).

Ex.P48Statement of Account of chit No.LT001TTK/18 in the name of K.Bakkaiah (Father of accused) for the period from30.07.1998 to 30.06.2001 issued by Margadarshi Chit Fund Limited, Tarnaka Branch, Hyderabad (3 sheets).

Ex.P49Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.4309 of 1997 dt. 31.07.1996 executed by M/s. R.V.Nirmaan Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Ch.Ramchandra Reddy, in favour of Mrs.K.Rajamma (Mother of accused) in respect of Flat No.301, 2nd Floor of Hemanth Apartments, admeasuring 900 Sq. Ft. constructed on Plot No.A-98 in Survey Nos.209, 210, 211/1, 211/2, 212/1, 212/3, 213 to 216 and 219, situated at Bapujinagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District (8 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 167

Ex.P50Copy of application of K.Narsimha (Accused) pertaining to payment of Rs.30,000/- on 20.04.2004 vide cheque No.344055, dt. 12.03.2004 drawn on SBI, Rajpur Road, Delhi in respect of application No.P1907212 and Folio No.21 1FB 368832 of accused relating to Industrial Development Bank of India.

Ex.P51Copy of application of K.Narsimha (Accused) pertaining to payment of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No.568815, dt. 13.02.2002 drawn on SBI, Rajpur Road, Delhi in respect of application No.C4516237 and Folio No.9IFB B08060190 relating to Industrial Development Bank of India.

Ex.P52True copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.8605/2006 dt. 18.04.2006 executed by Modugula Sundara Rami Reddy in favour of K.Madhavi (Wife of accused) in respect of Plot Nos.12 & 13, in Suvery No.86/2, admeasuring 248 Sq. Yards, situated at Sowbhagya Lakshmi Nagar, Almasguda Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (6 sheets).

Ex.P53Certified copy of Statement of Account relating to debtwaiverrelief2008OTSbearing A/c.No.62062196410 for the period from 29.06.2008 to 15.12.2008 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhongir Branch, Nalgonda District (4 sheets).

Ex.P54Certified copy of Statement of tractor loan Account No.52121195268 of K.Bakkaiah (Father of accused) for the period from 28.10.2005 to 15.12.2008 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhongir Branch, Nalgonda District (4 sheets).

Ex.P55Certified copy of Statement of tractor loan Account No.01574085447-03 (subsequently renumbered as loan account No.52121195268) in the name of K.Bakkaiah (Father of accused)for the dates 12.07.2005 and 21.07.2005 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhongir Branch, Nalgonda District.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 168

Ex.P56Statement showing the prices of paddy for the years from 1991-92 to 2007-08 issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Bhongiri, Nalgonda District (2 sheets).

Ex.P57Statement of PPF Account bearing No.01P00900205 (2/275) in the name of K.Anirudh (Son of accused) for the period from 11.03.1999 to 31.03.2007 issued by State Bank of India, Nacharam Branch, Hyderabad.

Ex.P58Statement of PPF Account bearing No.01P00900210 (2/280) in the name of K.Akshay (Son of accused) for the period from 24.03.1999 to 31.03.2007 issued by State Bank of India, Nacharam Branch, Hyderabad.

Ex.P59Safe Deposit Locker Register of Hotel Manahor, Begumpet, Hyderabad for the period from 30.05.2006 to 29.10.2006.

Ex.P60Paper slip with heading ”Expenditure” containing endorsements “K.Narasimha paid to him 2/1/06 8,00,000=00”, “K.Narasimha, IAS paid to him 20/12/05 80,000=00”.

Ex.P61Paper slip containing endorsement “80,000=00 Rs. for land registration of K.Narsimha”.

Ex.P62Relevant marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW39 i.e. “Sri.K.Narasimha also purchased land of 12 acres in the same locality in the name of his brother Sri.Yelleswar”.

Ex.P63Certified copy of Statement of Account No.10763667052 of K.Narasimha (Accused) maintained with State Bank of India, Aijawal, Mizoram for the period from 17.02.2005 to 22.10.2006, along with Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (11 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 169

Ex.P64Annexure-I relating to issue of Infotech bonds in March, 2005 in the name of K.Narasimha (Accused) along with true copies of application, Annexure-II true copy of ICICI Safety Bonds in the name of K.Narasimha (Accused), Annexure-III true copy of application of ICICI Safety Bonds, Annexure-IV and true copy of application relating to ICICI Bank of K.Narasimha (8 sheets).

Ex.P65Statement showing the salary particulars of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from January, 1994 to June, 1996 during his tenure as SDO, Likabali and Deputy Commissioner, AALO (2 sheets).

Ex.P66Statement showing particulars of Pay and allowances drawn by K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 16.12.1998 to October, 1999 issued by Ashok Kumar Sharma,AccountsOfficer/DDO,General Administration Department (Accounts Branch), Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.

Ex.P67Statement showing the pay drawn particulars of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 16.11.2001 to 18.01.2004 issued by K.S.Guptha, A.O./DDO, Sports Authority of India, New Delhi.

Ex.P68Statement showing the bills debited from A/c.No.20119,throughCreditCard No.5421768801001134 of K.Narasimha (Accused), for the period from 10.10.2001 to 05.03.2007 maintained with Vijaya Bank, Kamala Nagar Branch, Delhi along with certificate under Section 2A of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (3 sheets).

Ex.P69Relevant marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-49 i.e. “Sri.T.S. & K.Narsimha and myself purchased about 38-40 acres of land. Sri.Narsimha told us that he is also purchasing land along with us. But I do not know in whose name he had purchased it. Since he is also investing in the land, I agreed to invest and purchased land along with him”.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 170

Ex.P70Application of K.Narsimha (Accused) for sanction of Post Metric Scholarship for the year 1982-83 along with Annexure (10 sheets).

Ex.P71Particulars of disbursement for payment of Post Metric Scholarship along with annexure for the year 1982- 1983 to K.Narsimha (Accused) and others while he was studying B.Sc (Agriculture) (2 sheets).

Ex.P72Certified true copy of Statement of S.B. Account No.6761 of Kavadi Yelleswar (Younger brother of accused) for the period from 27.07.2005 to 19.10.2006 maintained with Yadagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Bhongir.

Ex.P73Certified true copy of Statement of savings bank account No.10650682668 of K.Madhavi (Wife of accused) for the period from 03.01.2006 to 31.07.2008 maintained with State Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, New Delhi, along with Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act(14 sheets).

Ex.P74Certified true copy of Statement of PPF Account No.10650728343 of K.Madhavi (Wife of accused) for the period from 01.01.2006 to 03.05.2007 maintained with State Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, New Delhi, along with Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (3 sheets).

Ex.P75Certified true copy of Statement of SB Account No.10650680398 of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.10.2006 maintained with State Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, New Delhi, along with Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (3 sheets).

Ex.P76Certified true copy of Statement of PPF Account No.10650728354 of K.Narasimha (Accused) for the period from 01.01.2006 to 03.05.2007 maintained with State Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, New

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 171

Delhi, along with Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (5 sheets).

Ex.P77Original FIR dt. 21.12.2006 in RC.26(A)/06 of CBI, Hyderabad (6 sheets).

Ex.P78Personal Diary of accused with notings, which was seized by PW1 on being handed over to PW55.

Ex.P79Pattadhar Pass book of Kavadi Bakkaiah (Father of accused) with Patta No.182 of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (handed over by PW35 to PW55).

Ex.P80Title Deed of Kavadi Bakkaiah (Father of accused) with Patta No.182 of Anantaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (handed over by PW35 to PW55).

Ex.P81Entire file relating to Tractor loan sanctioned to K.Bakkaiah (father of accused) (103 sheets).

Ex.P82Statement showing payments made by K.Narsimha (Accused) to Civil Service Officers Welfare Society, New Delhi, from 02.01.1997 to 20.07.2006 towards cost of Plot of 500 Sq. Mts. alloted to accused by the said Society in Greater Noida.

Ex.P83Particulars of payment details of electricity connection bearing No.31200130817 in the name of K.Narasimha (Accused) in respect of Quarter No.33/34, Rajpur Road Delhi from November, 1998 to 18.12.2008 along with enclosures (11 sheets).

Ex.P84Descriptive Roll of K.Narasimha (Accused) received from Lal Bahadur Sastry National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie (2 sheets).

Ex.P85Gross and Net Special Pay Advance drawn by K.Narasimha (Accused) from Lal Bahadur Sastry National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie from 15.09.1991 to 27.05.1992.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 172

Ex.P86Letter dt. 11.06.2007 addressed by the Additional Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-I, Delhi to CBI, Hyderabad enclosing the copies of documents seized from the residence of accused during the course of search in connection with the case of Dr.Ramesh Kapoor (2 sheets).

Ex.P87Statement of Loan Account No.1697005 of K.Yelleswar (Younger brother of accused) for purchase of Hero

Honda Motorcycle issued by HDFC Bank, Ranigunj,

Secunderabad for the period from 27.07.2005 to 04.12.2008, which was furnished to CBI under letter

dt. 06.12.2008 (6 sheets).

Ex.P88Letter dt. 01.05.2007 addressed by the Principal, Vijnana Vihara Residential School, Gudilova, Vishakhapatnam furnishing the particulars of School and Hostel fee remitted by accused for his son K.Anirudh during the academic years 2001-2002 to 2005-2006.

Ex.P89Letter dt. 13.03.2007 addressed by the Principal, Vijnana Vihara Residential School, Gudilova, Vishakhapatnam furnishing the particulars of School and hostel fee remitted by accused for his son K.Akshay during the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007.

Ex.P90Letter dt. 14.08.2008 of the Principal, Bal Bharati Public School, Pusa Road, Delhi furnishing the particulars of School fee remitted by accused for his sons Anirudh for the academic years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 and K.Akshay for the academic years from 1998-99 to 2003-2004 (2 sheets).

Ex.P91Extract of the travel details of accused and his family members furnished by Omega Travels vide its letter dt. 15.06.2007 (2 sheets).

Ex.P92Details of stamp duty and registration fee paid by accused for registration of properties at Bhongir furnished by SRO, Bhongir vide letter dt. 18.07.2008.

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 173

Ex.P93Details of stamp duty and registration fee paid by accused for registration of document bearing No.4309/1997 at SRO, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District furnished by SRO, Uppal vide letter dt. 25.11.2008.

Ex.P94Details of stamp duty and registration fee paid by accused for registration of document bearing No.8605/2006 at SRO, Champapet furnished by SRO, Champapet vide letter dt. 12.08.2008.

Ex.P95Details of stamp duty and registration fee paid by accused for registration of properties at SRO, Yadagirigutta furnished by SRO, Yadagirigutta vide letter dt. 20.11.2008.

Ex.P96Letter dt. 28.08.2007 of Branch Manager, LIC of India, Bhongir furnishing the details of premiums paid under LIC policy Nos.300255051, 642643195 and 380255051.

Ex.P97Letter dt. 08.12.2008 of the Head Master, India Mission High School, Bhongir furnishing the particulars of fee remitted by K.Yellesh (Younger brother of accused) for his daughter K.Harini for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2008-2009.

Ex.P98Letter dt. 08.12.2008 of the Head Master, India Mission High School, Bhongir furnishing the particulars of fee remitted by K.Yellesh (Younger brother of accused) for his son K.Harsha for the academic the years 2004-2005 to 2008-2009.

Ex.P99True extract of the payment of mobile charges in respect of mobile No.9848358973 in the name of K.Yelleswar (Younger brother of accused) for the period from 01.12.2007 to 17.12.2008 along with call details (19 sheets).

Ex.P100Endorsement of the Under Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi on letter dt. 30.01.2008 addressed by CBI, in which it was mentioned that the said Ministry has received

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 174

Annual Property Statement of accused for the year 1997 only.

Ex.P101Statement of K.Venkat Reddy in question and answer form recorded on 20.11.2006 by PW1 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act in Room No.470, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad (4 sheets).

Ex.P102Statement of Ms.P.Shanti in question and answer form recorded on 20.10.2006 by P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act in Room No.470, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad (2 sheets).

Ex.P103Statement of T.Vijay Kumar (PW38) in question and answer form recorded on 20.10.2006 by P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act at the Manohar Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad (4 sheets).

Ex.P104Statement of T.Vijay Kumar (PW38) in question and answer form recorded on 23.10.2006 by P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad at the Manohar Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad, during the course of Prohibitory Order Operations (2 sheets).

Ex.P105Statement of V.Renjunair in question and answer form recorded on 23.10.2006 by P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad, during the Prohibitory Order Operations at the Hotel “The Manohar”, Airport Exit Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad (4 sheets).

Ex.P106Statement of Sachindra Chandra Das S/o Giridhari Das in question and answer form recorded on 23.10.2006 by authorised Officer of Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of Income Tax Act (5 sheets).

Ex.P107Search list dt. 16.05.2008 in respect of search conducted at the residence of T.Satyanarayana (PW39) at Flat No.A203, PBR Estate, Nallakunta, Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad (2 sheets).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 175

Ex.P108Pocket note book seized by PW55 under the cover of Ex.P107 Search List.

Ex.P109Personal diary of T.Satyanarayana (PW39) seized by PW55 under the cover of Ex.P107 Search List.

Ex.P110Bunch of papers seized by PW55 under the cover of Ex.P107 Search List (29 sheets) (In deposition of PW55 by oversight the number of sheets are mentioned as 28)

Ex.P111Letter dt. 27.06.2008 of M/s. Ganga Kaveri Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad furnishing the salary and income particulars of T.Satyanarayana (PW39).

Ex.P112Letter dt. 23.07.2008 addressed by Branch Manager, LIC of India, Bhongir Branch furnishing the details of LIC Policy No.642644840 of K.Narsimha (accused) and premium paid by him from 28.03.1996 to 28.03.2006.

Ex.P113Letter dt. 10.04.2007 addressed by Vijaya Kumar Tenneti, the then General Manager of Hotel Manohar (PW38) furnishing information in respect of payment of Rs.51,835/- made by M/s. U Mak Investments Private Limited through cheque towards the stay expenses of K.Narasimha (Accused) in Room No.311 of Hotel “The Manohar” from 10.10.2006 to 20.10.2006.

Ex.P114Invoice-cum-delivery challan dt. 24.12.2005 of PCH eZone issued in the name of accused towards purchase of Sony Audio for an amount of Rs.6,780/- along with payment slip through Debit Card.

Ex.P115Authorization issued by SP, SPE, CBI, Hyderabad u/s. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 authorizing M.T.Mang, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Shilong (LW-82- given up by prosecution) to investigate the case.

Ex.P116Authorization issued by SP, SPE, CBI, Hyderabad u/s. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 authorizing K.Raja, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai (LW-83-given up by

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 176 prosecution) to investigate the case.

Ex.P117Authorization issued by SP, SPE, CBI, Hyderabad u/s. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 authorizing K.R.Kabu, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Guwahati (LW-84- since died) to investigate the case.

Ex.P118Sanction order dt. 07.06.2010 issued by S.G.Mulchandaney, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi along with Statements A to D (21 sheets).

Ex.P119Certified true copy of Statement of Account in respect of Account No.006901026675 of accused maintained with ICICI Bank, Hubsiguda Branch for the period from 06.01.2005 to 30.10.2006 (3 sheets).

Documents marked by Defence:

Ex.D1Copies of assessment orders and IT returns for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 of Smt.K.Madhavi W/o K.Narasimha (Accused) along with covering letter (56 sheets) (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW18).

Ex.D2Carbon copy of panchanama, Carbon copy of Annexure B-1 and Annexure B-2 which were furnished to PW6 by Income Tax Authorities on 20.10.2006 (3 sheets) (Marked on behalf of accused in cross- examination of PW6).

Ex.D3Original last pay certificate of K.Narsimha (Accused) issued by Administrative Officer (Accounts), LalbahadurShastryNationalAcademyof Administration, Mussoorie (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW55).

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 177

Ex.D4Statement of Account of LIC Policy No.380255051 of accused for the period from 20.01.1998 to 12.01.2007 (Marked on behalf of accused in cross- examination of PW55).

Ex.D5Relevant entries in Statement of Account of LIC policy No.642643195 of accused for the period from 22.12.1997 to 12.01.2007 (Marked on behalf of accused in cross- examination of PW55).

Ex.D6Statement of Account of LIC policy No.642644840 for the premiums paid by accused for the period from 07.10.1997 to 30.03.2015 (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW55).

Ex.D7Letter dt. 02.12.1993 of Collector, Bastar District, Jagdalpur, Madhya Pradesh State addressed to the accused along with salary statement with true translation in English (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW55)(6 sheets).

Ex.D8Acknowlegement of Income tax return of K.Madhavi (wife of accused) for the assessment year 1999-2000 (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW55).

Ex.D9Acknowlegement of Income tax return of K.Madhavi (wife of accused) for the assessment year 2000-2001 (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW55).

Ex.D10Status Report of LIC policy bearing No.380255051 of K.Narsimha (Accused) (Marked on behalf of accused in cross-examination of PW55).

Ex.D11Certified true copy of Statement of Account in respect of personal loan acount bearing No.30059541303 of K.Narsimha (Accused) from 10.07.2006 to 26.08.2021 maintained with State Bank of India, Aizawl Branch of

CC.02/2011 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 178

Mizoram State along with Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers’ Books of Evidence Act, 1891 (Marked on behalf of accused through DW1)(6 sheets).

Ex.D12Attested copy of Last Pay Certificate of K.Narsimha (Accused), relating to his tenure as Secretary to Government, Government of Pondicherry (Marked on behalf of accused through DW2)

Ex.D13Attested copy of details of Income Tax Recovery for the months from June, 2004 to November, 2004 of K.Narsimha (Accused), the then Secretary, Government of Puducherry (Marked on behalf of accused through DW2).

Ex.D14Attested copy of statement of pay particulars of K.Narsimha (Accused), Secretary to Government, Puducherry for the period from 01.06.2004 to 03.12.2004 (Marked on behalf of accused through DW2).

Sd/-

I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad FAC III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad

1 C.C.No.80 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL

CASES RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD

Present:Ch.V.R.R.Varaprasad, Special Sessions Judge for trial of criminal cases relating to elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

C.C. No.80 of 2020 Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Julurpad, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ..… Complainant a n d

A.1Lella Venkata Reddy S/o: Chandraiah, Age: 64 Years, Occ: Fertilizer Shop & Business, R/o: Julourpad.

A.2Lella Srinivas Reddy S/o: Basvireddy, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Gumasta, R/o: Julurpad.

A.3Lavudya Ramulu Naik S/o: Balu, Age: 62 Years, Occ: Member of Legislative Assembly of Wyra Assembly Constituency, R/o: M.L.A. Camp Office, Wyra Village and Mandal, Khammam District. …. A.1 to A.3

This case is coming on 23-08-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Narayana, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. P.Mohith Reddy, Counsel for A.1 to A.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case was originally numbered as C.C.No.972 of 2019 in the

Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise

Cases at Khammam. Later the case was transferred to this Court at the stage of service of summons on accused in view of establishment of this Court for trial of criminal cases relating to M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana.

2 C.C.No.80 of 2020

2. This case arises out of Crime No.192 of 2018 of P.S., Julurpad registered against A.1 to A.3 for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for short ‘I.P.C.’

3.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.12.2018, on receipt of information about distribution of money in Navodaya Agencies, Fertilizer

Shop, Julurpad, at about 02.30 P.M. E.Rajesh, the then SI of Police, P.S.,

Julurpad (PW10) and V.Venkateshwarlu, Head Constable of P.S., Julurpad (Not examined) proceeded to said shop by giving intimation to S.Narasimha Rao,

Nodal Officer of MCC Team of Julurpad Mandal during Assembly Elections of 2018 for Wyra Assembly Constituency (PW1). PW1 along with other members of the team and flying squad namely A.Samsan Rao, ASI of Police (PW2) and

G.V.Rama Chandramouli (PW3) went to said shop. A1 and A2 were found present in the said shop. A1 is stated to be the owner of above Fertilizer Shop while A2 is the Clerk in said shop. PWs.1 to 3 and PW.10 found cash of

Rs.5,48,850/-, Xerox copies of Voters Lists and Voter Slips which were kept ready by A1 and A2 for distribution to voters. A1 and A2 were taken to Police

Station and PW.1 lodged report (Ex.P1) by handing over Cash and above material. PW.10 registered FIR and proceeded to conduct investigation. PW.10 secured the presence of two panch witnesses namely, Vemuri Kalyan Rao (PW6) and Pappula Ramu (PW7), and recorded confession of A1 and A2 in which they revealed that the above money and xerox copies of voters lists and voter slips were kept ready for distribution to voters on the direction of A3, who had handed over the said money to A1 and A2, to vote in his favor as he contested as MLA as Independent Candidate from Wyra Assembly Constituency. A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention alleged to have violated the Election 3 C.C.No.80 of 2020

Code besides bribing the voters to vote in favor of A3. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that A1 to A3 are liable for punishment for offences under Sections 188 and 171 E r/w. 34 of IPC.

4.Cognizance was taken by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases at Khammam for offences under

Sections 188 and 171-E r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

5. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.

Allegations made against A.1 to A.3 attracting ingredients of offences under

Sections 188 and 171-E r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. were read over and explained to A.1 to A.3. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.11 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the Appendix of

Evidence.

7.A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 10 was put-forth to A.1 to A.3.

A.1 to A.3 reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard Sri. G.Narayana, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. P.Mohit Reddy, learned counsel for A.1 to A.3.

Learned counsel for A1 to A3 has filed written submissions also along with citations which are perused by court.

9.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of A.1 to A.3 beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.?

4 C.C.No.80 of 2020

POINT:

10.First offence alleged against A1 to A3 is under Section 188 of IPC.

In respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. there is a legal defect. Section 188 of I.P.C. is a punitive Section for disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. imposes a bar to take cognizance of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. basing on police report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. In respect of offence under Section 188 of

I.P.C. public servant or any other person duly authorized by such public servant is required to file complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned counsel for A1 to A3 has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jiwan Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others reported in 2008 (1) I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana 1012, wherein it was held that proceedings under Section 188 of IPC can only be initiated on the basis of a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned made to the court or to some other public servant to whom he is administratively sub-ordinate. It was further held that Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. restrains the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC unless a complaint in writing is made to it by the public servant concerned. Learned

Special Public Prosecutor cannot dispute the said legal position. Even according to Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. the said legal position is very clear. Admittedly, basing on police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. Court has taken cognizance of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. Instead of getting filed private complaint in respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. PW.10 filed charge sheet. On this ground alone A.1 to A.3 are entitled for acquittal in respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C.

5 C.C.No.80 of 2020

11.The other offence alleged against A.1 to A.3 is under Section 171-E r/w.34 of I.P.C. Section 171-E of I.P.C. is a punitive Section for Bribery.

Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. If food, drink, entertainment or provision is made such offence is punishable with fine alone. Section 171-B of I.P.C. defines the term ‘Bribery’.

It reads as follows:

"171-B. Bribery:

(1) Whoever:

(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person so having exercised any such right; or

(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery:

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this Section.

(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward."

It has to be seen whether prosecution is able to bring home guilt of A.1 to A.3 beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 171-E of I.P.C.

6 C.C.No.80 of 2020

12.Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 in order to bring home guilt of A.1 to A.3. PW1 was the Nodal

Officer of MCC Team while PW2 was a Member. PW3 was the Incharge of

Flying Squad Team No.1. PW4 and PW5 are the neighbours to scene of offence running Pan Shop and Hotel Business respectively. PW6 and PW7 are the panch witnesses to confessional panchanama of A1 dated 05.12.2018 drafted at 04.30 P.M. PW8 and PW9 are the panch witnesses for Ex.P10 Crime Details

Form. PW10 is the Investigating Officer besides being a direct eye witness to the alleged incident. Prosecution has given up the evidence of

V.Venkateshwarlu, Head Constable.

13.PW4 and PW5, who are stated to be direct eye witnesses to the alleged incident, turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution.

These two witnesses are running Pan Shop and Hotel respectively neighboring to Navodaya Agencies Fertilizer Shop in Julurupad belonging to A1. They are the material witnesses in this case to unfold the truth. They resiled from their previous statements recorded by PW10. Though these two witnesses deposed about ownership of A1 and employment of A2 as Clerk in above Fertilizer Shop they did not support the case of prosecution in respect of offence proper.

Though prosecution has cross examined PW4 and PW5 nothing could be elicited in its favor. Hence, evidence of PW4 and PW5 is of no value to the prosecution.

14. PW6 and PW7 are the independent panch witnesses for confession of A1 and A2 recorded by PW10. No panchanama was conducted either by PW1 or PW10 at the scene of offence. Confession of A1 and A2 was alleged to have been recorded in Police Station in the presence of PW6 and

PW7 on 05.12.2018 at 04.30 P.M. Unfortunately, PW6 and PW7 turned hostile 7 C.C.No.80 of 2020 without supporting the contents of confessional panchanama of A1 and A2.

Confession alleged to have been made before PW10 is hit by Section 25 of the

Evidence Act. Information given by A1 and A2 leading to a material fact is alone admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is not applicable to the present case. Though prosecution has cross examined PW6 and PW7 nothing could be elicited in its favor. In view of hostile evidence of PW6 and PW7 prosecution failed to prove contents of confessional panchanama of A1 and A2.

15. PW8 and PW9 are the panch witnesses for Ex.P10 Crime Details

Form recorded by PW10. These two witnesses also turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. They deposed that their signatures were taken on white papers at their respective houses by police, they were not taken to any place nor observed the scene of offence and they denied the contents of

Ex.P10. Though prosecution has cross examined PW8 and PW9 nothing could be elicited in its favor. Hence, evidence of PW8 and PW9 is of no value to the prosecution.

16.Except the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW10 there is no other evidence against A1 to A3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 and PW10 is sufficient to bring home guilt of A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 171 E r/w.34 of IPC because their evidence is consistent and devoid of any material contradictions and omissions.

On the other hand, learned counsel for A1 to A3 contended that it is not safe to rely on uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of PWs.1 to 3 and PW10, particularly as there are several infirmities in their evidence, more particularly as their evidence is self contradictory.

17.PW1 is a material witness in this case. PW1 deposed that on 05.12.2018 at about 03.00 P.M. PW10 called him on phone and accordingly he 8 C.C.No.80 of 2020 along with PW2 and PW3 went to Navodaya Agencies, Main Road, Julurupad and found PW10 and Constable searching the shop; in Navodaya Agencies voters list was found on the table; A1 (Owner) and A2 (Clerk) were present in the shop; they found cash of Rs.5,48,850/- in cash chest of said shop; and that they had taken A1, A2, above cash and voters lists to Police Station and PW1 lodged

Ex.P1 report in PS. PW1 could identify A1 alone.

18.PW2 deposed that on 05.11.2018 at about 05.00 P.M. on being telephoned by PW10 he along with PW1 went to shop of A1, found several persons gathered; found PW10 sitting by keeping the seized cash on the table and it was shown to PW1; Clerk was found present; and the cash seized was intended for distribution to voters during election. PW2 has identified only A2 as Clerk. PW2 nowhere deposed about the presence of A1 in the shop. PW2 had not supported the case of prosecution in toto.

19.PW3 claimed himself to be the Incharge of Flying Squad of Wyra

Assembly Constituency at the relevant time. PW3 deposed that on 05.12.2018 at about 03.00 P.M. on receipt of phone call from PW1 he proceeded to

Navodaya Fertilizer Shop in Julurupad; by the time he went there PW10 and

Head Constable were found searching the shop; the team of PW3 also searched in the said shop and found cash of Rs.5,48,850/- and xerox copies of voters lists; and that PW1 seized them and brought to Police Station. PW3 deposed the presence of A1 and A2 in the shop but could identify only A1 and failed to identify A2. PW3 further deposed that above amount was kept in the shop for the purpose of distribution during election time.

20.PW10 deposed that on 05.12.2018, on receipt of telephonic information, at about 02.30 P.M. he along with V.Venkateshwarlu, Head

Constable proceeded to Navodaya Agencies Fertilizer Shop in Julurupad after 9 C.C.No.80 of 2020 giving intimation to PW1; PWs.1 to 3 came to the shop at 03.00 P.M.; A1 and

A2 were found present in the shop; cash of Rs.5,48,850/- and voters lists were seized from A1 and A2; and that the said money was intended to be distributed by A1 and A2 to voters to vote in favor of A3, who contested as MLA of Wyra

Assembly Constituency as independent candidate. PW10 further deposed that

PW1 handed over seized cash, Ex.P2 voters lists and A1 and A2 by lodging

Ex.P1 report.

21.Court has carefully perused the above incriminating evidence deposed by PW1 to PW3 and PW10 and also perused the written submissions filed by learned counsel for A1 to A3. There is no corroboration between the evidence of these witnesses as to which accused were present at the scene of offence, where the cash was found, who counted the cash, whether the search was going on or completed by the time PWs.1 to 3 reached the scene of offence, whether the money was simply seized or it was intended for distribution to voters, physical features of Navodaya Fertilizer Shop and other material particulars relating to the offence proper. In normal circumstances court could have ignored these discrepancies as insignificant had it been a case where the witnesses are uneducated. PWs.1 to 3 and PW10 are highly educated persons besides being public servants and discharged election duty at the relevant time. In this background, the above discrepancies elicited from

PWs.1 to 3 and PW10 are significant and they compel the court to disbelieve their evidence.

22.Evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW10 shows that search was made in

Fertilizer Shop of A1 and cash and Ex.P2 voters lists and voters slips were seized. Prosecution has not filed voter slips at all. Hence, the very alleged seizure of voters slips is false. When search is made in a closed premises 10 C.C.No.80 of 2020

PW10 is required to follow the provisions of search and seizure enshrined in the

Code of Criminal Procedure. No search proceedings were drafted nor served on

A1 and A2 by PW10. The provisions of search and seizure in Cr.P.C. require

PW10 to conduct search in the presence of two independent, locality and respectable persons as panch witnesses. The said procedure was not followed by PW10. PW10 has not even conducted any panchanama at the scene of offence. PW1 to 3 had also not drafted any seizure panchanama at the scene of offence. Simply A1 and A2 were stated to have been taken to Police

Station by PW1 and produced before PW10 along with cash and Ex.P2 by lodging Ex.P1 report. Hence, a serious doubt arises about the search of

Navodaya Fertilizer Shop alleged to have been conducted by PW10.

23.A perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW10 also shows that even before arrival of PWs.1 to 3 at the scene of offence PW10 had already completed the search and simply handed over cash and Ex.P2 to PW1, which procedure also is unknown to law. PW10 ought to have waited till PWs.1 to 3 reach the scene of offence or PW10 ought to have visited scene of offence along with PWs.1 to 3, who are the members of Nodal Team and Flying Squad Team.

Without following the said procedure PW10 in a hurried manner alleged to have searched the shop in question but failed to conduct any panchanama on the spot. Because of these infirmities also court is unable to rely on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW10.

24.Learned counsel for A1 to A3 raised objection while marking Ex.P2 voters lists by contending that since they are xerox copies they are inadmissible in evidence, particularly as they were not compared with originals. Learned

Special Public Prosecutor contended that since xerox copies of voters lists were seized from the shop of A1 in the presence of A1 and A2 they are admissible in 11 C.C.No.80 of 2020 evidence. Ex.P2 was marked subject to objection which has to be decided now.

Learned counsel for A1 to A3 has placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.Yashoda v. K.Shobha Rani reported in A.I.R. 2007

SC 1721, wherein it was held that photo copies cannot be admitted in evidence

without production of originals, by referring to Sections 63 and 65 (a) of the

Evidence Act. There cannot be any two opinions in the said legal position.

However, it is not a case where xerox copies of voters lists were filed by prosecution during the course of trial. On the other hand, xerox copies of voters lists were alleged to have been seized from the shop of A1 in the presence of A1 and A2 on 05.12.2018 along with cash of Rs.5,48,850/-. Hence,

Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act is not applicable to xerox copies of voters lists which were marked as Ex.P2 and they are admissible in evidence.

25.Learned counsel for A1 to A3 contended that the ingredients of

Section 171 B of IPC are not established in this case so as to record finding of guilt against A1 to A3 for offence under Section 171 E r/w.34 of IPC. In support of his contention, learned counsel for A1 to A3 has placed reliance on the decisions in Kesineni Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. and Others reported in 2015 (2) ALT (Crl.) 1 (A.P.) of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad, Kapil Dabar v. State of Uttrakhand reported in 2013 SCC Online

Utt 2863 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Kalya Singh v. Genda Lal and

Others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 304 of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, wherein the provisions of Sections 171 B and 171 E of IPC were referred to and dealt with the terms “Bribery” and “Inducement”. The legal principles reiterated in these decisions cannot be denied. Facts of each case differ. Court has to examine the facts of the present case independently.

12 C.C.No.80 of 2020

26.It is the case of prosecution that in the presence of A1 and A2 in

Navodaya Fertilizer Shop cash of Rs.5,48,850/- and Ex.P2 voters lists of

Papakollu village, Gundepudi village and Machinenipeta village of Julurupad

Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District were seized by PWs.1 to 3 and PW10.

It is not the case of prosecution that A1 and A2 were found distributing money to voters. PW1 nowhere deposed that the cash seized was intended for distribution to voters. PW2 deposed in cross examination that he did not know whether the seized cash was not intended for distribution to voters during election time. PW3 deposed that the money was seized thinking that it was intended for distribution during election. PW10 alone deposed that the seized cash was intended for distribution to voters. In Ex.P1 report PW1 mentioned that the seized cash was kept for distribution to voters. In confessional panchanama of A1 and A2 it is mentioned that the above cash was handed over by A3 to A1 for distribution to voters. Except the said recital in confessional panchanama of A1 and A2 there is no other material against A3. As already stated, confessional panchanama of A1 and A2 was not proved by prosecution since PW6 and PW7 turned hostile. PW10 failed to collect any material to connect A3 with the cash seized from the shop of A1. It is true that it will be difficult to produce documentary proof to connect A3 with the cash seized from the shop of A1. However, confessional cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 could have been recorded by PW1 or PW10 at the spot but it was not done.

Be that as it may, there is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 made attempt or really distributed money to voters. Hence, the above decisions relied upon by learned counsel for A1 to A3 need not be dealt with further in detail.

27.Learned counsel for A1 to A3 contended that since no permission was taken from Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. in respect of offence 13 C.C.No.80 of 2020 under Section 171 E of IPC A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal on that ground alone. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision in

Narayan Singh Boudh v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Crr. 178/2014 dated 04.08.2014 (Downloaded from Website MANU/MP/1056/2014) of the Hon’ble

High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench), wherein it was held that in respect of non cognizable offence permission has to be taken from the

Magistrate to conduct investigation. It must be noted that Section 188 of IPC is

a cognizable offence. Section 155 (4) of Cr.P.C. lays down that when one offence is cognizable the other non cognizable offences are deemed to be cognizable. One cannot deny that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence.

Though prosecution failed to establish guilt of A1 to A3 for offence under

Section 188 of IPC in view of bar under Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. court cannot ignore that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence. In these circumstances, no permission is required to be taken from the Magistrate to conduct investigation. Accordingly, the above contention of learned counsel for

A1 to A3 holds no water.

28.There is another infirmity in the case of prosecution. PW10 is a direct eye witness and Investigating Officer in this case. Instead of entrusting investigation to some other Police Officer PW10 himself conducted investigation.

Evidence on record shows that PW10 conducted search of the shop of A1 and seized cash of Rs.5,48,850/- and Ex.P2 voters lists and voter slips (Not filed in court). When such is the case PW10 ought not to have conducted investigation.

Since PW10 is eye witness and Investigating Officer his statement could not be recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Serious prejudice was caused to accused.

14 C.C.No.80 of 2020

29.During the course of arguments learned counsel for A1 to A3 submitted that A1 to A3 are not claiming the cash of Rs.5,48,850/-. In 313

Cr.P.C. examination A1 stated that he had drawn Rs.5,00,000/- from the Bank and there was cash of Rs.40,000/- in the shop which was realized by sales and the said money was kept for giving to farmers. The said defence was not taken by A1 either during his examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. or during the course of trial. Even in support of the said plea A1 has not filed any documentary evidence. A1 has not even filed any petition seeking interim custody of said cash. A2 had not claimed the said cash. A3 reported that he has no concern with the cash in this case. Merely because prosecution failed to establish guilt of A1 to A3 it cannot be stated that cash of Rs.5,48,850/- cannot be confiscated to State. In these circumstances, cash of Rs.5,48,850/- covered by FDR with accrued interest has to be confiscated to State.

30.Above discussion leads me to conclude that prosecution miserably failed in bringing home guilt of A1 to A3 much less beyond all reasonable doubts for offences under Sections 188 and 171 E r/w.34 of IPC. Cash of

Rs.5,48,850/- with accrued interest is liable to be confiscated to State subject to expiry of appeal time.

31.In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for offences under

Sections 188 and 171-E r/w. 34 of I.P.C. A.1 to A.3 are acquitted under

Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Cash of Rs.5,48,850/- with 15 C.C.No.80 of 2020 accrued interest covered by Fixed Deposit Receipt No.38312561643,

dated 08-03-2019 of State Bank of India, Kaviraj Nagar, Opposite to District

Court, Wyra Road, Khammam shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of August, 2021.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 :Swargam Narasimha Rao, Nodal Officer of Model Code of Conduct, Julurpad Mandal (Defacto-complainant). PW.2 :K.Samsonrao, A.S.I. of Police, P.S., Julurpad (Assisted PW.1). PW.3 :G.V.Ramachandramouli, F.S.T. Team-I, Julurpad (Eye witness to the incident). PW.4 :Mahankali Gopala Krishna (Eye witness to the incident). PW.5 :Gutta Ramesh (Eye witness to the incident). PW.6 :Vemuri Kalyan (Panch witness for Confession Panchanama). PW.7 :Pappula Ramu (Panch witness for Confession Panchanama). PW.8 :Kakati Suresh (Panch witness for Crime Details Form). PW.9 :Regalla Upendar ((Panch witness for Crime Details Form). Pw.10:E.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Julurpad (Investigating Officer).

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1:Report of PW.1 dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.2:82 Voters Lists of Julurpad. Ex.P.3:Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4. Ex.P.4:Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5. Ex.P.5:Signature of PW.6 on Confessional Panchanama of A.1 and A.2, dated 05-12-2018.

16 C.C.No.80 of 2020

Ex.P.6:Signature of PW.7 on Confessional Panchanama of A.1 and A.2, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.7:Signature of PW.8 on Crime Details Form, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.8:Signature of PW.9 on Crime Details Form, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.9:Original F.I.R. in Crime No.192 of 2018 issued by PW.10. Ex.P.10:Crime Details Form, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.11:Xerox copy of F.D.R.No. 38312561643, dated 08-03-2019 of State Bank of India, District Court Complex Branch, Khammam.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES:

HYDERABAD

Thursday, the 16th day of March, 2023

Present : Dr.Ch.V.R.R.Varaprasad I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023

in

C.C.No.17 of 2009 Between :

M.Venkateswara Rao S/o Late Dasaradha Ramaiah Chief Executive Officer, The Vardhan Mutually Aided Co- operative Thrift Society Limited, R/o H.No.72, Kalyan Nagar,

Hyderabad....Petitioner/Accused No.8

AND The State of Telangana through

CBI, Hyderabad...Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 13.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.J.Satyanarayana Murthy, Counsel for Petitioner/A8 and Sri.B.Raghavendra, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI/Respondent and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till today, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.A8 in C.C.No.17 of 2009 has filed this petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) praying the court to discharge him.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.2 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009

2.Brief averments of petition are that all the allegations made against A8 are false and baseless. A8, being the Chief Executive

Officer of M/s. Vardhan Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited, has maintained the accounts, received Demand Drafts/Cheques and credited the amounts to the accounts of borrowers. Allegations made in charge sheet do not constitute any offence against A8. There is no prima-facie material against A8 to frame charges, particularly as there are no allegations of misappropriation, cheating, cheating by impersonation and forgery for the purpose of cheating. If A8 is not discharged, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Name of A8 is not mentioned in FIR. Proceedings against A14, A16 and A17 were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Charge sheet itself discloses that

A8 opened current account in the name of M/s.Vardhan Mutually

Aided Cooperative Society with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Malkajgiri Branch,

Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad, A8 obtained permission from Lakshmi

Vilas Bank to discount the cheques issued in favour of builder and that after discounting the cheques A8 deposited the Banker’s

Cheques in the said account. The said society was registered under

Section 5 of the A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 and the said society consisted of about 1600 members with the object to render services to its members. The society conducted its business as per the Bye laws, particularly Clause 10 of the Bye laws, and the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Lakshmi Vilas Bank,

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.3 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009

Kukatpally Branch and Malkajgiri Branch permitted opening of current accounts in favour of the society only after submission of required documents. The guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) were followed by the society. Demand Drafts/Cheques presented by A8 on behalf of the society were genuine and they were issued by the Indian

Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad and A8 had only presented them for clearing/discounting. Investigating Officer has nowhere mentioned in charge sheet about the specific role of

Chandrashekar and B.Rama Rao though their names are reflected in

FIR. The enquiry report submitted by the Investigating Officer contains several ambiguities. Investigating Officer has not considered many aspects, including the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, RBI Guidelines and the Bye laws of the society. A8 is innocent and law abiding citizen without any past criminal background. No witness stated anything against A8 during the course of examination by Investigating Officer. If the further proceedings are conducted against A8, he would be put to mental agony, physical and financial torture. A8 has no connection with A1 to A7 and A9 to A17. A8 has not resorted to siphoning off funds. Continuation of proceedings against A8 in C.C.17 of 2009 would amount to abuse of process of court. Thus submitting, petitioner/A8 prayed the court to allow the petition.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.4 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009

3.Along with petition A8 has filed copies of relevant provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Circular dt. 01.10.2010 of RBI, deposition of P.Srinivas, AGM, Development Bank of Singapore, formerly Lakshmi Vilas Bank (PW18 in C.C.13 of 2007 on the file of this court), membership forms, Account opening forms, pay-in-slips, debit and credit vouchers and withdrawal slips of N.Subbamma and

B.Rama Rao.

4.Having received notice prosecution filed counter seriously opposing the petition and prayed the court to dismiss the petition. It is mentioned in counter that A1 connived with borrowers and other accused and cheated the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch,

Hyderabad by sanctioning housing loans to the tune of Rs.50.44

Lakhs based on fake salary slips submitted by the borrowers and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs.50.44 Lakhs. All the averments mentioned in the petition are totally false and the petition lacks merit.

There is enough documentary and oral evidence against A8, particularly as he is part of larger conspiracy. The role of A8 will be established after full-fledged trial. A8 opened current accounts in the name of M/s.Vardhan Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society in

Lakshmi Vilas Bank of Kukatpally Branch and Malkajgiri Branch. The said society had the facility of discounting the cheques of members of society. After discounting the cheques the amounts were deposited in the account of said society. Banker’s cheques were issued in favour of

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.5 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 builders N.Subbamma and B.Rama Rao, who are the members of

Vardhan Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society, and later the said cheques were deposited in the account of society and after discounting they were encashed by A8 by way of self cheques and, therefore, there is enough material to show that A8 is part of conspiracy by using loan proceeds. The grounds on which A8 is seeking discharge are wholly irrelevant and untenable. A8 is the beneficiary of loan proceeds. Ultimately, prosecution prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard Sri.J.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner/A8 and Sri.B.Raghavendra, learned Special Public

Prosecutor representing CBI. Learned counsel for A8 has filed written arguments also which are perused by court.

6.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether petitioner/A8 is entitled for discharge, as prayed for?

Point :

7.At the outset, it may be mentioned that in a petition for discharge court cannot conduct a roving enquiry by touching the merits and demerits of the main case. Court has to restrict itself and see whether there is any prima facie material against A8 to frame charges for the offences alleged against him. In a criminal case accused is entitled for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C only

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.6 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 when no case is made out against accused if the entire case of the prosecution against him is taken as totally true and correct. In this legal back drop, court proceeds to examine whether A8 is entitled for discharge or not.

8.Court has carefully perused the contents of FIR, statements of witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer(Part-II Case Diary),

Document Nos.1 to 93 filed along with chargesheet, the details of which are mentioned in the list of documents annexed to charge sheet, contents of charge sheet, contents of petition, contents of counter filed by prosecution, documents filed along with petition by petitioner/A8 and the written arguments filed by learned counsel for petitioner/A8 and the court has given its anxious consideration.

9.On the basis of source information RC.14(A)/2006 for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for short `the Act’, came to be registered against Amanacharla Chalapathi Rao, the then

Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch,

Hyderabad(A1), S.Kameswara Rao, the then Senior Manager, Indian

Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad, S.S.Prakash Rao, the then Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch,

Hyderabad, N.V.P.Nanda Kishore(A2), H.Rajsekhar Reddy(A3),

Koppisetty Ramesh Kumar(A4), G.Srinivas(A5), E.Sreekrishna (impersonated by an unknown person and later identified as A6),

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.7 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009

V.N.S.C.Bose(A7), M.Venkateswara Rao(A8) and B.Chandrasekhar @

B.Rama Rao and investigated into. After completion of investigation charge sheet was laid by CBI against A1 to A8, Vatyam

Gurunarayana(A9-since died), K.Laxmaiah(A10), M.Danam(A11),

Ch.Gopala Rao(A12), Sandra Muniswamy(A13-since died), K.Srinivas,

Builder(A14), K.Yagnanarayana, Panel Valuer(A15), M. Nagaraju, Panel

Advocate(A16), K.Anoop Kumar, Panel Advocate(A17) for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w

Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The court of Principal Special Judge for CBI

Cases took cognizance of offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and made over the case to this court for disposal. During the pendency of case, A9 and A13 died and the case against them stood abated.

Proceedings against A16 were quashed by Hon’ble High Court in

Criminal Petition No.1636 of 2013 by order dt.01.04.2013 and proceedings against A17 were quashed by Hon’ble High Court in

Criminal Petition No.7900 of 2009 by order dt. 07.11.2012.

Proceedings against A14 were also quashed by Hon’ble High Court in

Criminal Revision Case No.489 of 2019 by order dt.22.09.2022.

Discharge petition in Criminal Petition No.548 of 2021 filed by A15 was dismissed by order dt.13.12.2021. Discharge petition in

Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2023 filed by A6 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was

dismissed by order dt.27.02.2023. Presently C.C.No.17 of 2009 is

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.8 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 pending against A1 to A8, A10 to A12 and A15 and it is coming up for consideration on framing charges. Several adjournments were given because of the absence of one accused or the other. At that stage, while the case is coming up for framing charges, A8 has filed this petition seeking discharge.

10.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/A8 has reiterated the contents of petition, which are referred to in Para No.2 of this order, and drawn the attention of court to the copies of documents filed along with petition and contended that A8 is entitled for discharge, particularly as A8 discharged his duties in a fair and proper manner in the capacity of Chief Executive

Officer of Vardhan Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society, opened the current accounts in the name of said society in Malkajgiri and

Kukatpally Branches of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, discounted the cheques and followed the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, relevant RBI Guidelines and the Bye laws of the society and the continuation of proceedings in C.C.17 of 2009 against A8 would amount to abuse of process of court.

11.Refuting the above contentions, learned Special Public

Prosecutor vehemently contended that there are serious allegations made against A8 in charge sheet attracting the ingredients of offences under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC and there is enough material against A8, both oral and documentary, to prove the said

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.9 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 offences against A8, no grounds are made out warranting discharge and that there is strong prima-facie material against A8 to frame charges for offences under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC and, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

12.It is specifically mentioned in charge sheet that after sanction of housing loans to the tune of Rs.50.44 Lakhs in favour of 06 borrowers namely, N.V.P.Nanda Kishore (A2), H.Rajashekhar Reddy (A3),

Koppisetti Ramesh Kumar (A4), Gali Srinivas @ Goppisetti Dinesh

Kumar (A5), E.Srikrishna @ Kasireddy Upender Reddy (A6) and

V.Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (A7), an amount of Rs.32.00 Lakhs was released and disbursed to the current accounts of M/s.Vardhan

Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society maintained with Lakshmi

Vilas Bank, Kukatpally Branch and Malkajgiri Branch. It is also mentioned in charge sheet that A8, being the Chief Executive Officer of the said Society, availed the facility of discounting of cheques and deposited the said cheques in the accounts of society and withdrew the entire amount by way of self cheques. Prima-facie documentary evidence is filed by prosecution to that effect.

13.During the course of investigation, statements of relevant witnesses were recorded and documents were collected and filed in court. The factum of A8 being the Chief Executive Officer of above society at the relevant time is not in dispute. Similarly, the factum of said society holding current accounts in Malkajgiri and Kukatpally

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.10 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009

Branches of Lakshmi Vilas Bank is also not in dispute. There is prima- facie material to show that the Demand Drafts/Cheques issued by the

Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad towards housing loans of A2 to A7 were encashed and credited to the account of Vardhan Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society maintained with

Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Malkajgiri and Kukatpally Branches and substantial loan proceeds have been withdrawn under self cheques.

Siphoning off loan proceeds is the main allegation in this case. The factum of withdrawal of amounts through self cheques is one of the strong prima-facie material against A8 to frame charges for offences under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC.

14.Another allegation made against A8 and other accused is that the borrowers furnished fake salary certificates, false income tax returns, fake sale agreements, fake sale deeds and PAN Numbers and the bank official (A1) without properly verifying the same, because of criminal conspiracy between all the accused, including A8, and sanctioned housing loans, credited them to the current accounts of

Vardhan Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society, to which A8 is the

Chief Executive Officer, and siphoned off the loan proceeds. When there is criminal conspiracy among all the accused one cannot expect equal or same role played by each accused. Guilt or otherwise of A8 has to be decided only after full-fledged trial. At this stage, court cannot see whether the main case would end in conviction or

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.11 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 acquittal. There is strong prima-facie material placed by prosecution in support of the allegations made against A8 and other accused.

15.Whether A8 has followed the provisions of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949, Guidelines of the RBI in its Circular dt.

01.10.2010 and the Bye laws of the society have to be decided after full-fledged trial. Similarly, the copies of membership forms, account opening forms, statements of account, pay-in-slips, debit and credit vouchers and withdrawal slips of N.Subbamma and B.Rama Rao, which are filed along with this petition, cannot be examined in detail at this stage. Court has carefully perused the statement of

N.Subbamma (LW11) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and noticed that she has denied her acquaintance with borrowers and specifically stated that the Agreements of Sale, Sale Deeds and Work

Orders reflecting her name are forged documents. Prosecution must be given opportunity to prove the allegations against A8.

16.Learned counsel for A8 has drawn the attention of court to the deposition of T.Srinivas, the then Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad (PW18) in C.C.13 of 2007 on the file of this court and contended that the admissions made by PW18 in his cross- examination are sufficient to discharge A8. Since C.C.13 of 2007 is pending the court restrains itself from looking into the said deposition of PW18 and such a course is not permissible under law. A8 cannot

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.12 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 place reliance on the deposition of a witness recorded in some other case.

17.Learned counsel for A8 contended that since the proceedings against A14, A16 and A17 were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court A8 is entitled for discharge on par with them. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor contended that the case of A8 stands on a different footing from that of the case of A14, A16 and A17 and the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court quashing the proceedings against A14, A16 and A17 cannot be made applicable to A8. It is true that the proceedings against A14, A16 and A17 were quashed by the Hon’ble

High Court. A14 is builder. A16 and A17 are the Panel Advocates of

Indian Overseas Bank at the relevant time. The case of A8 falls on a different footing when compared to the case of A14, A16 and A17.

The role of A8 and the nature of allegations made against A8 are quite different and distinct when compared to A14, A16 and A17. Merely because the proceedings against A14, A16 and A17 were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court it cannot be ‘ipso facto’ stated that A8 is entitled for discharge.

18.As already stated, in a petition of this nature, court cannot conduct a roving enquiry by touching the merits and demerits of the case. On a perusal of entire material on record, court is of the considered opinion that there is prima facie material against A8 to frame charges under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC. Since there is

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. Pg.No.13 Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2023 in CC No.17/2009 prima facie material against A8 to frame charges under Sections 120-

B and 420 of IPC he is not entitled for discharge. No grounds are made out by A8 for discharge. Point is accordingly answered against the petitioner/A8.

19.In the result, petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

1 C.C.No.20 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL

CASES RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD

Present:Ch.V.R.R.Varaprasad, Special Sessions Judge for trial of criminal cases relating to elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

C.C. No.20 of 2021

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Burgampahad, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ..… Complainant a n d

A.1Sunkara Srinivasa Rao, S/o: Subba Rao, Age: 47 Years, Occ: B.P.L. Casual, R/o: Thallagommur,Sarapakaof Burgampahad Mandal.

A.2Rega Kantha Rao, S/o: Guravaiah, Age: 43 Years, Occ: Member of Legislative Assembly of Pinapaka Assembly Constituency, R/o: Samath Battupally Village, Karakagudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …. A.1 and A.2

This case is coming on 23-08-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Narayana, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. G.Sampath Kumar, Counsel for A.1 and A.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case was originally numbered as C.C.No.4079 of 2019 in the

Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise

Cases at Khammam. Later the case was transferred to this court at the stage of appearance of accused in view of establishment of this Court for trial of criminal cases relating to M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana.

2 C.C.No.20 of 2021

2. This case arises out of Crime No.254 of 2018 of P.S.,

Burgampahad registered against A.1 and A.2 for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, for short ‘I.P.C.’ and Section 34 (a) of the

Telangana Excise Act, for short ‘the Act’.

3.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 07-12-2018 at 02.30

P.M. at Thallagommur, Hamlet of Sarapaka Village, Bhugampahad Mandal A.1 was found in illegal possession of 32 IMFL Officer Choice Blue Whiskey quarter bottles at his house for distribution to voters to vote in favour of A.2, who contested as Member of Legislative Assembly of Pinapaka Assembly Constituency during Assembly Elections of 2018. On seeing T.Venkatappaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Bhurgampahad (PW.8) and his team A.1 left liquor bottles and ran away. Konakanchi Srinivasa Rao (PW.3), who was present at the scene of offence, revealed the name of ran away person as A.1. PW.8 secured the presence of Gunde Venkanna (PW.1) and Gunde Durgaprasad (PW.2) as panch witnesses and seized above liquor bottles under the cover of panchanama (Ex.P.8). Hence, it is the case of prosecution that A.1 and A.2 violated the

Election Code and resorted to bribe voters by supplying liquor bottles and became liable for punishment for offences under Sections 188, 171-E of I.P.C.

and Section 34 (a) of the Act.

4.Cognizance was taken by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases at Khammam for offences under

Sections 188, 171-E of I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Act.

5. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing both sides Charges under 3 C.C.No.20 of 2021

Sections 188, 171-E r/w 171-B of I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Act were framed against A.1 and A.2, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.10 and MO.1 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the

Appendix of Evidence.

7.A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 8 was put-forth to A.1 and A.2. A.1 and A.2 reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard Sri. G.Narayana, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. G.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for A.1 and

A.2.

9.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 188, 171-E r/w 171-B of I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Act?

POINT:

10. In respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. there is a legal defect. Section 188 of I.P.C. is a punitive Section for disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. imposes a bar to take cognizance of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. basing on police report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. In respect of offence under

Section 188 of I.P.C. public servant or any other person duly authorized by such public servant is required to file complaint before the jurisdictional 4 C.C.No.20 of 2021

Magistrate. Admittedly, basing on police report under Section 173 (2) of

Cr.P.C. Court has taken cognizance of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C.

Instead of getting filed private complaint in respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. PW.8 filed charge sheet. On this ground alone A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal in respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C.

11. Section 171-E of I.P.C. is a punitive Section for Bribery. Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. If food, drink, entertainment or provision is made such offence is punishable with fine alone. Section 171-B of I.P.C. defines the term ‘Bribery’.

It reads as follows:

"171-B. Bribery:

(1) Whoever:

(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person so having exercised any such right; or

(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery:

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this Section.

(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward." 5 C.C.No.20 of 2021

Section 34 (a) of the Act is a punitive Section for possessing liquor without license. Section 171-E r/w 171-B of I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Act are interlinked. It is the case of prosecution that A.2 provided liquor bottles to A.1 and accordingly A.1 was distributing liquor bottles to voters in order to induce them to vote in favour of A.2. Hence, these two offences are dealt with together by appreciating the evidence on record and see whether prosecution is able to bring home guilt of A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 171-E r/w 171-B of I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Act.

12.Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.8 in the process of bringing home guilt of A.1 and A.2. PW.1 and PW.2 are the material panch witnesses to Ex.P.8-Panchanama and Ex.P.10-Crime Details Form. They turned hostile without supporting the contents of Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10. These two witnesses deposed that their signatures were taken on blank papers in Police Station.

Though prosecution has cross-examined PW.1 and PW.2 nothing could be elicited in its favour. In view of the hostile evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 prosecution failed to prove contents of Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10, particularly Ex.P.8-

Panchanama which is the genesis in this case. Evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is of no value to the prosecution.

13.PW.3 is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. It is the case of prosecution that while A.1 was running away by leaving liquor bottles at his house in Thallagommur, Hamlet of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad

Mandal PW.3 revealed the name of A.1 and his other particulars to PW.8 and those details were incorporated in Ex.P.8. Hence, PW.3 is a material witness in this case. Unfortunately, PW.3 turned hostile without supporting the case of 6 C.C.No.20 of 2021 prosecution. Though prosecution has cross-examined PW.3 nothing could be elicited in its favour. Hence, evidence of PW.3 is also of no value to the prosecution.

14.PW.5 and PW.6 are the panch witnesses to Confessional

Panchanama of A.1 dated 14-12-2018. They denied the contents of said panchanama and deposed that their signatures were obtained in Police Station on white papers. They turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. Though prosecution has cross-examined PW.5 and PW.6 nothing could be elicited in its favour. Evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 does not help the prosecution.

15. PW.4 is Police Constable working along with PW.8 in P.S.,

Burgampahad at the relevant time. With regard to the offence proper, except the evidence of PW.4 and PW.8, there is no other evidence. The role of PW.7 was only to register F.I.R. on the basis of Ex.P.8-Panchanama alleged to have been conducted by PW.8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that evidence of PW.4, PW.7 and PW.8 is sufficient to bring home guilt of A.1 and

A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Section 171-E r/w 171-B of

I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for

A.1 and A.2 contended that Court cannot rely on the interested testimony of

PW.4, PW.7 and PW.8 to base conviction because the evidence of PW.4 and

PW.8 is contrary to each other, besides being self contradictory. It is true that

Court cannot reject the evidence of PW.4 and PW.8 at the threshold on the mere ground that they are Police personnel. However, their evidence has to be appreciated with great care and caution because there will be an element of interestedness on the part of PW.4 and PW.8 since they are Police personnel.

7 C.C.No.20 of 2021

In this background Court proceeds to appreciate the evidence of PW.4 and PW.8 and see whether their evidence is sufficient to record finding of guilt against

A.1 and A.2.

16. PW.4 deposed that on 07-12-2018 at about 02.30 P.M. he along with PW.8 and G.Damodar, Police Constable (Not examined) proceeded to

Thallagommur of Burgampahad Mandal, on receipt of information, and found one person running away by leaving liquor bottles; on enquiry he revealed his name as Sunkara Srinivas (A.1), PW.8 conducted panchanama in the presence of

PW.5 and one Ramakrishna (Not a witness in this case) and seized 32 Officer

Choice Liquor Bottles. PW.4 reiterated in his cross-examination that A.1 himself revealed his name on enquiry, which means that PW.4 and PW.8 caught red handed A.1 which is not the case of prosecution at all. In re-examination by prosecution PW.4 deposed that PW.3 revealed the name of A.1. As already stated, PW.3 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. The entire evidence of PW.4 is quite contrary to the case of prosecution reflected in

F.I.R. and charge sheet. Hence, Court cannot rely on the inconsistent testimony of PW.4.

17.PW.8 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in P.S., Burgampahad at the relevant time. PW.8 deposed that on 07-12-2018 at about 02.30 P.M. on receipt of information he along with PW.4 and Damodar, Police Constable went near the house of A.1 in Thallagommur Village and found A.1 sitting by keeping liquor bottles with him; on seeing them A.1 ran away by leaving the liquor bottles; on enquiry PW.3 revealed the identity particulars of ran away person as A.1; PW.8 called PW.1 and PW.2 as panchas and seized 32 liquor bottles of Officer Choice (MO.1) under the cover of Ex.P.8-Seizure Panchanama.

8 C.C.No.20 of 2021

Evidence of PW.8 shows that though A.1 was running away by keeping liquor bottles with him he was not detained by PW.4 and PW.8. It is quite surprising as to how PW.4 and PW.8 maintained silence while A.1 was running away by committing an offence. Law permits PW.8 to use reasonable force in order to detain A.1. No such efforts were made by PW.8 to detain A.1 at the scene of offence though PW.8 had the assistance of two Police Constables, including

PW.4. Hence, a serious doubt arises in the mind of Court about the genuineness of case of prosecution. Moreover, with regard to the offence proper there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.4 and PW.8.

PW.4 deposed that A.1 himself revealed his name while PW.8 deposed that

PW.3 revealed the name of A.1. Two contrary versions are coming forth from

PW.4 and PW.8. If the version of PW.4 is to be accepted as true and correct, it has to be taken that though A.1 was detained he was let off by PW.4 and

PW.8. From this angle also, Court cannot rely on the inconsistent testimony of

PW.4 and PW.8.

18.PW.8 alleged to have recorded confession of A.1 on 14-12-2018 in the presence of PW.5 and PW.6, who turned hostile. Confession of A.1 alleged to have been made before PW.8, even if taken as true and correct, is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Information given by A.1 leading to a material fact such as seizure of liquor bottles alone is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is not the case of prosecution that pursuant to confession of A.1 MO.1 liquor bottles were seized at the instance of A.1. Hence, the alleged confession of A.1 is of no value to the prosecution.

9 C.C.No.20 of 2021

19.There is another legal infirmity in this case. PW.8 admitted that he is the complainant and Investigating Officer in this case. It is true that in every case it is not fatal to the case of prosecution if a Police Officer plays dual role of complainant and Investigating Officer unless prejudice is caused to accused. In this case, PW.8 is a direct eye witness to the alleged incident and he stated to have conducted Ex.P.8-Seizure Panchanama and seized MO.1-Liquor

Bottles from the scene of offence. Hence, PW.8 is a material witness whose statement needs to be recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. There is no report also given in this case either by PW.8 or any other Police personnel. On the basis of Ex.P.8-Seizure Panchanama PW.7 registered F.I.R. Instead of entrusting investigation to some other Police Officer PW.8 himself conducted investigation. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to accused.

20.There is absolutely no cogent or trustworthy evidence to establish that A.1 was found in possession of MO.1-Liquor Bottles, they were supplied to

A.1 by A.2 and they were intended for distribution to voters as a bribe to vote in favour of A.2 who contested as Member of Legislative Assembly of Pinapaka

Assembly Constituency from Congress-I Party. As already stated, except the evidence of PW.4, PW.7 and PW.8, there is no other evidence against A.1 and

A.2 as other witnesses turned hostile. Even the evidence of PW.4 and PW.8 is inconsistent and self contradictory, as discussed supra. In the circumstances, this Court has no alternative except to conclude that A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal for offences with which they were charged. Point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

10 C.C.No.20 of 2021

21.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for offences under

Sections 188, 171-E r/w 171-B of I.P.C. and Section 34 (a) of the Telangana

Excise Act. A.1 and A.2 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of August, 2021.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 :Gunde Venkanna (Panch witness for Seizure Panchanama. PW.2 :Gunde Durga Prasad (Panch witness for Seizure Panchanama. PW.3 :Konakanchi Srinivasarao (Eye witness). PW.4 :L.Ram Babu, Police Constable (Assisted to Investigating Officer). PW.5 :Manuri Motheeru (Panch witness for Confession of accused). PW.6 :Thummu Krishna Rao (Panch witness for Confession of accused). PW.7 :G.Rajaiah, Head Constable, P.S., Burgampahad (Issued F.I.R.). PW.8 :T.Venkatappaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Burgampahad (Investigating Officer).

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1:Signature of PW.1 on Seizure Panchanama, dated 07-12-2018. Ex.P.2:Signature of PW.1 on Crime Details Form, dated 07-12-2018. Ex.P.3:Signature of PW.2 on Seizure Panchanama, dated 07-12-2018. Ex.P.4:Signature of PW.2 on Crime Details Form, dated 07-12-2018. Ex.P.5:Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P.6:Signature of PW.5 on Confessional Panchanama of A.1,

dated 14-12-2018.

Ex.P.7:Signature of PW.6 on Confessional Panchanama of A.1,

dated 14-12-2018.

Ex.P.8:Seizure Panchanama, dated 07-12-2018. Ex.P.9:Original F.I.R. in Crime No.254 of 2018 issued by PW.7. Ex.P.10:Crime Details Form.

11 C.C.No.20 of 2021

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1:32 Officers Choice Quarter Liquor Bottles.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1 C.C.No.38 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL

CASES RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD

Present:Ch.V.R.R.Varaprasad, Special Sessions Judge for trial of criminal cases relating to elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

C.C. No.38 of 2021 Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Aswaraopeta, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ..… Complainant a n d

A.1Pasupuleti Ramaswami S/o: Venkateswarao, Age: 44 Years, Occ: Old Iron Business, R/o: Gouda Bazar, Aswaraopeta Village.

A.2Thati Venkateswarlu S/o: Kattappa, Age: 56 Years, Occ: Ex-M.L.A. Aswaraopeta, R/o: Sarapaka Village of Burgampahad Mandal. …. A.1 and A.2

This case is coming on 23-08-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Narayana, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt. Ch.Bhanuchandrika, Counsel for A.1 and Sri. G.Sampath Kumar, Counsel for A.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case was originally numbered as C.C.No.814 of 2019 in the

Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise at

Khammam. Later the case was transferred to this court at the stage of trial in view of establishment of this Court for trial of criminal cases relating to M.Ps.

and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana.

2. This case arises out of Crime No.295 of 2018 of P.S., Aswaraopeta registered against A.1 and A.2 for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E of the

Indian Penal Code, for short ‘I.P.C.’.

2 C.C.No.38 of 2021

3.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 05-12-2018 at 20.30

Hours in Vaddera Bazaar of Aswaraopeta Village and Mandal A.1 was found distributing money to voters to vote in favour of A.2, who contested as Member of Legislative Assembly of Aswaraopeta Assembly Constituency from T.R.S. Party during Assembly Elections of 2018. V.Venkateswara Rao, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S., Aswaraopeta (PW.4), N.Venkateswara Rao, Police

Constable (Since died) and K.Prasada Rao, Police Constable (PW.1) found A.1 distributing money on above date, time and place, secured the presence of

V.Venkateswara Rao, Mandal Revenue Inspector of Aswaraopeta (PW.2) and

Punem Suryanarayana, Village Revenue Officer (PW.3) as panch witnesses, conducted panchanama and seized cash of Rs.6,000/- (MO.1) from the possession of A.1. During the course of confession A.1 alleged to have revealed that the said money was handed over to him by A.2 and on the direction of

A.2 A.1 was distributing money to voters. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that A.1 and A.2 are liable for punishment for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E of I.P.C.

4. Cognizance was taken by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate

First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases at Khammam for offences under

Sections 188 and 171-E of I.P.C.

5. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.

Allegations made against A.1 and A.2 attracting ingredients of offences under

Sections 188 and 171-E of I.P.C. were read over and explained to A.1 and A.2.

They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 C.C.No.38 of 2021

6.P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.7 and MO.1 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the

Appendix of Evidence.

7.A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7 was put-forth to A.1 and A.2. A.1 and A.2 reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard Sri. G.Narayana, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State and Smt. Ch.Bhanuchandrika, learned counsel for A.1 and

Sri. G.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for A.2.

9.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E of I.P.C.?

POINT:

10.In respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. there is a legal defect. Section 188 of I.P.C. is a punitive Section for disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. imposes a bar to take cognizance of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. basing on police report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. In respect of offence under

Section 188 of I.P.C. public servant or any other person duly authorized by such public servant is required to file complaint before the jurisdictional

Magistrate. Admittedly, basing on police report under Section 173 (2) of

Cr.P.C. Court has taken cognizance of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C.

Instead of getting filed private complaint in respect of offence under Section 4 C.C.No.38 of 2021 188 of I.P.C. PW.4 filed charge sheet. On this ground alone A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal in respect of offence under Section 188 of I.P.C.

11.The other offence alleged against A.1 and A.2 is under Section 171-E of I.P.C. Section 171-E of I.P.C. is a punitive Section for Bribery.

Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. If food, drink, entertainment or provision is made such offence is punishable with fine alone. Section 171-B of I.P.C. defines the term ‘Bribery’.

It reads as follows:

"171-B. Bribery:

(1) Whoever:

(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person so having exercised any such right; or

(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery:

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this Section.

(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward."

It has to be seen whether prosecution is able to bring home guilt of A.1 and

A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 171-E of I.P.C.

5 C.C.No.38 of 2021

12.Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.7 and MO.1 in order to bring home guilt of A.1 and A.2. PW.1 and PW.4 are the police personnel who were alleged to be present at the time of alleged incident. N.Venkateswara Rao, Police Constable of P.S., Aswaraopeta, who is one of the direct eye witnesses to the alleged incident, died during pendency of case and, hence, he could not be examined by prosecution.

13.PW.2 and PW.3 are the material witnesses in this case in whose presence A.1 alleged to have made confession and cash of Rs.6,000/- (MO.1) was seized from A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.5-Panchanama. PW.2 and PW.3 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. They deposed that they signed on Ex.P.5-Panchanama of A.1 and Crime Details Form (Ex.P.7) in

Police Station, nobody confessed the offence and nothing was seized in their presence. It is quite unfortunate that though PW.2 and PW.3 are Mandal

Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer of Aswaraopeta respectively, being the Public Servants, they turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. What PW.2 and PW.3 deposed in Court is the substantive piece of evidence which has to be taken into consideration by Court. Except recording its dissatisfaction Court is helpless in this regard. Though prosecution has cross-examined PW.2 and PW.3 nothing could be elicited in its favour. Hence, evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is of no value to the prosecution.

14.There remains the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4. PW.1 is Police

Constable and eye witness. PW.4 is complainant and Investigating Officer.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 is sufficient to record finding of guilt against A.1 and A.2 for offence under

Section 171-E of I.P.C. because A.1 was found distributing money to voters on the direction of A.2, who contested as Member of Legislative Assembly of 6 C.C.No.38 of 2021

Aswaraopeta Assembly Constituency from T.R.S. Party. On the other hand, learned counsel for A.1 and A.2 contended that it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of PW.1 and PW.4 because they are the police personnel.

Law does not prohibit Court from relying on the evidence of Police witnesses provided it is cogent, trustworthy and inspires confidence in the mind of Court.

Police personnel are not debarred to be competent witnesses. Hence, Court proceeds to examine whether evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 can be relied upon to base conviction.

15.PW.1 is the Police Constable who was working in P.S.,

Aswaraopeta at the relevant time. PW.1 deposed that on 05-12-2018, on receipt of information by PW.4, they proceeded to Vaddera Bazaar, Aswaropeta at 08.30 P.M.; found A.1 distributing money to voters; PW.4 called PW.2 and

PW.3 and conducted panchanama and seized MO.1-Cash from the possession of

A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.5-Panchanama. PW.1 being a Police Consable and subordinate to PW.4 is available at the beck and call of PW.4. It is not difficult for PW.4 to set up PW.1 as a witness in this case. Hence, it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of PW.1.

16.PW.4 deposed that on 05-12-2018 at 08.30 P.M. he along with

N.Venkateswara Rao, Police Constable (Since died) and PW.1 were conducting patrolling in Vaddera Bazaar, Aswaraopeta and found A.1 distributing money to voters; secured the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 and recorded confession of A.1 as in Ex.P.5 and seized MO.1-Cash; and that A.1 revealed that on the direction of A.2, who contested as Member of Legislative Assembly of Aswaraopeta

Assembly Constituency from T.R.S. Party, he was distributing money to voters.

It is true that oral testimony of PW.1 and PW.4 can be relied upon even in the 7 C.C.No.38 of 2021 absence of documentary evidence, in view of Section 59 of the Evidence Act.

However, confession of A.1 alleged to have been made before PW.1 and PW.4 is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. PW.2 and PW.3, who are material panch witnesses to Ex.P.5-Panchanama, turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. Had it been a case where at least one of the panch witnesses supported the case of prosecution Court could have certainly relied on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4. It is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of PW.1 and PW.4.

17.There is another legal infirmity in this case. PW.4 admitted that he is the complainant and Investigating Officer in this case. It is true that in every case it is not fatal to the case of prosecution if a Police Officer plays dual role of complainant and Investigating Officer unless prejudice is caused to accused. In this case, PW.4 is a direct eye witness to the alleged incident and he stated to have conducted Ex.P.5-Panchanama and seized MO.1-Cash from the possession of A.1. Hence, PW.4 is a material witness whose statement needs to be recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. There is no report also given in this case either by PW.4 or any other Police personnel. On the basis of Ex.P.5-

Panchanama PW.4 registered F.I.R. Instead of entrusting investigation to some other Police Officer PW.4 himself conducted investigation. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to accused.

18.No doubt PW.4 deposed about registration of F.I.R., recording of statements of PW.1 and another Police Constable and drafting Ex.P.7-Crime

Details Form and filing charge sheet after completion of investigation. Since

Ex.P.5-Panchanama was not proved by prosecution evidence of PW.4 cannot by itself establish guilt of A.1 and A.2. It is true that it would be difficult to secure documentary evidence regarding A.2 handing over money to A.1. It is 8 C.C.No.38 of 2021 also true that there will be difficulty for PW.4 to examine voters, who already received money, because the voters would run away on seeing PW.4 and his team. In normal circumstances, Court could have relied on the evidence of

Police personnel had it been a case where at least one independent witness like a panch witness supported the case of prosecution. Unfortunately, except the interested testimony of PW.1 and PW.4 there is no independent evidence against

A.1 and A.2. As already stated, PW.2 and PW.3 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. In view of infirmities discussed supra and as PW.2 and PW.3 turned hostile, any amount of further discussion on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 would be a futile exercise. Suffice it to say, prosecution failed in bringing home guilt of A.1 and A.2 much less beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 188 and 171-E of I.P.C. Point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

19.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for offences under

Sections 188 and 171-E of I.P.C. A.1 and A.2 are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO.1-Cash of Rs.6,000/- with accrued interest covered by Fixed Deposit Receipt No.38264786716, dated 16-02-2019 of

State Bank of India, District Court Complex Branch, Khammam shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of August, 2021.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

9 C.C.No.38 of 2021 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 :K.Prasada Rao, Police Constable, P.S., Aswaraopeta (Assisted Investigating Officer). PW.2 :Varikuti Venkateswarao (Panch witness for Confessional-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A.1 and A.2 and Crime Details Form). PW.3 :Punem Suryanarayana (Panch witness for Confessional-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A.1 and A.2 and Crime Details Form). PW.4 :V.Venkateswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Aswaraopeta (Investigating Officer).

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1:Signature of PW.2 on Confessional-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A.1,

dated 05-12-2018.

Ex.P.2:Signature of PW.2 on Crime Details Form, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.3:Signature of PW.3 on Confessional-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A.1, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.4:Signature of PW.3 on Crime Details Form, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.5:Confessional-cum-Seizure Panchanama, dated 05-12-2018. Ex.P.6:Original F.I.R. in Crime No.295 of 2018 issued by PW.4. Ex.P.7:Crime Details Form, dated 05-12-2018.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 :Cash of Rs.6,000/- covered by Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 38264786716, dated 16-02-2019 of State Bank of India, District Court Complex Branch, Khammam.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.