Sura Srinivas Reddy

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CBI CASES, HYDERABAD

Dated : Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2022

Present : Sura Srinivas Reddy III Addl. Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.08 of 2015

Between:

State represented by Central Bureau of

Investigation, ACB, Hyderabad.... Complainant

AND

1. Dr.Abbagoni Venugopal S/o A.Saharabhalinga, Age 58 years, Occ: Chief Medical Officer, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

... Accused No.1

2. Smt.A.Vijaya Rani @ Lingala Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal, Age: 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-118/1, Bheem Reddy Nagar

Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad.... Accused No.2

This case is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.Anil Kumar Kompally, Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI/Complainant and of Sri.K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for A1, Sri.Lakkaraju Padma Rao, Learned counsel for A2 and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record and after 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 is a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police,

CBI, ACB, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and under section 109 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against A2.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) has been working as Chief Medical

Officer M/s. Bharath Dynamics Limited, Ministry of Defence,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 2 of 185

Government of India, Kanchanbagh Unit, Hyderabad, as such is a public servant and A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani is the wife of

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) public servant.

b)The Inspector submitted that on 12.09.2013 based on a source information, a case in RC.No.16(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/Hyderabad has been registered under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 Dr.A.Venugopal for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.1,33,51,844/- during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2011. The Inspector further submitted that on 13.09.2013 under the strength of Search Warrants issued by the

Court, Searches were conducted at the residential premises of

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) situated at H.No.3-118/1, Vijaya Gopal Villa, Plot

No.186/A and 186/B, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ranga

Reddy District and office premises of Dr.A.Venugopal situated at

Company premises of M/s. Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad in the presence of independent witnesses, after observing all the legal formalities and during the searches various incriminating documents like original Sale Deeds towards the purchase of immovable properties in the name of A1 and his family members, Bank Pass Books/Cheque Books, Fixed Deposit Receipts,

Locker keys, LIC Policies, Investment details, Expenditure Vouchers/

Bills/Vouchers, etc., were seized from the said premises under the cover of Search Lists.

c)The Inspector further submitted that on 23.09.2013 they have searched Locker No.239 standing jointly in the name of A1 and

A2 at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad in the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 3 of 185 presence of two independent witnesses and A2 and found various gold jewellery items and in this connection, drawn Locker Search

Proceedings incorporating all the happenings during the Search. The

Inspector further submitted that at the time of registration of the case, the check period was taken as 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2011 and that during the course of investigation, it has been reckoned as from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 i.e., the date of search for the purpose of computing the disproportionate assets. The Inspector further submitted that A1 did not inherit any properties from his parents and after completing M.B.B.S. during the period from 1993 to 1996, A1 worked as Doctor on temporary basis in various Private Hospitals in and around Hyderabad and on 16.06.1997 he joined M/s. Bharath

Dynamics Limited as Medical Officer in the scale of Assistant

Manager Gr.II, and thereafter he worked as Medical Officer in various scales of Deputy Manager, Manager and got promoted to the scale of Senior Manager on 01.09.2009 and since then he is working as

Chief Medical Officer.

d)The Inspector further submitted that 01.05.1994

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) got married to A2 Smt.Vijaya Rani, D/o Lingala

Nagabhushanam, native of Miryalaguda and he was blessed with one daughter and two sons and his daughter Vydarshi did her Primary and Higher Education from St.Ann’s School, Tarnaka from 2000 to 2010 and studied Intermediate in Sri Chaitanya Junior College,

Tarnaka in the year 2010-12 and his elder son Master Vaidic studied in Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur from 1st to 10th Class and younger son Master Vaidesh is studied in the same School from 1st

Class.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 4 of 185

e)The Inspector further submitted that A2 Smt.Vijaya Rani was born and brought up in Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and she studied in Miryalaguda upto Intermediate and after marriage, she did her MBA from Vanitha College, Nampally, Hyderabad and LL.B from Andhra Mahila Sabha, Osmania University, Hyderabad and her father Mr.Lingala Nagabhushanam was an Excise Contractor and her mother Lingala Laxmamma is a housewife and her father owned agricultural lands at Devarakonda, Miryalaguda, Ibrahimpatnam in

Nalgonda District besides various other movable and immovable properties.

f)The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that A1 Dr.A.Venugopal acquired/ possessed assets in his name and in the name of his wife

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and the details of assets at the beginning of the check period as on 01.01.1999 were clearly shown in Statement-A annexed to the Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,22,800/- and the assets of A1 and A2 at the end of the check period as on 13.09.2013 were clearly shown in Statement-B annexed to the

Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/-, the Income and other receipts of A1 and A2 during the check period were clearly shown in Statement-C annexed to the Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,70,14,560/- and the expenditure and other payments of

A1 and A2 during the check period were clearly shown in Statement-

D annexed to the charge sheet which worked out to Rs.85,85,516/-.

g)The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation several witnesses have been examined and their statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and various

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 5 of 185 documents have been collected in support of the same and further during the course of investigation several opportunities were given to A1 and A2 to satisfactorily account for the assets held by them and found in their possession, but A1 and A2 could not give satisfactory explanation, since their contentions are false and not tenable. The Inspector further submitted that the investigation also revealed that A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani did not have sufficient source of income to substantiate the quantum of assets acquired in her name and that she played an active role and abetted A1 Dr.A.Venugopal in acquiring the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- and investigation also revealed that the transactions done in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani were orchestrated by her husband A1 Dr.A.Venugopal with her active collusion and therefore, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani has been arrayed as A2 in this case during the course of investigation.

h)The Inspector further submitted that for the purpose of computation of disproportionate of assets, the details of the assets held by A1 Dr.A.Venugopal at the beginning of the check period ie., as on 01.01.1999 is shown as Statement-A, the details of the assets held by A1 at the end of the check period ie., as on 13.09.2013 is shown as Statement-B, the details of income and other receipts received by A1 during the check period is shown as Statement-C and the details of the expenditure and other payments incurred by A1 during the said check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 is shown as Statement-D and the computation of disproportionate of assets is as under:

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 6 of 185

Rs.

1. Assets at the end of check period 1,68,65,610-00 (Statement-B)

2. Assets at the beginning of check -1,22,800-00 period (Statement-A)

3. Assets acquired during check 1,67,42,810-00 period (Statement B minus Statement A)

4. Expenditure during the check +85,85,516-00 period (Statement -D) 2,53,28,326-00

5. Income during the check period -1,70,14,560-00 (Statement-C)

Disproportionate Assets (B-A+D-C)83,13,766-00 % of Disproportionate assets = Quantum of DA x 100 Income

Thus, the percentage of DA works out to 48.86%

i)The Inspector further submitted that the investigation revealed that during the check period Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) had an expenditure and other payments amounting to Rs.85,85,516/- against the total income and other receipts of Rs.1,70,14,560/- and thus, the likely savings of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) is Rs.84,29,044/- and the total assets held by Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) in his name and in the name of his family members at the end of the check period worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/- against the assets hold at the beginning of the check period amounting to Rs.1,22,800/- and therefore, total assets acquired during the check period worked out to

Rs.1,67,42,810/- and as such Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) is in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.1,67,42,810/- against the likely savings of

Rs.84,29,044/- during the check period and therefore, the amount of disproportionate assets acquired by Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) during the check period is Rs.83,13,766/-, which works out the disproportionate

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 7 of 185 of assets at 48.86% with reference to the total income and other receipts of the accused persons.

j)The Inspector further submitted that Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) being a public servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 for which he could not satisfactorily account for during investigation and thereby A1 has committed the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation also revealed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) has abetted A1 Dr.A.Venugopal in commission of the said offence which constitutes commission of offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

k)The Inspector further submitted that Dr.Namburi

Krishnam Raju, Executive Director, (P&A), M/s. Bharath Dynamics

Limited, Ministry of Defence, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad accorded sanction u/s. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1).

l)The Inspector further submitted that the investigation revealed that Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) committed an offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) committed an offence punishable u/s.

109 of IPC r/w sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and hence the charge sheet is filed.

3.The then Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 8 of 185 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against

A1 and for the offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 and the summons were issued to A1 and A2 for their appearance and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents filed along with the charge sheets were furnished to them as required u/s.

207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C. and upon hearing them u/s. 240 of Cr.P.C., charge u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and the charge u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 were framed. The framed charges were read over and explained to the accused, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PW-1 to PW-62 and got marked Exs.P1 to P163 and reported the closure of evidence. The details of the witnesses and the documents that were mentioned in the appendix of evidence attached to the

Judgment. During the cross-examination of PW-24, Ex.D1 is marked and during the cross-examination of PW-62, Exs.D2 to D7 are marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the incriminating evidence and reported defence evidence and A1 filed certain documents during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and A2 filed her written

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 9 of 185 statement.

7.In support of their defence, the accused got examined

DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked Exs.D8 and D9 through DW-3 and

Ex.C1 through DW-2 and reported the closure of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 and A2. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for A1 and A2 submitted their written arguments.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and the documents that are marked through prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that A1 acquired properties on his name and on the name of his wife i.e., A2, disproportionate to his known sources of income to a tune of Rs.83,13,766/- and as such A1 and A2 are liable for conviction for the alleged offences.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer without computing the assets, income and expenditure during the check period and without considering the income of A2 before the check period, filed a false charge sheet against the accused and if the

Investigating Officer calculated the assets, income and expenditure of A1 and A2 before the check period and during the check period properly, there will not be any assets on the name of A1 and A2 which are disproportionate to the known sources of income of A1 and therefore, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit

A1 and A2 for the alleged offences.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 10 of 185

11. Basing on the charges framed against the accused and basing on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the following points are determined for consideration.

1) Whether A1 during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 has been in possession of assets worth Rs.83,13,766/- disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for?

2) Whether A2 abetted A1 in any manner for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

3) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A2 for the offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point Nos.1 to 4:

12.In order to avoid conflicting findings and repetition of facts, Point Nos.1 to 4 are taken up together for consideration.

13.In order to prove the guilty of A1 for the offence u/s.

13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.

109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that A1 being public servant acquired properties which were shown in Statement-B disproportionate to his known sources of income and that A2 abetted

A1 in acquiring the properties on her name. In order to prove the same, the prosecution examined as many as 62 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P163.

14.As per the evidence of Mr.K.Venkatesh (PW1), the then

Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, Koti, on the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 11 of 185 instructions of his Regional Manager, Mr.Dharmalingam, on 13.09.2013, at 5:00 am he reported at CBI Office, Koti, Hyderabad, and met Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI and one Mr.Prasad, a Clerk from Bank of India was also present in CBI Office. PW1 further deposed that Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI informed them that he obtained search warrant for conducting search at a residence in

Uppal and they agreed for being accompanying with them as witnesses and at 6:00 am they left CBI office and proceeded towards

Uppal and around 6:40 am they reached Uppal and were taken to a residential building consisting of ground+3 floors and found occupants of the building were available i.e., A1 and A2. PW1 further deposed that Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI, has shown search warrants to the occupants of the building and explained the accused about the purpose of search and then the accused signed on the search warrant and then the team members of the search have shown their belongings to the accused and entered inside the building and started searching all the four floors. PW1 further deposed that during the search the documents relating to Credit

Cards, Bank Accounts, Locker Key, property documents, fixed deposit receipts were found, then he along with the other mediator subscribed their initials on all the documents found in the search and

CBI officials seized the documents found in the search under the cover of a search list attested by him and other mediator. PW1 further deposed that he identified Ex.P1 search list, dated 13.09.2013 conducted at residence of the accused. PW1 further deposed that CBI officials prepared an inventory memo for other items found in the residence of the accused, then himself and other mediator attested the inventory memo and copy of the search list

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 12 of 185 and inventory memo was furnished to the accused No.1 and the accused signed in token of receipt of the same. PW1 further deposed that CBI officials also prepared a rough sketch of the building of the accused, then himself and other mediator attested the rough sketch of the building of accused. PW1 further deposed that Ex.P2 is inventory memo, dated 13.09.2013 along with rough sketch and the items covered by Ex.P2 inventory memo were left at the residence of the accused and the value of the items mentioned in the inventory memo was noted based on the information provided by the accused. PW1 further deposed that the documents and locker key covered by Ex.P1 search list were seized and carried by

CBI officials and an amount of Rs.63,000/- was found during the search and it was returned to the accused. PW1 further deposed that the search proceedings were conducted from 7:00 am to 04:30 pm and it was recorded with the help of a video camera. PW1 further deposed that after 10 days, again he was called by the CBI officials for witnessing locker opening proceedings at Andhra Bank,

Kanchanbagh Branch, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch and Canara

Bank, Uppal Branch and around 01:00 pm, himself and other mediator accompanied CBI officials to Corporation Bank, Tarnaka

Branch and the accused No.1 and A2 were present there. PW1 further deposed that the CBI official has shown the search warrant to the bank officials and the Bank officials after completing necessary formalities allowed CBI officials to open the locker and on opening the locker they found some gold ornaments in the locker, then the

CBI officials secured Gold Appraiser to examine and weigh the gold ornaments, then CBI officials prepared proceedings under Ex.P3 dt.23.09.2013 at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka branch and it was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 13 of 185 attested by him and other mediator as well as both the accused.

PW1 further deposed that the accused provided information pertaining to the year of acquisition and mode of acquisition of the ornaments available in the locker. PW1 further deposed that all the items available in the locker were handed over to the accused and they were kept in the locker and locker key was handed over to

Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI. PW1 further deposed that on 02.05.2014, at the request of CBI officials, he went to CBI office, Koti,

Hyderabad at about 11:00 am and he was shown the video recording of the search proceedings conducted at the residence of the accused, which was recorded earlier.

15.During Cross examination PW1 categorically admitted that at the time of the values mentioned in the inventory list no documents were verified with regard to the values, source and description of the items and that at the time of preparing the inventory list, the accused was informed that the information in the inventory list is prepared tentatively subject to final verification.

16.As per the evidence of J.Srikanth Reddy (PW2), the then

Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet, R.R. District, on the request of CBI police, their office furnished certain certified true copies of sale deeds and encumbrance certificates in respect of properties, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet and Ex.P4 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12503/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.S.Kishan Rao for Rs.25,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P5 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 14 of 185

No.12502/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of

Mr.Ch.Mallikarjun Rao for Rs.25,000/-. PW2 further deposed that

Ex.P6 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12499/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.D.Uma Devi for Rs.15,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P7 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing

No.12500/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of

Mrs.M.Sandhya Rani for Rs.15,000/-.PW2 further deposed that Ex.P8 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12501/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.M.Padma for Rs.15,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P9 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8776/01 executed by Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu represented by GPA holder

Mr.L.Krishna Reddy in favour of Mrs.Vijaya Rani for Rs.27,000/- and as per Ex.P9, an amount of Rs.1,350/- paid towards stamp duty and an amount of Rs.291/- paid towards registration fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

17.As per the evidence of Mr. D. Vishnu Vardhan Raju (PW3), the then District Registrar, Hyderabad South, on the request of CBI, he visited their office and identified certain sale deeds which were registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Champapet, R.R.

District, during his tenure. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P10 is sale deed bearing No.6197/2002, dated 21-08-2002 executed by Smt.D.

Balamani W/o. Mr.D. Srirammurthy and Smt. P. Suvarnalatha W/o.

Mr. P. Jagadishwar and M/s. Renuka Constructions represented by

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 15 of 185

Smt. P. Renuka in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr. A.

Venugopal for Rs.3,41,500/-.PW3 further deposed that the property pertains to semi-finished flat No. G1 with plinth area of 1000 Sq.fts of ‘Sriram Residency’ situated at Maruthinagar of Sultanvalva

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and the stamp duty paid was Rs.34,735/- and a registration fee of Rs.1,715/- along with

Rs.125/- towards user charges. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P11 is sale deed bearing No.9391/2001, dated 31-12-2001 executed by

Smt. Nukala Padma W/o. Mr. N. Ravi in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani

W/o. Dr. A. Venugopal for Rs.41,500/- PW3 further deposed that the property pertains to bearing Plot No.9 admeasuring 413 sq.yds situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and the stamp duty paid was Rs.4,565/- and a registration fee of Rs.441/- along with Rs.50/- towards user charges and Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were registered by him. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P12 is sale deed bearing No.8574/2006, dated 17-04-2006 executed by Smt. K.

Chandrika W/o. Mr. K. Mallikarjun Reddy in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya

Rani W/o. Dr. A. Venugopal for Rs.1,78,000/- and the property pertains to bearing Plot No.21 admeasuring 222 sq.yds situated at

Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. The stamp duty paid was Rs.15,920/- and a registration fee of Rs.890/- along with Rs.100/- towards user charges and Ex.P12 was registered by Mr.

M. Veeraiah, Sub Registrar. PW3 further deposed that on the request of CBI police, their office furnished certain certified true copies of sale deeds and encumbrance certificates in respect of properties, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet and Ex.P13 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5708/99 executed by Mr. C. Sonthosh Reddy S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 16 of 185

C. Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder

Mr. A. Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr. A. Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.

Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.2,700/- and registration fee of RS.271/- has been paid.PW3 further deposed that Ex.P14 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5709/99 executed by Mr. C. Sonthosh Reddy

S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt. C. Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr. A. Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr. A.

Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for

Rs.24,000/-and the stamp duty of Rs.2,700/- and registration fee of

RS.271/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that andEx.P13 and Ex.P14 were registered by him. PW3 further deposed that

Ex.P15 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 18.02.1999 bearing

No.1155/99 executed by Mr.P. Madhava Reddy S/o. Papi Reddy in favour of Mr. A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.1,25,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.15,000/- and registration fee of Rs.896/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P16 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 26.11.2001 bearing No.8387/2001 executed by Smt. C. Padmavathi W/o. Mr. Bhaskar Rao in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal for Rs.30,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.3,300/- and registration fee of Rs.321/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P17 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8775/2000 executed by Smt.

D.R. Lakshmi W/o. Mr. D. Ratnaiah and Smt.D. Padmaja D/o. Mr. D.

Ratnaiah in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal for

Rs.51,500/- and the stamp duty of Rs.5,665/- and registration fee of

Rs.531/- has been paid.PW3 further deposed that Ex.P15 to Ex.P17

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 17 of 185 were registered by Mr. Basheer Ahmed. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

18.As per the evidence of Mr. S.V. Narasimha Rao (PW4), the then Sub Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East), Champapet, Ranga

Reddy District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he identified

Ex.P18 sale deed bearing No.28305/2006, dated 29-12-2006 executed by Mr. G. Bhaskar S/o. Late G. Surayanarayana in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani, W/o. A. Venugopal for Rs.3,90,000/- for Plot No.8 admeasuring 390 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 part situated at Badangpet

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District at their office and the

Stamp duty of Rs.36,000/- and registration fee of Rs.1,950/- has been paid. PW4 further deposed that Ex.P19 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 04.07.2003 bearing No.7824/2003 executed by

Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K. Karunakar

Reddy S/o. K. Hanmanth Reddy for Rs.2,25,000/- along with

Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.32 western part admeasuring 250 sq.yds in sy.no.166/67,68, 170 to 173, 177, 180 and 181 ward No.8, Block No.1, Kharmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar

Mandal, R.R. District.PW4 further deposed that Ex.P20 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4436/2007 executed by Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K.

Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K. Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.73 admeasuring 267 sq.yds in sy.no.123 and 124/1, Almasguda Village,

Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. PW4 further deposed that Ex.P21 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing

No.4435/2007 executed by Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K. Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K. Venkateswar Rao

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 18 of 185 for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot

No.72 admeasuring 267 sq.yds in sy.no.123 and 124/1, Almasguda

Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. PW4 further deposed that

Ex.P22 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 31.07.2006 bearing

No.15841/2006 executed by Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venugopal represented by her GPA Holder Mr. J. Janga Reddy in favour of Mr. P.

Venkatrami Reddy S/o. P. Linga Reddy for Rs.3,40,500/- along with

Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.68 and 69 admeasuring 567 sq.yds in sy.no.139, Almasguda Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal,

R.R. District. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

19.As per the evidence of Mr. Rajagopal Subramanyam (PW5), the then Sub Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, at the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he identified Ex.P23 sale deed bearing No.5083/2003, dated 30-08-2003 executed by Mr. G.

Govardhan Reddy S/o. G. Janardhan Reddy and Smt. G. Aruna W/o.

Mr. G. Govardhan Reddy in favour of Smt. S. Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr. A.

Venugopal for Rs.89,500/-, along with Encumbrance Certificate at their office and the property pertains to a Shop No.6, Ground Floor,

Sai Prashant Nivas on Plot No.8, Sri Venkateshwara Colony,

Saroornagar Village, R.R. District. An Amount of Rs.10,740/- and

Rs.450/- were paid towards stamp duty and registration fee respectively. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

20.As per the evidence of Mr. G. Vishnuvardhan Rao (PW6), the then Sub-Registrar, Uppal, R.R. District, on the request of CBI

Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of certain sale deeds

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 19 of 185 and encumbrance certificates pertaining to their office at Uppal and

Ex.P24 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.4514/2000, dated 03-06-2000 executed by Mr. K. Bhushanam Goud in favour of Dr. A.

Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.49,500/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.2,521/-. PW 6 further deposed that

Ex.P25 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.6731/2003, dated 07-06-2003 executed by Mr. Kandi Basava Reddy in favour of Smt. A.

Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.3,300/-.

Registration Fee paid was Rs.150/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P26 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.9027/2003, dated 20-07- 2003 executed by Smt. M. Chandrakala in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya

Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.10,500/-, stamp duty paid was Rs.1160/-, Registration Fee paid was Rs.55/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P27 is certified copy of sale deed bearing

No.16286/2006, dated 02-11-2006 executed by Smt. V. Sulochana in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,29,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.28,260/-, Registration Fee paid was

Rs.1,645/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P28 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8494/2012, dated 18-08-2012 executed by Mr. A.

Venugopal in favour of Mr. A. Bharath Kumar Reddy for sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with encumbrance certificate.

PW6 further deposed that Ex.P29 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8602/2003, dated 19-07-2003 executed by Mr. B.

Chandramohan Goud in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,75,500/-, Stamp duty paid was Rs.45,060/-,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 20 of 185

Registration Fee paid was Rs.1,880/-. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

21.As per the evidence of Mr. N. Sravan Kumar (PW7), the then in charge Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Nalgonda District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he visited CBI Office and identified

Ex.P30 sale deed bearing No.430/2003, dated 03-03-2003 executed by Mr. A. Lachi Reddy in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu

Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.15,290/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.700/- and he further identified Ex.P31 sale deed bearing No.695/2009, dated 06-03-2009 executed by Mr.

B. Surender Reddy GPA Holder of Mr. V. Kumara Swamy in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of

Rs.3,03,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, Stamp duty paid was Rs.24,240/-. Registration Fee paid was Rs.1515/-. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

22.As per the evidence of Mr. Jayanth Reddy(PW8), the then

Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Maheswaram, he was in charge Sub-Registrar, for Hyderabad East, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy

District and at that time on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of certain sale deeds and encumbrance certificates and identified sale deeds shown by CBI which are Ex.P32 sale deed bearing No.7464/1999, dated 13-10-1999 executed by

M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.89,000/-, stamp duty paid was Rs.9,800/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.726/-. PW8 further deposed that Ex.P33

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 21 of 185 is sale deed bearing No.1635/2000, dated 07-03-2000 executed by

M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.43,500/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.4,500/-, Registration Fee paid was Rs.471/-.

The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

23.As per the evidence of Mr. M. Krishna Ram Bhupal (PW9), the then in charge Sub-Registrar, Champapet, R.R. District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of sale deeds shown to him under exhibits P13, P14, P15, P16 and P17 and he attested the said certified copies. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

24.As per the evidence of Mr.K.Jithender Reddy(PW10), the then General Manager in M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad, M/s. Acer

Motors is dealer of Maruthi Suzuki and deals sales and service of

Maruthi four wheelers and on the request of CBI police, he furnished details of payment received from the customer Dr.A.Venugopal regarding purchase of Maruthi Suzuki Swift Dezire Car for an amount of Rs.6,22,307/- and an amount of Rs.2,46,137/- paid by cash and Rs.4,78,240/- was received from the finance provided by

Magma Fincorp Limited and an amount of Rs.15,588/- was paid as premium towards Insurance Policy, an amount of Rs.74,680/- was paid towards Life Tax, an amount of Rs.12,552/- was paid towards accessories and other charges and Ex.P34 is attested copy of invoice, delivery receipt, three receipt vouchers and copy of insurance policy. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 22 of 185

25.As per the evidence of Mr.Syed Wahed Ali (PW11), Sales

Manager, M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited,

Secunderabad, their company deals with sales and service of Suzuki two wheeler motor cycles and on the request of CBI police, he provided attested copies of documents relating to the sale of Suzuki

Access motor cycle to Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani W/o.Dr.Venu Gopal on 17.06.2011 and Ex.P35 is customer copy of tax invoice cum sale letter, dated 17.06.2011 for Rs.46,310/- in the name of Lingala

Vijaya Rani along with office copy of said invoice, temporary certificate of registration, tax receipt for Rs.4,250/-, copy of order form and ledger copy. PW 11 further deposed that Ex.P36 is cash receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.54,160/- and Ex.P37 is cash receipt

dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.1,000/- both are in the name of L.Vijaya

Rani issued by M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited,

Secunderabad and the total amount collected from the customer towards on road price is Rs.55,120/-, Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 bears signature of the then cashier Mr.Murali Mohan. The learned counsel

for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as

nil.

26.As per the evidence of Mr. P.Ram Mohan Rao(PW12), doing construction business in the name and style of M/s Nivas

Constructions, he was one of the vendors under Ex.P23 sale deed executed in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal for sale of shop in Sai Prasad Nivas as mentioned in schedule for

Rs.1,05,000/- and Ex.P38 is receipt dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.1 lakh issued by him in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Ex.P38 was issued for receipt of sale consideration amount. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 23 of 185 learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

27.As per the evidence of A.V.Kirshna Rao (PW13),

Administrative Officer, RTO, Uppal, on the request of CBI, police,

Hyderabad, their office furnished attested copies of vehicle abstract record of certain motor vehicle registered in their office and Ex.P39 is vehicle abstract report of motor cycle bearing No.AP 29 8219 registered in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

PW 13 further deposed that as per Ex.P39, an amount of Rs.4,170/- was paid towards life tax and Rs.160/- towards registration fee. PW 13 further deposed that Ex.P40 is vehicle abstract report of motor car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 registered in the name of Venu Gopal

Abbagoni and as per Ex.P40, an amount of Rs.74,680/- was paid towards life tax and Rs.425/- towards registration fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

28.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Bhaskara Rao (PW14), the then Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, BDL Campus Branch, Hyderabad on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, he furnished certified copies of statement of accounts pertaining to account

No.104510025080205,1045100110000974 and 104531041900064 maintained with BDL Campus Branch. PW 14 further deposed that

Ex.P41 is statement of account of Abhaya Gold saving bank account bearing No.104510025080205 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from 08.02.2005 to 31.03.2013 and as per Ex.P41, the opening balance was Rs.1,978/- and effective available balance as on 13.12.2013 was Rs.2,030.75 ps., including interest. PW14 further

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 24 of 185 deposed that Ex.P42 is statement of account of saving bank account bearing No.1045100110000974 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from 05.05.1997 to 30.09.2013 and as per Ex.P42, the opening balance was Rs.1,485/- and effective available balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.7,252.90 ps., including interest.PW14 further deposed that Ex.P43 is statement of account of Overdraft bank account bearing No. 104531041900064 in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) for the period from 14.11.2008 to 13.09.2013 and as per

Ex.P43, overdraft limit of Rs.3 lakhs was sanctioned and the salary of you Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) was being credited in this account. PW14 further deposed that the debit balance as on 15.11.2008 was

Rs.91,812/- and debit balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,95,707/- which indicates that said amount is due to the bank by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) as on said date and he was having locker facility. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

29.As per the evidence of Ketha Shanthi Kiran (PW15), the then Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch,

Secunderabad Branch, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, their bank furnished certified copy of account statement of SB account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and locker opening form of locker No.239 with key No.24 and Ex.P44 is certified copy of statement of SB account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 20.05.2001 to 13.09.2013. PW15 further deposed that as per Ex.P44, an amount of

Rs.1,000/- was deposited initially and balance as on 13.09.2013 was

Rs.29.50 ps. PW15 further deposed that Ex.P45 is locker opening form of locker No.239 in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 25 of 185

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and the Locker rent was Rs.500/- per annum and at the time of opening locker A1 and A2 deposited an amount of

Rs.7,000/- on 05.07.2002. PW15 further deposed that Ex.P46 is FDR receipt dated: 05.07.2002 for Rs.7,000/- in the name of Mr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2). The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

30.As per the evidence of Mr. Ramesh Reddy(PW16), he is running Royal Hospital, Balanagar, since 2013 and he knows

Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) and Smt.L.Vijaya Rani (A2) and he got acquaintance with Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) when he visited Remedy

Hospital for inspection, and at that time he was working in that hospital and later he started Royal Hospital in the year 2013. PW16 further deposed that Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) invested 20% share of

Rs.20 Lakh in Royal Hospital in the name of his wife Smt.L.Vijaya

Rani (A2)and the amount was paid by way of three cheques issued by Smt.L.Vijaya Rani (A2) for Rs.5 lakhs each dated 20.02.2013, 23.04.2013 and 08.07.2013 in favour of Sree Royal India

Multispecialty Hospital LLP and they were realized in the hospital account. PW16 further deposed that the balance amount of Rs.4 lakh was also paid by way of cheques dated 12.09.2013 and he had drawn the amount personally for ING Vysya Bank, Uppal. Accordingly an amount of Rs.19 lakh was invested against 20% share amount of

Rs.20 lakh and he has not paid any payment to the A1 and A2 after the said investment. PW16 further deposed that he had provided

Ex.P47 copy of statement of bank account of Sree Royal India

Multispecialty Hospital LLP and Ex.P48 copy of partnership agreement dated 22.01.2013.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 26 of 185

31.During Cross examination PW16 categorically admitted that all the four cheques deposed by him were issued on the account of Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) and that the agreement vide Ex.P48 was entered with Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) among others and he did not say that the investment was made by Dr. Venu Gopal (A1) and the investment was made by Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2).

32.As per the evidence of Mr.Bhaskar B.Kotari (PW17),

Manager (Administration and Operation), PMJ Gems and Jewellers

Private Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, he was in-charge of sale operation and administration and on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad, he has provided Ex.P49 ledger account copy of

Smt.Vijaya Rani from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. PW17 further deposed that he also provided copies of retail invoices of Smt.Vijaya

Rani for purchase of diamond and gold ornaments and Ex.P50 is retail invoice dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for purchase of white diamond necklace for Rs.2,61,991.20 ps.,Ex.P51 is purchase voucher dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for selling old gold for

Rs.2,27,591/-.PW17 further deposed that the amount covered by

Ex.P51 was adjusted towards the cost of item covered by Ex.P50.

PW17 further deposed that Ex.P52 is cash receipt vouchers in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 for

Rs.10,000/- and Rs.22,000/- respectively for payment of balance amount for the item covered by Ex.P50. PW17 further deposed that later Smt.Vijaya Rani purchased gold necklace and necklace tops on 31.12.2010 for Rs.2,40,354.06 ps., and A2 exchanged old gold items for Rs.1,78,854/- and paid the balance amount later. PW17 further deposed that again Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) purchased gold ear rings on 30.04.2011 for Rs.66,250/- and exchanged one gold ear ring on

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 27 of 185 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- and paid the balance amount. PW17 further deposed that A2 got repaired one gold item on 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/-. and paid earlier balance amount of Rs.1 lakh on 30.04.2011. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P53 is copy of retail invoice dated 31.12.2010 in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for

Rs.2,40,354.06 ps. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P54 is copy of purchase voucher dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,78,854/- in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW17 further deposed that Ex.P55 is copy of ledger account in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and Ex.P56 is copy of purchase voucher dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya

Rani and Ex.P57 is copy of retail invoice dated 30.04.2011 for

Rs.66,249.95 ps in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P58 is copy of repair order sales bill dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) and

Ex.P59 is copy of cash receipt voucher for Rs.1 lakh in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P60 is copy of monthly scheme transactions for customer in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani during the period from 08.03.2013 to 28.09.2013 and Ex.P61 is copy of customer order/advance receipt dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed thatEx.P62 is copy of additional advance receipt

dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P63 is copy of additional advance receipt dated 22.05.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P64 is copy of

additional advance receipt dated 28.06.2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P65 is copy of additional advance receipt dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 28 of 185 for Rs.20,000/-. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P66 is copy of

additional advance receipt dated 28.09.2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/- and the estimate slip dated 13.09.2013 shown to him is in the hand writing of our Director

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain for Rs.3,06,570/- towards cost of Vaddanam.

PW17 further deposed thatEx.P67 is estimate slip dated 13.09.2013 along with visiting card Rough calculation slip dated 13.09.2013 shown to him is in the hand writing of his Director

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain for estimating cost of Matil and ring and

Ex.P68 is rough calculation slip dated 13.09.2013.

33.During Cross examination PW17 categorically admitted that Ex.P67 is only an estimate and he has not seen the bill for

Ex.P67 and final bill will be issued after negotiations in case of sale of the item mentioned in the estimation.

34.As per the evidence of Mr.M.Umamaheswara Rao (PW18), Bank Panel Gold Appraiser, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka

Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of Manager, Corporation Bank,

Tarnaka Branch, he went to the said branch one day in the year 2013 and found CBI officials and the accused No.1 and A2 present.

PW18 further deposed that a locker was opened and found some gold ornaments in the locker and he was asked to weigh the said gold ornaments with the help of electronic weighing machine available in the bank, accordingly he weighed the said gold ornaments and also valued the ornaments, Ex.P3 Proceedings were prepared for the same and he attested said proceedings.

35.During Cross examination PW18 categorically admitted that Ex.P3 proceedings was prepared by CBI Inspector and the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 29 of 185 details relating to year of acquisition and mode of acquisition were not based on any documents and they were noted tentatively by CBI

Inspector and the accused No.2 intimated that it is difficult to give exact information about said details.

36.As per the evidence of Mr.P.Srinivas Rao (PW19), the then Deputy Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Bharat

Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad, previously, Mr.M.Eshwar was their

Chief Vigilance Officer and on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, they asked Dr.A.Venu Gopal to furnish I-VI statements and the A1 furnished the statements I to VI and same were forwarded to CBI police. PW19 further deposed that on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad, they furnished Ex.P69 copy of Bharat Dynamics Limited

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

37.As per the evidence of Mr. B.Chandra Mohan (PW20),

Senior Assistant, GHMC, Hyderabad, on 19.07.2003, he alienated a house plot located in Lakshma Reddy colony, Uppal to Dr.Venu

Gopal for Rs.7,13,000/- and executed a sale deed for Rs.3,75,500/- as per Sub Registrar value vide original of Ex.P29 sale deed.

38.During Cross examination PW20 categorically admitted that the accused A1 did not pay the amount mentioned above in the chief examination and there is no proof for the payment of

Rs.7,13,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand only).

39.As per the evidence of Mr. Anand Vinay Marneni(PW21),

Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P70 Savings

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 30 of 185

Account Opening Form, statement of account along with certificate relating to Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal pertains to

Account No.732010098872 in ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch,

Hyderabad. PW21 further deposed that as per Ex.P70, the account was opened on 19.04.2012 and the balance as on 26.04.2012 was

Rs.10,000/- and as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,661.08 ps. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 11.06.2012 an amount of Rs.6,15,310/- was credited through RTGS from account of

Mr.Y. Varaprasad. PW21 further deposed that on 13.06.2012 an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was debited by NEFT to Mr.J.Srinivas Reddy.

PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 26.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was debited to Mr.Hanumanth

Rao through clearing cheque bearing No.633880. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 24.07.2012 an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- was debited to Magma Fincorp through clearing cheque bearing No.633886. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 05.01.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 26.02.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was debited to Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque bearing No.633889. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 23.04.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 24.04.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was debited to Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque bearing No.633890. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 04.07.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further stated that as per the statement of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 31 of 185 account on 10.07.2013 an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was debited to Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque

No.633891.PW21 also stated that as per the statement of account on 11.09.2013 an amount of Rs.4 Lakh was credited by transfer from account No.734010058346 from ING Vysya Bank, Miryalguda branch. PW21 also stated that as per the statement of account on 12.09.2013 an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was debited to Obbareddy

Ramesh Reddy.

40.During Cross examination PW 21 categorically stated that as per statement of account, on 14.06.2012 an amount of

Rs.41,000/- was credited from Mr.Lingala Nagabhushanam by NEFT, on 14.06.2012 an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- was credited by

Smt.Lingala Laxamma by NEFT, on 14.06.2012 an amount of

Rs.1,99,000/- was credited by Mr.Lingala Laxman Das by NEFT, on 15.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was credited from Lingala

Nagabhushanam from Miryalguda Branch and on 16.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was credited by Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma from

Miryalguda Branch.

41.As per the evidence of Mrs.P.Sulochana (PW22), Ex.P27 sale deed dated 02.11.2006 shown to her was executed by her in favour of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,29,000/- as her husband and the husband of Smt.Vijaya Rani had made the sale negotiations relating to Ex.P27 and the sale consideration was paid by cash.

42.During Cross examination PW22 categorically admitted that she do not remember whether Ex.P27 was shown to her during examination by CBI officer and she do not know that who is

V.Sulochana W/o. V.Narasimha Reddy and she do not know how her

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 32 of 185 name is described in Ex.P27 sale deed and she do not know English and do not know that Smt.Vijaya Rani her self made negotiations and purchased the property by paying the sale consideration.

43.As per the evidence of Mr.Licky Krishna Reddy(PW23) running a Kirana and General Store in the name of Krishan Reddy

Kirana and General Store, Badangpet, near old Gram Panchayat, in the year 2000 he did real estate business and he knows Dr.Venu

Gopal (A1), as he purchased a house plot from him and he executed a sale deed in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) wife of Dr.Venu

Gopal (A1). PW23 further deposed that Ex.P9 is the true copy of sale deed executed by him in the year 2000 in favour of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.75,000/- and the market value was shown in the sale deed as

Rs.27,000/- as per Government value. PW23 further deposed that he received cash of Rs.75,000/- towards sale consideration and the land originally belong to Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu and he executed a sale deed as GPA holder for Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu.

44.During Cross examination PW23 categorically stated that at the time of sale of property in favour Smt.Vijaya Rani, her husband Dr.Venu Gopal came along with her and made negotiations and he did not show any document to CBI for receiving Rs.75,000/- and that in sale deed there is no mention about payment of

Rs.75,000/-.

45.As per the evidence of Mr.P.V.N.Manyalu (PW24), the then Deputy General Manager (Finance), Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad who previously worked as Senior Manager (Finance), Central Pay Roll Division, BDL, Hyderabad, Central Pay

Roll Division will take care of salary disbursement pertaining to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 33 of 185 employees of BDL. PW24 further deposed that Mr.S.Narayanan,

Additional General Manager (P & A) forwarded the salary particulars

of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1), the then Chief Medical Officer, BDL,

Hyderabad for the period from 1997 to 2001 and 2002 to September 2013 compiled by Pay Roll Department and signed by him. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P71 is pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from June 1997 to December 2001. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P72 is pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from January 2002 to September 2013. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P73 is employee ledger in respect of Car advance, computer advance and special advance availed by Dr.Venu Gopal(A1). PW24 further deposed that Ex.P74 is copies of Form No.16 of Dr.Venu

Gopal(A1) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. PW24 further deposed that as per Ex.P71, the gross salary for the period from June 1997 to December 2001 is

Rs.8,02,518/- and net salary is Rs.7,43,335/-. PW24 further deposed that as per Ex.P72, the gross salary for the period from January 2002 to September 2013 is Rs.92,57,686/- and net salary is

Rs.33,26,055/-. PW24 further deposed that the advances were included in the gross salary amount and the details relating to all deductions were shown in the above salary statements.

46.During Cross examination PW24 categorically admitted that he do not know about check period in the case and he has no personal knowledge about the happenings prior to his date of joining in Pay Roll Division in July 2013. PW24 further admitted that on the above documents he did not mention that all precautions were taken for preparing the statements. PW24 further stated that

Computerized salary statements are being raised since 1996 to his

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 34 of 185 knowledge. PW24 categorically denied the suggestion that the note in Ex.P71 that “As the copies of payslips are not available the above statement is prepared based on the information in the appointment letter, applicable DA rates and pay fixation statements.” is not correct and further added that earlier pay particulars were prepared by several divisions and therefore, they are not available at Central

Pay Roll Division and hard copies were also not available. PW24 categorically admitted that in Ex.P71 he did not mention that he contacted other divisions and could not get details and that some payments will be made through supplementary bills prepared month wise and the Supplementary bills will be prepared for payment of allowances relating to conveyance, medical, canteen, telephone, news paper etc. and Ex.P71 does not contain information about supplementary bills relating to above allowances and that in Ex.P72 there is no declaration that all supplementary bills were taken into consideration and that the total amount of above allowances paid per month may be around Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- to an employee.

47.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that to his knowledge performance linked incentive was there from 1997 till the year 2006 and from 2007 onwards they were having performance related pay which is also an incentive and further admitted that in Ex.P71 there is no information about performance linked incentive. PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that the employees used to give declaration till the year 2007 about conveyance allowances, medical expenses, canteen expenses that they have spent the amount and from August 2009 employees need not give declaration.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 35 of 185

48.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that all the employees will be receiving uniform cloth, stitching allowance, washing allowance, annual school fee reimbursement for two children to certain limit, annual gifts some times in electronic gadgets/gift cards for exchange to purchase grocery items.

49.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that CBI officer did not ask him about the details relating to above allowances, perks and concessions given to their employees and that in his statement given to CBI I stated that the gross salary is

Rs.97,20,216/-.

50.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that

Ex.P71 and Ex.P72 do not contain full details of above allowances, perks and concessions given to Dr.Venu Gopal and that he was informed that CBI asked salary particulars in connection with assets case and he furnished salary particulars only as in normal course and he cannot say the total emoluments paid including the above allowances, perks and concessions covering the period from June 1997 to September 2013.

51.As per the evidence of Mr.Dr.L.V.S.N.Murthy (PW25), the then Deputy Manager (P & A) in Bharath Dynamics Limited,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI, Hyderabad the then Manager Mr.S.Narayanan provided Annual Property Returns for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical

Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules. PW25 further deposed that Ex.P75 is Annual Property Returns (APRs) for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical Officer,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 36 of 185

Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules. PW25 further deposed that as per Ex.P75/15 which relates to APR for the year 2008, there is no mention about Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 sale deeds executed in March 2007. PW25 further deposed that as per Ex.P75/6 relates to APR for the year 2004, there is no mention about sale of any immovable property.

52.During Cross examination PW25 categorically admitted that there will not be any correspondence with the employee by the company with regard to entries mentioned in APRs submitted by the employee and the company will receive the APRs submitted by the employee and file them in records. PW25 further admitted in the

Cross-Examination that he was not dealing with the work of APRs during the period covered by Ex.P75/15 and Ex.P75/6 and the source of income for acquiring a property mentioned in APR will not be mentioned in APR and he did not state any specific rule relating to

APRs during my examination by CBI. PW25 further admitted in the

Cross-Examination that he do not know when the properties covered by Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 were sold and that he was not asked about

Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 during my examination by CBI.

53.As per the evidence of Mr.G.V.Brahmaiah(PW26), the then Senior Manager, BDL, Hyderabad, their department deals with provident fund matters relating to employees of Bharath Dynamics

Limited, Hyderabad. PW26 further deposed that Dr.A.Venu Gopal was working as Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited,

Hyderabad and on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished information relating to loans availed by Dr.Venu Gopal (A1)

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 37 of 185 from provident fund and as per their records, Dr.A.Venu Gopal availed non-refundable loan of Rs.17,72,700/- during the period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 from the provident fund account and he also availed refundable loan of Rs.2,32,800/- during above period and it was repaid fully through his salary. During Cross examination

PW26 categorically admitted that the Loan will be sanctioned after verifying the purpose of seeking loan mentioned in the loan application.

54.As per the evidence of Mr. J. Satya Chandra Sekhara

Murthy(PW27), the then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Abids Circle

Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he furnished original and certified copies of certain documents relating to housing loan availed by Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal from UCO Bank,

Abids Circle Branch in the year 2008. PW27 further deposed that

Ex.P76 is loan application, dated 15.11.2008 of Dr. Abbagoni

Venugopal (A1) and Ex.P77 is loan sanction letter, dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.28 lakhs.PW27 further deposed that Ex.P78 is certified copy of statement of the loan account bearing No.14410610006368 for the period from 17.11.2008 to 05.10.2013. PW27 further deposed that as per above documents, Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) was the co-applicant for the loan and the loan was sanctioned for take over loan from

United Bank of India in respect of house bearing No.3-118/1 on plot

No.186/A and 186/B in Sy.No.95, 94, 97 located at Bheemireddy

Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal.PW27 further deposed that the as per statement of account an amount of Rs.16,77,100/- loan was repaid as on 13.09.2013 by way of monthly installments recovered from salary of Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal. The learned

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 38 of 185 counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

55.As per the evidence of Mr. P. Vinod Babu(PW28), the then Branch Manager,LIC of India, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he furnished information and documents relating to Policy Nos.644255264, 644214155, 644237436 in the name of Dr. A. Venugopal. PW28 further deposed that Ex.P79 is status report of policy No.644255264., Ex.P80 is status report of policy No.644214155., Ex.P81 is status report of policy

No.644237436. PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P79, the policy was commenced on 11.02.2002 for the sum assured Rs.5 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.2,400/- and the total premium amount paid was Rs.3,33,600/- and the policy holders availed a loan of

Rs.37,500/- on 28.07.2005 and repaid entire loan amount with interest of Rs.24,392/- as on 06.04.2011. PW28 further deposed that again the Accused No.1 availed a loan of Rs.1,71,000/- on 06.04.2011 and same is outstanding and said loan amount was paid after deducting the earlier loan amount of Rs.61,892/- and the balance amount was paid by way of cheque issued in favour of Dr. A.

Venugopal.PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P80, the policy stands in the name of Mr. A. Venugopal commenced on 28.08.1997 was the sum assured Rs.3 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.1,366/- and the total premium amount paid was Rs.2,78,864/- and the policy holder availed loan of Rs.87,250/- on 28.07.2005 and repaid entire loan amount on 06.04.2011 with interest of Rs.56,751/- PW28 further deposed that again A1 availed loan on 06.04.2011 for Rs.2,20,000/- and the above outstanding loan amount was deducted from the loan and balance of Rs.74,633/- was paid by way of cheque issued in

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 39 of 185 favour of Mr. A.Venugopal.PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P81, the policy stands in the name of Mr. A. Venugopal commenced on 28.11.2002 was the sum assured Rs.5 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.3,321/- and the total premium amount as was paid

Rs.4,42,000/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy holder availed a loan of Rs.2,42,000/- on 27.04.2011 and the premium amount of

Rs.3,321/- was deducted from the loan amount and balance amount of Rs.2,38,679/- was paid by way of cheque in favour of Dr. A.

Venugopal. PW28 further deposed that as per above documents the policies covered by Ex.P79 to Ex.P81 were taken under ordinary mode initially and premium amount was paid directly and later on 16.05.2009, the policy covered by Ex.P79 was converted into salary savings scheme and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is Rs.1,43,361/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy covered by Ex.P80 was converted into salary savings scheme on 19.11.2007 and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is

Rs.48,077/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy covered by Ex.P81 was converted into salary savings scheme in November, 2007 and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is Rs.1,86,614/-.

56.During the Cross examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No.1 PW28 categorically admitted that from the commencement of the policy bearing No. 644237436 they have received 6 quarterly payments @ Rs.9,962/- totaling to Rs.59,772/- upto April,2004 in ordinary mode i.e., the premium amount paid by the policy holder personally by way of cash or cheque and after

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 40 of 185

April,2004 onwards they received premiums through salary deductions of the policy holder from his employer. PW28 further admitted in the Cross- Examination that the loans will be sanctioned to the policy holder on the basis of number of premiums received to total receivable premiums plus bonus accrued and while disbursing the subsequent loan to the policy holder, they will deduct the

principal and interest as on the date in respect of outstanding loan.

PW28 further admitted in the Cross- Examination that as per Ex.P81 status report the policy holder has not paid any interest on loan outstanding.

57.As per the evidence of Mr. Vijaya Kumar

Gangaraj(PW29), the then Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (2),

Hyderabad, on request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P82 bunch of Income Tax Returns of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani (A2) pertaining to PAN No.AFNPL6851 N for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010- 11.PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051027 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged as it was filed beyond the time limit. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051028 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged as it was filed beyond the time limit.

PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051029 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 41 of 185 as it was filed beyond the time limit.PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the income tax return was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051030 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.3,610/-. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 the income tax return was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051031 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.1,930/-. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 the income tax return was filed on 19.11.2010 vide acknowledgment No.1120007616 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.5,740/-. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

58.As per the evidence of K.Vijaya Rani (PW30) residing at 3-117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad since

July 2007 as tenant, her landlord is Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) w/o.

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and she paid monthly rent @ Rs.1,000/- from

July 2007 to January 2012, subsequently, paid monthly rent @

Rs.1,500/- from February 2012 to 2015 and she paid the rent to A2 by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

59.As per the evidence of S.Chitra (PW31) residing at 3- 117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad since

August 2009 as tenant, her landlord is Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) w/o.

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and she paid monthly rent @ Rs.3,000/- from

August 2009 to 2011 and subsequently, paid monthly rent @

Rs.3,500/- from 2012 for three years and she paid the rent to A2 by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 42 of 185

60.As per the evidence of Mr.G.Bhaskar Prasad(PW32),

Deputy General Manager, Bharat Dynamics Limited, since May 2012 and also holding the post of Secretary, Bharat Dynamics Employees

Co-Operative Credit Society, since December, 2013, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished certain information about the loans availed by Dr.A.Venugopal, Chief Medical Officer, Bharath

Dynamics Limited from their society during the period from 31.12.2002 to 31.03.2013. PW32 further deposed that as per the records of Society, Dr.A.Venugopal has availed total loan amount of

Rs.5,67,000/- during the above period and repaid an amount of

Rs.4,72,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.67,116/- towards interest and out of the said amount repaid, an amount of

Rs.1,65,200/- was recovered from salary and an amount of

Rs.3,06,800/- was paid directly by way of cash and cheques and outstanding loan amount as on 31.03.2013 is Rs.95,000/-. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

61.As per the evidence of B.Venkatapparao (PW33), the then Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ashoknagar, Nagarjuna

Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, While he was working in

ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ashoknagar, Nagarjuna Sagar Road,

Miryalguda, Nalgonda District on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he furnished certain documents relating to SB

A/c.No.734010058346 standing in the name of Lingala

Nagabhushanam and SB A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma. PW33 further deposed that Ex.P83 is certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2013 relating to SB A/c.No.734010058346

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 43 of 185 standing in the name of Lingala Nagabhushanam . PW33 further deposed that Ex.P84 is certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2013 relating to SB

A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma.

PW33 further deposed that as per Ex.P83, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to the account bearing No.732010098872 at Uppal on 15.06.2012 and Rs.4 lakhs on 11.09.2013 to the said account.

PW33 further deposed that as per Ex.P84, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to the account bearing No.732010098872 in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani at Uppal Branch on 16.06.2012. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

62.As per the evidence of Mr.L.Laxman Dass (PW34) doing cultivation at Miryalaguda, Nalagonda District, on 14.06.2012, on request of his sister Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, he transferred an amount of

Rs.1,99,000/- from his account in Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda

Branch, Nalagonda District to his sister’s account in ING Vysya

Bank, Boduppal, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

63.As per the evidence of Smt.L.Laxamamma(PW35),

Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2) is her daughter and she is having savings bank accounts in ING Vysya Bank, Miryalaguda branch and Syndicate

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and in the year 2010/2011 she took gold loan of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda

Branch and also availed another gold loan for Rs.5 lakhs in 2012/2013 from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch. PW35 further deposed that she also availed agricultural loan from Syndicate Bank,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 44 of 185

Miryalaguda Branch and out of the above loan amount she has given an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2).

PW35 further deposed during re- Examination that she has paid the above amounts stated by her to her daughter ie.,A2 by way of cash only and she has shown all the amounts in her Income Tax Returns.

64.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW35 categorically admitted that she has presented 100 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.5 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya

Rani(A2) at the time of marriage towards pasupu kumkuma and she also presented a motor cycle, household goods and electronic goods worth of Rs.3 lakhs to her at the time of marriage and at the time of marriage she promised her to give a house accordingly she has given a house worth of Rs.20 lakhs at Boduppal to her for construction. PW35 further admitted that her daughter Smt.Vijaya

Rani(A2) is having 3 children and at the time of birth of each child she has presented Rs.1 lakh cash and 5 tulas of gold to each child and she gave Rs.15 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2) when she constructed first floor on the house given to her .

65.PW35 further admitted that she has spent Rs.4 lakh at the time of celebrating dhoti function of her grand children and she presented an amount of Rs.50,000/- each and 5 tulas of gold to her grandsons at the time of dhoti function. PW35 further admitted that she used to present RS.10,000/- each to her daughter and son-in-law and Rs.5,000/- each to her grand children for diwali festival every year and she used to present Rs.10,000/- to her daughter and

Rs.5,000/- to her grand children at the time of rakhi festival and she used to send groceries to her daughter every year which were

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 45 of 185 received from their land and she was helping her daughter as and when she was in need of money.

66.As per the evidence of Prakash Chand Jain (PW36) a partner in Sanjay Electronics, 5-1-720, Kushal Chambers Complex,

Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P85 copy of invoice dated 14-03-2013 issued in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.55,500/- for purchase of Samsung Refrigerator which containing his signature The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

67.As per the evidence of Mr. G. Vijay Kumar (PW37),

Principal, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, on the

request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished fee particulars of Miss.

Abbagoni Vaidarsh D/o. Mr. A. Venugopal who studied Intermediate in their college during the period 2011-2013 with Admission

No.112536087 and as per their records a total amount of Rs.59,605/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Five only) was paid towards admission fee, tuition fee, material fee and exam fee etc., for the above period for the above student. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

68.As per the evidence of Smt.P.Lakshmi (PW38) Principal,

College of Law for Woman, Andhra Mahila Saba, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police and after perusing the office records she furnished information that Smt.L.Vijaya Rani D/o. L.Nagabhushanam studied in their college during the academic year 2009-12 with role

No.172109831050 and during that period she paid an amount of

Rs.35,500/- as fee, out of the said fee an amount of Rs.26,400/- was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 46 of 185 tuition fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

69.As per the evidence of Ch.Ashok Kumar (PW39),

Accounts Clerk, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, he could identify the signature of Mrs.Ramandeep Kaur Samra, the then Principal of Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad as he worked along with her. PW39 further deposed that the letter

dated 18-12-2013 contains the signature of Mrs.Ramandeep Kaur

Samra and on the request of CBI police and after verification of their office records, they furnished information that Master A.Vaidik Goud,

Master A.Vaidesh Goud were admitted in their school vide Admission

No.5622/2004 (2004-05) and No.6662/2008 (2008-09) respectively.

PW39 further deposed that an amount of Rs.3,86,890/- was paid towards fee in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and out of which an amount of Rs.3,52,840/- paid towards tuition fee for the said period and an amount of Rs.2,85,600/- was paid towards fee in respect of

Master A.Vaidesh Goud and out of which an amount of Rs.2,41,360/- paid towards tuition fee. PW39 further deposed that their Admission

Clerk Mrs.Uma Maheshwari prepared the chart in respect of the fee particulars of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud which was submitted to the CBI police along with the letter dated 18- 12-2013.

70.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW39 categorically admitted that the school fee includes the amount spent for snacks at 11:00 am and 03:00 pm and for lunch at 12:40 pm provided to the students and he cannot say the exact amount spent by the school for providing snacks and lunch

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 47 of 185 to each student and the school will provide full fledged lunch in all working days serving non vegetarian lunch once in a week. PW39 during Cross-Examination categorically stated that he cannot say whether the school is spending Rs.100/- per day for each student for providing snacks and lunch.

71.As per the evidence of Mr.K.V.V.S.N. Rangacharyulu (PW40), the then Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Habsiguda, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, he has furnished demand and collection charges in respect of service No.1603-5099, 1603-3803, 1603-6405, 1603-4735, 1603-5098, 1603-1344, 1603-2009 and the service number 1603-2009 was standing in the name of Mr.

A.Venugopal (A1) and the total amount of Rs.2,61,425/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till

September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-1344 was standing in the name of Mr. A.Venugopal (A1) and the total amount of Rs.72,275/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-5098 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.22,839/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-4735 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.45,722/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and the service number 1603-6405 was standing in the name of

Ch.Hanumantha Rao. PW40 further deposed that the total amount of

Rs.19,798/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and the service number 1603-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 48 of 185 3803 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.26,308/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-5099 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.22,771/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and he has furnished the above details after verification of official records to the CBI police under a covering letter. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

72.As per the evidence of Sister.Lucy(PW41),Head Mistress,

St.Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, she knows Sister Sally

Joseph, the then Head Mistress of St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka,

Secunderabad worked from June 2011 to May 2015 and she could identify the signature of Sister Sally Joseph and the letter dated 7.2.2014 in the letter head of St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, shown to her contains the signature of Sister Sally Joseph. PW41 further deposed that as per the said letter A. Vaidarshi D/o A.Venugopal having Admission No.8030/9338 studied in their school during the year 2001 to 2011 and an amount of Rs.74,410/- was paid as fee in respect of A.Vaidarshi for the said period. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

73.As per the evidence of Mr.K. Bhanumurthy (PW42), the then Manager, Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad, on request of

CBI police, Hyderabad he had furnished the membership particulars and statement of account particulars of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1). PW42 further deposed that initially, Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) joined in Country

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 49 of 185

Club as Silver Privilege member on payment of Rs.25,000/- towards membership fee and after completion of 5 years the membership of

Dr. A.Venugopal was converted into Master Life Member.PW42 further deposed that he had handed over Ex.P86 application form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for silver privilege member dated 6.1.2002 in Country Club, Hyderabad and Ex.P87 true extract of the statement of account of Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.2007.PW42 further deposed that Ex.P88 is the application form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for Master Life

Membership in Country Club, Hyderabad dated 18.4.2007.

74.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW42 categorically admitted that the membership fee of Rs.25,000/- paid by Dr.A.Venugopal is a refundable amount after expiry of five years from the date of membership and that he cannot say whether Dr.A.Venugopal visited the Country Club at any point of time.

75.As per the evidence of Mr K.J.Vijaya Krishna (PW43),

Deputy Commissioner, GHMC Circle-IV, L.B.Nagar, he knows

Mr.Srinivas Reddy the then Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Circle-IV,

L.B.Nagar and he could identify his signature as they worked together.PW43 further deposed that the letter shown to him during evidence along with Annexure contain the signature of Mr.Srinivas

Reddy and as per the said letter, they have furnished the tax payment details of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet stands in the name of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal. PW43 further deposed that as per Annexure to the letter Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani paid tax of Rs.6,930/- from 01-09-2005 to 29-03-2010 and Ex.P89 is

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 50 of 185 the Annexure showing the assessment details and house tax payment details of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) from 01-09-2005 to 29-03- 2010 in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet.

76.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW43 categorically admitted that as per Ex.P89, the house tax was paid by Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 01-09- 2005 to 29-03-2010.

77.As per the evidence of Mr. Hakim Noor Mahamood (PW44), the then Legal Manager, M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited,

Begumpet, Hyderabad, the letter along with Annexure shown to him during his evidence contained the signature of Mr.T.Ratnakar, who worked as Officer in M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad and he could identify his signatures as they worked together. PW44 further deposed that as per the Annexure to letter

dated 22-01-2014, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) availed car loan for an

amount of Rs.3,35,000/- on 11-12-2007 for purchase of Tata Indica

DLG Turbo car and the said amount was paid by the company i.e.,

M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet to the dealer and as per the Annexure Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) repaid the entire loan amount along with interest amounting to Rs.3,92,935/- on 17-01- 2009 and the loan account was terminated.PW44 further deposed that Ex.P90 is the true extract of the statement of account of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) in respect of the car loan availed from

M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 51 of 185

78.As per the evidence of M.Ravinder Reddy (PW45),

Panchayath Secretary, Dadapur Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad

District, who previously worked as Bill Collector, Boduppal Gram

Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District from September 2013 to

July 2016, the letter dated 12-02-2014 shown to him during evidence was issued by him in respect of house tax payment details, water charges and permission fees payment details in respect of

H.No.3-118/1 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal, H.No.3- 117/22 standing in the name of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani and H.No.3- 117/24 standing in the name of Mrs.V.Sulochana.PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3- 118/1 from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014 is Rs.14,340/- by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1).PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3-117/22 from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 is

Rs.15,559/- by Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3-117/24 from 2005- 2006 to 2013-2014 is Rs.3,410/- by Mrs.V.Sulochana. PW45 further deposed that on the request of CBI police, the Executive Officer,

Boduppal Gram Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, furnished Ex.91 attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani and Ex.P92 attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of

Mrs.V.Sulochana vide letter dated 07-01-2014.

79.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW45 categorically admitted that unless the mutation is done, the ownership particulars in respect of the property will not be changed on the name of purchaser and the tax will be collected

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 52 of 185 on the name of the owner on record till the mutation is effected on the name of the purchaser of the property.

80.As per the evidence of Mr.A.Mendelson Navaraj (PW46), the then Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Hyderabad branch, on the request of CBI police, he furnished the details of statement of account in respect of United housing loan jointly availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.8 Lakhs from their branch and the same was disbursed to the Accused No.1 and 2.

PW46 further deposed that as per the records, Dr.A.Venu Gopal and

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani have repaid the total housing loan amounting to

Rs.11,66,215/- including interest and pre-closure charges, out of which Rs.8 lakhs principal amount and Rs.3,66,215/- interest and pre-closure charges. PW46 further deposed that Ex.P93 is the true extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 24-09- 2003 to 31-03-2009 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of

Evidence Act.

81.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW46 categorically admitted that the EMI cleared through salary deduction of Accused No.1 in respect of housing loan includes the principal and interest.

82.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Satyanarayana (PW47), the then Telephone Revenue Inspector, office of Chief Accounts Officer,

Musheerabad Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, he had submitted a letter signed by their

Accounts Officer Sri G.Kameshwar Rao, furnishing the telephone charges paid by the subscriber namely Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 53 of 185 of telephone No.040-27205672 for the period from 12-07-2001 to 13-09-2013. PW47 further deposed that as per Ex.P94 the statement of account furnished by them Dr.A.Venu Gopal paid an amount of

Rs.1,60,822/- towards monthly bills in respect of telephone No.040- 27205672 for the period from 12-07-2001 to 13-09-2013 along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

83.As per the evidence of Mr.P.Bhupati Sarvesh Babulu (PW48), the then Assistant Manager, Legal, M/s.Magma Fincorp

Limited, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, he had submitted a letter dated 15-10-2013 along with Ex.P95 true extract of statement of account in respect of the car loan availed by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal for purchase of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle. PW48 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu Gopal availed car loan for an amount of Rs.4,93,000/- on 14-08-2010 for purchase of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle and the same was disbursed. PW48 further deposed that as per the statement

Dr.A.Venu Gopal repaid the entire loan amount with interest amounting to of Rs.6,69,600/- in 60 equal monthly installments @

Rs.11,160/-.

84.During the Cross examination by the learned counsel for the Accused PW48 categorically stated that by verifying Ex.P95 he can not say the interest on car loan paid by the Accused No.1.

85.As per the evidence of Mr. Avinash Shinde (PW49),

Officer, ICICI Bank, Madapur Branch, Hyderabad from 2012 to 2017, on the request of CBI police, he had furnished the statement of account in respect of the housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from their bank for the period from 14-02-2003 to 24-08-2012. PW49

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 54 of 185 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu

Gopal availed housing loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from their branch on 14- 02-2003 and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani is the Co-Applicant of the loan and the said loan amount was pre-closed on 24-08-2012 by paying entire outstanding amount. PW49 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu Gopal repaid an amount of

Rs.10,56,075.70 ps., which includes principal, interest and pre- closure charges and the principal amount is Rs.5 Lakhs and

Rs.5,56,075.70 ps. is interest and pre-closure charges and Ex.P96 is true extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14-02-2003 to 24-08-2012. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

86.As per the evidence of Mr.J.Srinivas Reddy(PW50) doing

Tandur Stones business, he knows Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as his family friend and he had been working as Doctor in Bharath

Dynamics Limited. PW50 further deposed that in the year 2012,

Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) requested for hand loan of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of construction of house and on the request he advanced a hand loan of Rs.5 lakhs to Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) by way of cheque and Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) en-cashed the said cheque.PW50 further deposed that subsequently, Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) took an amount of

Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.65,000/- on another occasion for the purpose of construction of the house and after two years of availing the loan Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the loan amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- by way of cheque pertaining to the account of

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) with Andhra Bank, L.B.Nagar Branch. PW50 further deposed that as per Ex.P70/7 statement of account of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 55 of 185

Accused No.2 shown to him the cheque issued in his favour bearing

No.633879 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- was cleared and also the cheque issued in his favour bearing No.633884 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was cleared. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

87.As per the evidence of Mr.V.Venkata Ramana (PW51) the then Branch Manager, SBI, Karvan, in the year 2014, on the request of CBI police, he had furnished the attested copies of housing loan documents pertaining to Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1), who availed housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from their bank and the loan amount was disbursed to A1. PW51 further deposed that Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) has repaid an amount of Rs.6,50,606/- which includes the

principal, interest and pre-closure charges in respect of housing loan

pre-maturely on 07-02-2004. During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the Accused No. 1 PW51 categorically admitted that Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the housing loan amount by issuing cheque drawn on United Bank of India and he cannot say whether this housing loan was taken over by United Bank of India or not.

88.As per the evidence of Mr. A.Yadagiri (PW52), the then

Accounts Officer (Billing), Cellone, BSNL office of DGM, Telephone

Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, on the request of their Sub Divisional

Engineer, he had furnished the payment details of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21-08-2008 to 18-06-2014 to the CBI police. PW52 further deposed that Ex.P97 is the true extract of the payment details in respect of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 56 of 185 name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21-08-2008 to 18- 06-2014 along with certificate under section 65-B (4) (c) of Indian

Evidence Act and as per Ex.P97, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) paid an amount of Rs.53,910/- as of 21-08-2013 towards monthly usage charges in respect of mobile number 9490797612.

89.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW52 categorically admitted that he cannot say as to who paid the monthly bills as shown in Ex.P97 and he has stated to the CBI police that as per office records the said mobile number 9490797612 stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1), CMO, BDL,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad and that on official mobiles issued by the employer the designation of the officer is mentioned in the records and the mobile bearing No. 9490797612 was supplied to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) by his employer.

90.As per the evidence of Mr.N.Narsinga Rao (PW53),

Senior Master Technician (CMT-II), BDL, Kanchanbagh, he joined in

BDL in the year 1983 as Junior Electrician and he knows Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) who is their Medical Officer. PW53 further deposed that In the year 2012, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) availed a hand loan of Rs.1

Lakh from him and he paid the said amount by way of cash and after few months, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the hand loan amount of

Rs.1 Lakh to him by way of cheque pertaining the account of his wife i.e., Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW53 further deposed that as per

Ex.P70/7 statement of account of Accused No.2 shown to him contains the details of the cheque issued in his favour bearing

No.633881 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.1

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 57 of 185

Lakh was cleared. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

91.As per the evidence of Mr. M.Sitarama Rao (PW54), the then Executive Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad from 2012 to 2014, on the instructions of his superiors and on request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he along with Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao, the then

Assistant Engineer (QA) valued three properties i.e., residential buildings bearing Nos.H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey

Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District,

Hyderabad, H.No.3-117/22, Plot No.187/Part in Sur4vey Nos.94 and 95, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II, Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar

Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and submitted the report on 24-02-2015. PW54 further deposed that they have applied the standard principles of valuation approved by Government of India while valuing the above properties and Ex.P98 is the valuation report

dated 24-02-2015 submitted by them which contains his signatures

and the signatures of Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao . PW54 further deposed that as per Ex.P98, the value of H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony,

Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad is Rs.87,71,975/-, the value of

H.No.3-117/22, Plot No.187/Part in Sur4vey Nos.94 and 95, Bheem

Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad is

Rs.21,53,917/- and the value of House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in

Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II,

Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District,

Hyderabad is Rs.7,13,169/- and the Flat No.G1, Sri Rama

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 58 of 185

Residency, Maruthi Nagar, Sultanvala Village, Saroornagar, Revenue

Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad was not valued by them even though referred by CBI as they could not inspect the said property.

92.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW54 categorically admitted that he has not seen the letters addressed by CBI police to their office for valuation of the above said properties referred in his chief examination and that he has submitted modified valuation report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he did not prepare any working sheet showing measurement of each component of sub work except other than what is annexed to Ex.P98 report and that an enclosure to

Ex.P98 report does not contain the date on which it was prepared and also the signatures not affixed on each page.

93.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that they have inspected the properties on 12-06-2014 and he has not put the date under his signature in Ex.P98 report and

Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao put the date under his signature in

Ex.P98 report as 10-02-2015 including last page of annexure. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has mentioned in

Ex.P98 report that the accused No.1 was present at the time of inspection of the properties, but he has not obtained the signatures of accused No.1 on Ex.P98 report and on its annexures. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that at column 2.4 of

Ex.P98 report, they have mentioned that the party submitted bills and vouchers pertaining to the properties and at column 3.A.3 of

Ex.P98 report it is mentioned that declared value is not available, at column 4.A.5 of Ex.P98 report it is mentioned that ground floor was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 59 of 185 purchased in the year 2000 and remaining three floors were constructed subsequently between 2009 to 2012. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has not enclosed the cost index rates which they have adopted to Ex.P98 report.

94.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he do not know whether there were any improvements to the buildings during period from 13-09-2013 to 12-06-2014and that he did not mention the factual details relating to number of rooms constructed in each floor of the building bearing H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony,

Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and that they have considered the total plinth area for all the first, second and third floor of the building without giving any breakup and they have not prepared any drawing of the building.

95.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that without physically verifying the foundation, on notional basis deduction was allowed and that the plinth area rates contained two different rates and he do not remember whether the plinth area rates followed by us contained Rs.9,000/- and Rs.8,500/- per Square meter and they worked out the plinth area rates as Rs.9,000/- per square meter which they felt appropriate.

96.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that after arriving at basic building cost by taking the rate as Rs.9,000/- per square meter, the cost in respect of the items shown at Sl.No.2, 3 and 4 of Annexure-A to Ex.P98 report were worked out on percentage basis i.e, 12%, 5% and 12.5% respectively. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he do not know whether the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 60 of 185 actual expenditure incurred by the accused No.1 is less than what is shown in Annexure-A for the items at Sl.No.2, 3 and 4 of Ex.P98 report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the cost of construction varies from place to place, from time to time and increases as time passes and that the cost of construction material varies from shop to shop depending on quality and quantity of the material purchased and the material cost is also depends on the fact whether the cash is paid or taken on credit. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the rates they have adopted is inclusive of labour charges and that the labour charges are equal to men and women as per the Government wages.

97.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that they did not conduct any quality test of the buildings and that

Government rates are fixed considering high quality of work.

98.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that

Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao assisted him in valuation of the properties mentioned in Ex.P98 report and the total value of H.No.3- 118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem

Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad mentioned in Ex.P98 report is inclusive of ground floor and he has not taken the cost of ground floor mentioned in the sale deed and worked out the cost of construction separately.

99.PW54 categorically denied in the cross- examination that he has shown more value of the buildings showing exorbitant rates without considering the actual expenditure incurred, which construction cost of first, second and third floor comes only to the extent of about Rs.56 Lakhs and that he has given unrealistic report

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 61 of 185 vide Ex.P98 and that he has adopted exorbitant rates and taken the value of construction of House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II, Hattiguda Village,

Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad as

Rs.7,13,169/- which is actual Rs.2,52,000/- as per the books of accounts maintained by the accused.

100.PW54 categorically denied in the cross- examination that he has adopted the higher rates of the Central Government in valuation of the properties to the private constructions in a village and that we have increased the cost of construction in Ex.P98 report.

PW54 categorically denied in the further cross- examination that at the time of inspection of the building, the Accused shown the books of account maintained by them for construction of the building mentioned in Ex.P98 report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the entire area covered under description 4A of

Ex.P98 report was not covered with granite flooring and that he did not compare the buildings constructed by the accused with the description of residential accommodation shown in the CPWD manual for applying the plinth area rates.

101.As per the evidence of Mr.M.Hanumantha Rao (PW55), the then Senior Office Superintendent, BDL, Milan Division,

Hyderabad, he knows Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) working as medical officer in BDL and during course of his employment, he used to visit

A1 for medical checkup. PW55 further deposed that during the year 2012, he got PF loan of Rs.5 Lakhs and during the said period

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) requested for a hand loan of Rs.4 to 5 Lakhs and considering his request he advanced an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 62 of 185

A1 by way of self cheque drawn on Andhra Bank, BDL Extension

Branch in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and he en-cashed the said cheque. PW55 further deposed that after two to three months of availing loan, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid his loan amount by issuing the bearer cheque in his name pertaining to the account of

A2 and he has deposited the said cheque in his bank account with

Andhra Bank, BDL Extension Branch and en-cashed the said cheque.

PW55 further deposed that he do not remember the name of the bank of which the cheque of accused No.2 handed over to him for repayment of loan amount and the amount received by en-cashing the cheque issued from the account of Accused No.2 issued by

Accused No.1 is reflected in his statement of account. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

102.As per the evidence of Mr.B.Sairam Reddy (PW56), the then Motor Vehicles Inspector, RTA Uppal, R.R. District, as per instructions of RTA, Uppal, on 13-03-2015, he inspected two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suziki Access two wheeler and submitted his report regarding the maintenance and fuel consumption of the above said vehicles basing on Kilometer run of the said vehicles. PW56 further deposed that as on the date of his inspection, the kilometer reading of

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI is 75,232 kms and the reading of Suziki

Access two wheeler is 3990 kms and the total cost for maintaining two vehicles along with its fuel consumption has been arrived at

Rs.2,88,633/-and he had submitted a detail report to RTA, Uppal,

R.R.District who in turn forwarded the same to CBI officials under the cover of letter dated 13-03-2015. PW56 further deposed that Ex.P99

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 63 of 185 is the inspection report dated 13-03-2015 submitted by him in respect of inspection of two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suzuki Access two wheeler regarding the expenditure of maintenance and fuel consumption of the said two vehicles.

103. During the cross-examination PW56 categorically admitted that he mentioned in Ex.P99 report that the information regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of the vehicles is technically worked out and under Motor Vehicles Act, the motor vehicles inspector is authorized to inspect all the vehicles of Central

Government, State Government and all such enquires regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of motor vehicles and they will give such reports. PW56 further stated in the cross- examination that he has not mentioned the above fact in Ex.P99 report as it is not necessary. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that the vehicles inspected by him covered by Ex.P99 are private vehicles and there is no mention in Ex.P99 report that he physically inspected the vehicles mentioned in the report. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has considered the

Odometer readings of the vehicles provided by the CBI in their letter for estimation of maintenance and fuel consumption of the above referred vehicles and he do not know who actually used the vehicles, but as per the registration certificate Accused No.1 is the registered owner the above said vehicles. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has not mentioned in Ex.P99 report regarding the details of the servicing dealer where the vehicles were serviced and he do not know whether the items mentioned in Ex.P99 were at all attended to or not by any servicing dealer, but as per the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 64 of 185 manufacturer norms regular servicing of the vehicles along with replacement of necessary parts are to be done for free and safe running of the vehicles. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that there is no specific mention in Ex.P99 report that he has verified the user manual of the vehicles and he has not mentioned the relevant check period in Ex.P99.

104.As per the evidence of Dr.N.Krishnam Raju (PW57), he worked as Executive Director (P & A), BDL, Hyderabad from 03-10- 2011 to till his retirement on 31-12-2017. PW57 further deposed that he knows Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) since his joining as the Medical

Department of BDL was working under him and he received a proposal from their Chief Vigilance Officer which in turn was received from CBI to accord sanction for prosecuting Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Chief

Medical Officer, BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad in a case pertaining to Disproportionate of Assets. PW57 further deposed that as Prima facie the case involves disproportionate of Assets, as disciplinary authority he had initiated disciplinary action against Dr.A.Venu Gopal as the controlling authority. PW57 further deposed that on verification of the relevant documents received along with proposal, he being the competent authority accorded sanction for prosecution of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) based on the facts put up in the proposal believing that the valuation of the assets mentioned therein is true and Ex.P100 is the sanction order dated 28-04-2015 issued by him for prosecution of you Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

105.During the course of Cross-Examination PW57 categorically stated that before issuing Ex.P100 sanction order he did not take the approval any of his superior authority as it is not

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 65 of 185 required, as he being the competent authority to issue sanction order and as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 sanction order, the accused No.1 was in the Grade of E4 to the best of his knowledge and remembrance and It may be true that accused No.1 was in the

Grade of E5 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 sanction order.

PW57 categorically stated in the cross- examination that above him

Functional Director is the higher authority and as per the schedule of delegation of powers, promotion to the post from E4 to E5 Grade is approved by the Functional Director and as per the delegation of powers, the appointing authority in respect of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to E5

Grade is Functional Director and that he is not the appointing authority in the case of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to the Grade E5. PW57 categorically denied in the cross- examination that since he is not the appointing authority of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to E5 Grade, he is not the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and that Ex.P100 is not valid in the eye of law.

PW57 categorically stated in the cross- examination that as

Executive Director (P & A) since Dr.A.Venu Gopal was working under him he was the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in terms of BDL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules against the officers working under his control irrespective of the Grade and as such he is the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against the accused No.1 under Ex.P100. PW57 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that as per the policy of BDL, officers of different grades were provided cost of the mobile phones for official purpose and calls charges up to certain limits were reimbursed and he is not aware whether prior to the year 2007, certain payments were paid to the officers through

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 66 of 185 supplementary bills/vouchers as he joined in 2011. PW57 further admitted in the cross- examination that the Central Vigilance

Commission (CVC) guidelines in the matter of conduct rules applicable mutadis-mutandis to the officers of BDL and he do not know whether Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) has given any intimation regarding the acquisition of Item No.6 shown in the table at Para 9 of Ex.P100. PW57 further admitted in the cross- examination that as per rules in vogue reimburses the cost of the school fees of the wards of the officers and that he has not verified the individual figures shown under Statement-C pertaining to Income and the

Statement-D pertaining to Expenditure of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as sufficient time was not given to me.

106.As per the evidence of C.Raghavendra (PW58), working in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, he was the tenant of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani (A2) w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) during the period from 2009 to 2015 and he had paid monthly rent @ Rs.3,500/- initially from

January 2009 to January 2012 and subsequently, he paid monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/- from February 2012 to 2015 till he vacated the house and he paid the rent to his landlord by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

107.As per the evidence of Smt.H.T.Trisandhya (PW59), the then Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Locker

No.239 of Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch belongs to Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani (A2) and she used to operate the locker. PW59 further deposed that in the year 2013, the CBI officials along with Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and A1 came to their bank for verification of the items kept in Locker

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 67 of 185

No.239 of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the CBI officials opened the locker No.239 in their presence and in the presence of other bank officials, herself and gold appraiser of the bank. PW59 further deposed that the CBI officials found the gold ornaments around 10 to 12 items in the said locker and weighed the ornaments with the help of gold appraiser and prepared proceedings in their presence and obtained signatures. PW59 further deposed that the CBI officials after valuation of the gold items again put the said ornaments in the same locker and sealed and seized the locker and the locker key was handed over to the CBI officials. PW59 further deposed that Ex.P3 shown to her is the proceedings of locker operations drawn at

Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch which contains her signatures and the other persons who were present at the time of locker operations signed on the proceedings. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

108.As per the evidence of Mr.Y.Varaprasad (PW60), the then Branch Manager, Sri Ram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda

Branch, in the year 2013, the CBI, Hyderabad addressed a letter to their branch to furnish the information relating to the chits subscribed by their customer namely Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and accordingly he had furnished the information under the letter dated 11-03-2014 by enclosing the three application forms and statement of account of three chits held by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) in their branch. PW60 further deposed that as per their records,

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) subscribed three chits with their branch and its details are 1) Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs, 2)

Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs and 3) Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs.Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 68 of 185 vide Group No.LC 13 with ticket No.39 vide application dated 13-06- 2011 and the value of the said chit is Rs.5 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @ Rs.10,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02-2014 is Rs.2,58,640/-. PW60 further deposed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit vide Group

No.LS 03 with ticket No.23 vide application and the value of the said chit is Rs.10 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @

Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02- 2014 is Rs.5,62,432/-. PW60 further deposed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) lifted the said chit and received an amount of Rs.6,15,370/-.

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit vide Group No.LS 05 with ticket

No.24 vide application and the value of the said chit is Rs.10 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @ Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02-2014 is Rs.2,23,600/-.PW60 further deposed that the passbooks shown to him are the passbooks issued from their Nalgonda Branch in respect of above three chits subscribed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW60 further deposed that

Ex.P101 is the application form in respect of Group No.LC 13, ticket

No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs dated 13-06-2011, Ex.P102 is the passbook in respect of Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs, Ex.P103 is statement of account for Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs.

PW60further deposed that Ex.P104 is the application form in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs dated 13-06-2011,

Ex.P105 is the passbook in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.P106 is statement of account for Group No.LS 03,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 69 of 185 ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs. PW60 further deposed that Ex.P107 is the application form in respect of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for

Rs.10 Lakhs, Ex.P108 is the passbook in respect of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs, Ex.P109 is statement of account for

Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs.

109.During the Cross Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 PW60 categorically stated that he do not remember the exact number of monthly installments paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) in respect of the chit Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 and the first installment of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 was paid by the subscriber i.e., Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the remaining installments were paid by her father and the said chit was discontinued after 14 installments and the said chit was adjusted in other chits subscribed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) after deducting company commission of Rs.50,000/-. During Re-Examination PW60 categorically stated that there is no mention in Ex.P109 as to who paid the installments of the chit other than the subscriber.

110.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Muralidhara (PW61), Nodal

Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI, Hyderabad he had furnished the payment and ownership details of the mobile Numbers bearing No.8978134581 and

No.9866520552, both prepaid numbers belongs to Mr.A.Venu Gopal

C/o.Sharbalingam, H.No.17-11-236/1/A, Madannapet, Saidabad,

Hyderabad and the date of activation of the mobile No.8978134581 is 04-03-2011 and the date of activation of the mobile

No.9866520552 is 12-08-2011. PW61 further deposed that the total amount of bill paid by the customer in respect of mobile

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 70 of 185

No.8978134581 from the date of activation till 13-09-2013 is

Rs.6,772/- and the total amount of bill paid by the customer in respect of mobile No.9866520552 from the date of activation till 13- 09-2013 is 5,947/-. PW61 further deposed that he had furnished the above information on verification of their system records under the cover of letter dated 08-08-2014 signed by him and Ex.P110 is the payment details of the mobile Nos.8978134581 and 9866520552 furnished by him to the CBI Inspector. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

111(a).As per the evidence of B.Satish Prabhu (PW62),

Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, who is the investigating officer of this case, on 12-09-2013, Sri H.Venkatesh, the then DIG,

CBI, Hyderabad Called him and instructed him to register a DA case basing on the source information received in CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

PW62 further deposed that DIG, CBI, Hyderabad issued an authorization under section 17 of P.C. Act for registration and investigation of DA case under Prevention of Corruption Act and basing on the instructions of DIG and the inputs provided to him, he had registered a case vide R.C.No.16(A)/2013 under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dr.A.Venu Gopal,

Chief Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad for possessing Assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to an extent of Rs.1,33,51,844/- for the period from 01-01-1999 to 31-03-2011 and issued Ex.P111 FIR at 11:30 hours. PW62 further deposed that the details of assets acquired during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-A and the details of Income and other receipts during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-B and the details of expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 71 of 185 during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-C to the

FIR.

(b).PW62 further deposed that he took up the investigation and obtained search warrants for conducting searches at the residential and office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) from Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 12-09-2013

under Ex.P112 and Ex.P113 and that he himself along with search team members and two independent witnesses i.e., PW1 and LW2

Mr. M.Prasad Babu left CBI office at about 06:00 hours and reached the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal situated at H.No.3- 118/1, Vijayagopala Villa, Plot No.186/A and B, Bheemreddy Colony,

Boduppal, Hyderabad at about 06:50 hours and made enquiries at the said residential premises and he found Dr.A.Venu Gopal was present in the house and he called him out of the house and disclosed his identity and purpose of their visit. PW62 further deposed that then he served search memo and Dr.A.Venu Gopal signed on the same as a token of having seen it and thereafter,

Dr.A.Venu Gopal was requested to permit the search team to conduct the search of his house and he gave consent. PW62 further deposed that thereafter, the search commenced at 7:00 hours on 13-09-2013, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal was present in the house. PW62 further deposed that a search of the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal consisting of ground plus three floors was conducted in the presence of PW1 and LW2 duly observing all the legal formalities and the Accused No.1 and his wife Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani(A2) were present throughout the search. PW62 further deposed that during the search various original sale deeds in the name of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 72 of 185

Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma, LIC policies, bonds, bank passbooks and cheque books, gold and silver purchase receipts, various expenditure receipts, four locker keys, chit fund deposit receipts in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and cheque books and passbooks in the name of Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma were found at the residence of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and he has seized the above said documents, receipts, vouchers, cheque books, passbooks, locker keys totally items 1 to 52 under the cover of Ex.P1 search list dated 13-09-2013.

(c).PW62 further deposed that during the search, he prepared separate inventory memo for the house hold items and articles found in the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P2 as stated by the Accused No.1 and 2. PW62 further deposed that he had prepared a rough sketch of residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal named “Vijaya Gopal Villa”,PW1 and LW2 signed on the search list, inventory memo and rough sketch after going through the same and in token of its correctness and also search team members signed on the search list, inventory memo and rough sketch after going through the same and in token of its correctness. PW62 further deposed that during the search at about 14:00 hours,

Mr.G.Sudhakar, Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad after completing the search at office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1), joined the search team at the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and remained with the team till the conclusion of the search. PW62 further deposed that during the search the photography and videography of the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal was done by Mr.N.Raghavendra Kumar,

Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad and Mr.Rayappa Raju, PC, CBI,

Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that the observations made

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 73 of 185 during the search and the explanation given by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal and A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with regard to the availability of various sale deeds, passbook, cheque books etc in the name of Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam and Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dr.A.Venu Gopal at the residence was incorporated in the search list. PW62 further deposed that during the search, it is observed that Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani were having five number of gas connections on their names.

(d).PW62 further deposed that the details of various bank accounts as per the various receipts and pay-in-slips found at the residence were noted for the purpose of investigation and both PW1 and LW2 initialed on all the seized 52 items as mentioned in Ex.P1 search list. PW62 further deposed that during the search, he had seized Ex.P32, ExP33, Ex.P11, original sale deed bearing

No.518/2002 dated 28-01-2002 standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani as in Ex.P114, Ex.P10, original agreement for additional works dated November 2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) along with cash receipt for Rs.6,91,500/- and credit voucher for Rs.89,214/-

dated 10-01-2003 as in Ex.P115, Ex.P30, Ex.P25, Ex.P26, Ex.P23,

Ex.P38, Ex.P12, Ex.P18, original sale deed bearing No.5263/2008

dated 04-12-2008 in the name of Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani as in

Ex.P116, Ex.P31, Ex.P35/1, Ex.P46, original invoice of M/s.Sanjay

Electronics dated 14-03-2013 as in Ex.P117, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27-12-2010 as in Ex.P118, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 27-12-2010 as in Ex.P119, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 29-12-2010 as in Ex.P120, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 74 of 185

Hyderabad dated 30-04-2011 as in Ex.P121, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30-04-2011 as in Ex.P122, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 31-12-2010 as in Ex.P123, Ex.P67, Estimate for extra gold dated 19-03-2007 as in Ex.P124, Ex.P68, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad as in

Ex.P125, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter,

Hyderabad dated 05-07-2003 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in

Ex.P126, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter,

Hyderabad dated 30-10-2003 as in Ex.P127, additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 09-08-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P128,

additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 22-02-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in

Ex.P129, additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 28-06-2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P130, additional advance receipt of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 17-04-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P131.

(e)PW62 further deposed that he has seized original LIC policy bearing No.644237436 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in

Ex.P132, LIC policy bearing No.645686797 in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal as in Ex.P133, Ex.P102, Ex.P105, Ex.P108, one note book of

Hyderabad Public School containing the details of expenditure in respect of house warming ceremony and dhoti function at Page

No.37 and 38 as in Ex.P134, miscellaneous receipt bearing No.1637

dated 03-03-2005 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani issued by

Grampanchayat, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 75 of 185

Rs.12,795/- as in Ex.P135, receipt bearing No.066 dated 13-03-2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony Sanskema Sangam in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.3,000/- as in Ex.P136, receipt bearing

No.067 dated 13-03-2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony,

Sanskema Sangam in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,000/- as in Ex.P137, receipt bearing No.6897 dated 05-09-2009 issued by

Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City branch for Rs.6,600/- in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in Ex.P138, the receipt bearing

No.1354 dated 04-04-2013 issued by V-Guide Group of Coaching centres in the name of A.Vaidik for Rs.9,500/- as in Ex.P139, three photo albums of dhoti function and house warming ceremony. PW62 further deposed that a copy of said search list under Ex.P1 and copy of Ex.P2 inventory memo was given to Dr.A.Venu Gopal under acknowledgement. PW62 further deposed that during the search cash amount of Rs.63,840/- was found in the Almariah in the master bedroom in the ground floor and the same was noted in the search list and returned to Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and during the search,

Maruthi Swift Dezir Car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 with meter reading of 75232 kms and Suzuki Access 125 two wheeler bearing

No.AP 29 AQ 8219 showing meter reading of 3990 kms were found parked in the portico (parking area) of the house of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

(f)PW62 further deposed that during the search, daughter and sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal were permitted to leave the premises in the morning hours for attending their classes and further

Dr.A.Venu Gopal was found using the mobile bearing

No.9490797612 and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani was found using mobile bearing No.8978134581 and the mobile number of his daughter is 9866520552 and the landline with number 27205672 and 65572667

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 76 of 185 was found functioning in the house and after conclusion of search at 16:30 hours on 13-09-2013 the search team members along with two independent witnesses left the place duly offering their personal search to Dr.A.Venu Gopal which he declined and then he had taken possession of seized documents/items 1 to 52 as per Ex.P1 search list for further investigation of the case and on 13-09-2013, he had received a Supplementary Case Diary from Mr.G.Sudhakar, the then

Inspector, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad along with search list and seized documents for the searches conducted at the office premises of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) on 13-09-2013 under Ex.P140 .

(g)PW62 further deposed that on 16-09-2013, he submitted the original search lists dated 13-09-2013 (Ex.P1, Ex.P140) withregard to the searches conducted at the residence and office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and the original inventory memo under

Ex.P2 in the court of Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad under a cover of memo. PW62 further deposed that on 23-09-2013, he along with two witnesses visited Andhra Bank, BDL

Campus Branch, Hyderabad at 11:15 hours and conducted search of locker No.255 with key No.240 (72-1045) standing jointly in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and

Mr.M.Matta Reddy, Deputy Manager (Locker incharge) also associated in the said locker operations and it was opened in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and found empty and both Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani were present during the search of the said locker No.255 and a separate proceedings were drawn for the same. PW62 further deposed that on 23-09-2013, he proceeded to

Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad, along with PW1 and LW2 and a locker bearing No.239 standing the name of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 77 of 185

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) was opened in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and smt.H.T.Trisandhya (PW59), Assistant

Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad and

Mr.M.Uma Maheshwar Rao (PW18), Approved Gold Appraiser and twelve items of gold jewellery were found in the locker. PW62 further deposed that the description of the gold items, its gross and net weight were recorded in the locker search proceedings under Ex.P3 as per the version of PW18. PW62 further deposed that the gross weight of gold jewellery were taken on the electronic weighing machine available in the bank by PW18, and the year of acquisition, mode of acquisition were recorded in the locker proceedings as per the version of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2). PW62 further deposed that all the twelve gold jewellery items found in the locker were kept back in the locker and it was locked in the presence of PW1, LW2,

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and nothing was seized and the locker proceedings were drawn incorporating all the happenings during the locker operations at the bank in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and the copy of the same were given to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) under your acknowledgment. PW62 further deposed that the locker proceedings concluded at 15:30 hours on 23-09-2013,

PW1 and LW2, Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, Mr.K.Praveen

Kumar, the then DSP, CBI, Hyderabad, who was part of the locker search operations, signed on the locker search proceedings after going through the same in token of its correctness.

(h)PW62 further deposed that on 24-09-2013, as summoned by him PW1 and LW2 reported before him at CBI Office,

Koti, Hyderabad at 10:00 hours and he explained them the purpose of calling and requested them to act as independent witnesses for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 78 of 185 conducting locker operations at Canara Bank, Uppal Branch,

Hyderabad and South Indian Bank, Medipally Branch, Hyderabad, whose locker keys were seized during the search at the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) on 13-09-2013. PW62 further deposed that thereafter they left CBI office and reached Canara

Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad at 11:00 hours and carried out the search of the locker No.143 standing the name of

Mr.L.Nagabushanam and his wife Lingala Laxmamma father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1). PW62 further deposed that the said locker was searched in the presence of PW1, LW2 and

Mr.Lingala Nagabushaham and it was found empty and a separate proceedings were drawn incorporating all the happenings during the locker operations and the copy of the same was given to Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam, under acknowledgment. PW62 further deposed that after concluding the search of the locker at Canara Bank, Uppal

Branch, the entire team along with PW1 and LW2 and Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam proceeded to South Indian Bank, Medipally Branch,

Hyderabad and conducted locker operation of locker No.34 by using the key No.53, which was seized on 13-09-2013 at the residence of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and the locker was opened and Rs.100/- was found in the locker and the same was kept back and the locker was closed in the presence of PW1, LW2 and Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and all the happenings during the locker proceedings between 12:30 to 13:00 hours were incorporated in the locker proceedings drawn at the bank on 24-09-2013 and a copy of the locker proceedings was served to Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam under acknowledgment.

(i)PW62 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had issued notices under section 91 Cr.P.C to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 79 of 185 various Sub Registrars to submit certified copies of sale deeds,

Certificate of Encumbrance on Property, registration and stamp duty charges collected for the registration of subject immovable properties standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and his family members as well as Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

Smt.L.Laxmamma in laws of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and accordingly he has received the replies from the respective Sub Registrars along with certified copies of sale deeds, Certificate of Encumbrance on

Properties, registration and stamp duty charges. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P33/11 and 12 is the certified copy of Statement of

Encumbrance on Property, which shows that plot No.71 and 72,

Sy.No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part situated at Midhilapuri, Phase-II,

Hattiguda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received

Ex.P33/11 and 12 from PW8 under the cover of letter dated 06-11- 2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P30/9 to 11 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property, which shows that agricultural land admeasuring 3.34 acres in Sy.No.404, 405, 407, 404/A, 405/A, 407/A, 403/A situated at Malkapur Village, Choutuppal

Mandal, Nalgonda District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P30/9 to 11 from PW7 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P24 CC of sale deed bearing No.4514 of 2000 and certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that

Plot No.186/A, 186/B in Sy.No.95, 97 admeasuring 266 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P24 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 80 of 185 2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P25 is the certified copy of

Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that Plot

No.187/part in Sy.No.94 and 95 admeasuring 120 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received

Ex.P25 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013.

(j)PW62 further deposed that Ex.P23/13 and 14 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that Shop No.G6, in Sai Prashnathi Nivas, situated at Plot No.8 in Sy.No.9/2 and 9/3 at Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Saroornagar,

R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13- 09-2013 and he received Ex.P23/12 and 14 from PW5 under the cover of letter dated 01-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that

Ex.P141 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on

Property in respect of Plot No.79 admeasuring 202 Sq. yards in

Sy.No.924, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as on 13-09-2013 and he received the same from SRO Peddamberpet. PW62 further deposed that

Ex.P31/12 and 13 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that house site Plot No.311 in Sy.No.254 and 256 admeasuring 252 Sq. yards situated at NFC Nagar,

Ghatkesar Village, R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani(A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P31/12 and 13 from

PW7 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P27 CC of sale deed bearing No.16286 of 2006 and certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that house No.3-16-95/11 on Plot No.187/part in Sy.No.94, 97 admeasuring 130 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 81 of 185

Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P27 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013.

(k)PW62 further deposed that he had issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the Branch Managers of various banks having bank accounts standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and his family members to furnish the certified copies of Statement of Bank

Accounts, original Account opening forms, related debit and credit vouchers etc in respect of transactions done by the account holders and he has received replies from them along with certified copies of

Statement of Bank Accounts, original Account opening forms, related debit and credit vouchers etc standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and his family members. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 23-09-2013 from the Chief Manager, Andhra

Bank, BDL Branch i.e., PW14 informing about the bank account details of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P41 and Ex.P42 under the cover letter dated 13-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 13-06-2014 from the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, BDL

Branch i.e., PW14 informing about the gold loan account

No.104530100005589 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1), COD account No.104531041900064 Locker No.255, application in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) etc. PW62 further deposed that he received the true extract of Statement of account of SB A/c.No.14410110007679 of UCO Bank, Abids Circle

Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 17-11-2008 to 16-07-2014 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P142. PW62 further deposed that he received Ex.P70 true extract of the Statement of account and original SB account opening form relating to SB

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 82 of 185

A/c.No.732010098872 standing in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani(A2) from PW21 under the cover letter dated 08-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 28-02-2014 from the Branch

Head, ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad along with original debit and credit vouchers of SB A/c.No.732010098872 of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani(A2). PW62 further deposed that he received

Ex.P44 true extract of the Statement of account of SB

A/c.No.062300101000901 of A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, original account opening form of SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of A2

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and Ex.P45 original locker opening form of locker

No.239 of Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch under the cover letter

dated 14-05-2014.PW62 further deposed that Ex.P143 is the original

account opening form of SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

(l)PW62 further deposed that he had issued a letter to

Regional Transport Officer, Uppal, R.R. District to furnish the ownership particulars of Maruthi Swift Dezire Car bearing

Registration No.AP 29 AM 9977 and Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing Registration No.AP 29 AQ 8219 and accordingly PW13 furnished the details vide letter dated 19-02-2014 and 07-08-2014 by enclosing Ex.P39 and Ex.P40, Form No.24 B-Register of Motor

Vehicles referred above. PW62 further deposed that he received

Ex.P34 attested copy of invoice, delivery receipt, three receipt vouchers and copy of insurance policy of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle sold to Dr.A.Venu Gopal from PW10 under the cover of letter

dated 10-02-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received Ex.P35

customer copy of tax invoice cum sale letter in the name of A2

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani along with copy of invoice, temporary certificate of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 83 of 185 registration, Tax receipt, copy of order form and ledger copy of

Suzuki Access vehicle sold to Smt.L.Vijaya Rani from PW11 under the cover of letter dated 23-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he had seized Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 from the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal on 13-09-2013 under Ex.P1 search list. PW62 further deposed that he had received Ex.P85 from PW36 under the cover of letter dated 20-01-2014 and also received Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 from PW16 under the cover of letter dated 18-06-2014 and also received Ex.P49 to

Ex.P66 from PW17 under the cover of letter dated 06-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he collected the gold price prevailing during the check period from Mr.Praveen Kumar, Secretary, Twin Cities

Jewellers Association, Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P144 letter

dated 18-04-2014 .

(m)PW62 further deposed that he had collected Ex.P75

Annual Property Returns of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the years 1999-2013 except 2010 from AGM (P&A), BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad under the cover of letter dated 09-10-2013 and also received Statements I to VI in original as in Ex.P145 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal furnishing the details of movable and immovable properties acquired by himself and his family members from Chief Vigilance Officer, BDL,

Hyderabad vide letter dated 06-11-2013.

(n)PW62 further deposed that during investigation, on his request the CPWD authorities conducted the valuation of the residential buildings of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani situated at Bheemreedynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad and the two rooms situated at Hayathnagar, R.R. District and submitted their valuation report under Ex.P98 under the cover of letter dated 25-02-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 84 of 185 2015. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, on his request the BDL Authorities furnished pay and salary particulars, loans and advances and other emoluments paid to Dr.A.Venu Gopal, during his service in BDL under Ex.P71 to Ex.P74 from AGM (P&A),

BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad under the cover of letters dated 09- 10-2013 and 11-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation he issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to Income

Tax authorities to furnish the Income Tax Returns in respect of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and accordingly, Income Tax authorities furnished Ex.P146 certified copies of Returns of Income filed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003- 04 and 2005-06 to 2011-13 and 2013-14 vide letter dated 06-02- 2014 from Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, he received the details of provident fund loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from BDL,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad vide letter dated 06-01-2014 along with statement of PF loans sanctioned from 1999 to 2013 to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal vide ST.No.30974 under Ex.P147.

(o)PW62 further deposed that in response to the notice issued under section 91 Cr.P.C, he received the housing loan application under Ex.P76, Ex.P77 loan sanction letter and statement of account of housing loan account under Ex.78 and related documents from PW27 Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Abid Circle

Branch, Hyderabad vide letters dated 07-10-2013 and 07-11-2013.

PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of statement of overdraft account bearing No.104531041900064 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P43 from Andhra Bank, BDL

Branch, Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that during investigation,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 85 of 185 in response to his notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the Branch

Managers, LIC of India, Malakpet and Musheerabad Branches,

Hyderabad furnished the details of LIC polices held by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal vide policy Nos.644255264, 644214155 and 644237436 under

Ex.P79 to Ex.P81 from PW29 Branch Manager, LIC of India, Malakpet

Branch, Hyderabad vide letter dated 10-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he has received certified copies of sale deeds registered vide document Nos.1155/1999 under Ex.P15, 5708/1999 under Ex.P13, 5709/1999 under Ex.P14, 8775/2000 under

Ex.P17 and sale deed document No.8387/2001 from SRO,

Champapet under the cover of letter dated 01-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received CC of registered sale deed under

Ex.P22, 7824/2003 under Ex.P19, 4435/2007 under Ex.P21, 4436/2007 under Ex.P20 and sale deed document No.1255/2003 and document No.12504/2003 from SRO, Champapet vide letter dated 07-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he received original Income Tax Returns of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 under Ex.P82 from PW29

G.Vijay Kumar, Income Tax Officer under the cover of Ex.P148 receipt memo dated 23-06-2014 under which Ex.P82 was collected from PW29.

(p)PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he received the details of loans availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from BDL

Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad from

Secretary of the said society vide letter dated 26-02-2014 along with the details of the loan under Ex.P149. PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of sale deed under Ex.P29 from PW6 SRO

Uppal under the cover of letter dated 07-02-2014 and also received

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 86 of 185

Ex.P28 CC of sale deed and Statement of Encumbrance on Property

dated 03-07-2014 from PW6 SRO, Uppal under the cover of letter

dated 03-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received certified

copies of statement of account of SB A/c.No.734010058346 in the name of Mr.L.Nagabhushanam and SB A/c.No.734010062884 in the name of Mrs.L.laxmamma under Ex.P83 and Ex.P84 from PW33

Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank, Miryalaguda Branch under the cover letter dated 21-02-2014 and also debit and credit vouchers in respect of the above SB Accounts from Branch Head, ING Vysya

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch under the cover letter dated 03-07-2014.

PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of Statement of Account of SB A/c.No.34402200069033 standing in the name of

Mr.L.Laxman Das and Statement of Account of SB

A/c.No.34402200032032standinginthenameof

Mr.L.Nagabhushanam from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch.

PW62 further deposed that he received CC of Sale deeds under

Ex.P16, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 along with

Encumbrance Certificates from SRO, Champapet under the cover of letters dated 22-08-2014 and dated 23-08-2014. PW62 further deposed that he also collected the Encumbrance Certificates in respect of registered sale deeds under Ex.P15, Ex.P13, Ex.P14,

Ex.P17, Ex.P16, Documents bearing No.9391/2001 (CC of Ex.P11), 518/2002 (CC of Ex.P114) , 6197/2002 (CC of Ex.P10), 8574/2006 (CC of Ex.P12) and 28305/2006 (CC of Ex.P18) under the cover of letter dated 10-10-2013 and Ex.P150 is the CCs of Encumbrance

Certificates. PW62 further deposed that he also collected Ex.P103,

Ex.P106 and Ex.P109 the Statement of Accounts in respect of amounts invested in Chits at Shriram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 87 of 185 and amount received by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani towards group ticket

No.67013/39, 80003/23 and 80005/24, under cover of letter dated 11-03-2014.

(q)PW62 further deposed that he also collected three

Application forms under Ex.P101, Ex.P104 and Ex.P107 in respect of above said Chits standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani/

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani under the cover of Ex.P151 receipt memo dated 03-09-2014. PW62 further deposed that he collected the details of admission fee, tuition fee etc paid in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud, sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal, the Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 18-12-2013 along with the payment details under

Ex.P152.PW62 further deposed that he collected the School expenditure details in respect of Miss A.Vaidarshi daughter of A1

Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Head Mistress, St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P153 letter dated 07-02-2014 where-under the details of school fee paid by him in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2010- 2011 amounting to Rs.74,410/-. PW62 further deposed that he had collected the College fee details towards in respect of Miss

A.Vaidarshi daughter of Dr. A. Venu Gopal from the Principal Sri

Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Tarnaka, Hyderabad under the cover of

Ex.P154 letter dated 07-12-2013 for the period 2011 to 2013. PW62 further deposed that he also collected the details of tuition and other fees paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for studying Law Course from

Principal, College of Law for Women, Andhra Mahila Sabha,

Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P155 letter dated 04-12-2013, for the academic years 2009-2012.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 88 of 185

(r)PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document Nos.6731/2003, 9027/2003 and 4514/2000 from SRO, Uppal under the cover of Ex.P156 letter dated 19-12- 2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.430/2003 from SRO, Choutuppal under the cover of Ex.P157 letter dated 23-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.695/2009 from

SRO, Ghatkesar under the cover of Ex.P158 letter dated 23-12-2013.

PW62 further deposed that he received details of membership fee paid to the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal along with the original application form under

Ex.P86 and Statement of account under Ex.P87 from PW42 in respect of his Silver Privilege Membership under cover of letter

dated 09-12-2013 of Mr.K.Bhanu Murthy(PW42) and also collected

Ex.P88 application for Master Life Membership of Dr.A.Venu Gopal with M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad from

PW42 under the cover letter dated 04-01-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly electrical charges paid in respect of service No.1603-1344 and 1603-2009 standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Assistant Accounts Officer,

ERO, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad under a cover of Ex.P159 letter dated 09-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of property tax paid in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani from Deputy Commissioner, LB Nagar

Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad under Ex.P89 under the cover of letter

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 89 of 185

dated 05-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received Car loan

and interest paid on the loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from

Assistant Manager (Legal), M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad under the cover of letter dated 15-10-2013 along with Ex.P160 attested copy of loan application and Ex.P95 true extract of statement of account. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of Car loan and interest paid on the loan availed by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal under Ex.P90 letter dated 22-01-2014.PW62 further deposed that he received the details of property tax and water charges paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar

Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu

Gopal, along with Ex.P91 and Ex.P92 under the cover of Ex.P161 letter dated 07-01-2014 of Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat

Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal. PW62 further deposed that on his requisition he received the details of property tax paid in respect of

No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony,

Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under the cover of Ex.P162 letter dated 12-02-2014 of Bill Collector,

Gram Panchayat Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal.

(s)PW62 further deposed that he received the details of housing loan availed and interest paid thereon by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from State Bank of India, Karvan branch, Hyderabad along with attested copies of loan documents and Ex.P163 statement of account of housing loan A/c.No.01593013216 under the cover of letter dated 10-07-2014.PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill amount paid towards landline number 040- 27205672 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Senior

Accounts Officer (TR-I), Office of DGM, BSNL, Musheerabad

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 90 of 185

Telephone Exchange, Hyderabad as in Ex.P94 under the cover of letter dated 23-06-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the certified copy of housing loan account statement vide

No.LBHYD00000357707 standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal from PW49 as in Ex.P96. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of interest and other charges paid along with other details on housing loan availed from United Bank of India, Hyderabad Branch,

Bank Street, Hyderabd by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal and A2- Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani from PW46 as in Ex.P93 statement of account under the cover of letter dated 22-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill payments in respect of mobile

No.9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) from

Sub Divisional Engineer (Tech) office of DGM (NOW-III), CM, Saifabad,

Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 20-06-2014 as in Ex.P97.

PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill payments in respect of mobile No.8978134581 and 9866520552 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal Circle Nodal

Officer, M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 08-08-2014 from PW61 as in Ex.P110. PW62 further deposed that he furnished the meter reading details of Maruthi Swift

Dezire bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 and Suzuki Access BS-III two wheeler bearing No.AP 29 AQ 8219 to Regional Transport Officer,

Rangareddy East, Uppal and requested him to furnish the fuel and maintenance expenditure incurred on the said two vehicles as per their existing rules and procedures and accordingly, based on the inputs provided by him he had received the fuel and maintenance expenditure incurred in respect of the said two vehicles from

Regional Transport Officer, Rangareddy East, Uppal under cover of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 91 of 185 letter dated 13-03-2019 from PW56 as in Ex.P99. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, he also collected attested copy of Bharath Dynamics Limited conduct, discipline and Appeal rules as in Ex.P69 from Vigilance Department, BDL, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad.

(t)PW62 further deposed that during course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements ofwinesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW62 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he has given opportunity to the accused No.1 and A2 at various stages of investigation and recorded their explanation with regard to the assets acquired by them, income and expenditure. PW62 further deposed that the Assets at the beginning of the check period were listed in Statement-A enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to Rs.1,22,800/-. PW62 further deposed that the Assets at the end of the check period were listed in Statement-B enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to

Rs.1,68,65,610.15 ps. PW62 further deposed that the Income and other receipts of Accused persons during the check period were listed in Statement-C enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to

Rs.1,70,14,560/-. PW62 further deposed that the Expenditure and other payments during the check period were listed in Statement-D enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to Rs.85,85,515.70 ps.

(u)PW62 further deposed that basing on the above said statements A, B, C and D, he has calculated the disproportionate assets of accused No.1 and A2 and arrived at an amount of

Rs.83,13,766/- which is disproportionate to their known sources of income and which was not satisfactorily accounted for during the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 92 of 185 investigation and the calculation is done by deducting the value of the assets at the beginning of check period i.e, as on 01-01-1999 from the value of the assets at the end of the check period i.e, as on 13-09-2013 by which the value of the assets acquired during the check period is arrived and further the expenditure and other payments incurred during the check period i.e, between 01-01-1999 to 13-09-2013 was added to the value of assets acquired during the check period and the resulting figure was compared with the income and other receipts of the accused No.1 and 2 during the check period i.e, between 01-01-1999 to 13-09-2013 and found that the value of assets acquired during the check period and expenditure is more than the income and other receipts of the accused No.1 and

A2 during the check period to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- which workout to 48.86% of disproportionate assets more than the income and other receipts of the accused persons.

(v)PW62 further deposed that after conclusion of the investigation, he had served the Statement-A, Statement-B,

Statement-C and Statement-D referred above along with the calculation of DA to the accused persons to submit their explanation for the said disproportionate amount duly explaining them the contents of said statements wherein various values of various properties (Movable and Immovable), income and other receipts, expenditure and payments considered by him based on the evidences elicited during the investigation and accordingly, the accused persons submitted their written explanation with regard to the disproportionate assets arrived at by him and he also gone through the said explanation and as he was not satisfied with regard to the certain additional income and receipts furnished by A1 and A2

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 93 of 185 in their explanation, the same was not allowed and he allowed certain additional income and receipt for which A1 and A2 furnished the documentary evidences. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, A1 and A2 produced before him certain registers with regard to the expenditure incurred by them in respect of construction of additional floor for the house bearing No.3-118/1,

Plot No.186/A and 186/B, Bheem Reddy Colony, Boduppla, Ranga

Reddy District standing the name of the Accused No.1 for considering the total construction cost recorded in the said registers and however, after perusal of those registers as it was found that the entries made in the said registers with regard to the various payments and expenditure incurred with regard to the additional construction of three floors were not commensurate with the construction materials reported required for the construction of three floors, the same was not considered and in that regard he sought the verbal opinion of construction engineers of CPWD. PW62 further deposed that after seeking the final explanation with regard to the disproportionate of assets arrived during the investigation to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- and as he is not satisfied with the said explanation, he obtained sanction order for the prosecution of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) from the competent authority i.e.,

Dr.N.Krishnam Raju (PW57). PW62 further deposed that as his investigation revealed that the accused No.1 incurred expenditure and other payments amounting to Rs.85,85,516/- against the total income and other receipts of Rs.1,70,14,560/- and the likely savings of the A1 is Rs.84,29,044/- and the total assets held by A1 in his name and in the name of his family members worked out to

Rs.1,68,65,610/- against the assets owned at the beginning of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 94 of 185 check period amount to Rs.1,22,800/- and therefore, the total assets acquired by the accused No.1 during the check period workout to

Rs.1,67,42,810/-. PW62 further deposed that the amount of disproportionate assets acquired by A1 in his name and in the name of his family members during the check period is Rs.83,13,766/- which is 48.86% disproportion with reference to the total income and other receipts of the accused persons. PW62 further deposed that based on the outcome of investigation after obtaining the prosecution sanction order against the Accused No.1, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 and against A2 for the offence punishable under section 109 of IPC r/w13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of

P.C. Act, 1988 for abetting the accused No.1 in the said offence

before the Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Assets of

the accused before check period

112.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer in computation of

Statement-A in charge sheet arrived the value of assets as on 01.01.1999 as Rs.1,22,800/- and the Investigating Officer failed to consider the assets of A2 before the check period, as admittedly the marriage of A2 with A1 was performed on 01.05.1994 which is prior to the check period. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that as per the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, they categorically deposed that they have presented 100 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to their daughter ie., A2 at the time of marriage as Sthridhana and they also presented a motorcycle, household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 95 of 185 they have also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995 and the

Investigating Officer ought to have added the assets which were given to A2 by her parents at the time of her marriage, to

Statement-A. The learned counsel for A1 categorically submitted that if the value of 100 tulas gold, household articles, cash of

Rs.5.00 lakhs presented at the time of marriage of A2 and

Rs.1.00 lakh presented to the first child of accused at the time of cradle ceremony is calculated, it comes to Rs.13,19,300/- and if the said amount is added, the total assets at the beginning of the check period comes to Rs.14,42,100/- as against the amount of

Rs.1,22,800/- shown by the Investigating Officer in Statement-A.

113.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, there is no other independent evidence adduced by the accused to prove the same and even the accused not filed any documents in support of their contention and as per the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, they have categorically stated that they have shown the gold, cash and other articles presented to A2 at the time of marriage in their Income Tax

Returns for the relevant assessment years, but failed to file the said

Income Tax Returns to prove the same and therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents and also the Income

Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, it is not safe to rely upon the oral testimony of PW-35 and DW-1 with regard to the presentation of gold, cash and other household articles to A2 at the time of marriage and as such, the accused failed to prove the gold, other articles and cash presented to A2 at the time of her marriage, therefore, the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1 is of no value in the eye of law.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 96 of 185

114.I have perused the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1. PW-35 and DW-1 categorically stated in their evidence about their presentation of 100 tulas of gold, cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of marriage in the year 1994 and also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995. As can be seen from the entire evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, though they have stated about the presentation of gold, household articles and cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to A2 as Sthreedhana at the time of marriage, they have not filed any documents in support of their contention and even they have not filed their Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years to prove the same, as admittedly both PW-35 and DW-1 categorically admitted in their cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that they are Income

Tax Assessees and they have shown the gold, cash and other household articles presented to A2 at the time of her marriage in their Income Tax Returns. Therefore, in the absence of any documents and Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that PW-35 and DW-1 presented Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 100 tulas of gold and Rs.3.00 lakhs worth household articles to A2 at the time of her marriage and also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995, as such I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.13,19,300/- to be added to Statement-A, is not tenable in the absence of any documentary evidence to support the said contention. Therefore, the assets of the accused before the check period is taken as

Rs.1,22,800/- as mentioned in Statement-A annexed to the charge

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 97 of 185 sheet.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Assets of

accused during the Check Period from 01.01.1999 to

13.09.2013

115.As per the charge sheet the assets of A1 and A2 at the end of the check period worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/- and they have shown the said properties as Item Nos.1 to 22 in Statement-B annexed to charge sheet. Out of the 22 items shown in Statement-B annexed to the charge sheet, the accused not disputed the properties shown at Item Nos.1 to 3, 5, 8 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 & 21.

Item No.4:

116.As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, the Investigating Officer shown the value of Item No.4 property at Rs.6,91,500/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 purchased Flat No.G1 in ground

Floor, Sri Ram Residency, Maruthi Nagar under L.B.Nagar

Municipality for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/- under Ex.P10 Sale

Deed and the Investigating Officer added Rs.3,50,000/- to the value of the said property as amount spent for additional/extra work for the said semi-finished Flat as per the Agreement for additional works with M/s. Renuka Constructions, Hyderabad under Ex.P115. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that no

additional works were executed by the accused as alleged, as

Ex.P115 alleged Agreement for additional works does not contain the signature of A2, which is confirmed by PW-62 Investigating Officer and the prosecution failed to examine any witnesses to prove the

additional construction and the receipt annexed to Ex.P115 does not

contain date, bill number, details of cash/cheque payment and as

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 98 of 185 there is no signature of A2 on Ex.P115 and as there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the additional works executed, the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- mentioned in Ex.P115 is to be deleted from the total amount of Rs.6,91,500/- shown against Item No.4 in

Statement-B and if the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is deleted, the value of Item No.4 of Statement-B comes to Rs.3,41,500/- only.

117.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that as per Ex.P10, A2 purchased Flat No.G1 in semi-finished condition for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/-, which is clearly mentioned in the Sale Deed and after purchase of the said semi- finished Flat, A2 entered into Ex.P115 Agreement with M/s. Renuka

Constructions for completion of the remaining works for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and even the Receipt which is annexed to Ex.P115 clearly goes to show that M/s. Renuka Constructions received an amount of Rs.6,91,500/- from A1 and therefore, the contention of accused that no additional works were executed, is not tenable and the total value of the property as taken by the Investigating Officer at Rs.6,91,500/- is supported by documents.

118.As can be seen from Ex.P10 Sale Deed under which A2 purchased semi-finished Flat for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/- which is not in dispute and as can be seen from the contents of

Ex.P10, the Flat was purchased in semi-finished condition. The accused not adduced any evidence to show that even as on the date of registration of this case, the said Flat is in semi-finished condition only. Admittedly, there is no signature of A2 on Ex.P115, but the

Receipt appended to Ex.P115 clearly goes to show that an amount of

Rs.6,91,500/- was paid by A1 to M/s. Renuka Constructions from

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 99 of 185 whom A2 purchased semi-finished Flat under Ex.P10 Sale Deed.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused that the Flat purchased under Ex.P10 is in semi-finished condition and no additional works were executed as on the date of registration of this case and in view of the Receipt appended to Ex.P115 showing the payment of Rs.6,91,500/- by A1 to M/s. Renuka Constructions, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that no additional works were executed after to purchase of semi-finished Flat under

Ex.P10 Sale Deed, therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the total amount of Rs.6,91,500/- is to be deleted from the value of the property shown at Item No.4 in

Statement-B, is not tenable.

Item No.6:

119.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property house bearing

No.3-118/1, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal at Rs.78,84,849/- as per the report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D4 Register which containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction of the above said house which comes to

Rs.56,64,394/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D4 and the Vouchers and bills submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 100 of 185 by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by PW-54 and arrived at Rs.78,84,849/- as the value of the property shown at Item

No.6 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62, during the cross-examination, the Declarations submitted by A1 are marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and the Register in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B as Ex.D4. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of

Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98 Report.

120.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D4 Register during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D4 Register does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in Ex.D4 Register and therefore, PW-62 considered the report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.6.

Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B as per Ex.P98

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 101 of 185

Report.

121.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D4

Register marked through PW-62 during the cross-examination.

PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that the A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of

Bills, Receipts along with original Books of Accounts related to the construction expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the

Books of Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

122.As can be seen from Ex.D4 Register, as well as Bills,

Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked as Ex.D7, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the

Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross-examination of PW- 62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D4 Register and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of Ex.D4 Register as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction of house shown at Sl.No.6 in Statement-B as

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 102 of 185

Rs.56,64,394/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.22,20,455/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B at Rs.78,84,849/-, is not tenable.

Item No.7:

123.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property house bearing

No.3-117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad at

Rs.21,94,417/- as per the Report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D5 Dairy which is containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction of the above said house which comes to

Rs.17,38,982/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D5 and the Vouchers and Bills submitted by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by PW-54 and arrived at Rs.21,94,417/- as the value of the property shown at Item

No.7 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62 during the cross-examination, the Declarations

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 103 of 185 submitted by A1 are marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and Dairy in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at

Sl.No.7 of Statement-B as Ex.D5. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of

Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98 Report.

124.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D5 Dairy during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D5 Dairy does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in Ex.D5 Dairy and therefore,

PW-62 considered the Report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.7. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.7 of Statement-B as per Ex.P98 report.

125.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D5

Dairy marked through PW-62 during the cross-examination. PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of Bills, Receipts along with original books of accounts related to the construction

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 104 of 185 expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the Books of

Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

126.As can be seen from Ex.D5 Dairy, as well as Ex.D7 Bills,

Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked through

PW-62, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross- examination of PW-62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D5 Dairy and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of

Ex.D5 Dairy as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction of house shown at Sl.No.7 in

Statement-B as Rs.17,38,982/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,55,435/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at Sl.No.7 of Statement-B at

Rs.21,94,417/-, is not tenable.

Item No.13:

127.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property ie., 2 rooms and compound wall constructed on Plot Nos.69, 70, 71, 72 and 74

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 105 of 185 admeasuring 1761 sq. yards situated at Mithilapuri, Phase-II of

Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R.District at Rs.7,13,169/- as per the report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D6 Two Note Books which containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction over the said property which comes to Rs.2,53,887/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D6 Two Note Books, Vouchers and bills submitted by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by

PW-54 and arrived at Rs.7,13,169/- as the value of the property shown at Item No.13 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and

Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62 during the cross- examination, the Declarations submitted by A1 marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and Two Note Books in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at Sl.No.13 of Statement-B as

Ex.D6. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that

PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 106 of 185 accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98

Report.

128.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D6 Two Note Books during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D6 Two Note Books does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in

Ex.D6 Two Note Books and therefore, PW-62 considered the report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.13. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.13 of

Statement-B as per Ex.P98 Report.

129.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D6

Two Note Books marked through PW-62 during the cross- examination. PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of Bills, Receipts along with original Books of Accounts related to the construction expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the Books of Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of

Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 107 of 185 of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

130.As can be seen from Ex.D6 Two Note Books, as well as

Ex.D7 Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked through PW-62, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross- examination of PW-62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D6 Two Note Books and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of Ex.D6 Two Note Books as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction over the said property shown at Sl.No.13 in Statement-B as Rs.2,53,887/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,59,282/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at

Sl.No.13 of Statement-B at Rs.7,13,169/-, is not tenable.

131.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 personally supervised the construction of properties shown at item Nos.6, 7 & 13 of Statement-B and therefore, 10% of the construction cost is to be deducted but PW-54 deducted only 6% from the construction cost of the house under the

Head of Personal Supervision. On perusal of Ex.P98 Report, PW-54 deducted 6% of construction cost under the Head of Personal

Supervision. The accused failed to file any authenticated document in support of their contention that 10% of construction cost is to be

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 108 of 185 deducted under the Head Personal Supervision. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents to support the contention of the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that 10% of the construction cost is to be deducted under the Head of Personal Supervision from the total construction cost.

Item No.17:

132.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of Maruti

Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP29 AM 9977 in the name of A1 as

Rs.6,50,447/-. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer added Rs.12,552/- to the said amount as paid for accessories without any evidence and therefore, the amount of Rs.12,552/- is to be deducted from the total value of the vehicle shown at Rs.6,50,447/- and if the said amount is deducted the value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17 of Statement-B comes to

Rs.6,37,895/-.

133.In support of the value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17, the prosecution examined PW-10, who is the General Manager of

M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad, from whom A1 purchased the vehicle and as per the evidence of PW-10, A1 purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs.6,22,307/- and out of which an amount of

Rs.2,46,137/- paid by cash and Rs.4,78,240/- was received from the finance provided by Magma Fincorp Limited and an amount of

Rs.15,588/- was paid towards insurance premium, an amount of

Rs.74,680/- was paid towards life tax and an amount of Rs.12,552/- was paid towards accessories and other charges. The accused disputing the payment of Rs.12,552/- paid towards accessories and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 109 of 185 other charges, but the accused failed to cross-examine PW-10 on this aspect by suggesting him that the accused has not paid

Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges and the learned counsel for the accused reported the cross-examination of PW-10 as ‘Nil’. Therefore, in the absence of any cross-examination to PW-10 disputing the payment of Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges, I am of the opinion that the accused No.1 failed to prove his contention that he has not paid Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges and therefore, he is not entitled for deletion of the said amount of Rs.12,552/- from the total value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17 of Statement-B as Rs.6,50,447/-.

Item No.19:

134.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the gold jewellery Items at Sl.No.19 of Statement-B at Rs.4,52,134/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that all the gold Items are the exchanged gold Items which were received by A2 as Sthreedhana at the time of her marriage and PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 confirmed this fact and as per their evidence they have given 115 tulas of gold to A2 ie., 100 tulas at the time of marriage in 1994 and 5 tulas each at the time of birth of 03 children of A1 and A2 in the year 1995, 1999 and 2003 respectively.

The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the 100 tulas of gold found in the Bank Locker as per Ex.P3 includes the 15 tulas of gold given to the grand children by PW-35 and DW-1 and by rough estimation, 85 tulas was only shown as net weight but it was more than 85 tulas and the difference is due to exchange of old gold

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 110 of 185 for new ornaments and as per the evidence of DW-3, 15 tulas of gold was sold for Rs.4,20,000/- and notwithstanding the above defence, the Court has to consider that out of 12 Items shown in Ex.P3, six items are gifts, Item Nos.2, 7, 11 and 12 were exchanged for old gold items, Item Nos.9 and 10 are one and the same, which was also a gift received at the time of marriage and Ex.P53 shows the value of Item No.11 as Rs.61,500/- but not Rs.63,900/- and PW-17 stated that Ex.P51 relates to an exchange and hence Rs.21,350/- is to be deleted.

135.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that Exs.P67 and P68 are rough calculation slips and estimates as stated by PW-17 and therefore, the difference of Rs.3,52,134/- is to be deleted from the value of gold jewellery shown at Item No.19 of

Statement-B at Rs.4,52,134/- and if the said amount is deleted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be shown as the value of gold jewellery shown at Item No.19 of Statement-B.

136.As can be seen from the evidence available on record, it was already held that the accused failed to prove that the parents of

A2, presented 100 tulas of gold at the time of marriage and 5 tulas of gold each at the time of birth of the 3 children of A2 as they failed to adduce any independent evidence and failed to file any documents including the Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1 as they have admitted to have been shown the above gold presented to A2 in their Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years.

As per the contention of accused, Exs.P67 and P68 are estimates and the prosecution failed to file the purchase bills in respect of the said gold items. As can been from Ex.P67, it is an estimation for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 111 of 185 purchase of vaddanam and PW-17 deposed evidence in support of the same and as can been seen from Ex.P67 there is an endorsement of payment of amount. Even as can be seen from

Ex.P3, two vaddanams were shown found in the locker and out of which one is shown as marriage gift and the other one as purchased and if the vaddanam shown in Ex.P67 estimation is not purchased, there is no explanation from the accused about the second vaddanam shown in Ex.P3 Inventory. As far as the evidence of DW-3 is concerned, his evidence cannot be believed as he categorically stated in his evidence that he has facilitated A2 in selling of 15 tulas of gold items and through DW-3 Exs.D8 and D9 Receipts are marked which were passed by DW-3 in favour of A2. As per the contention of A2, they have sold 15 tulas of gold for Rs.4,20,000/- to DW-3. But

DW-3 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that there is no receipt number on Exs.D8 and D9 and there is no mention in

Exs.D8 and D9 that he has facilitated A2 for selling of gold ornaments and even his signatures were not available on Exs.D8 and

D9. Therefore, in view of the above admission of DW-3 that he has not purchased 15 tulas of gold from A2 and that Exs.D8 and D9 does not contain his signatures, I am of the opinion that the evidence of

DW-3 and Exs.D8 and D9 are no way helpful to the accused to support their contention that they have sold 15 tulas of gold ornaments to DW-3 for a consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. Therefore, on perusal of entire material available on record and in the absence of independence evidence adduced by the accused and in the absence of the Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 to prove the fact of presentation of 115 tulas of gold to

A2, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 112 of 185 amount of Rs.3,52,134/- is to be deleted from the total value of gold jewellery items shown at Sl.No.19 of Statement-B.

Item No.20:

137.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of household articles as per the inventory taken in the house of accused on 13.09.2013 at

Rs.4,39,500/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that in the said amount the Investigating Officer also included the value of Laptop as Rs.26,000/- which was purchased by

A1 with the computer loan of Rs.25,000/- advanced by BDL in the year 2011 as per Ex.P73 and the ceiling fans are included in the internal electrical installations in Ex.P98 Report and in statement-A the TV worth Rs.10,000/- was added but again in Ex.P3 Inventory it was added and therefore, an amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of household articles shown at Sl.No.20 of

Statement-B and if the said amount of Rs.56,000/- is deleted, the value of Item No.20 of Statement-B worked out to Rs.3,83,500/-.

138.As can be seen from the evidence on record, the

Investigating Officer has shown the value of the articles found in the house of the accused during the Search Proceedings and prepared

Ex.P2 Inventory and in the said Inventory the year of acquisition of article was clearly mentioned. As can be seen from Ex.P2 at Sl.No.8, the TV is shown as acquired in the year 1999 and its value is shown as Rs.10,000/-. Even as can be seen from Ex.P98 CPWD Report submitted by PW-54, there is no mention that the value of the ceiling fans were included in the said Report and in Ex.P98 it is mentioned that the value of internal electrical fittings were included. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 113 of 185 accused failed to adduce any evidence and failed to file any documents to show that the ceiling fans and TV found in the house at the time of Ex.P3 Inventory were acquired prior to the check period and admittedly the Laptop was purchased in the year 2011.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the TV and fans were purchased prior to the check period and also in the absence of any evidence that the value of ceiling fans were included in Ex.P98

Report, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of

Rs.4,39,500/- shown towards the value of household articles at

Sl.No.20 of Statement-B.

Item No.22:

139.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown Rs.19.00 lakhs as investment made by

A2 in M/s. Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital, Balanagar. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 invested an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs by way of three cheques and the said amount was provided by her father and the remaining amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs, a personal cheque was given to PW-16 by

A2 and the same was withdrawn by PW-16 and therefore, as the entire amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested in M/s. Sri Royal India Multi

Specialty Hospital by A2 is to be deleted from the assets of accused

No.2 during the check period.

140.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri Royal India Multi Specialty

Hospital and in support of the said contention, the prosecution examined PW-16 and got marked Exs.P47 and P48 and as per the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 114 of 185 evidence of PW-16, the invested amount was paid by A2 by way of three cheques issued in favour of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty

Hospital and they were realized in the Hospital Account and for the balance amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs, A2 issued a cheque on his name and he has withdrawn the said amount and Ex.P47 Statement of

Bank account of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital clearly goes to show the amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested by A2 and Ex.P48

Partnership Agreement also reflects the name of A2 as one of the

Partners of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital during the check period.

141.I have perused the evidence of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and

P48. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and

P48, A2 issued three cheques for Rs.5.00 lakhs each favouring Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital towards her investment and she has also issued another cheque for Rs.4.00 lakhs favoring PW-16 and the same was withdrawn by PW-16. PW-16 in his evidence categorically stated that the amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested by

A2 against her 20% share in the Hospital which is reflected in Ex.P48

Partnership Agreement. Therefore, on perusal of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and P48, I am of the opinion that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital during the check period, as the accused failed to prove that the amount invested by A2 in Sri Royal

India Multi Specialty Hospital was provided by DW-1. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused and in view of the fact that A2 invested the amount in Sri Royal India Multi

Specialty Hospital by way of cheques issued by her which were reflected in Ex.P47 Statement and also in view of the evidence of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 115 of 185

PW-16 as nothing was elicited from him adverse to the case of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs shown at Item No.22 of Statement-

B is to be deleted, is not tenable.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Income

of the accused during the check period

142.Out of the 23 items shown as income and other receipts of the accused during the check period, the accused not disputed the amounts mentioned at Sl.Nos.2 to 23 and he has claimed

additional income and submitted the same along with his written

arguments.

Item No.1:

143.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the income of A1 from salary during the check period at Rs.38,16,679/-. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to file the supplementary payments received by A1 during the check period as admittedly Ex.P73 Pay Particulars does not include the supplementary payments made to the accused during the check period which was admitted by PW-24. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that during the course of trial, the accused made an application and called for the supplementary payments received by A1 during the check period and re-called

PW-24 for further cross-examination and during the further cross- examination, the supplementary payments statement produced by

PW-24 is marked as Ex.D1 and as per Ex.D1 an amount of

Rs.1,14,936/- was paid to A1 towards supplementary bills and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 116 of 185 therefore, the learned counsel for the accused requested to add this amount of Rs.1,14,936/- to the income of A1 from salary shown at

Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

144.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-24 admitted in the cross-examination that number of other perks received by A1 were not shown in Exs.P71 to P73 which approximately comes to Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and the check period contains 156 months and if an average amount of

Rs.2,500/- per month is taken towards perks paid to A1, it works out to Rs.3,90,000/- and therefore, the supplementary payment is not

Rs.1,14,936/- as shown in Ex.D1 but it should be Rs.3,90,000/-. But as can been seen from the evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1 supplementary payment particulars, it covers the various allowances paid to A1 during the check period. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that the perks paid to A1 during the check period comes to Rs.3,90,000/- is not tenable and in view of evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1, the amount of Rs.1,14,936/- paid to A1 by way of supplementary bills is to be added to the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

145.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that during the check period, the accused availed a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- towards Car Advance and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards Computer Advance and the Investigating Officer failed to give the benefit of the said amount in the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

146.I have perused Exs.P71 to P73 which were marked

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 117 of 185 through PW-24 and also the evidence of PW-24. PW-24 in his evidence categorically stated that the advances availed by the A1 were included in the gross salary amount and the learned counsel

for the accused not even suggested to PW-24 during the cross-

examination that the Car Advance and Computer Advance were not included in the gross salary. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion given to PW-24 during the cross-examination that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards Car Advance and Rs.25,000/- towards Computer Advance were not included in the gross salary of

A1, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) is to be added to the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the amount received by A1 towards supplementary bills during the check period for an amount of Rs.1,14,936/- as shown in Ex.D1 is to be added to the income of the A1 from salary at

Sl.No.1 of Statement-C. If the said amount of Rs.1,14,936/- is added to the income of accused from salary, the total income received by

A1 from salary comes to Rs.39,31,615/-.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding

Additional Income claimed by the accused by way of defence

shown from Sl.No.24 to 35 of Written Arguments

Item No.24:

147.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A1 availed a personal loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from

HDFC Bank in the month of July, 2013 and the Investigating Officer failed to include the said amount of loan availed by A1 during the check period to the income of the accused in Statement-C. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 118 of 185 learned counsel for the accused submitted that A1 availed a loan of

Rs.5.00 lakhs from HDFC Bank during the check period and the said amount was transferred to the savings account of accused with

Andhra Bank, BDL Branch and the same was reflected in Ex.P43 and even the accused summoned the concerned Officer of HDFC Bank from where he availed the loan and examined as DW-2 and during the evidence of DW-2, the Statement of Account in respect of the personal loan availed by A1 is marked as Ex.C1. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62

Investigating Officer in his cross-examination categorically admitted that as per Ex.P43 Statement of Account, on 28.06.2013 an amount of Rs.4,86,010/- was credited to his account from HDFC Bank.

PW-62 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he has not mentioned the availing of said loan by A1 and its repayment in the charge sheet. Admittedly, the said loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs was availed by A1 from HDFC Bank during the check period and he has paid only one instalment of Rs.11,764/- during the check period and admittedly as per Ex.C1 Statement, the entire loan was repaid after to the check period. Therefore, in view of the evidence of DW-2 and

Ex.P43 and Ex.C1, I am of the opinion that as A1 availed the loan during the check period and an amount of Rs.4,86,010/- was credited to his savings account under Ex.P43 and as A1 repaid one instalment at Rs.11,764/- during the check period, which has to be deleted from the amount of loan of Rs.4,86,010/- received by A1, which comes to Rs.4,74,246/- and as A1 availed the loan during the check period, the said amount of Rs.4,74,246/- is to be added to the income of the accused in Statement-C.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 119 of 185

Item No.25:

148.The learned counsel for the accused categorically stated that the Investigating Officer charged the interest on loan availed by

A1 for purchase of TATA Indica Car in the year 2007 as expenditure in Statement-D, which was disposed by A1 in the year 2010 but the

Investigating Officer failed to add the sale proceeds of Rs.2,50,000/- received by A1 as income during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that A1 during his 313

Cr.P.C. examination submitted the explanation and documents pertaining to the transfer of Indica Car and as such the sale proceeds of Rs.2,50,000/- received by A1 towards sale of his Indica

Car is to be included to the income of accused during the check period.

149.As can been from the entire evidence on record, except the transferring of vehicle on the name of third party obtained from

RTA website, A1 failed to adduce any independent evidence and failed to file any documents to show that he has sold his TATA Indica

Car for Rs.2,50,000/- during the check period. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents in proof of the sale of

Indica Car by A1 during the check period for a consideration of

Rs.2,50,000/-, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove the sale proceeds of TATA Indica Car to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- received by him during the checkperiod is to be added to his income.

Item No.26:

150.The learned counsel for the accused categorically

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 120 of 185 submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs which was received by A2 from her father in the year 2006 by way of gift after selling of 10 acres of agricultural land in Agapally Village and 28 acres of land in Chintapally Village. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62

Investigating Officer admitted in the cross-examination that the father of A2 whose statement recorded by him during the course of investigation categorically stated that he has sold the land at

Agapally Village and Chintapally Villages. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that DW-1 in his evidence categorically stated that he has provided Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 after selling of 10 acres of land at Agapally Village.

151.As can be seen from the entire evidence available on record, except the oral evidence of DW-1 that he has paid Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 in the year 2006 after selling his agricultural land at

Agapally Village, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. The accused failed to file any Sale Deed under which the father of A2 sold 10 acres of land at

Agapally Village during the check period of this case and that he has given Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 by way of gift. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in proof of gift of Rs.10.00 lakhs by

DW-1 to A2, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that

A2 received an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs from DW-1 during the check period and that the said amount is to be included to the income of A2 during the check period.

Item No.27:

152.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 121 of 185 that PW-35 and DW-1 gifted Rs.1.00 lakh each to the children of A2 at the time of their births in the years 1995, 1999 and 2003 respectively totalling to Rs.3.00 lakhs and if the amount of

Rs.1.00lakh presented to elder child of accused born in 1995 is deleted, the remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs presented to 2nd and 3rd child of accused, who were born during the check period is to be considered as income of accused during the check period and the same has to be added to the income of accused in Statement-C.

153.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.2.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period towards gift to their 2nd and 3rd child during the check period and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.28:

154. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of A2 provided an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of construction of house bearing No.3-117/22, Boduppal in the year 2006 and even though PW-35 and DW-1 stated to the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of

Rs.20.00 lakhs received by A2 from her parents as income during

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 122 of 185 the check period and failed to show the same in Statement-C.

155.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.20.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for construction of house bearing No.3-117/22,

Boduppal and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No. 29 :

156.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of A2 provided an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of construction of house bearing No.3-118/1, Boduppal in the year 2012 and even though PW-35 and DW-1 stated to the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs received by A2 from her parents as income during the check period and failed to show the same in Statement-C.

157.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 123 of 185 accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.15.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for construction of house bearing No.3-118/1, Boduppal and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.30:

158.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to show an amount of

Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by the parents of A2 for Dhothi function of the children of accused in the year 2011 and the Investigating

Officer wrongly included an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- as expenditure at Item No.42 of Statement-D and as the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs was provided by the parents of A2 for Dhothi function of the children of accused during the check period, the same has to be added to the income of the accused in Statement-C.

159.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.4.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for Dhothi function of their children and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 124 of 185

Item No.31:

160.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to include an amount of

Rs.34,982/- received by the accused as cash gifts on the occasion of

Dhothi function of their children in the year 2011 though Ex.P134

Note book seized by the Investigating Officer, reflects the gifts received worth Rs.34,982/- and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.34,982/- is to be added to the income of the accused during the check period.

161.I have perused the evidence available on record in this aspect. PW-62 Investigating Officer during cross-examination categorically denied that Ex.P134 contains the receipt of cash gifts amounting to Rs.34,982/-. I have perused Ex.P134 Note Book wherein it is categorically mentioned about the cash gifts received amounting to Rs.34,982/-. As can be seen from the record, the

Investigating Officer relied upon Ex.P134 for the purpose of proving the expenditure in connection of Dhothi function of the children of accused. When PW-62 relied upon Ex.P134 Note Book to prove the expenditure, he ought to have considered the entries in Ex.P134 with regard to the cash gifts reflected in the said Note Book.

Therefore, in view of entries in Ex.P134, which is seized by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and as there were entries relating to the cash gifts received during the Dhothi function of the children of the accused, I am of the opinion of that the said amount of Rs.34,982/- received by the accused towards cash gifts at the time of Dhoti function of their children during the check period is to be added to the income of accused during the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 125 of 185 check period.

Item No.32:

162.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to include an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh received by the children of accused at the time of

Dhothi function from PW-35. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-35 she categorically stated that she has gifted Rs.50,000/- each to her grandsons ie., the sons of accused at the time of Dhoti function in the year 2011 and in view of the evidence of PW-35, the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh received by the accused during the check period from PW-35 is to be added to the income of the accused.

Except the oral evidence of PW-35, there is no document filed by the accused to prove the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.1.00 lakh ie., Rs.50,000/- each to their sons from PW-35 during the check period at the time of

Dhothi function and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.33:

163.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of

Rs.6.00 lakhs received by A2 from her mother ie., PW-35 as gift in the year 2010 and 2011 after availing a gold loan from Syndicate

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 126 of 185

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-35 in her evidence categorically stated that she has given Rs.6.00 lakhs to A2 by availing a Gold Loan from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and in spite of the evidence of PW-35, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs as income of A2 during the check period.

164.Except the oral evidence of PW-35, the accused failed to file any document in support of the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received Rs.6.00 lakhs from PW- 35 during the check period as gift by availing the Gold Loan from

Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.34:

165.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of

Rs.2,69,000/- received by A2 from her father in the year 2010. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that DW-1 in his evidence categorically deposed that he has given an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- to A2 in the year 2010 and in spite of the evidence of DW-1, whose statement also recorded by PW-62 during the course of investigation failed to consider the said amount of Rs.2,69,000/- as income of the accused during the check period.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 127 of 185

166.I have perused the evidence of DW-1. DW-1 in his chief- examination itself categorically stated that he has given an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- to his daughter in the year 2010 and he has shown the said amount in his Income Tax Returns. Admittedly, DW-1 failed to file his Income Tax Returns before this Court to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents, more particularly, the Income Tax Returns of DW-1 during the relevant assessment years, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- from DW-1 during the check period and that the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.2,69,000/- is to be added to the income of accused during the check period in Statement-C, is not tenable.

Item No.35:

167.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that in the year 2011, A2 sold 15 tulas of gold for a consideration of

Rs.4,20,000/- to DW-3 and received the said amount from DW-3 and the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said sale proceeds of gold amounting to Rs.4,20,000/- as income of the accused during the check period.

168.In order to prove this aspect, the accused relying upon the evidence of DW-3. As can be seen from the evidence of DW-3, in his chief-examination itself he has categorically stated that A2 brought the gold to him for selling the same and on request he sold the said gold ornaments to 3rd party and issued Ex.D8 and Ex.D9

Receipts. DW-3 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he facilitated A2 in selling of the gold and admitted that there is no

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 128 of 185 receipt number of Exs.D8 and D9 and that there is no mention in

Exs.D8 and D9 that he has facilitated A2 for selling of her gold ornaments and Exs.D8 and D9 does not contain his signatures.

Therefore, in view of the above admission of DW-3 and in the absence of the signatures of DW-3 on Exs.D8 and D9 and as DW-3 not purchased the gold from A2, I am of the opinion that the evidence of DW-3 and Exs.D8 and D9 are no way helpful to the accused to substantiate their contention that A2 received an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- from DW-3 during the check period by way of sale of 15 tulas of gold. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of DW-3 and his admissions during the cross-examination and as there were no signatures of DW-3 on Exs.D8 and D9, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received an amount of

Rs.4,20,000/- from DW-3 during the check period by way of sale of gold and that the said amount is to be added to the income of the accused.

169.Therefore, on analyzing the income of the accused with available evidence, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,14,936/- received by A1 towards supplementary bills during the check period and an amount of Rs.4,74,246/- received by the accused as personal loan from HDFC Bank during the check period and an amount of Rs.34,982/- received by the accused towards cash gifts at the time of Dhoti function of their children, totaling to

Rs.6,24,164/- is to be added to the income of accused during the check period and if the said amount is added to the income of accused, the total income received by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.1,76,38,724/-.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 129 of 185

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding

Expenditure of accused during the check period

170.Out of the 61 items shown in the charge sheet towards expenditure and other payments of the accused during the check period, the accused has not disputed the expenditure shown at Item

Nos.4 to 27, 32, 34, 36 to 40, 42, 45, 46, 49 to 52, 54, 56, 57 and 59.

Item No.1:

171.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

Investigating Officer calculated the expenditure of the accused towards household expenses at Rs.31,36,975/- which is 1/3 rd of gross salary of A1 during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the household expenditure shall be computed on the net salary of the accused instead of the same, the

Investigating Officer wrongly considered the gross salary of the accused and 1/3 rd of the net salary of A1 during the check period comes to Rs.12,72,226/-and the Investigating Officer calculated the household expenditure from the 1/3rd of gross salary received by A1 during the check period.

172.As per the contention of the accused, 1/3rd of net salary is to be considered as household expenditure of A1 but the

Investigating Officer calculated 1/3rd of gross salary of

Rs.94,10,924/- received by the accused during the check period.

Though, the learned counsel for the accused suggested to PW-62

Investigating Officer that 1/3rd of net salary is to be taken as household expenditure, but failed to substantiate any material or any document in support of his contention that the household expenditure has to be calculated from the net salary of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 130 of 185

Government Servant. Except giving suggestion to PW-62

Investigating Officer, no independent evidence is adduced by A1 to prove the said fact that 1/3 rd of the net salary is to be considered as household expenditure. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents produced by the accused in support of his contention, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that 1/3rd of net salary is to be considered as household expenditure of A1 during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.2:

173. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,86,890/- towards the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic S/o Accused

No.1 at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW-39, who is the Accounts Manager of Hyderabad

Public School deposed that the School provides snacks in the morning and evening and lunch in the afternoon everyday and non- vegetarian lunch weekly once and the School works for 222 days in a year and even by a conservative estimate and take Rs.50/- per day, the cost of food shall be Rs.11,100/- and for 10 years during the check period, it shall be Rs.1,11,000/- and this amount has to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused in respect of educational expenditure of his son Master Vaidic.

174.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per Ex.P152, the Term Fee of 2013-14 was also wrongly added without ascertaining the dates of payment which comes to

Rs.20,800/- and the same has to be deleted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic S/o Accused No.1 and in total an

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 131 of 185 amount of Rs.1,31,800/- is to be deducted from the total expenditure of Rs.3,86,890/- shown at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D and if the said amount is deducted the educational expenditure in respect of Master

Vaidic S/o Accused No.1 comes to Rs.2,55,090/-.

175.As can be seen from the record, except suggesting to

PW-39 and PW-62 Investigating Officer, the accused failed to adduce any independent evidence and also failed to file any documents to show that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,11,000/- towards lunch and snacks provided by the School to Master Vaidic during the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P152, there is a clear mention of payment of fee in respect of Master Vaidic to Hyderabad

Public School, Ramanthapur. The accused failed to file any document to show that the last Term Fee for the academic year 2013-14 was paid after to the date of check period. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents produced by the accused,

I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,31,800/- is to be deducted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic shown at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.3:

176.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.2,85,600/- towards the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh S/o Accused

No.1 at Sl.No.3 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW-39, who is the Accounts Manager of Hyderabad

Public School deposed that the School provides snacks in the morning and evening and lunch in the afternoon everyday and non-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 132 of 185 vegetarian lunch weekly once and the School works for 222 days in a year and even by a conservative estimate and take Rs.50/- per day, the cost of food shall be Rs.11,100/- per year and for 5 years during the check period, it shall be Rs.55,500/- and this amount has to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused in respect of educational expenditure of his son Master Vaidesh.

177.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per Ex.P152, the Term Fee of 2013-14 was also wrongly added without ascertaining the dates of payment which comes to

Rs.20,800/- and the same has to be deleted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh S/o A1 and in total an amount of

Rs.76,300/- is to be deducted from the total expenditure of

Rs.2,85,600/- shown at Sl.No.3 of Statement-D and if the said amount is deducted the educational expenditure in respect of Master

Vaidesh S/o A1 comes to Rs.2,09,300/-.

178.As can be seen from the record, except suggesting to

PW-39 and PW-62 Investigating Officer, the accused failed to adduce any independent evidence and also failed to file any documents to show that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.55,500/- towards lunch and snacks provided by the School to Master Vaidesh during the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P152, there is a clear mention of payment of fee in respect of Master Vaidesh to

Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur. The accused failed to file any document to show that the last Term Fee for the academic year 2013-14 was paid after to the date of check period. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the contention of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 133 of 185 accused that an amount of Rs.76,300/- is to be deducted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh shown at Sl.No.3 of

Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.28:

179.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the expenditure incurred by A1 towards payment of LIC premium during the check period in respect of LIC Policy bearing No.644214155 at Rs.48,077/-.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the premium in respect of the said policy was commenced from 1997 and the check period started from 01.01.1999 and therefore, the premium paid by

A1 from 1997 to 31.12.1998 is to be deducted from the total amount of expenditure shown at Sl.No.28 of Statement-D.

180.In respect of this item, the prosecution examined PW-28 and got marked the policy statement in respect of the above policy as Ex.P80. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no suggestion to the witness that the total amount of expenditure shown at Rs.48,077/- includes the premium paid by A1 prior to the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P80, the total premium amount paid by A1 in respect of the said policy was Rs.2,78,864/-.

Even PW-28 in his evidence categorically stated that the total premium paid in respect of the said policy was Rs.48,077/-.

Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 and also in the absence of any documents filed by the accused that the expenditure shown at Item No.28 of Statement-B includes the premium paid prior to the check period, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.16,392/- paid prior

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 134 of 185 to the check period is to be deleted from the amount of Rs.48,077/- shown as expenditure in Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.29:

181.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the expenditure incurred by A1 towards payment of LIC premium during the check period in respect of LIC Policy bearing No.64423746 at Rs.1,86,614/-.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the premium amount not paid by the accused was also added and PW-28 in his cross-examination categorically stated that they have received six quarterly payments at Rs.9,962/- totaling to Rs.59,772/- upto April, 2004 and as such the balance amount of Rs.1,26,842/- wrongly charged has to be deleted.

182.In respect of this item, the prosecution examined PW-28 and got marked the policy statement in respect of the above policy as Ex.P81. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no suggestion to the witness that an amount of Rs.1,26,842/- was wrongly charged and even PW-62 Investigating Officer denied the said suggestion. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that as per Ex.P81, the total amount of premium paid by A1 directly is Rs.1,86,614/-. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 and also in view of the evidence of PW-28 that an amount of Rs.1,86,614/- was paid by the accused during the check period, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the Investigating Officer wrongly charged Rs.1,26,842/- towards the expenditure of accused in respect of Ex.P81 LIC policy.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 135 of 185

Item No.30:

183.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the interest paid on loan availed against

LIC Policy No.644255264 standing on the name of A1 at Rs.24,392/-.

The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer wrongly shown the said amount towards expenditure of the accused even though the accused not paid any interest on the said policy as PW-28 not stated about the same.

184.I have perused the evidence of PW-28 and Ex.P79 Status

Report relating to the above said Policy. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no cross-examination to PW-28 that A1 not paid any interest on the loan outstanding in respect of policy shown in Ex.P79 Status Report. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that A1 repaid the entire loan availed by him on the said policy with interest of Rs.24,392/- as on 06.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of PW-28 and in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 that the accused not paid any interest on the outstanding loan of the said policy, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that he has not paid

Rs.24,392/- towards interest in respect of the above said policy and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of

Rs.24,392/- is to be deleted which is shown at Sl.No.30 of Statement-

D, is not tenable.

Item No.31:

185.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the interest paid on loan availed against

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 136 of 185

LIC Policy No.644214155 standing on the name of A1 at Rs.56,751/-.

The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer wrongly shown the said amount towards expenditure of the accused even though the accused not paid any interest on the said policy as PW-28 not stated about the same.

186.I have perused the evidence of PW-28 and Ex.P80 Status

Report relating to the above said Policy. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no cross-examination to PW-28 that A1 not paid any interest on the loan outstanding in respect of the policy shown in Ex.P80 Status Report. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that A1 repaid the entire loan availed by him on the said policy with interest of Rs.56,751/- as on 06.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of PW-28 and in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 that the accused not paid any interest on the outstanding loan of the said policy, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that he has not paid

Rs.56,751/- towards interest in respect of the above said policy and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of

Rs.56,751/- is to be deleted which is shown at Sl.No.31 of Statement-

D, is not tenable.

Item No.33:

187.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,76,600/- as expenditure of the accused towards interest on Car Loan availed from M/s. Magma Finance Corporation Limited. The learned counsel

for the accused further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-48

and Ex.P95 Statement of Account of Car Loan, the same was availed

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 137 of 185 in the year 2010 and closed in the year 2012 and the accused paid 24 monthly instalments @ Rs.11,160/- which comes to Rs.2,67,840/- and on account of dis-honouring of six cheques, Rs.6,960/- was charged and the fore-closure amount paid was Rs.3,65,000/- and the grand total EMIs paid, dis-honouring of cheque amounts and fore- closure amount comes to Rs.6,39,800/- and since the loan amount taken was Rs.4,93,000/- and if it is deducted from the above total, the interest paid comes to only Rs.1,46,800/- which has to be shown as expenditure but the Investigating Officer shown the interest paid as Rs.1,76,600/- and therefore, an amount of Rs.29,800/- is to be deleted from the total expenditure shown at Sl.No.33 of Statement-

C.

188.I have perused the evidence of PW-48 and Ex.P95.

PW-48 in his evidence categorically stated that he has furnished

Ex.P95 Statement of Account of A1 in respect of Car Loan and A1 availed a Car Loan of Rs.4,93,000/- and repaid the entire loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.6,69,600/- in 60 equal monthly instalments @ Rs.11,160/-. As can be seen from evidence of PW-48, the learned counsel for the accused not even suggested to the witness that the interest paid by the accused on the Car Loan is only Rs.1,46,800/- and not Rs.1,76,600/-. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-48 suggesting the interest, I am of the opinion that the contention of A1 that the interest paid by him on the

Car Loan is only Rs.1,46,800/-, is not tenable.

Item No.35:

189.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.4,250/- as expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 138 of 185 incurred by A2 towards Life Tax and Registration Charges paid on two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Life Tax is included in total amount of Rs.55,120/- paid to the dealer as shown in Ex.P35 which is also shown as income of the accused at Sl.No.18 of Statement-B and therefore, the entire amount of Rs.4,250/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted.

190.The relevant witness examined to prove this aspect is

PW-11 and the relevant document is Ex.P35. I have perused the evidence of PW-11 and Ex.P35. PW-11 in his evidence categorically stated that an amount of Rs.4,250/- was paid towards Life Tax and

Registration Charges on purchase of vehicle. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-11, the learned counsel for the accused reported no cross-examination to this witness. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-11 that the total amount of Rs.55,120/- paid towards purchase of the two wheeler includes the Life Tax and

Registration amounting to Rs.4,250/-, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the amount of Rs.4,250/- paid towards

Life Tax and Registration Charges were included in the total amount paid to the dealer and as such, I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,250/- shown as expenditure towards

Life Tax and Registration Charges on purchase of two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.41:

191.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.36,500/- as expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 139 of 185 of the accused towards house warming ceremony of H.No.3-118/1,

Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal on 23.11.2011. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer relied upon Ex.P134 Note Book entries for charging the above amount as expenditure of accused towards house warming ceremony, but as can be seen from Ex.P134, there were no dates of entries and the prosecution failed to examine any witnesses to prove the contents of Ex.P134 and therefore in the absence of any evidence and as there were no dates to the entries in Ex.P134, the total amount of Rs.36,500/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted.

192.I have perused Ex.P134 Note Book and the evidence available on record in respect of this item. The accused claimed the benefit of income of Rs.34,982/- cash gifts received on the occasion of Dhothi function of their children by relying upon the entries in

Ex.P134 Note Book and the same was considered as additional income of accused during the check period and the said benefit was given to the accused. When the accused claimed the additional income by relying upon the entries in Ex.P134 Note Book, the accused are estoped from denying the contents of Ex.P134 Note

Book when comes to the expenditure. Therefore, as the accused admitted Ex.P134 to claim the benefit of income, the contents of

Ex.P134 Note Book are to be considered to prove the expenditure incurred by the accused towards house warming ceremony.

Therefore, in view of the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.36,500/- shown as expenditure at Item No.41 is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 140 of 185

Item No.42:

193.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- expenditure incurred by the accused towards Dhothi function of sons of accused held on 09.12.2011. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Dhothi function of the sons of accused were performed by

PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 on their own and the accused also claimed that an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by

PW-35 and DW-1 for consideration of their income in Statement-C and as the entire amount for Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by WP-35 and DW-1, the total expenditure shown at

Sl.No.42 for an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused in Statement-D.

194.I have perused the evidence available on record. Except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, there is no independent evidence and documents produced by the accused to prove the fact that the entire expenditure towards the Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by PW-35 and DW-1. While considering the claim of the accused that the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by PW-35 and DW-1 for Dhothi function of the sons of accused to be considered as income of the accused during the check period, is rejected while answering the claim of the accused in Statement-C.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the expenditure of

Rs.3,60,920/- towards Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by PW-35 and DW-1, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that the amount of Rs.3,60,920/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused shown at Item No.42 of Statement-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 141 of 185

D, is not tenable.

Item No.43:

195.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as expenditure towards interest paid to PW-50 J.Srinivas Reddy against the hand loan taken from him at the time of construction of the house by A1. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

PW-50 not stated in his evidence that he has received an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 towards interest on the hand loan provided by him and therefore, in the absence of evidence of PW-50, the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure for payment of interest to

PW-50 is to be deleted from Statement-D.

196.I have perused the evidence of PW-50. As can be seen from the evidence of PW50, he has categorically stated that in the year 2012, A1 availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the purpose of construction of his house and accordingly he advanced the same by way of cheque and subsequently, A1 took an amount of Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.65,000/- on another occasion for the purpose of construction of house and after two years of availing loan, A1 repaid the loan of Rs.6,15,000/- by way of cheque pertaining to the account of A2 and the same is reflected in Ex.P70/7

Statement of Account of A2.

197.As can be seen from the evidence of PW-50, he has not stated anywhere that he has received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 towards interest against the hand loan and the prosecution failed to file any document to show that PW-50 received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 142 of 185 towards interest and the prosecution even failed to cross-examine

PW-50 to put-forth its contention that he has received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 as interest against the hand loan provided by him to A1.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that PW-50 received an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 as interest against the hand loan, I am of the opinion that the said amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure towards payment of interest to PW-50 by A1, is to be deleted from

Statement-D.

Item No.44:

198.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,00,606/- as expenditure towards interest paid on housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from SBI, Karwan Branch by A1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that no separate interest was paid by A1 as the interest was included in EMI and the same was deducted from the salary which confirms in Ex.P72 Salary Particulars and PW-51 also deposed about the same and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.1,00,606/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from Statement-

D.

199.I have perused the evidence of PW-51 and Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars of the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of PW- 51, the learned counsel for the accused not suggested to PW-51 that no separate interest is paid against the said housing loan. PW-51 categorically stated in his chief-examination that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.6,50,606/- which includes the principal, interest and pre-closure charges. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 143 of 185

PW-51 that no separate interest was paid by the accused against the housing loan and also in the absence of any independent evidence, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,00,606/- shown as interest paid on housing loan is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.47:

200.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,66,215/- as expenditure towards interest paid on housing loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs from United Bank of India, Hyderabad Branch by A1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that no separate interest was paid by A1 as the interest was included in EMI and the same was deducted from the salary which confirms in Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars and PW-46 also deposed about the same and therefore, the said amount of Rs.3,66,215/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from Statement-D.

201.I have perused the evidence of PW-46 and Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars of the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW-46, the learned counsel for the accused not suggested to PW-46 that no separate interest is paid against the said housing loan.

PW-46 categorically stated in his chief-examination that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.11,66,251/- which includes the principal, interest and pre-closure charges, out of which Rs.8.00 lakhs principal and Rs.3,66,215/- interest and pre-closure charges. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-46 that no separate interest was paid by the accused against the housing loan and also in the absence of any independent evidence, I am of the opinion that the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 144 of 185 contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,66,215/- shown as interest paid on housing loan is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.48:

202.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.53,910/- as expenditure towards mobile phone bill bearing No.9490797612 standing in the name of A1. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that as per the evidence of PW-52 and the documents submitted by A1 during 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the said mobile phone was provided by BDL to the accused and the bill in respect of the said mobile phone was paid by BDL and therefore, the said amount of Rs.53,910/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from

Statement-D.

203.I have perused the evidence of PW-52 and the documents submitted by the accused during 313 Cr.P.C.

examination, more particularly, the Certificate issued by HR

Manager, BDL dt. 09.10.2014. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW-52, he categorically stated in the cross-examination that the said mobile No.9490797612 stands in the name of A1, is the official mobile provided by the employer. I have also perused the

Certificate issued by Deputy General Manager (P&A), Bharath

Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad which is filed by A1 at the time of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said mobile bearing No.9490797612 is the official phone and the bill amount in respect of the said mobile phone was paid by the Company with a monthly ceiling of Rs.350/- + taxes and the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 145 of 185 excess amount will be recovered from the salary of the employee.

Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-52 and the Certificate issued by the authorities of BDL filed by A1 at the time 313 Cr.P.C.

examination, I am of the opinion that the mobile bearing

No.9490797612 was provided by the employer and it is an official phone and the bill of which was paid by the Company and therefore, the expenditure of Rs.53,910/- shown at Sl.No.48 of Statement-D is to be deleted.

Item No.53:

204.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- as expenditure towards chit instalments paid by A2 at Sri Ram Chits,

Nalgonda. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that A2 paid only one instalment of Rs.20,000/- and the remaining amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- was paid by the father of A2 which is confirmed by

PW-60 and therefore, only Rs.20,000/- has to be shown as expenditure and remaining amount of Rs.1,37,000/- paid by the father of A2 towards instalments of the above chit is to be deleted.

205.I have perused the evidence of PW-60 and Ex.P109

Statement of Account in respect of the Chit No.LS05 Ticket No.24 of

Sri Ram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-60, the said Chit was standing on the name of A2 and the total value of Chit Rs.10.00 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly instalments paid by the customer till 21.02.2014 is Rs.2,23,600/-.

PW-60 in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for A2 categorically admitted that the first instalment in respect of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 146 of 185 above Chit was paid by A2 and the remaining instalments were paid by her father. As can be seen from Ex.P109, the above Chit was standing on the name of A2 and the instalments were paid to a tune of Rs.1,57,000/- during the check period. Even though PW-60 admitted that except the first instalment, the remaining instalments were paid by the father of A2, the Chit was standing on the name of

A2 and it has to be presumed that the entire instalments are paid by

A2 itself though the father of A2 visited the Chit Fund Office and paid the instalments. Therefore, in view of evidence of PW-60 and

Ex.P109, I am of the opinion that the instalments paid by A2 in respect of the above Chit is Rs.1,57,000/- during the check period and as such, I hold that the contention of accused that an amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused from the total amount of Rs.1,57,000/- shown at Sl.No.53 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.55:

206.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.6,000/- as expenditure towards the amount paid by the accused to Bheemreddy Nagar

Colony Welfare Association vide Receipt Nos.66 and 67 dt.

13.03.2005. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

Ex.P136 and P137 Receipts are one and the same covering the same

H.No.3-118/1 and therefore, only Rs.3,000/- is to be taken into consideration towards expenditure and the other Rs.3,000/- is to be deleted.

207.I have perused the evidence available on record and

Ex.P136 and P137 which are the Receipts passed by Bheemreddy

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 147 of 185

Nagar Colony Welfare Association, dt. 13.03.2005. As can be seen from Exs.P136 and P137, they are independent Receipts, one is bearing No.66 and another is bearing No.67. Therefore, in view of the fact that Ex.P136 and P137 being independent Receipts, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that Exs.P136 and

P137 are one and same is not tenable and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of Rs.6,000/- shown as expenditure at Sl.No.55 of

Statement-D, is also not tenable.

Item No.58:

208.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,22,505/- as expenditure towards interest paid on overdraft account standing in the name of A1 with Andhra Bank, BDL Branch. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, PW-14 while speaking about Ex.P43 Statement of Account, did not state regarding interest payment and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.1,22,505/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused in

Statement-D.

209.I have perused the evidence of PW-14 as well as Ex.D43

Statement of Account. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-14, he has categorically stated that as per Ex.P43, overdraft limit of

Rs.3.00 lakhs was sanctioned and salary of A1 was being credited in this account and the debit balance as on 15.11.2008 was Rs.91,812/- and the debit balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,95,707/- which indicates that the said amount is due to the Bank by A1 as on said date. The learned counsel for the accused reported no cross

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 148 of 185 examination to this witness. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-14 that the accused not paid any interest in respect of the overdraft account, I am of the opinion that A1 failed to prove that he has not paid interest of Rs.1,22,505/- on overdraft account and as such I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,22,505/- is to be deleted from the expenditure shown at Sl.No.58 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item Nos.60 & 61:

210.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.2,81,313/- as expenditure incurred by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges in respect of Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP29AM 9977 at Sl.No.60 and an amount of Rs.7,320/- as expenditure incurred by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges in respect of Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 at

Sl.No.61 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that there is no receipts or bills filed by the

Investigating Officer to prove the said expenditure and the same was charged only on technical lines without any evidence and the same is admitted by PW-56. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that DW-1, who is the father of A2 used to stay with her for 15 days and above in a month, who used the four wheeler vehicle during the said stay and therefore, the expenditure charged by the Investigating Officer towards fuel and maintenance charges is to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused.

211.I have perused the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99

Inspection Report submitted by PW-56. As per the evidence of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 149 of 185

PW-56, he has inspected two vehicles bearing No.AP29AM 9977

Maruti Swift Dzire and AP29AQ 8219 Suzuki Access two wheeler and submitted his report under Ex.P99 regarding the expenditure incurred for the maintenance and fuel consumption of the above said vehicles basing on kilometer run and the total cost for maintaining two vehicles along with its fuel consumption has been arrived at Rs.2,88,633/-. PW-56 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he mentioned in Ex.P99 Report that the information regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of the vehicle is technically worked out and he is the authorized person to inspect all the vehicles of Central and State Governments.

212.Admittedly, both the vehicles were standing on the name of A1 and A2 respectively. The contention of the accused that

Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle was used by the father of A2 and incurred expenditure for fuel and maintenance, is not tenable in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and even

DW-1 not stated the same in his evidence before this Court.

213.Therefore, on perusal of evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99, I am of the opinion that as PW-56 is competent person to inspect and give report regarding the fuel and maintenance charges in respect of the vehicles, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the accused to disprove the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99, the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99 are to be believed. In view of the above facts, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.2,81,313/- shown as fuel and maintenance charges in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP29AM 9977 at Sl.No.60 and an amount of Rs.7,320/- shown as fuel and maintenance charges in

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 150 of 185 respect of vehicle bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 at Sl.No.61 is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

214.Therefore, on analyzing the Expenditure of the accused with available evidence, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure of the Accused No.1 towards interest paid to PW50 during the check period at Sl.No.43 of

Statement-D and an amount of Rs.53,910/- shown as expenditure of the Accused No.1 towards Mobile bill of Mobile No.9490797612 during the check period at Sl.No.48 of Statement-D, totaling to

Rs.2,18,910/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused during the check period and if the said amount is deleted from the expenditure of accused, the total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.83,66,606/-.

215.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-57 is not the competent person for issuance of

Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1 as the accused is working in the cadre of E5 as on the date of registration of the case and the competent authority for issuance of sanction order for prosecution of A1 is Functional Director and PW-57 was the

Executive Director, who is not competent to issue sanction proceedings for prosecution of A1 and therefore, as PW-57 is not competent person to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against A1 basing on Ex.P100

Sanction Order issued by the authority, who is not competent to issue the said Sanction Order is not maintainable and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal on this ground alone.

216.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 151 of 185 that as on the date of registration of the case, A1 is working in

Grade-IV and as such PW-57 being the Executive Director is the disciplinary authority against the Officers working in Grade-IV and therefore, Ex.P100 Sanction Proceedings issued by Ex.P57 for prosecution of A1 is valid.

217.I have perused the evidence of PW-57 and Ex.P100. As can be seen from Ex.P100, it is categorically mentioned that PW-57 being the Executive Director of BDL accorded sanction for prosecution of A1 u/s. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. PW-57 in his cross-examination categorically stated that as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 Sanction Order, A1 was in the Grade of E4 to the best of his knowledge and further stated that he may be in Grade-E5 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 Sanction Order.

PW-57 further admitted in the cross-examination that he is not the appointing authority in the case of Dr.A.Venugopal to the Grade-E5, but categorically denied the suggestion that since he is not the appointing authority of A1, he is not the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against A1. PW-57 in his cross- examination categorically stated that as Executive Director (P&A) since Dr.A.Venugopal was working under him, he was the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in terms of BDL

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules against the Officers working under his control irrespective of the Grades and as such he is the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against

A1 under Ex.P100. As can be seen from the entire material available on record, the accused failed to file any document to show that he was in a particular Grade as on the date of registration of this case and that PW-57 is not the competent authority to issue Ex.P100

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 152 of 185

Sanction Order for prosecution of the accused. Therefore, in the absence of any documents filed by the accused that PW-57 is not the competent person to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1, I am of the opinion that in view of evidence of PW- 57 that he is the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action against A1 as Executive Director, he is competent to issue Ex.P100

Sanction Proceedings and as such, the contention of the accused

No.1 that PW-57 is not competent to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1, is not tenable.

218.The Learned counsel for the accused No.1 in support of his contention regarding validity of sanction proceedings relied on the following citations reported in

1) (1963) Crl.L.J 556 between Sahebkhan Umerkhan vs The

State wherein their lordships of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat categorically held that “ Under Section 6 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Act except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub- section (1) of Section 6 have no application to the facts of this case and, therefore, they do not arise for consideration and it is clear from the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act that the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office must have been given before the Special Judge's Court appointed to try the case can take cognizance of the offence.”

2) ILR 2013 KAR 3803 between M Manjunath vs State By

Lokayuktha Police wherein His lordship of Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka categorically held that “When there is no valid sanction to prosecute the offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act , the Special Judge would have no jurisdiction to try the case and the entire trial would be vitiated

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 153 of 185 and the Special Judge could not deal with any specific charge when the trial itself is vitiated, has allowed the appeal holding that since the trial for an offence under Section 5(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, is null and void, the Special

Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 409

of the IPC, in respect of the same cause of action”.

219.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 further relied upon the following citations reported in

1) 2000 (4) ALD 663 between Maddu Lakshmana Rao vs

State Of Andhra Pradesh wherein His lordship of our

Hon’ble High Court categorically held that“'This is an

infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.'

11. This observation indicates that the infirmity of the complainant being the Investigation Officer has far reaching significance affecting the credibility of the prosecution case. But, whether this could be interpreted as the Supreme Court having laid down that in every such a case, irrespective of the facts, the prosecution and the result of the trial are vitiated does not arise for consideration in this case as the case is at the investigation stage.

12. In this case, the question is raised at the earliest stage when the investigation is still in progress. There is no point in allowing the investigation to continue with this infirmity and if it results in filing of the charge-sheet, to allow the trial to proceed and then at the end of the trial to consider the question, whether the fact of the complainant being the Investigating Officer has adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution case. When the matter is brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest and where there is an opportunity to correct the malady at the earliest stage, there is no point in allowing the proceedings of investigation to continue with this infirmity”

2) 2003 (1) ALD Cri 740 between M. Sreeramulu vs

State Of A.P. wherein His lordship of our Hon’ble High

Court categorically held that “It is true that in the list of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 154 of 185 sources of income, the prosecution had included the income from items 1 and 2 and the two trucks referred to above. The house rent was estimated at Rs. 58,968/- and income from two lorries was estimated at Rs. 2,29,220/-and

Rs. 14,325/- respectively. However, in the items of expenditure also the said items were referred to. The expenditure for these items would almost neutralize the income said to have been derived from them. The net result is that if items 1 3, 6, 9, 10 and 12 are deleted from the list of assets expenditure and income the appellant does not hold any assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The trial Court did not take these aspects into account. It had accepted the ownership in respect of these items on the basis of certain assumptions. When a finding in this regard is going to result in serious and for reaching consequences, it is required to be on sound principles of appreciation and on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. It has been pointed in the preceding paragraphs that even the Investigating Officer was not sure about the ownership of the petitioner vis-a-vis the said items. Under these circumstances, this court is convinced that the appellant did not hold any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income”.

3) (1999) 6 SCC 559 between P.Nallammal vs State

Rep. By Inspector Of Police wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“Shri K.K.Venugopal endeavoured to establish that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act is to be understood as an offshoot of the different facets of misconduct of a public servant enumerated in clauses

(a) to (d) of the sub-section which a public servant might commit. According to him, unless the ill-gotten wealth has a nexus with the sources contemplated in the preceding clauses the public servant cannot be held guilty under clause (e) of Section 13(1) . Learned senior counsel elaborated his contention like this: If a public servant is able to account for the excess wealth by showing some clear sources, though not

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 155 of 185 legally permissible, but not falling under any of the preceding clauses of the sub-section, he would be discharging the burden cast on him. He cited an example like this:

If the public servant satisfies the court that the excess wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the public servant is not liable to be convicted under the aforesaid clause.

Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.

The last illustration is this:

If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act ”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 156 of 185

4) (2006) 1 SCC 420 between D.S.P., Chennai vs K.

Inbasagaran wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “Therefore, the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish whether the accused has acquired the property disproportionate to his known source of income or not. But at the same time it has been held in a case of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 that accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.

Now, in this background, when the accused has come forward with the plea that all the money which has been recovered from his house and purchase of real estate or the recovery of the gold and other deposits in the Bank, all have been owned by his wife, then in that situation how can all these recoveries of unaccounted money could be laid in his hands. The question is when the accused has provided satisfactorily explanation that all the money belonged to his wife and she has owned it and the Income-tax Department has assessed in her hand, then in that case, whether he could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act . It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in the

Income-tax return and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 157 of 185 husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Income-tax

Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which has been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife. Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed”.

5) (2018) 1 SCC 202 between Khekh Ram vs State Of

H.P. wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that ”It is a common place proposition that in a criminal trial suspicion however grave cannot take

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 158 of 185 the place of proof and the prosecution to succeed has to prove its case and establish the charge by adducing convincing evidence to ward off any reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused. For this, the prosecution case has to be in the category of “must be true” and not “may be true”.

6) (2017) 14 SCC 442 betweenVasant Rao Guhe vs The

State Of Madhya Pradesh wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “In view of the

materials on record and the state of law as above, we are thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and punishable under Section 13(2) thereof against the appellant. He is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of “must be true” category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of “may be true”.

7) (1981) 3 SCC 199 betweenState Of Maharashtra vs

Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwarwherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “That takes us to the difficult question as to the nature and extent of the burden of proof under s. 5 (1) (e) of the Act.

The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden. i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 159 of 185 discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under s.

5(2) read with s.5(1)(e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 5(1)(e) , namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under s. 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under s. 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in Jahgan's case (supra), i.e.

to establish his case by a preponderance of probability”.

8) 2021 SCC online SC 1208 between The State By S.P.

Through The SPE CBI ... vs Uttamchand Bohra wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The material to implicate someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant, alleged to have committed misconduct, under the PCA, or amassed assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of income, thus, has to be on firm ground. In the present case, only two circumstances - the custody of the sale deed (of the property allegedly belonging to A-1) and the fact that it was witnessed by Uttamchand’s employee - are alleged against the respondent. These are wholly insufficient to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 160 of 185 raise a reasonable suspicion, or make out a prima case against him, for conspiracy.

30. It would be useful, in the context of the present case, to recollect the decision of this Court, in P.Nallammal v. State which observed, as follows:

“Thus, the two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb. So it is contended that a non-public servant has no role in the trial of the said offence and hence he cannot conceivably be tagged with the public servant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.”

9) (2010) 12 SCC 254 between Babubhai vs State Of

Gujarat & Ors wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that “Thus, it is evident that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances.

34. In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-sided, biased and mala fide. One party has been favoured by the investigating agency. The natural corollary to this finding is that the other party has been harassed in an unwarranted manner. Thus, the cause of the other party has been prejudiced. The charge sheets filed by the investigating agency in both the cases are against the same set of accused. A charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation. If the investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 161 of 185

220.The above referred citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary by marking relevant documents categorically proved the sanction proceedings and even as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution discharged its initial burden and it was categorically held that the accused failed to rebut the prosecution evidence by way of defence evidence that the properties acquired on his name and on the name of accused No.2 are not disproportionate to his known sources of income.

221.The learned counsel for the accused No.2 submitted that the offence under section 109 of IPC r/w section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act is not made out against the Accused No.2 as the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged abetment.

222.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 relied upon the following citation reportedin (2007) 10 SCC 797 between Kishori Lal vs State Of M.P wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 162 of 185

223. The above referred citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary by marking relevant documents categorically proved that properties acquired by the

Accused No.1 on his name and on the name of accused No.2 are disproportionate to his known sources of income as the Accused failed to rebut the evidence of prosecution.

224.On the other hand, in support of the case of the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following citations reported in.

1) 1964 AIR 464 between Sajjan Singh vs The State Of

Punjab wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The question then is: Was this disproportionate to the appellant's known sources of income? As was held by this Court in Swamy's Case(1) "the expression 'known sources of income' must have reference to (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 461.

Sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case" and that it could not be contended that 'known sources of income' meant sources known to the accused”.

2)(1999) 6 SCC 559 between P.Nallammal vs State

Rep. By Inspector Of Police wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“If the public servant satisfies the court that the excess wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the public servant is not liable to be convicted under the aforesaid clause.

Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 163 of 185 fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.

The last illustration is this:

If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act ”.

3)(2017) 6 SCC 263 between State Of Karnataka vs Selvi J.

Jayalalitha & Ors wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that “The Trial Court held that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and we find that the Trial

Court was right in coming to the conclusion relying on the decision of Nallammal (supra), wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that Under Section

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 164 of 185 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and in our opinion, the

Trial Court correctly held in this matter that private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act committed by the public servant. Furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial Court in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment, after scrutinizing the evidence of this case, is correct in the face of the overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by

A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences under

Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act” .

225.On perusal of the entire material available on record and in view of the detailed discussion and proper appreciation of documents and evidence adduced by the prosecution with reference to the statements A to D annexed to the charge sheet and evidence on record, the assets of the accused No.1 & 2 prior to the check period as shown in statement-A works out to Rs.1,22,800/- as shown in the charge sheet, the assets of A1 and A2 during check period from 1.1.1999 to 13-09-2013 as shown in Statement-B works out to Rs.1,68,65,610.15/- rounded to Rs.1,68,65,610/- as shown in the charge sheet, the income of the accused No.1 & 2 during check period as shown in statement-C works out to

Rs.1,76,38,724/- as against the value of Rs.1,70,14,560/- shown in the charge sheet and the expenditure of the accused No.1 & 2 during the check period as shown in statement-D works out to

Rs.83,66,606/- as against the value of Rs. 85,85,515.70/- shown in the charge sheet.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 165 of 185

226.In view of the above evidence available on record and as per values arrived at after appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents, the assets possessed by the accused, prior to check period and the assets, income and expenditure of the accused during the check period i.e., from 1.1.1999 to 13.9.2013 is to be computed as follows:

1) Assets at the Beginning of the check period

(Statement-A) Rs. 1,22,800.00

2) Assets at the end of the check period

(Statement-B) Rs. 1,68,65,610.00

3) Income received during check period

(Statement-C) Rs. 1,76,38,724.00

4) Expenditure incurred during check period

(Statement-D) Rs 83,66,606.00

5) Disproportionate Assets {(B-A) – (C-D) } {(Rs.1,68,65,610.00 - Rs.1,22,800.00)–(Rs.1,76,38,724.00- Rs.83,66,606.00)} = (Rs.1,67,42,810.00) – (Rs.92,72,118.00) = Rs. 74,70,692/- % of Disproportionate assets = Quantum of DA x 100 Income

That is : Rs. 74,70,692 x100 = 42.35 % 1,76,38,724 i.e., 42.35 % of the income.

227.It is settled law that in a case of disproportionate assets, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the public servant acquired assets on his name and on the name of his family members disproportionate to his known sources of income and if the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the evidence of prosecution that the properties acquired and shown in the charge sheet are from the known sources of income. In the present case, the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence both oral and documentary categorically

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 166 of 185 proved the disproportionate assets acquired by A1 on his name and on the name of his wife i.e., Accused No.2 to the tune of

Rs.74,70,692/- and on the other hand, the accused failed to rebut the prosecution evidence by leading convincing defence evidence.

228.Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence available on record, i.e., the evidence of PWs 1 to 62, Exs. P1 to P163, Ex.C1, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 and Ex.D1 to D9, I am of the opinion that the prosecution by examining the witnesses and by marking relevant documents categorically proved that the accused No.1 being a public servant acquired assets to a tune of Rs.Rs.74,70,692/- on his name and on the names of his wife i.e.,A2 disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the other hand, the accused failed to prove their defence that the properties acquired by them with known sources of income, as they have failed to prove by leading co- gent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, I answered the points 1 to 4 in favour of the prosecution and against the accused No.1 & 2 holding that the prosecution successfully bring home the guilty of the accused A1 for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused No.1 and 2 are liable for conviction for the said offences.

229.In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and the accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 167 of 185 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

230.The accused No.1 & 2 are heard on the quantum of sentence that has to be imposed on them.

231.The accused No.1 stated that he has not committed any offence and he is having Blood Pressure and Diabeties and prayed to reduce the sentence.

232.The accused No.2 submitted that she has not committed any offence and prayed to reduce the sentence.

233.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences proved against the accused No.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to extend the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused

No.1 & 2.

234.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused No.1 & 2 and their counsel, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5 0,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ‘three’ months for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 168 of 185

235.The accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5 0,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ‘three’ months for the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

236.The accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for set-off of the remand period if any, under section 428 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

237.The accused No.1 and A2 are informed about their right to file an appeal against this judgment and also informed their right to get a free legal aid from Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, if they have no means to engage counsel to file the appeal and they are provided with free copy of judgment.

238.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as it is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the offence pertains to Disproportionate Assets and therefore, the properties which are declared as disproportionate assets may be confiscated to the State.

239.In view of the conviction of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the disproportionate of assets proved to the tune of Rs.74,70,692/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs seventy thousand six hundred and ninety two only) for which the accused could not satisfactorily accounted for shall be

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 169 of 185 confiscated to the State under section 452 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, after appeal time is over.

240.The total fine amount payable by the accused No.1 & 2 is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

: 170 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1K.Venkatesh, Branch Manager, Cetnral Bank of India, NAARM Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-2J.Srikanth Reddy, Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda

PW-3D.Vishnu Vardhan Raju, District Registrar (Retired), Hyderabad South

PW-4S.V.Narasimha Rao, Assistant Registrar of Chits (Retired), Regional Office, Ranga Reddy (East) District.

PW-5Rajagopal Subramanyam, Sub-Registrar, Vallabnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-6G.Vishnuvardhan Rao, Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-7N.Sravan Kumar, Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nalgonda District

PW-8Jayanth Reddy, Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Maheswaram

PW-9M.Krishna Ram Bhupal, Senior Assistant, District Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy East, R.R.District

PW-10Jithender Reddy, General Manager in M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad.

PW-11Syed Wahed Ali, Sales Manager, M/s. Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

PW-12P.Ram Mohan Rao, Businessman, M/s. Nivas Constructions

PW-13A.V.Krishna Rao, Administrative Officer, RTO, Uppal

PW-14S.Bhaskara Rao, Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Chandigarh

PW-15Ketha Shanthi Kiran, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Bongiri, Nalgonda.

PW-16Ramesh Reddy, Businessman, Royal Hospital, Balanagar

PW-17Bhaskar B.Kotari, Manager (Administration and Operation), PMJ Gems and Jewellers Private Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

PW-18M.Umamaheswara Rao, Bank Panel Gold Appraiser, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-19P.Srinivas Rao, Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad.

: 171 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

PW-20B.Chandra Mohan, Senior Assistant, GHMC, Hyderabad.

PW-21Anand Vinay Marneni, Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, A.S.Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-22Smt.P.Sulochana, Home Maker

PW-23Licky Krishna Reddy, Business, Krishna Reddy Kirana and General Store, Badangpet, near Old Gram Panchayath

PW-24P.V.N.Manyalu, Deputy General Manager (Finance), Bharat Bynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad.

PW-25Dr.L.V.S.N.Murthy, Manager (P & A) in Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-26G.V.Brahmaiah, Deputy General Manager (Finance) in Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-27J.Satya Chandra Sekhara Murthy, Chief Manager (Retired), UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai

PW-28P.Vinod Babu, Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch-VII, Abids, Hyderabad.

PW-29Vijaya Kumar Gangaraj, Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Range-17, Hyderabad.

PW-30K.Vijaya Rani, Home Maker

PW-31S.Chitra, Home Maker

PW-32G.Bhaskar Prasad, Deputy General Manager, Bharat Dynamics Limited

PW-33B.Venkatapparao, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Limited, Arya Vysya Sangham, Amarapuram, Ananthapur District.

PW-34L.Laxman Dass, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda

PW-35Smt.L.Laxmamma, Home Maker

PW-36Prakash Chand Jain, Partner in Sanjay Electronics, Koti, Hyderabad.

PW-37G.Vijay Kumar, Dean, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Hyderabad.

PW-38Smt.P.Lakshmi, Principal, College of Law for Woman, Andhra Mahila Saba, Hyderabad.

PW-39Ch.Ashok Kumar, Accounts Manager, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

PW-40K.V.V.S.N.Rangacharyulu, Assistant Accounts Officer : 172 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

(Retired), ERO, Habsiguda.

PW-41Sister.Lucy, Head Mistress, St.Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

PW-42K.Bhanumurthy, Manager, Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-43K.J.Vijaya Krishna, Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle-IV, L.B.Nagar.

PW-44Hakim Noor Mahamood, Legal Manager, Magma Housing Finance.

PW-45M.Ravinder Reddy, Panchayath Secretary, Dadapur Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District.

PW-46A.Mendelson Navaraj, Retired Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Southern Regional Office, Chennai

PW-47S.Satyanarayana, Retired Telephone Revenue Inspector

PW-48P.Bhupati Sarvesh Babulu, Senior Legal Manager, Origo Finance Private Limited.

PW-49Avinash Shinde, Officer, ICICI Bank, Madapur Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-50J.Srinivas Reddy, Tandur Stones Business

PW-51V.Venkata Ramana, Chief Manager, SBI(ADB), Suryapet.

PW-52A.Yadagiri, Accounts Officer, BSNL, CGM Office, Abids, Hyderabad.

PW-53N.Narsinga Rao, Senior Master Technician (CMT-II), BDL, Kanchanbagh

PW-54M.Sitarama Rao, Superintendent in Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad.

PW-55M.Hanumantha Rao, Senior Office Superintendent, BDL, Milan Division, Hyderabad.

PW-56B.Sairam Reddy, Retired Motor Vehicles Inspector, RTA Kondapur, R.R.District.

PW-57Dr.N.Krishnam Raju, Retired Executive Director (P & A), BDL, Hyderabad

PW-58C.Raghavendra, Private Employee in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

PW-59Smt.H.T.Trisandhya, Retired Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

: 173 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

PW-60Y.Varaprasad, Divisional Manager, Sri Ram Chits, Miryalaguda

PW-61S.Muralidhara, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-62B.Satish Prabhu, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defence:

DW-1Lingala Nagabhushanam Goud, Agriculturist

DW-2Smt.M.Meenakshi, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad.

DW-3K.Srinivas Singh, Goldsmith at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1Search List dt. 13.09.2013 conducted at the residence of accused (3 sheets)

Ex.P2Inventory Memo dt. 13.09.2013 along with rough sketch (5 sheets)

Ex.P3Proceedings of Locker oeprations drawn at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch on 23.09.2013 (2 sheets)

Ex.P4Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12503/2003 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.S.Kishan Rao for Rs.25,000/- (9 sheets)

Ex.P5Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12502/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.Ch.Mallikarjun Rao for Rs.25,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P6Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12499/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.D.Uma Devi for Rs.15,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P7Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12500/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.Sandhya Rani for Rs.15,000/- (10 sheets).

Ex.P8Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12501/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.M.Padma for Rs.15,000/- (10 sheets).

Ex.P9Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance : 174 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Certificate dt. 09.11.2000 bearing No.8776/01 executed by Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu represented by GPA holder Mr.L.Krishna Reddy in favour of Mrs.Vijaya Rani for Rs.27,000/- (7 sheets).

Ex.P10Sale Deed bearing No.6197/2002, dt. 21.08.2002 executed by Smt.D.Balamani W/o Mr.D.Sriram Murthy and Smt.P.Suvarna Latha W/o Mr.P.Jagadishwar andn M/s. Renuka Constructions represented by Smt.P.Renuka in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.3,41,500/- (16 sheets).

Ex.P11Sale Deed bearing No.9391/2001, dated 31.12.2001 executed by Smt.Nukala Padma W/o. Mr.N.Ravi in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.41,500/-(10 sheets).

Ex.P12Sale Deed bearing No.8574/2006, dated 17.04.2006 executed by Smt.K.Chandrika W/o Mr.K.Mallikarjun Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.1,78,000/- (7 sheets).

Ex.P13Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5708/99 executed by Mr.C.Sonthosh Reddy S/o Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.C.Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr.A.Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr.A. Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/-(8 sheets).

Ex.P14Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5709/99 executed by Mr.C.Sonthosh Reddy S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.C.Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr.A.Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr.A.Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/-(8 sheets).

Ex.P15Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 18.02.1999 bearing No.1155/99 executed by Mr.P.Madhava Reddy S/o. Papi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.1,25,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P16Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 26.11.2001 bearing No.8387/2001 executed by Smt.C.Padmavathi W/o. Mr.Bhaskar Rao in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr.A.Venugopal for Rs.30,000/-. (10 sheets).

Ex.P17Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8775/2000 executed by Smt.D.R.Lakshmi W/o. Mr.D.Ratnaiah and Smt.D.Padmaja D/o. Mr.D.Ratnaiah in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr.A.Venugopal for Rs.51,500/- (11 sheets).

Ex.P18Sale Deed bearing No.28305/2006, dated 29.12.2006 executed by Mr.G.Bhaskar S/o. Late G.Surayanarayana in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, W/o. A.Venugopal for Rs.3,90,000/- for Plot No.8 admeasuring 390 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 part situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District (10 sheets).

: 175 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P19Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 04.07.2003 bearing No.7824/2003 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Karunakar Reddy S/o. K.Hanmanth Reddy for Rs.2,25,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (15 sheets).

Ex.P20Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4436/2007 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K.Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (12 sheets).

Ex.P21Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4435/2007 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K.Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (12 sheets).

Ex.P22Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 31.07.2006 bearing No.15841/2006 executed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venugopal represented by her GPA Holder Mr.J.Janga Reddy in favour of Mr.P.Venkatrami Reddy S/o. P.Linga Reddy for Rs.3,40,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (11 sheets).

Ex.P23Sale Deed bearing No.5083/2003, dated 30.08.2003 executed by Mr.G.Govardhan Reddy S/o. G.Janardhan Reddy and Smt.G.Aruna W/o. Mr.G.Govardhan Reddy in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.89,500/-, along with Encumbrance Certificate (14 sheets).

Ex.P24Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.4514/2000, dated 03.06.2000 executed by Mr.K.Bhushanam Goud in favour of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (12 sheets).

Ex.P25Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.6731/2003, dated 07.06.2003 executed by Mr. Kandi Basava Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-along with Encumbrance Certificate (10 sheets).

Ex.P26Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.9027/2003, dated 20.07.2003 executed by Smt.M.Chandrakala in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.10,500/-. (7 sheets).

Ex.P27Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.16286/2006, dated 02.11.2006 executed by Smt.V.Sulochana in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,29,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (8sheets).

Ex.P28Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.8494/2012, dated 18.08.2012 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal in favour of Mr.A.Bharath Kumar Reddy for sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (14 : 176 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

sheets).

Ex.P29Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.8602/2003, dated 19.07.2003 executed by Mr.B.Chandramohan Goud in favour of Mr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,75,500/-. (9 sheets).

Ex.P30Sale Deed bearing No.430/2003, dated 03.03.2003 executed by Mr.A.Lachi Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (11 sheets).

Ex.P31Sale Deed bearing No.695/2009, dated 06.03.2009 executed by Mr.B.Surender Reddy GPA Holder of Mr.V.Kumara Swamy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,03,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (13 sheets).

Ex.P32Sale Deed bearing No.7464/1999, dated 13.10.1999 executed by M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.89,000/-(10 sheets).

Ex.P33Sale Deed bearing No.1635/2000, dated 07.03.2000 executed by M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.43,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (12 sheets).

Ex.P34Attested copy of Invoice, Delivery Receipt, three Receipt Vouchers and copy of Insurance Policy (6 sheets).

Ex.P35Customer copy of Tax Invoice-cum-Sale Letter, dated 17.06.2011 for Rs.46,310/- in the name of Lingala Vijaya Rani along with office copy of said Invoice, temporary Certificate of Registration, Tax Receipt for Rs.4,250/-, copy of Order Form and Ledger Copy (7 sheets).

Ex.P36Cash Receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.54,160/- in the name of L.Vijaya Rani issued by M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

Ex.P37Cash Receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.1,000/- in the name of L.Vijaya Rani M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

Ex.P38Receipt dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.1.00 lakh issued by me in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P39Vehicle Abstract Report of motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 8219 registered in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal (2 sheets).

Ex.P40Vehicle Abstract Report of motor car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 registered in the name of Venu Gopal Abbagoni (2 sheets).

Ex.P41Statement of account of Abhaya Gold saving bank account bearing No.104510025080205 in the name of Dr.A.Venu : 177 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Gopal for the period from 08.02.2005 to 31.03.2013 (3 sheets).

Ex.P42Statement of account of saving bank account bearing No.1045100110000974 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 05.05.1997 to 30.09.2013 (44 sheets).

Ex.P43Statement of account of Overdraft bank account bearing No.104531041900064 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14.11.2008 to 13.09.2013 (24 sheets).

Ex.P44Certified copy of statement of SB Account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 20.05.2001 to 13.09.2013.

Ex.P45Locker Opening Form of locker No.239 in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (3 sheets).

Ex.P46FDR Receipt dated 05.07.2002 for Rs.7,000/- in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P47Copy of Statement of Bank Account of Sree Sree Royal India Multispecialty Hospital LLP (7 sheets)

Ex.P48Copy of Partnership Agreement dated 22.01.2013 (18 sheets)

Ex.P49Ledger Account copy of Smt.Vijaya Rani from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.

Ex.P50Retail Invoice dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for purchase of white diamond necklace for Rs.2,61,991.20 ps.

Ex.P51Purchase voucher dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for selling old gold for Rs.2,27,591/-.

Ex.P52Cash Receipt Vouchers in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani

dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 for Rs.10,000/- and

Rs.22,000/- respectively for payment of balance amount for the item covered by Ex.P50 (2 sheets).

Ex.P53Copy of Retail Invoice dated 31.12.2010 in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.2,40,354.06 ps.

Ex.P54Copy of Purchase Voucher dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,78,854/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P55Copy of Ledger Account in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.

Ex.P56Copy of Purchase Voucher dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P57Copy of Retail Invoice dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.66,249.95 ps in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P58Copy of Repair Order Sales Bill dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P59Copy of Cash Receipt Voucher for Rs.1.00 lakh in the name : 178 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P60Copy of Monthly Scheme transactions for customer in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani during the period from 08.03.2013 to 28.09.2013.

Ex.P61Copy of Customer Order/Advance Receipt dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P62Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P63Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 22.05.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P64Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 28.06.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P65Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.P66Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 28.09.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P67Estimate Slip dated 13.09.2013 along with Visiting Card.

Ex.P68Rough Calculation Slip dated 13.09.2013.

Ex.P69Copy of Bharat Dynamics Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (29 sheets).

Ex.P70Savings Account Opening Form, Statement of Account along with Certificate relating to Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani W/ o. A.Venu Gopal pertains to Account No.732010098872 in ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad (10 sheets).

Ex.P71Pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal for the period from June 1997 to December 2001 (2 sheets).

Ex.P72Pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal for the period from January 2002 to September 2013 (6 sheets).

Ex.P73Employee Ledger in respect of Car advance, computer advance and special advance availed by Dr.Venu Gopal (5 sheets).

Ex.P74Copies of Form No.16 of Dr.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (15sheets).

Ex.P75Annual Property Returns (APRs) for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules (47 sheets).

Ex.P76Loan application, dated 15.11.2008 of Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal (8 sheets).

Ex.P77Loan Sanction Letter, dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.28 lakhs. (2 sheets).

: 179 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P78Certified copy of statement of the loan account bearing No.14410610006368 for the period from 17.11.2008 to 05.10.2013. (7sheets).

Ex.P79Status Report of Policy No.644255264 (5 sheets).

Ex.P80Status Report of Policy No.644214155 (6 sheets).

Ex.P81Status Report of Policy No.644237436 (5 sheets).

Ex.P82Bunch of Income Tax Returns of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani pertaining to PAN No.AFNPL6851N for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010-11.(49 sheets).

Ex.P83Certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010to30.09.2013relatingto S.B.A/c.No.734010058346 standing in the name of Lingala Nagabhushanam (7 sheets).

Ex.P84Certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010to30.09.2013relatingtoS.B. A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma (4 sheets).

Ex.P85Copy of Invoice dated 14.03.2013 issued in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.55,500/-.

Ex.P86Application Form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) for silver privilege member dated 6.1.2002 in Country Club, Hyderabad.

Ex.P87True extract of the statement of account of Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.2007.

Ex.P88Application Form submitted by Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) for Master Life Membership in Country Club, Hyderabad dated 18.4.2007.

Ex.P89Annexure showing the assessment details and house tax payment details of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) from 01.09.2005 to 29.03.2010 in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet (2 sheets).

Ex.P90True extract of the statement of account of Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of the car loan availed by him from M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

Ex.P91Attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P92Attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.V.Sulochana.

Ex.P93True extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 24.09.2003 to 31.03.2009 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act (6 sheets along with certificate 1 sheet).

Ex.P94Statement of account showing the payment of monthly bills : 180 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of telephone No.040- 27205672 for the period from 12.07.2001 to 13.09.2013 along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (4 sheets including certificate).

Ex.P95True extract statement of account of Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of the car loan availed by him from M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad (2sheets).

Ex.P96True extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14.02.2003 to 24.08.2012 (6 sheets).

Ex.P97True extract of the payment details in respect of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21.08.2008 to 18.06.2014 along with certificate under section 65-B(4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P98Valuation Report dated 24.02.2015 submitted by us which contains my signatures and the signatures of Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao (8 sheets along with annexures 9 sheets).

Ex.P99Inspection Report dated 13.03.2015 submitted by me in respect of inspection of two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suziki Access two wheeler regarding the expenditure of maintenance and fuel consumption of the said two vehicles.

Ex.P100Sanction Order dated 28.04.2015 issued by me for prosecution of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (16 sheets).

Ex.P101Application Form in respect of Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs dated 13.06.2011.

Ex.P102Passbook in respect of Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs.

Ex.P103Statement of account for Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs (2 sheets).

Ex.P104Application Form in respect of Group No.LS 03, Ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs dated 13.06.2011.

Ex.P105Passbook in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs.

Ex.P106Statement of account for Group No.LS 03, Ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs (2 sheets).

Ex.P107Application form in respect of Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P108Passbook in respect of Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P109Statement of account for Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs (1 sheet).

: 181 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P110Payment details of the mobile Nos.8978134581 and 9866520552 furnished by me to the CBI Inspector.

Ex.P111FIR in R.C.No.16(A)/2013-CBI/ACB/Hyderabad dated 12.09.2013 along with annexure-A, B, C and proceedings of DIG, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad dated 12-09-2013 (11 sheets).

Ex.P112Search Warrant dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for search

of residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P113Search Warrant dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for search

of office premises at BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P114Original Sale Deed bearing No.518/2002 dated 28.01.2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (10 sheets)

Ex.P115Original Agreement for additional works dated November 2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani along with cash receipt for Rs.6,91,500/- and credit voucher for Rs.89,214/-

dated 10.01.2003 (7 sheets)

Ex.P116Original Sale Deed bearing No.5263/2008 dated 04.12.2008 in the name of Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani (12 sheets)

Ex.P117Original Invoice of M/s.Sanjay Electronics dated 14.03.2013.

Ex.P118Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010

Ex.P119Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010.

Ex.P120Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 29.12.2010

Ex.P121Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2011

Ex.P122Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2011

Ex.P123Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2010

Ex.P124Estimate for extra gold dated 19.03.2007

Ex.P125Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad

Ex.P126Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad dated 05.07.2003 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal

Ex.P127Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad dated 30.10.2003

Ex.P128Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, : 182 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

Ex.P129Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 22.02.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

Ex.P130Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 28.06.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P131Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P132Original LIC policy bearing No.644237436 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P133LIC policy bearing No.645686797 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal

Ex.P134One note book of Hyderabad Public School containing the details of expenditure in respect of housing warming ceremony and dhoti function at Page No.37 and 38.

Ex.P135Miscellaneous Receipt bearing No.1637 dated 03.03.2005 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani issued by Grampanchayat, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District for Rs.12,795/-.

Ex.P136Receipt bearing No.066 dated 13.03.2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony, Sanskema Sangam in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P137Receipt bearing No.067 dated 13.03.2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony, Sanskema Sangam in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P138Receipt bearing No.6897 dated 05-09-2009 issued by Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City branch for Rs.6,600/- in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P139Receipt bearing No.1354 dated 04.04.2013 issued by V- Guide Group of Coaching centres in the name of A.Vaidik for Rs.9,500/-.

Ex.P140Search List dated 13.09.2013 in respect of search and seizure of documents from the office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P141Certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property in respect of Plot No.79 admeasuring 202 Sq. yards in Sy.No.924, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as on 13.09.2013.

Ex.P142True Extract of Statement of account of SB A/c. No.14410110007679 of UCO Bank, Abids Circle Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 17.11.2008 to 16.07.2014 in : 183 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

the Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P143OriginalAccountOpeningFormof SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

Ex.P144Letter dated 18.04.2014 received from the Secretary, Twin Cities Jewellers Association, Hyderabad furnishing the gold price from 31.03.2004 to 31.03.2014.

Ex.P145Statements I to VI in original submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal furnishing the details of movable and immovable properties acquired by himself and his family members (7 sheets).

Ex.P146Certified copies of Returns of Income filed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and 2005-06 to 2011-13 and 2013-14 (24 sheets).

Ex.P147Statements of PF loans sanctioned from 1999 to 2013 to Dr.A.Venu Gopal vide ST.No.30974.

Ex.P148Receipt Memo dated 23.06.2014 under which Ex.P82 was collected from PW29.

Ex.P149Details of loan drawn and foreclosed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal with BDL Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad.

Ex.P150CCs of Encumbrance Certificates (10 sheets).

Ex.P151Receipt Memo dated 03.09.2017.

Ex.P152Payment details of admission fee, tuition fee etc., paid in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud, sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal, the Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

Ex.P153Letter dated 07.02.2014 from Head Mistress, St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Hyderabad furnishing the details of school fee paid by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2010- 2011 amounting to Rs.74,410/-.

Ex.P154Letter dated 07.12.2013 from Principal Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Tarnaka, Hyderabad furnishing the details of college fee paid by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi during the period 2011 to 2013.

Ex.P155Letter dated 04.12.2013 from Principal, College of Law for Women, Andhra Mahila Sabha, Hyderabad furnishing the details of tuition fee and other fees paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the academic years 2009-2012.

Ex.P156Letter dated 19.12.2013 from SRO, Uppal furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document Nos.6731/2003, 9027/2003 and 4514/2000.

Ex.P157Letter dated 23.12.2013 from SRO, Choutuppal furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid : 184 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

towards purchase of property vide document No.430/2003.

Ex.P158Letter dated 23.12.2013 from SRO, Ghatkesar furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.695/2009.

Ex.P159Details of monthly electrical charges paid in respect of service No.1603-1344 and 1603-2009 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (18 sheets).

Ex.P160Attested copy of loan application submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal with M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad (3 sheets).

Ex.P161Letter dated 07.01.2014 from Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal furnishing the details of property tax and water charges paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P162Letter dated 12.02.2014 from Bill Collector, Gram Panchayat Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal furnishing the property tax paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P163Statement of account of housing loan A/c.No.01593013216 with SBI, Karvan Branch, Hyderabad of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 25.02.2002 to 07.02.2004 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act (3 sheets).

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1Payment details made to Dr.A.Venu Gopal through supplementary bills during the period from 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2008 (4 sheets)

Ex.D2Declaration dt. 19.06.2014 submitted by A1 to PW62 (IO)

Ex.D3Letter dt. 16.08.2014

Ex.D4Book of Account Register

Ex.D5Executive dairy of DBL for the year 1999 (There are entries in pages from Jan 4 to Feb 5 excluding pages of Jan., 19, 21, 23 and entries in last 4 pages after 31st December, 1999 & the remaining pages are blank)

Ex.D6Two note books Vol-I and Vol-II (Vol-I – 1 to 12 pages); Vol-I (1 to 30 pages except last page)

Ex.D7Receipts, Estimates, Delivery challans and quotations

Ex.D8Receipt dt. 26.10.2011 passed by DW-3 in favour of : 185 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Smt.A.Vijaya

Ex.D9Receipt dt. 03.11.2011 passed by DW-3 in favour of Smt.Vijaya.

Exhibits marked by Court

Ex.C1Statement of account of personal loan account bearing No.24793610 for the period from 17.06.2013 to 21.12.2019 in the name of A.Venugopal.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CBI CASES, HYDERABAD

Dated : Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2022

Present : Sura Srinivas Reddy III Addl. Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.08 of 2015

Between:

State represented by Central Bureau of

Investigation, ACB, Hyderabad.... Complainant

AND

1. Dr.Abbagoni Venugopal S/o A.Saharabhalinga, Age 58 years, Occ: Chief Medical Officer, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

... Accused No.1

2. Smt.A.Vijaya Rani @ Lingala Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal, Age: 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-118/1, Bheem Reddy Nagar

Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad.... Accused No.2

This case is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.Anil Kumar Kompally, Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI/Complainant and of Sri.K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for A1, Sri.Lakkaraju Padma Rao, Learned counsel for A2 and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record and after 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 is a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police,

CBI, ACB, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and under section 109 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against A2.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) has been working as Chief Medical

Officer M/s. Bharath Dynamics Limited, Ministry of Defence,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 2 of 185

Government of India, Kanchanbagh Unit, Hyderabad, as such is a public servant and A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani is the wife of

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) public servant.

b)The Inspector submitted that on 12.09.2013 based on a source information, a case in RC.No.16(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/Hyderabad has been registered under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 Dr.A.Venugopal for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.1,33,51,844/- during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2011. The Inspector further submitted that on 13.09.2013 under the strength of Search Warrants issued by the

Court, Searches were conducted at the residential premises of

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) situated at H.No.3-118/1, Vijaya Gopal Villa, Plot

No.186/A and 186/B, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ranga

Reddy District and office premises of Dr.A.Venugopal situated at

Company premises of M/s. Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad in the presence of independent witnesses, after observing all the legal formalities and during the searches various incriminating documents like original Sale Deeds towards the purchase of immovable properties in the name of A1 and his family members, Bank Pass Books/Cheque Books, Fixed Deposit Receipts,

Locker keys, LIC Policies, Investment details, Expenditure Vouchers/

Bills/Vouchers, etc., were seized from the said premises under the cover of Search Lists.

c)The Inspector further submitted that on 23.09.2013 they have searched Locker No.239 standing jointly in the name of A1 and

A2 at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad in the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 3 of 185 presence of two independent witnesses and A2 and found various gold jewellery items and in this connection, drawn Locker Search

Proceedings incorporating all the happenings during the Search. The

Inspector further submitted that at the time of registration of the case, the check period was taken as 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2011 and that during the course of investigation, it has been reckoned as from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 i.e., the date of search for the purpose of computing the disproportionate assets. The Inspector further submitted that A1 did not inherit any properties from his parents and after completing M.B.B.S. during the period from 1993 to 1996, A1 worked as Doctor on temporary basis in various Private Hospitals in and around Hyderabad and on 16.06.1997 he joined M/s. Bharath

Dynamics Limited as Medical Officer in the scale of Assistant

Manager Gr.II, and thereafter he worked as Medical Officer in various scales of Deputy Manager, Manager and got promoted to the scale of Senior Manager on 01.09.2009 and since then he is working as

Chief Medical Officer.

d)The Inspector further submitted that 01.05.1994

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) got married to A2 Smt.Vijaya Rani, D/o Lingala

Nagabhushanam, native of Miryalaguda and he was blessed with one daughter and two sons and his daughter Vydarshi did her Primary and Higher Education from St.Ann’s School, Tarnaka from 2000 to 2010 and studied Intermediate in Sri Chaitanya Junior College,

Tarnaka in the year 2010-12 and his elder son Master Vaidic studied in Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur from 1st to 10th Class and younger son Master Vaidesh is studied in the same School from 1st

Class.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 4 of 185

e)The Inspector further submitted that A2 Smt.Vijaya Rani was born and brought up in Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and she studied in Miryalaguda upto Intermediate and after marriage, she did her MBA from Vanitha College, Nampally, Hyderabad and LL.B from Andhra Mahila Sabha, Osmania University, Hyderabad and her father Mr.Lingala Nagabhushanam was an Excise Contractor and her mother Lingala Laxmamma is a housewife and her father owned agricultural lands at Devarakonda, Miryalaguda, Ibrahimpatnam in

Nalgonda District besides various other movable and immovable properties.

f)The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that A1 Dr.A.Venugopal acquired/ possessed assets in his name and in the name of his wife

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and the details of assets at the beginning of the check period as on 01.01.1999 were clearly shown in Statement-A annexed to the Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,22,800/- and the assets of A1 and A2 at the end of the check period as on 13.09.2013 were clearly shown in Statement-B annexed to the

Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/-, the Income and other receipts of A1 and A2 during the check period were clearly shown in Statement-C annexed to the Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,70,14,560/- and the expenditure and other payments of

A1 and A2 during the check period were clearly shown in Statement-

D annexed to the charge sheet which worked out to Rs.85,85,516/-.

g)The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation several witnesses have been examined and their statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and various

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 5 of 185 documents have been collected in support of the same and further during the course of investigation several opportunities were given to A1 and A2 to satisfactorily account for the assets held by them and found in their possession, but A1 and A2 could not give satisfactory explanation, since their contentions are false and not tenable. The Inspector further submitted that the investigation also revealed that A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani did not have sufficient source of income to substantiate the quantum of assets acquired in her name and that she played an active role and abetted A1 Dr.A.Venugopal in acquiring the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- and investigation also revealed that the transactions done in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani were orchestrated by her husband A1 Dr.A.Venugopal with her active collusion and therefore, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani has been arrayed as A2 in this case during the course of investigation.

h)The Inspector further submitted that for the purpose of computation of disproportionate of assets, the details of the assets held by A1 Dr.A.Venugopal at the beginning of the check period ie., as on 01.01.1999 is shown as Statement-A, the details of the assets held by A1 at the end of the check period ie., as on 13.09.2013 is shown as Statement-B, the details of income and other receipts received by A1 during the check period is shown as Statement-C and the details of the expenditure and other payments incurred by A1 during the said check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 is shown as Statement-D and the computation of disproportionate of assets is as under:

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 6 of 185

Rs.

1. Assets at the end of check period 1,68,65,610-00 (Statement-B)

2. Assets at the beginning of check -1,22,800-00 period (Statement-A)

3. Assets acquired during check 1,67,42,810-00 period (Statement B minus Statement A)

4. Expenditure during the check +85,85,516-00 period (Statement -D) 2,53,28,326-00

5. Income during the check period -1,70,14,560-00 (Statement-C)

Disproportionate Assets (B-A+D-C)83,13,766-00 % of Disproportionate assets = Quantum of DA x 100 Income

Thus, the percentage of DA works out to 48.86%

i)The Inspector further submitted that the investigation revealed that during the check period Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) had an expenditure and other payments amounting to Rs.85,85,516/- against the total income and other receipts of Rs.1,70,14,560/- and thus, the likely savings of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) is Rs.84,29,044/- and the total assets held by Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) in his name and in the name of his family members at the end of the check period worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/- against the assets hold at the beginning of the check period amounting to Rs.1,22,800/- and therefore, total assets acquired during the check period worked out to

Rs.1,67,42,810/- and as such Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) is in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.1,67,42,810/- against the likely savings of

Rs.84,29,044/- during the check period and therefore, the amount of disproportionate assets acquired by Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) during the check period is Rs.83,13,766/-, which works out the disproportionate

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 7 of 185 of assets at 48.86% with reference to the total income and other receipts of the accused persons.

j)The Inspector further submitted that Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) being a public servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 for which he could not satisfactorily account for during investigation and thereby A1 has committed the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation also revealed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) has abetted A1 Dr.A.Venugopal in commission of the said offence which constitutes commission of offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

k)The Inspector further submitted that Dr.Namburi

Krishnam Raju, Executive Director, (P&A), M/s. Bharath Dynamics

Limited, Ministry of Defence, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad accorded sanction u/s. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1).

l)The Inspector further submitted that the investigation revealed that Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) committed an offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) committed an offence punishable u/s.

109 of IPC r/w sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and hence the charge sheet is filed.

3.The then Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 8 of 185 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against

A1 and for the offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 and the summons were issued to A1 and A2 for their appearance and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents filed along with the charge sheets were furnished to them as required u/s.

207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C. and upon hearing them u/s. 240 of Cr.P.C., charge u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and the charge u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 were framed. The framed charges were read over and explained to the accused, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PW-1 to PW-62 and got marked Exs.P1 to P163 and reported the closure of evidence. The details of the witnesses and the documents that were mentioned in the appendix of evidence attached to the

Judgment. During the cross-examination of PW-24, Ex.D1 is marked and during the cross-examination of PW-62, Exs.D2 to D7 are marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the incriminating evidence and reported defence evidence and A1 filed certain documents during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and A2 filed her written

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 9 of 185 statement.

7.In support of their defence, the accused got examined

DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked Exs.D8 and D9 through DW-3 and

Ex.C1 through DW-2 and reported the closure of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 and A2. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for A1 and A2 submitted their written arguments.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and the documents that are marked through prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that A1 acquired properties on his name and on the name of his wife i.e., A2, disproportionate to his known sources of income to a tune of Rs.83,13,766/- and as such A1 and A2 are liable for conviction for the alleged offences.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer without computing the assets, income and expenditure during the check period and without considering the income of A2 before the check period, filed a false charge sheet against the accused and if the

Investigating Officer calculated the assets, income and expenditure of A1 and A2 before the check period and during the check period properly, there will not be any assets on the name of A1 and A2 which are disproportionate to the known sources of income of A1 and therefore, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit

A1 and A2 for the alleged offences.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 10 of 185

11. Basing on the charges framed against the accused and basing on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the following points are determined for consideration.

1) Whether A1 during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 has been in possession of assets worth Rs.83,13,766/- disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for?

2) Whether A2 abetted A1 in any manner for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

3) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A2 for the offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point Nos.1 to 4:

12.In order to avoid conflicting findings and repetition of facts, Point Nos.1 to 4 are taken up together for consideration.

13.In order to prove the guilty of A1 for the offence u/s.

13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.

109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that A1 being public servant acquired properties which were shown in Statement-B disproportionate to his known sources of income and that A2 abetted

A1 in acquiring the properties on her name. In order to prove the same, the prosecution examined as many as 62 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P163.

14.As per the evidence of Mr.K.Venkatesh (PW1), the then

Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, Koti, on the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 11 of 185 instructions of his Regional Manager, Mr.Dharmalingam, on 13.09.2013, at 5:00 am he reported at CBI Office, Koti, Hyderabad, and met Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI and one Mr.Prasad, a Clerk from Bank of India was also present in CBI Office. PW1 further deposed that Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI informed them that he obtained search warrant for conducting search at a residence in

Uppal and they agreed for being accompanying with them as witnesses and at 6:00 am they left CBI office and proceeded towards

Uppal and around 6:40 am they reached Uppal and were taken to a residential building consisting of ground+3 floors and found occupants of the building were available i.e., A1 and A2. PW1 further deposed that Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI, has shown search warrants to the occupants of the building and explained the accused about the purpose of search and then the accused signed on the search warrant and then the team members of the search have shown their belongings to the accused and entered inside the building and started searching all the four floors. PW1 further deposed that during the search the documents relating to Credit

Cards, Bank Accounts, Locker Key, property documents, fixed deposit receipts were found, then he along with the other mediator subscribed their initials on all the documents found in the search and

CBI officials seized the documents found in the search under the cover of a search list attested by him and other mediator. PW1 further deposed that he identified Ex.P1 search list, dated 13.09.2013 conducted at residence of the accused. PW1 further deposed that CBI officials prepared an inventory memo for other items found in the residence of the accused, then himself and other mediator attested the inventory memo and copy of the search list

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 12 of 185 and inventory memo was furnished to the accused No.1 and the accused signed in token of receipt of the same. PW1 further deposed that CBI officials also prepared a rough sketch of the building of the accused, then himself and other mediator attested the rough sketch of the building of accused. PW1 further deposed that Ex.P2 is inventory memo, dated 13.09.2013 along with rough sketch and the items covered by Ex.P2 inventory memo were left at the residence of the accused and the value of the items mentioned in the inventory memo was noted based on the information provided by the accused. PW1 further deposed that the documents and locker key covered by Ex.P1 search list were seized and carried by

CBI officials and an amount of Rs.63,000/- was found during the search and it was returned to the accused. PW1 further deposed that the search proceedings were conducted from 7:00 am to 04:30 pm and it was recorded with the help of a video camera. PW1 further deposed that after 10 days, again he was called by the CBI officials for witnessing locker opening proceedings at Andhra Bank,

Kanchanbagh Branch, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch and Canara

Bank, Uppal Branch and around 01:00 pm, himself and other mediator accompanied CBI officials to Corporation Bank, Tarnaka

Branch and the accused No.1 and A2 were present there. PW1 further deposed that the CBI official has shown the search warrant to the bank officials and the Bank officials after completing necessary formalities allowed CBI officials to open the locker and on opening the locker they found some gold ornaments in the locker, then the

CBI officials secured Gold Appraiser to examine and weigh the gold ornaments, then CBI officials prepared proceedings under Ex.P3 dt.23.09.2013 at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka branch and it was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 13 of 185 attested by him and other mediator as well as both the accused.

PW1 further deposed that the accused provided information pertaining to the year of acquisition and mode of acquisition of the ornaments available in the locker. PW1 further deposed that all the items available in the locker were handed over to the accused and they were kept in the locker and locker key was handed over to

Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI. PW1 further deposed that on 02.05.2014, at the request of CBI officials, he went to CBI office, Koti,

Hyderabad at about 11:00 am and he was shown the video recording of the search proceedings conducted at the residence of the accused, which was recorded earlier.

15.During Cross examination PW1 categorically admitted that at the time of the values mentioned in the inventory list no documents were verified with regard to the values, source and description of the items and that at the time of preparing the inventory list, the accused was informed that the information in the inventory list is prepared tentatively subject to final verification.

16.As per the evidence of J.Srikanth Reddy (PW2), the then

Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet, R.R. District, on the request of CBI police, their office furnished certain certified true copies of sale deeds and encumbrance certificates in respect of properties, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet and Ex.P4 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12503/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.S.Kishan Rao for Rs.25,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P5 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 14 of 185

No.12502/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of

Mr.Ch.Mallikarjun Rao for Rs.25,000/-. PW2 further deposed that

Ex.P6 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12499/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.D.Uma Devi for Rs.15,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P7 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing

No.12500/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of

Mrs.M.Sandhya Rani for Rs.15,000/-.PW2 further deposed that Ex.P8 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12501/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.M.Padma for Rs.15,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P9 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8776/01 executed by Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu represented by GPA holder

Mr.L.Krishna Reddy in favour of Mrs.Vijaya Rani for Rs.27,000/- and as per Ex.P9, an amount of Rs.1,350/- paid towards stamp duty and an amount of Rs.291/- paid towards registration fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

17.As per the evidence of Mr. D. Vishnu Vardhan Raju (PW3), the then District Registrar, Hyderabad South, on the request of CBI, he visited their office and identified certain sale deeds which were registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Champapet, R.R.

District, during his tenure. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P10 is sale deed bearing No.6197/2002, dated 21-08-2002 executed by Smt.D.

Balamani W/o. Mr.D. Srirammurthy and Smt. P. Suvarnalatha W/o.

Mr. P. Jagadishwar and M/s. Renuka Constructions represented by

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 15 of 185

Smt. P. Renuka in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr. A.

Venugopal for Rs.3,41,500/-.PW3 further deposed that the property pertains to semi-finished flat No. G1 with plinth area of 1000 Sq.fts of ‘Sriram Residency’ situated at Maruthinagar of Sultanvalva

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and the stamp duty paid was Rs.34,735/- and a registration fee of Rs.1,715/- along with

Rs.125/- towards user charges. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P11 is sale deed bearing No.9391/2001, dated 31-12-2001 executed by

Smt. Nukala Padma W/o. Mr. N. Ravi in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani

W/o. Dr. A. Venugopal for Rs.41,500/- PW3 further deposed that the property pertains to bearing Plot No.9 admeasuring 413 sq.yds situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and the stamp duty paid was Rs.4,565/- and a registration fee of Rs.441/- along with Rs.50/- towards user charges and Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were registered by him. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P12 is sale deed bearing No.8574/2006, dated 17-04-2006 executed by Smt. K.

Chandrika W/o. Mr. K. Mallikarjun Reddy in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya

Rani W/o. Dr. A. Venugopal for Rs.1,78,000/- and the property pertains to bearing Plot No.21 admeasuring 222 sq.yds situated at

Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. The stamp duty paid was Rs.15,920/- and a registration fee of Rs.890/- along with Rs.100/- towards user charges and Ex.P12 was registered by Mr.

M. Veeraiah, Sub Registrar. PW3 further deposed that on the request of CBI police, their office furnished certain certified true copies of sale deeds and encumbrance certificates in respect of properties, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet and Ex.P13 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5708/99 executed by Mr. C. Sonthosh Reddy S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 16 of 185

C. Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder

Mr. A. Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr. A. Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.

Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.2,700/- and registration fee of RS.271/- has been paid.PW3 further deposed that Ex.P14 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5709/99 executed by Mr. C. Sonthosh Reddy

S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt. C. Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr. A. Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr. A.

Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for

Rs.24,000/-and the stamp duty of Rs.2,700/- and registration fee of

RS.271/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that andEx.P13 and Ex.P14 were registered by him. PW3 further deposed that

Ex.P15 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 18.02.1999 bearing

No.1155/99 executed by Mr.P. Madhava Reddy S/o. Papi Reddy in favour of Mr. A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.1,25,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.15,000/- and registration fee of Rs.896/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P16 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 26.11.2001 bearing No.8387/2001 executed by Smt. C. Padmavathi W/o. Mr. Bhaskar Rao in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal for Rs.30,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.3,300/- and registration fee of Rs.321/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P17 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8775/2000 executed by Smt.

D.R. Lakshmi W/o. Mr. D. Ratnaiah and Smt.D. Padmaja D/o. Mr. D.

Ratnaiah in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal for

Rs.51,500/- and the stamp duty of Rs.5,665/- and registration fee of

Rs.531/- has been paid.PW3 further deposed that Ex.P15 to Ex.P17

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 17 of 185 were registered by Mr. Basheer Ahmed. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

18.As per the evidence of Mr. S.V. Narasimha Rao (PW4), the then Sub Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East), Champapet, Ranga

Reddy District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he identified

Ex.P18 sale deed bearing No.28305/2006, dated 29-12-2006 executed by Mr. G. Bhaskar S/o. Late G. Surayanarayana in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani, W/o. A. Venugopal for Rs.3,90,000/- for Plot No.8 admeasuring 390 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 part situated at Badangpet

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District at their office and the

Stamp duty of Rs.36,000/- and registration fee of Rs.1,950/- has been paid. PW4 further deposed that Ex.P19 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 04.07.2003 bearing No.7824/2003 executed by

Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K. Karunakar

Reddy S/o. K. Hanmanth Reddy for Rs.2,25,000/- along with

Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.32 western part admeasuring 250 sq.yds in sy.no.166/67,68, 170 to 173, 177, 180 and 181 ward No.8, Block No.1, Kharmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar

Mandal, R.R. District.PW4 further deposed that Ex.P20 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4436/2007 executed by Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K.

Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K. Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.73 admeasuring 267 sq.yds in sy.no.123 and 124/1, Almasguda Village,

Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. PW4 further deposed that Ex.P21 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing

No.4435/2007 executed by Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K. Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K. Venkateswar Rao

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 18 of 185 for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot

No.72 admeasuring 267 sq.yds in sy.no.123 and 124/1, Almasguda

Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. PW4 further deposed that

Ex.P22 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 31.07.2006 bearing

No.15841/2006 executed by Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venugopal represented by her GPA Holder Mr. J. Janga Reddy in favour of Mr. P.

Venkatrami Reddy S/o. P. Linga Reddy for Rs.3,40,500/- along with

Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.68 and 69 admeasuring 567 sq.yds in sy.no.139, Almasguda Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal,

R.R. District. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

19.As per the evidence of Mr. Rajagopal Subramanyam (PW5), the then Sub Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, at the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he identified Ex.P23 sale deed bearing No.5083/2003, dated 30-08-2003 executed by Mr. G.

Govardhan Reddy S/o. G. Janardhan Reddy and Smt. G. Aruna W/o.

Mr. G. Govardhan Reddy in favour of Smt. S. Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr. A.

Venugopal for Rs.89,500/-, along with Encumbrance Certificate at their office and the property pertains to a Shop No.6, Ground Floor,

Sai Prashant Nivas on Plot No.8, Sri Venkateshwara Colony,

Saroornagar Village, R.R. District. An Amount of Rs.10,740/- and

Rs.450/- were paid towards stamp duty and registration fee respectively. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

20.As per the evidence of Mr. G. Vishnuvardhan Rao (PW6), the then Sub-Registrar, Uppal, R.R. District, on the request of CBI

Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of certain sale deeds

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 19 of 185 and encumbrance certificates pertaining to their office at Uppal and

Ex.P24 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.4514/2000, dated 03-06-2000 executed by Mr. K. Bhushanam Goud in favour of Dr. A.

Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.49,500/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.2,521/-. PW 6 further deposed that

Ex.P25 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.6731/2003, dated 07-06-2003 executed by Mr. Kandi Basava Reddy in favour of Smt. A.

Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.3,300/-.

Registration Fee paid was Rs.150/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P26 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.9027/2003, dated 20-07- 2003 executed by Smt. M. Chandrakala in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya

Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.10,500/-, stamp duty paid was Rs.1160/-, Registration Fee paid was Rs.55/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P27 is certified copy of sale deed bearing

No.16286/2006, dated 02-11-2006 executed by Smt. V. Sulochana in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,29,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.28,260/-, Registration Fee paid was

Rs.1,645/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P28 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8494/2012, dated 18-08-2012 executed by Mr. A.

Venugopal in favour of Mr. A. Bharath Kumar Reddy for sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with encumbrance certificate.

PW6 further deposed that Ex.P29 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8602/2003, dated 19-07-2003 executed by Mr. B.

Chandramohan Goud in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,75,500/-, Stamp duty paid was Rs.45,060/-,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 20 of 185

Registration Fee paid was Rs.1,880/-. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

21.As per the evidence of Mr. N. Sravan Kumar (PW7), the then in charge Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Nalgonda District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he visited CBI Office and identified

Ex.P30 sale deed bearing No.430/2003, dated 03-03-2003 executed by Mr. A. Lachi Reddy in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu

Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.15,290/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.700/- and he further identified Ex.P31 sale deed bearing No.695/2009, dated 06-03-2009 executed by Mr.

B. Surender Reddy GPA Holder of Mr. V. Kumara Swamy in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of

Rs.3,03,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, Stamp duty paid was Rs.24,240/-. Registration Fee paid was Rs.1515/-. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

22.As per the evidence of Mr. Jayanth Reddy(PW8), the then

Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Maheswaram, he was in charge Sub-Registrar, for Hyderabad East, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy

District and at that time on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of certain sale deeds and encumbrance certificates and identified sale deeds shown by CBI which are Ex.P32 sale deed bearing No.7464/1999, dated 13-10-1999 executed by

M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.89,000/-, stamp duty paid was Rs.9,800/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.726/-. PW8 further deposed that Ex.P33

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 21 of 185 is sale deed bearing No.1635/2000, dated 07-03-2000 executed by

M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.43,500/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.4,500/-, Registration Fee paid was Rs.471/-.

The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

23.As per the evidence of Mr. M. Krishna Ram Bhupal (PW9), the then in charge Sub-Registrar, Champapet, R.R. District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of sale deeds shown to him under exhibits P13, P14, P15, P16 and P17 and he attested the said certified copies. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

24.As per the evidence of Mr.K.Jithender Reddy(PW10), the then General Manager in M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad, M/s. Acer

Motors is dealer of Maruthi Suzuki and deals sales and service of

Maruthi four wheelers and on the request of CBI police, he furnished details of payment received from the customer Dr.A.Venugopal regarding purchase of Maruthi Suzuki Swift Dezire Car for an amount of Rs.6,22,307/- and an amount of Rs.2,46,137/- paid by cash and Rs.4,78,240/- was received from the finance provided by

Magma Fincorp Limited and an amount of Rs.15,588/- was paid as premium towards Insurance Policy, an amount of Rs.74,680/- was paid towards Life Tax, an amount of Rs.12,552/- was paid towards accessories and other charges and Ex.P34 is attested copy of invoice, delivery receipt, three receipt vouchers and copy of insurance policy. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 22 of 185

25.As per the evidence of Mr.Syed Wahed Ali (PW11), Sales

Manager, M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited,

Secunderabad, their company deals with sales and service of Suzuki two wheeler motor cycles and on the request of CBI police, he provided attested copies of documents relating to the sale of Suzuki

Access motor cycle to Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani W/o.Dr.Venu Gopal on 17.06.2011 and Ex.P35 is customer copy of tax invoice cum sale letter, dated 17.06.2011 for Rs.46,310/- in the name of Lingala

Vijaya Rani along with office copy of said invoice, temporary certificate of registration, tax receipt for Rs.4,250/-, copy of order form and ledger copy. PW 11 further deposed that Ex.P36 is cash receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.54,160/- and Ex.P37 is cash receipt

dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.1,000/- both are in the name of L.Vijaya

Rani issued by M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited,

Secunderabad and the total amount collected from the customer towards on road price is Rs.55,120/-, Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 bears signature of the then cashier Mr.Murali Mohan. The learned counsel

for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as

nil.

26.As per the evidence of Mr. P.Ram Mohan Rao(PW12), doing construction business in the name and style of M/s Nivas

Constructions, he was one of the vendors under Ex.P23 sale deed executed in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal for sale of shop in Sai Prasad Nivas as mentioned in schedule for

Rs.1,05,000/- and Ex.P38 is receipt dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.1 lakh issued by him in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Ex.P38 was issued for receipt of sale consideration amount. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 23 of 185 learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

27.As per the evidence of A.V.Kirshna Rao (PW13),

Administrative Officer, RTO, Uppal, on the request of CBI, police,

Hyderabad, their office furnished attested copies of vehicle abstract record of certain motor vehicle registered in their office and Ex.P39 is vehicle abstract report of motor cycle bearing No.AP 29 8219 registered in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

PW 13 further deposed that as per Ex.P39, an amount of Rs.4,170/- was paid towards life tax and Rs.160/- towards registration fee. PW 13 further deposed that Ex.P40 is vehicle abstract report of motor car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 registered in the name of Venu Gopal

Abbagoni and as per Ex.P40, an amount of Rs.74,680/- was paid towards life tax and Rs.425/- towards registration fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

28.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Bhaskara Rao (PW14), the then Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, BDL Campus Branch, Hyderabad on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, he furnished certified copies of statement of accounts pertaining to account

No.104510025080205,1045100110000974 and 104531041900064 maintained with BDL Campus Branch. PW 14 further deposed that

Ex.P41 is statement of account of Abhaya Gold saving bank account bearing No.104510025080205 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from 08.02.2005 to 31.03.2013 and as per Ex.P41, the opening balance was Rs.1,978/- and effective available balance as on 13.12.2013 was Rs.2,030.75 ps., including interest. PW14 further

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 24 of 185 deposed that Ex.P42 is statement of account of saving bank account bearing No.1045100110000974 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from 05.05.1997 to 30.09.2013 and as per Ex.P42, the opening balance was Rs.1,485/- and effective available balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.7,252.90 ps., including interest.PW14 further deposed that Ex.P43 is statement of account of Overdraft bank account bearing No. 104531041900064 in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) for the period from 14.11.2008 to 13.09.2013 and as per

Ex.P43, overdraft limit of Rs.3 lakhs was sanctioned and the salary of you Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) was being credited in this account. PW14 further deposed that the debit balance as on 15.11.2008 was

Rs.91,812/- and debit balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,95,707/- which indicates that said amount is due to the bank by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) as on said date and he was having locker facility. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

29.As per the evidence of Ketha Shanthi Kiran (PW15), the then Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch,

Secunderabad Branch, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, their bank furnished certified copy of account statement of SB account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and locker opening form of locker No.239 with key No.24 and Ex.P44 is certified copy of statement of SB account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 20.05.2001 to 13.09.2013. PW15 further deposed that as per Ex.P44, an amount of

Rs.1,000/- was deposited initially and balance as on 13.09.2013 was

Rs.29.50 ps. PW15 further deposed that Ex.P45 is locker opening form of locker No.239 in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 25 of 185

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and the Locker rent was Rs.500/- per annum and at the time of opening locker A1 and A2 deposited an amount of

Rs.7,000/- on 05.07.2002. PW15 further deposed that Ex.P46 is FDR receipt dated: 05.07.2002 for Rs.7,000/- in the name of Mr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2). The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

30.As per the evidence of Mr. Ramesh Reddy(PW16), he is running Royal Hospital, Balanagar, since 2013 and he knows

Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) and Smt.L.Vijaya Rani (A2) and he got acquaintance with Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) when he visited Remedy

Hospital for inspection, and at that time he was working in that hospital and later he started Royal Hospital in the year 2013. PW16 further deposed that Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) invested 20% share of

Rs.20 Lakh in Royal Hospital in the name of his wife Smt.L.Vijaya

Rani (A2)and the amount was paid by way of three cheques issued by Smt.L.Vijaya Rani (A2) for Rs.5 lakhs each dated 20.02.2013, 23.04.2013 and 08.07.2013 in favour of Sree Royal India

Multispecialty Hospital LLP and they were realized in the hospital account. PW16 further deposed that the balance amount of Rs.4 lakh was also paid by way of cheques dated 12.09.2013 and he had drawn the amount personally for ING Vysya Bank, Uppal. Accordingly an amount of Rs.19 lakh was invested against 20% share amount of

Rs.20 lakh and he has not paid any payment to the A1 and A2 after the said investment. PW16 further deposed that he had provided

Ex.P47 copy of statement of bank account of Sree Royal India

Multispecialty Hospital LLP and Ex.P48 copy of partnership agreement dated 22.01.2013.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 26 of 185

31.During Cross examination PW16 categorically admitted that all the four cheques deposed by him were issued on the account of Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) and that the agreement vide Ex.P48 was entered with Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) among others and he did not say that the investment was made by Dr. Venu Gopal (A1) and the investment was made by Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2).

32.As per the evidence of Mr.Bhaskar B.Kotari (PW17),

Manager (Administration and Operation), PMJ Gems and Jewellers

Private Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, he was in-charge of sale operation and administration and on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad, he has provided Ex.P49 ledger account copy of

Smt.Vijaya Rani from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. PW17 further deposed that he also provided copies of retail invoices of Smt.Vijaya

Rani for purchase of diamond and gold ornaments and Ex.P50 is retail invoice dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for purchase of white diamond necklace for Rs.2,61,991.20 ps.,Ex.P51 is purchase voucher dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for selling old gold for

Rs.2,27,591/-.PW17 further deposed that the amount covered by

Ex.P51 was adjusted towards the cost of item covered by Ex.P50.

PW17 further deposed that Ex.P52 is cash receipt vouchers in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 for

Rs.10,000/- and Rs.22,000/- respectively for payment of balance amount for the item covered by Ex.P50. PW17 further deposed that later Smt.Vijaya Rani purchased gold necklace and necklace tops on 31.12.2010 for Rs.2,40,354.06 ps., and A2 exchanged old gold items for Rs.1,78,854/- and paid the balance amount later. PW17 further deposed that again Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) purchased gold ear rings on 30.04.2011 for Rs.66,250/- and exchanged one gold ear ring on

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 27 of 185 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- and paid the balance amount. PW17 further deposed that A2 got repaired one gold item on 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/-. and paid earlier balance amount of Rs.1 lakh on 30.04.2011. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P53 is copy of retail invoice dated 31.12.2010 in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for

Rs.2,40,354.06 ps. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P54 is copy of purchase voucher dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,78,854/- in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW17 further deposed that Ex.P55 is copy of ledger account in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and Ex.P56 is copy of purchase voucher dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya

Rani and Ex.P57 is copy of retail invoice dated 30.04.2011 for

Rs.66,249.95 ps in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P58 is copy of repair order sales bill dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) and

Ex.P59 is copy of cash receipt voucher for Rs.1 lakh in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P60 is copy of monthly scheme transactions for customer in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani during the period from 08.03.2013 to 28.09.2013 and Ex.P61 is copy of customer order/advance receipt dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed thatEx.P62 is copy of additional advance receipt

dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P63 is copy of additional advance receipt dated 22.05.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P64 is copy of

additional advance receipt dated 28.06.2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P65 is copy of additional advance receipt dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 28 of 185 for Rs.20,000/-. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P66 is copy of

additional advance receipt dated 28.09.2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/- and the estimate slip dated 13.09.2013 shown to him is in the hand writing of our Director

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain for Rs.3,06,570/- towards cost of Vaddanam.

PW17 further deposed thatEx.P67 is estimate slip dated 13.09.2013 along with visiting card Rough calculation slip dated 13.09.2013 shown to him is in the hand writing of his Director

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain for estimating cost of Matil and ring and

Ex.P68 is rough calculation slip dated 13.09.2013.

33.During Cross examination PW17 categorically admitted that Ex.P67 is only an estimate and he has not seen the bill for

Ex.P67 and final bill will be issued after negotiations in case of sale of the item mentioned in the estimation.

34.As per the evidence of Mr.M.Umamaheswara Rao (PW18), Bank Panel Gold Appraiser, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka

Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of Manager, Corporation Bank,

Tarnaka Branch, he went to the said branch one day in the year 2013 and found CBI officials and the accused No.1 and A2 present.

PW18 further deposed that a locker was opened and found some gold ornaments in the locker and he was asked to weigh the said gold ornaments with the help of electronic weighing machine available in the bank, accordingly he weighed the said gold ornaments and also valued the ornaments, Ex.P3 Proceedings were prepared for the same and he attested said proceedings.

35.During Cross examination PW18 categorically admitted that Ex.P3 proceedings was prepared by CBI Inspector and the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 29 of 185 details relating to year of acquisition and mode of acquisition were not based on any documents and they were noted tentatively by CBI

Inspector and the accused No.2 intimated that it is difficult to give exact information about said details.

36.As per the evidence of Mr.P.Srinivas Rao (PW19), the then Deputy Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Bharat

Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad, previously, Mr.M.Eshwar was their

Chief Vigilance Officer and on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, they asked Dr.A.Venu Gopal to furnish I-VI statements and the A1 furnished the statements I to VI and same were forwarded to CBI police. PW19 further deposed that on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad, they furnished Ex.P69 copy of Bharat Dynamics Limited

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

37.As per the evidence of Mr. B.Chandra Mohan (PW20),

Senior Assistant, GHMC, Hyderabad, on 19.07.2003, he alienated a house plot located in Lakshma Reddy colony, Uppal to Dr.Venu

Gopal for Rs.7,13,000/- and executed a sale deed for Rs.3,75,500/- as per Sub Registrar value vide original of Ex.P29 sale deed.

38.During Cross examination PW20 categorically admitted that the accused A1 did not pay the amount mentioned above in the chief examination and there is no proof for the payment of

Rs.7,13,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand only).

39.As per the evidence of Mr. Anand Vinay Marneni(PW21),

Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P70 Savings

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 30 of 185

Account Opening Form, statement of account along with certificate relating to Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal pertains to

Account No.732010098872 in ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch,

Hyderabad. PW21 further deposed that as per Ex.P70, the account was opened on 19.04.2012 and the balance as on 26.04.2012 was

Rs.10,000/- and as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,661.08 ps. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 11.06.2012 an amount of Rs.6,15,310/- was credited through RTGS from account of

Mr.Y. Varaprasad. PW21 further deposed that on 13.06.2012 an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was debited by NEFT to Mr.J.Srinivas Reddy.

PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 26.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was debited to Mr.Hanumanth

Rao through clearing cheque bearing No.633880. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 24.07.2012 an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- was debited to Magma Fincorp through clearing cheque bearing No.633886. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 05.01.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 26.02.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was debited to Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque bearing No.633889. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 23.04.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 24.04.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was debited to Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque bearing No.633890. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 04.07.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further stated that as per the statement of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 31 of 185 account on 10.07.2013 an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was debited to Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque

No.633891.PW21 also stated that as per the statement of account on 11.09.2013 an amount of Rs.4 Lakh was credited by transfer from account No.734010058346 from ING Vysya Bank, Miryalguda branch. PW21 also stated that as per the statement of account on 12.09.2013 an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was debited to Obbareddy

Ramesh Reddy.

40.During Cross examination PW 21 categorically stated that as per statement of account, on 14.06.2012 an amount of

Rs.41,000/- was credited from Mr.Lingala Nagabhushanam by NEFT, on 14.06.2012 an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- was credited by

Smt.Lingala Laxamma by NEFT, on 14.06.2012 an amount of

Rs.1,99,000/- was credited by Mr.Lingala Laxman Das by NEFT, on 15.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was credited from Lingala

Nagabhushanam from Miryalguda Branch and on 16.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was credited by Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma from

Miryalguda Branch.

41.As per the evidence of Mrs.P.Sulochana (PW22), Ex.P27 sale deed dated 02.11.2006 shown to her was executed by her in favour of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,29,000/- as her husband and the husband of Smt.Vijaya Rani had made the sale negotiations relating to Ex.P27 and the sale consideration was paid by cash.

42.During Cross examination PW22 categorically admitted that she do not remember whether Ex.P27 was shown to her during examination by CBI officer and she do not know that who is

V.Sulochana W/o. V.Narasimha Reddy and she do not know how her

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 32 of 185 name is described in Ex.P27 sale deed and she do not know English and do not know that Smt.Vijaya Rani her self made negotiations and purchased the property by paying the sale consideration.

43.As per the evidence of Mr.Licky Krishna Reddy(PW23) running a Kirana and General Store in the name of Krishan Reddy

Kirana and General Store, Badangpet, near old Gram Panchayat, in the year 2000 he did real estate business and he knows Dr.Venu

Gopal (A1), as he purchased a house plot from him and he executed a sale deed in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) wife of Dr.Venu

Gopal (A1). PW23 further deposed that Ex.P9 is the true copy of sale deed executed by him in the year 2000 in favour of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.75,000/- and the market value was shown in the sale deed as

Rs.27,000/- as per Government value. PW23 further deposed that he received cash of Rs.75,000/- towards sale consideration and the land originally belong to Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu and he executed a sale deed as GPA holder for Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu.

44.During Cross examination PW23 categorically stated that at the time of sale of property in favour Smt.Vijaya Rani, her husband Dr.Venu Gopal came along with her and made negotiations and he did not show any document to CBI for receiving Rs.75,000/- and that in sale deed there is no mention about payment of

Rs.75,000/-.

45.As per the evidence of Mr.P.V.N.Manyalu (PW24), the then Deputy General Manager (Finance), Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad who previously worked as Senior Manager (Finance), Central Pay Roll Division, BDL, Hyderabad, Central Pay

Roll Division will take care of salary disbursement pertaining to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 33 of 185 employees of BDL. PW24 further deposed that Mr.S.Narayanan,

Additional General Manager (P & A) forwarded the salary particulars

of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1), the then Chief Medical Officer, BDL,

Hyderabad for the period from 1997 to 2001 and 2002 to September 2013 compiled by Pay Roll Department and signed by him. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P71 is pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from June 1997 to December 2001. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P72 is pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from January 2002 to September 2013. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P73 is employee ledger in respect of Car advance, computer advance and special advance availed by Dr.Venu Gopal(A1). PW24 further deposed that Ex.P74 is copies of Form No.16 of Dr.Venu

Gopal(A1) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. PW24 further deposed that as per Ex.P71, the gross salary for the period from June 1997 to December 2001 is

Rs.8,02,518/- and net salary is Rs.7,43,335/-. PW24 further deposed that as per Ex.P72, the gross salary for the period from January 2002 to September 2013 is Rs.92,57,686/- and net salary is

Rs.33,26,055/-. PW24 further deposed that the advances were included in the gross salary amount and the details relating to all deductions were shown in the above salary statements.

46.During Cross examination PW24 categorically admitted that he do not know about check period in the case and he has no personal knowledge about the happenings prior to his date of joining in Pay Roll Division in July 2013. PW24 further admitted that on the above documents he did not mention that all precautions were taken for preparing the statements. PW24 further stated that

Computerized salary statements are being raised since 1996 to his

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 34 of 185 knowledge. PW24 categorically denied the suggestion that the note in Ex.P71 that “As the copies of payslips are not available the above statement is prepared based on the information in the appointment letter, applicable DA rates and pay fixation statements.” is not correct and further added that earlier pay particulars were prepared by several divisions and therefore, they are not available at Central

Pay Roll Division and hard copies were also not available. PW24 categorically admitted that in Ex.P71 he did not mention that he contacted other divisions and could not get details and that some payments will be made through supplementary bills prepared month wise and the Supplementary bills will be prepared for payment of allowances relating to conveyance, medical, canteen, telephone, news paper etc. and Ex.P71 does not contain information about supplementary bills relating to above allowances and that in Ex.P72 there is no declaration that all supplementary bills were taken into consideration and that the total amount of above allowances paid per month may be around Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- to an employee.

47.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that to his knowledge performance linked incentive was there from 1997 till the year 2006 and from 2007 onwards they were having performance related pay which is also an incentive and further admitted that in Ex.P71 there is no information about performance linked incentive. PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that the employees used to give declaration till the year 2007 about conveyance allowances, medical expenses, canteen expenses that they have spent the amount and from August 2009 employees need not give declaration.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 35 of 185

48.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that all the employees will be receiving uniform cloth, stitching allowance, washing allowance, annual school fee reimbursement for two children to certain limit, annual gifts some times in electronic gadgets/gift cards for exchange to purchase grocery items.

49.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that CBI officer did not ask him about the details relating to above allowances, perks and concessions given to their employees and that in his statement given to CBI I stated that the gross salary is

Rs.97,20,216/-.

50.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that

Ex.P71 and Ex.P72 do not contain full details of above allowances, perks and concessions given to Dr.Venu Gopal and that he was informed that CBI asked salary particulars in connection with assets case and he furnished salary particulars only as in normal course and he cannot say the total emoluments paid including the above allowances, perks and concessions covering the period from June 1997 to September 2013.

51.As per the evidence of Mr.Dr.L.V.S.N.Murthy (PW25), the then Deputy Manager (P & A) in Bharath Dynamics Limited,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI, Hyderabad the then Manager Mr.S.Narayanan provided Annual Property Returns for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical

Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules. PW25 further deposed that Ex.P75 is Annual Property Returns (APRs) for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical Officer,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 36 of 185

Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules. PW25 further deposed that as per Ex.P75/15 which relates to APR for the year 2008, there is no mention about Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 sale deeds executed in March 2007. PW25 further deposed that as per Ex.P75/6 relates to APR for the year 2004, there is no mention about sale of any immovable property.

52.During Cross examination PW25 categorically admitted that there will not be any correspondence with the employee by the company with regard to entries mentioned in APRs submitted by the employee and the company will receive the APRs submitted by the employee and file them in records. PW25 further admitted in the

Cross-Examination that he was not dealing with the work of APRs during the period covered by Ex.P75/15 and Ex.P75/6 and the source of income for acquiring a property mentioned in APR will not be mentioned in APR and he did not state any specific rule relating to

APRs during my examination by CBI. PW25 further admitted in the

Cross-Examination that he do not know when the properties covered by Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 were sold and that he was not asked about

Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 during my examination by CBI.

53.As per the evidence of Mr.G.V.Brahmaiah(PW26), the then Senior Manager, BDL, Hyderabad, their department deals with provident fund matters relating to employees of Bharath Dynamics

Limited, Hyderabad. PW26 further deposed that Dr.A.Venu Gopal was working as Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited,

Hyderabad and on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished information relating to loans availed by Dr.Venu Gopal (A1)

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 37 of 185 from provident fund and as per their records, Dr.A.Venu Gopal availed non-refundable loan of Rs.17,72,700/- during the period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 from the provident fund account and he also availed refundable loan of Rs.2,32,800/- during above period and it was repaid fully through his salary. During Cross examination

PW26 categorically admitted that the Loan will be sanctioned after verifying the purpose of seeking loan mentioned in the loan application.

54.As per the evidence of Mr. J. Satya Chandra Sekhara

Murthy(PW27), the then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Abids Circle

Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he furnished original and certified copies of certain documents relating to housing loan availed by Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal from UCO Bank,

Abids Circle Branch in the year 2008. PW27 further deposed that

Ex.P76 is loan application, dated 15.11.2008 of Dr. Abbagoni

Venugopal (A1) and Ex.P77 is loan sanction letter, dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.28 lakhs.PW27 further deposed that Ex.P78 is certified copy of statement of the loan account bearing No.14410610006368 for the period from 17.11.2008 to 05.10.2013. PW27 further deposed that as per above documents, Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) was the co-applicant for the loan and the loan was sanctioned for take over loan from

United Bank of India in respect of house bearing No.3-118/1 on plot

No.186/A and 186/B in Sy.No.95, 94, 97 located at Bheemireddy

Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal.PW27 further deposed that the as per statement of account an amount of Rs.16,77,100/- loan was repaid as on 13.09.2013 by way of monthly installments recovered from salary of Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal. The learned

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 38 of 185 counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

55.As per the evidence of Mr. P. Vinod Babu(PW28), the then Branch Manager,LIC of India, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he furnished information and documents relating to Policy Nos.644255264, 644214155, 644237436 in the name of Dr. A. Venugopal. PW28 further deposed that Ex.P79 is status report of policy No.644255264., Ex.P80 is status report of policy No.644214155., Ex.P81 is status report of policy

No.644237436. PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P79, the policy was commenced on 11.02.2002 for the sum assured Rs.5 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.2,400/- and the total premium amount paid was Rs.3,33,600/- and the policy holders availed a loan of

Rs.37,500/- on 28.07.2005 and repaid entire loan amount with interest of Rs.24,392/- as on 06.04.2011. PW28 further deposed that again the Accused No.1 availed a loan of Rs.1,71,000/- on 06.04.2011 and same is outstanding and said loan amount was paid after deducting the earlier loan amount of Rs.61,892/- and the balance amount was paid by way of cheque issued in favour of Dr. A.

Venugopal.PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P80, the policy stands in the name of Mr. A. Venugopal commenced on 28.08.1997 was the sum assured Rs.3 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.1,366/- and the total premium amount paid was Rs.2,78,864/- and the policy holder availed loan of Rs.87,250/- on 28.07.2005 and repaid entire loan amount on 06.04.2011 with interest of Rs.56,751/- PW28 further deposed that again A1 availed loan on 06.04.2011 for Rs.2,20,000/- and the above outstanding loan amount was deducted from the loan and balance of Rs.74,633/- was paid by way of cheque issued in

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 39 of 185 favour of Mr. A.Venugopal.PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P81, the policy stands in the name of Mr. A. Venugopal commenced on 28.11.2002 was the sum assured Rs.5 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.3,321/- and the total premium amount as was paid

Rs.4,42,000/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy holder availed a loan of Rs.2,42,000/- on 27.04.2011 and the premium amount of

Rs.3,321/- was deducted from the loan amount and balance amount of Rs.2,38,679/- was paid by way of cheque in favour of Dr. A.

Venugopal. PW28 further deposed that as per above documents the policies covered by Ex.P79 to Ex.P81 were taken under ordinary mode initially and premium amount was paid directly and later on 16.05.2009, the policy covered by Ex.P79 was converted into salary savings scheme and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is Rs.1,43,361/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy covered by Ex.P80 was converted into salary savings scheme on 19.11.2007 and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is

Rs.48,077/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy covered by Ex.P81 was converted into salary savings scheme in November, 2007 and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is Rs.1,86,614/-.

56.During the Cross examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No.1 PW28 categorically admitted that from the commencement of the policy bearing No. 644237436 they have received 6 quarterly payments @ Rs.9,962/- totaling to Rs.59,772/- upto April,2004 in ordinary mode i.e., the premium amount paid by the policy holder personally by way of cash or cheque and after

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 40 of 185

April,2004 onwards they received premiums through salary deductions of the policy holder from his employer. PW28 further admitted in the Cross- Examination that the loans will be sanctioned to the policy holder on the basis of number of premiums received to total receivable premiums plus bonus accrued and while disbursing the subsequent loan to the policy holder, they will deduct the

principal and interest as on the date in respect of outstanding loan.

PW28 further admitted in the Cross- Examination that as per Ex.P81 status report the policy holder has not paid any interest on loan outstanding.

57.As per the evidence of Mr. Vijaya Kumar

Gangaraj(PW29), the then Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (2),

Hyderabad, on request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P82 bunch of Income Tax Returns of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani (A2) pertaining to PAN No.AFNPL6851 N for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010- 11.PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051027 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged as it was filed beyond the time limit. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051028 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged as it was filed beyond the time limit.

PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051029 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 41 of 185 as it was filed beyond the time limit.PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the income tax return was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051030 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.3,610/-. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 the income tax return was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051031 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.1,930/-. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 the income tax return was filed on 19.11.2010 vide acknowledgment No.1120007616 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.5,740/-. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

58.As per the evidence of K.Vijaya Rani (PW30) residing at 3-117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad since

July 2007 as tenant, her landlord is Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) w/o.

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and she paid monthly rent @ Rs.1,000/- from

July 2007 to January 2012, subsequently, paid monthly rent @

Rs.1,500/- from February 2012 to 2015 and she paid the rent to A2 by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

59.As per the evidence of S.Chitra (PW31) residing at 3- 117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad since

August 2009 as tenant, her landlord is Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) w/o.

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and she paid monthly rent @ Rs.3,000/- from

August 2009 to 2011 and subsequently, paid monthly rent @

Rs.3,500/- from 2012 for three years and she paid the rent to A2 by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 42 of 185

60.As per the evidence of Mr.G.Bhaskar Prasad(PW32),

Deputy General Manager, Bharat Dynamics Limited, since May 2012 and also holding the post of Secretary, Bharat Dynamics Employees

Co-Operative Credit Society, since December, 2013, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished certain information about the loans availed by Dr.A.Venugopal, Chief Medical Officer, Bharath

Dynamics Limited from their society during the period from 31.12.2002 to 31.03.2013. PW32 further deposed that as per the records of Society, Dr.A.Venugopal has availed total loan amount of

Rs.5,67,000/- during the above period and repaid an amount of

Rs.4,72,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.67,116/- towards interest and out of the said amount repaid, an amount of

Rs.1,65,200/- was recovered from salary and an amount of

Rs.3,06,800/- was paid directly by way of cash and cheques and outstanding loan amount as on 31.03.2013 is Rs.95,000/-. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

61.As per the evidence of B.Venkatapparao (PW33), the then Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ashoknagar, Nagarjuna

Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, While he was working in

ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ashoknagar, Nagarjuna Sagar Road,

Miryalguda, Nalgonda District on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he furnished certain documents relating to SB

A/c.No.734010058346 standing in the name of Lingala

Nagabhushanam and SB A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma. PW33 further deposed that Ex.P83 is certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2013 relating to SB A/c.No.734010058346

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 43 of 185 standing in the name of Lingala Nagabhushanam . PW33 further deposed that Ex.P84 is certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2013 relating to SB

A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma.

PW33 further deposed that as per Ex.P83, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to the account bearing No.732010098872 at Uppal on 15.06.2012 and Rs.4 lakhs on 11.09.2013 to the said account.

PW33 further deposed that as per Ex.P84, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to the account bearing No.732010098872 in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani at Uppal Branch on 16.06.2012. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

62.As per the evidence of Mr.L.Laxman Dass (PW34) doing cultivation at Miryalaguda, Nalagonda District, on 14.06.2012, on request of his sister Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, he transferred an amount of

Rs.1,99,000/- from his account in Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda

Branch, Nalagonda District to his sister’s account in ING Vysya

Bank, Boduppal, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

63.As per the evidence of Smt.L.Laxamamma(PW35),

Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2) is her daughter and she is having savings bank accounts in ING Vysya Bank, Miryalaguda branch and Syndicate

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and in the year 2010/2011 she took gold loan of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda

Branch and also availed another gold loan for Rs.5 lakhs in 2012/2013 from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch. PW35 further deposed that she also availed agricultural loan from Syndicate Bank,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 44 of 185

Miryalaguda Branch and out of the above loan amount she has given an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2).

PW35 further deposed during re- Examination that she has paid the above amounts stated by her to her daughter ie.,A2 by way of cash only and she has shown all the amounts in her Income Tax Returns.

64.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW35 categorically admitted that she has presented 100 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.5 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya

Rani(A2) at the time of marriage towards pasupu kumkuma and she also presented a motor cycle, household goods and electronic goods worth of Rs.3 lakhs to her at the time of marriage and at the time of marriage she promised her to give a house accordingly she has given a house worth of Rs.20 lakhs at Boduppal to her for construction. PW35 further admitted that her daughter Smt.Vijaya

Rani(A2) is having 3 children and at the time of birth of each child she has presented Rs.1 lakh cash and 5 tulas of gold to each child and she gave Rs.15 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2) when she constructed first floor on the house given to her .

65.PW35 further admitted that she has spent Rs.4 lakh at the time of celebrating dhoti function of her grand children and she presented an amount of Rs.50,000/- each and 5 tulas of gold to her grandsons at the time of dhoti function. PW35 further admitted that she used to present RS.10,000/- each to her daughter and son-in-law and Rs.5,000/- each to her grand children for diwali festival every year and she used to present Rs.10,000/- to her daughter and

Rs.5,000/- to her grand children at the time of rakhi festival and she used to send groceries to her daughter every year which were

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 45 of 185 received from their land and she was helping her daughter as and when she was in need of money.

66.As per the evidence of Prakash Chand Jain (PW36) a partner in Sanjay Electronics, 5-1-720, Kushal Chambers Complex,

Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P85 copy of invoice dated 14-03-2013 issued in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.55,500/- for purchase of Samsung Refrigerator which containing his signature The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

67.As per the evidence of Mr. G. Vijay Kumar (PW37),

Principal, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, on the

request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished fee particulars of Miss.

Abbagoni Vaidarsh D/o. Mr. A. Venugopal who studied Intermediate in their college during the period 2011-2013 with Admission

No.112536087 and as per their records a total amount of Rs.59,605/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Five only) was paid towards admission fee, tuition fee, material fee and exam fee etc., for the above period for the above student. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

68.As per the evidence of Smt.P.Lakshmi (PW38) Principal,

College of Law for Woman, Andhra Mahila Saba, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police and after perusing the office records she furnished information that Smt.L.Vijaya Rani D/o. L.Nagabhushanam studied in their college during the academic year 2009-12 with role

No.172109831050 and during that period she paid an amount of

Rs.35,500/- as fee, out of the said fee an amount of Rs.26,400/- was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 46 of 185 tuition fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

69.As per the evidence of Ch.Ashok Kumar (PW39),

Accounts Clerk, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, he could identify the signature of Mrs.Ramandeep Kaur Samra, the then Principal of Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad as he worked along with her. PW39 further deposed that the letter

dated 18-12-2013 contains the signature of Mrs.Ramandeep Kaur

Samra and on the request of CBI police and after verification of their office records, they furnished information that Master A.Vaidik Goud,

Master A.Vaidesh Goud were admitted in their school vide Admission

No.5622/2004 (2004-05) and No.6662/2008 (2008-09) respectively.

PW39 further deposed that an amount of Rs.3,86,890/- was paid towards fee in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and out of which an amount of Rs.3,52,840/- paid towards tuition fee for the said period and an amount of Rs.2,85,600/- was paid towards fee in respect of

Master A.Vaidesh Goud and out of which an amount of Rs.2,41,360/- paid towards tuition fee. PW39 further deposed that their Admission

Clerk Mrs.Uma Maheshwari prepared the chart in respect of the fee particulars of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud which was submitted to the CBI police along with the letter dated 18- 12-2013.

70.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW39 categorically admitted that the school fee includes the amount spent for snacks at 11:00 am and 03:00 pm and for lunch at 12:40 pm provided to the students and he cannot say the exact amount spent by the school for providing snacks and lunch

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 47 of 185 to each student and the school will provide full fledged lunch in all working days serving non vegetarian lunch once in a week. PW39 during Cross-Examination categorically stated that he cannot say whether the school is spending Rs.100/- per day for each student for providing snacks and lunch.

71.As per the evidence of Mr.K.V.V.S.N. Rangacharyulu (PW40), the then Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Habsiguda, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, he has furnished demand and collection charges in respect of service No.1603-5099, 1603-3803, 1603-6405, 1603-4735, 1603-5098, 1603-1344, 1603-2009 and the service number 1603-2009 was standing in the name of Mr.

A.Venugopal (A1) and the total amount of Rs.2,61,425/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till

September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-1344 was standing in the name of Mr. A.Venugopal (A1) and the total amount of Rs.72,275/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-5098 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.22,839/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-4735 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.45,722/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and the service number 1603-6405 was standing in the name of

Ch.Hanumantha Rao. PW40 further deposed that the total amount of

Rs.19,798/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and the service number 1603-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 48 of 185 3803 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.26,308/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-5099 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.22,771/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and he has furnished the above details after verification of official records to the CBI police under a covering letter. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

72.As per the evidence of Sister.Lucy(PW41),Head Mistress,

St.Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, she knows Sister Sally

Joseph, the then Head Mistress of St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka,

Secunderabad worked from June 2011 to May 2015 and she could identify the signature of Sister Sally Joseph and the letter dated 7.2.2014 in the letter head of St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, shown to her contains the signature of Sister Sally Joseph. PW41 further deposed that as per the said letter A. Vaidarshi D/o A.Venugopal having Admission No.8030/9338 studied in their school during the year 2001 to 2011 and an amount of Rs.74,410/- was paid as fee in respect of A.Vaidarshi for the said period. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

73.As per the evidence of Mr.K. Bhanumurthy (PW42), the then Manager, Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad, on request of

CBI police, Hyderabad he had furnished the membership particulars and statement of account particulars of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1). PW42 further deposed that initially, Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) joined in Country

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 49 of 185

Club as Silver Privilege member on payment of Rs.25,000/- towards membership fee and after completion of 5 years the membership of

Dr. A.Venugopal was converted into Master Life Member.PW42 further deposed that he had handed over Ex.P86 application form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for silver privilege member dated 6.1.2002 in Country Club, Hyderabad and Ex.P87 true extract of the statement of account of Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.2007.PW42 further deposed that Ex.P88 is the application form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for Master Life

Membership in Country Club, Hyderabad dated 18.4.2007.

74.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW42 categorically admitted that the membership fee of Rs.25,000/- paid by Dr.A.Venugopal is a refundable amount after expiry of five years from the date of membership and that he cannot say whether Dr.A.Venugopal visited the Country Club at any point of time.

75.As per the evidence of Mr K.J.Vijaya Krishna (PW43),

Deputy Commissioner, GHMC Circle-IV, L.B.Nagar, he knows

Mr.Srinivas Reddy the then Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Circle-IV,

L.B.Nagar and he could identify his signature as they worked together.PW43 further deposed that the letter shown to him during evidence along with Annexure contain the signature of Mr.Srinivas

Reddy and as per the said letter, they have furnished the tax payment details of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet stands in the name of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal. PW43 further deposed that as per Annexure to the letter Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani paid tax of Rs.6,930/- from 01-09-2005 to 29-03-2010 and Ex.P89 is

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 50 of 185 the Annexure showing the assessment details and house tax payment details of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) from 01-09-2005 to 29-03- 2010 in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet.

76.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW43 categorically admitted that as per Ex.P89, the house tax was paid by Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 01-09- 2005 to 29-03-2010.

77.As per the evidence of Mr. Hakim Noor Mahamood (PW44), the then Legal Manager, M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited,

Begumpet, Hyderabad, the letter along with Annexure shown to him during his evidence contained the signature of Mr.T.Ratnakar, who worked as Officer in M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad and he could identify his signatures as they worked together. PW44 further deposed that as per the Annexure to letter

dated 22-01-2014, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) availed car loan for an

amount of Rs.3,35,000/- on 11-12-2007 for purchase of Tata Indica

DLG Turbo car and the said amount was paid by the company i.e.,

M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet to the dealer and as per the Annexure Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) repaid the entire loan amount along with interest amounting to Rs.3,92,935/- on 17-01- 2009 and the loan account was terminated.PW44 further deposed that Ex.P90 is the true extract of the statement of account of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) in respect of the car loan availed from

M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 51 of 185

78.As per the evidence of M.Ravinder Reddy (PW45),

Panchayath Secretary, Dadapur Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad

District, who previously worked as Bill Collector, Boduppal Gram

Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District from September 2013 to

July 2016, the letter dated 12-02-2014 shown to him during evidence was issued by him in respect of house tax payment details, water charges and permission fees payment details in respect of

H.No.3-118/1 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal, H.No.3- 117/22 standing in the name of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani and H.No.3- 117/24 standing in the name of Mrs.V.Sulochana.PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3- 118/1 from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014 is Rs.14,340/- by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1).PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3-117/22 from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 is

Rs.15,559/- by Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3-117/24 from 2005- 2006 to 2013-2014 is Rs.3,410/- by Mrs.V.Sulochana. PW45 further deposed that on the request of CBI police, the Executive Officer,

Boduppal Gram Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, furnished Ex.91 attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani and Ex.P92 attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of

Mrs.V.Sulochana vide letter dated 07-01-2014.

79.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW45 categorically admitted that unless the mutation is done, the ownership particulars in respect of the property will not be changed on the name of purchaser and the tax will be collected

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 52 of 185 on the name of the owner on record till the mutation is effected on the name of the purchaser of the property.

80.As per the evidence of Mr.A.Mendelson Navaraj (PW46), the then Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Hyderabad branch, on the request of CBI police, he furnished the details of statement of account in respect of United housing loan jointly availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.8 Lakhs from their branch and the same was disbursed to the Accused No.1 and 2.

PW46 further deposed that as per the records, Dr.A.Venu Gopal and

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani have repaid the total housing loan amounting to

Rs.11,66,215/- including interest and pre-closure charges, out of which Rs.8 lakhs principal amount and Rs.3,66,215/- interest and pre-closure charges. PW46 further deposed that Ex.P93 is the true extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 24-09- 2003 to 31-03-2009 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of

Evidence Act.

81.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW46 categorically admitted that the EMI cleared through salary deduction of Accused No.1 in respect of housing loan includes the principal and interest.

82.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Satyanarayana (PW47), the then Telephone Revenue Inspector, office of Chief Accounts Officer,

Musheerabad Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, he had submitted a letter signed by their

Accounts Officer Sri G.Kameshwar Rao, furnishing the telephone charges paid by the subscriber namely Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 53 of 185 of telephone No.040-27205672 for the period from 12-07-2001 to 13-09-2013. PW47 further deposed that as per Ex.P94 the statement of account furnished by them Dr.A.Venu Gopal paid an amount of

Rs.1,60,822/- towards monthly bills in respect of telephone No.040- 27205672 for the period from 12-07-2001 to 13-09-2013 along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

83.As per the evidence of Mr.P.Bhupati Sarvesh Babulu (PW48), the then Assistant Manager, Legal, M/s.Magma Fincorp

Limited, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, he had submitted a letter dated 15-10-2013 along with Ex.P95 true extract of statement of account in respect of the car loan availed by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal for purchase of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle. PW48 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu Gopal availed car loan for an amount of Rs.4,93,000/- on 14-08-2010 for purchase of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle and the same was disbursed. PW48 further deposed that as per the statement

Dr.A.Venu Gopal repaid the entire loan amount with interest amounting to of Rs.6,69,600/- in 60 equal monthly installments @

Rs.11,160/-.

84.During the Cross examination by the learned counsel for the Accused PW48 categorically stated that by verifying Ex.P95 he can not say the interest on car loan paid by the Accused No.1.

85.As per the evidence of Mr. Avinash Shinde (PW49),

Officer, ICICI Bank, Madapur Branch, Hyderabad from 2012 to 2017, on the request of CBI police, he had furnished the statement of account in respect of the housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from their bank for the period from 14-02-2003 to 24-08-2012. PW49

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 54 of 185 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu

Gopal availed housing loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from their branch on 14- 02-2003 and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani is the Co-Applicant of the loan and the said loan amount was pre-closed on 24-08-2012 by paying entire outstanding amount. PW49 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu Gopal repaid an amount of

Rs.10,56,075.70 ps., which includes principal, interest and pre- closure charges and the principal amount is Rs.5 Lakhs and

Rs.5,56,075.70 ps. is interest and pre-closure charges and Ex.P96 is true extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14-02-2003 to 24-08-2012. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

86.As per the evidence of Mr.J.Srinivas Reddy(PW50) doing

Tandur Stones business, he knows Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as his family friend and he had been working as Doctor in Bharath

Dynamics Limited. PW50 further deposed that in the year 2012,

Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) requested for hand loan of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of construction of house and on the request he advanced a hand loan of Rs.5 lakhs to Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) by way of cheque and Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) en-cashed the said cheque.PW50 further deposed that subsequently, Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) took an amount of

Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.65,000/- on another occasion for the purpose of construction of the house and after two years of availing the loan Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the loan amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- by way of cheque pertaining to the account of

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) with Andhra Bank, L.B.Nagar Branch. PW50 further deposed that as per Ex.P70/7 statement of account of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 55 of 185

Accused No.2 shown to him the cheque issued in his favour bearing

No.633879 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- was cleared and also the cheque issued in his favour bearing No.633884 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was cleared. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

87.As per the evidence of Mr.V.Venkata Ramana (PW51) the then Branch Manager, SBI, Karvan, in the year 2014, on the request of CBI police, he had furnished the attested copies of housing loan documents pertaining to Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1), who availed housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from their bank and the loan amount was disbursed to A1. PW51 further deposed that Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) has repaid an amount of Rs.6,50,606/- which includes the

principal, interest and pre-closure charges in respect of housing loan

pre-maturely on 07-02-2004. During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the Accused No. 1 PW51 categorically admitted that Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the housing loan amount by issuing cheque drawn on United Bank of India and he cannot say whether this housing loan was taken over by United Bank of India or not.

88.As per the evidence of Mr. A.Yadagiri (PW52), the then

Accounts Officer (Billing), Cellone, BSNL office of DGM, Telephone

Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, on the request of their Sub Divisional

Engineer, he had furnished the payment details of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21-08-2008 to 18-06-2014 to the CBI police. PW52 further deposed that Ex.P97 is the true extract of the payment details in respect of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 56 of 185 name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21-08-2008 to 18- 06-2014 along with certificate under section 65-B (4) (c) of Indian

Evidence Act and as per Ex.P97, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) paid an amount of Rs.53,910/- as of 21-08-2013 towards monthly usage charges in respect of mobile number 9490797612.

89.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW52 categorically admitted that he cannot say as to who paid the monthly bills as shown in Ex.P97 and he has stated to the CBI police that as per office records the said mobile number 9490797612 stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1), CMO, BDL,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad and that on official mobiles issued by the employer the designation of the officer is mentioned in the records and the mobile bearing No. 9490797612 was supplied to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) by his employer.

90.As per the evidence of Mr.N.Narsinga Rao (PW53),

Senior Master Technician (CMT-II), BDL, Kanchanbagh, he joined in

BDL in the year 1983 as Junior Electrician and he knows Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) who is their Medical Officer. PW53 further deposed that In the year 2012, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) availed a hand loan of Rs.1

Lakh from him and he paid the said amount by way of cash and after few months, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the hand loan amount of

Rs.1 Lakh to him by way of cheque pertaining the account of his wife i.e., Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW53 further deposed that as per

Ex.P70/7 statement of account of Accused No.2 shown to him contains the details of the cheque issued in his favour bearing

No.633881 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.1

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 57 of 185

Lakh was cleared. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

91.As per the evidence of Mr. M.Sitarama Rao (PW54), the then Executive Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad from 2012 to 2014, on the instructions of his superiors and on request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he along with Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao, the then

Assistant Engineer (QA) valued three properties i.e., residential buildings bearing Nos.H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey

Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District,

Hyderabad, H.No.3-117/22, Plot No.187/Part in Sur4vey Nos.94 and 95, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II, Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar

Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and submitted the report on 24-02-2015. PW54 further deposed that they have applied the standard principles of valuation approved by Government of India while valuing the above properties and Ex.P98 is the valuation report

dated 24-02-2015 submitted by them which contains his signatures

and the signatures of Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao . PW54 further deposed that as per Ex.P98, the value of H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony,

Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad is Rs.87,71,975/-, the value of

H.No.3-117/22, Plot No.187/Part in Sur4vey Nos.94 and 95, Bheem

Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad is

Rs.21,53,917/- and the value of House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in

Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II,

Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District,

Hyderabad is Rs.7,13,169/- and the Flat No.G1, Sri Rama

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 58 of 185

Residency, Maruthi Nagar, Sultanvala Village, Saroornagar, Revenue

Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad was not valued by them even though referred by CBI as they could not inspect the said property.

92.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW54 categorically admitted that he has not seen the letters addressed by CBI police to their office for valuation of the above said properties referred in his chief examination and that he has submitted modified valuation report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he did not prepare any working sheet showing measurement of each component of sub work except other than what is annexed to Ex.P98 report and that an enclosure to

Ex.P98 report does not contain the date on which it was prepared and also the signatures not affixed on each page.

93.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that they have inspected the properties on 12-06-2014 and he has not put the date under his signature in Ex.P98 report and

Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao put the date under his signature in

Ex.P98 report as 10-02-2015 including last page of annexure. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has mentioned in

Ex.P98 report that the accused No.1 was present at the time of inspection of the properties, but he has not obtained the signatures of accused No.1 on Ex.P98 report and on its annexures. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that at column 2.4 of

Ex.P98 report, they have mentioned that the party submitted bills and vouchers pertaining to the properties and at column 3.A.3 of

Ex.P98 report it is mentioned that declared value is not available, at column 4.A.5 of Ex.P98 report it is mentioned that ground floor was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 59 of 185 purchased in the year 2000 and remaining three floors were constructed subsequently between 2009 to 2012. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has not enclosed the cost index rates which they have adopted to Ex.P98 report.

94.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he do not know whether there were any improvements to the buildings during period from 13-09-2013 to 12-06-2014and that he did not mention the factual details relating to number of rooms constructed in each floor of the building bearing H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony,

Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and that they have considered the total plinth area for all the first, second and third floor of the building without giving any breakup and they have not prepared any drawing of the building.

95.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that without physically verifying the foundation, on notional basis deduction was allowed and that the plinth area rates contained two different rates and he do not remember whether the plinth area rates followed by us contained Rs.9,000/- and Rs.8,500/- per Square meter and they worked out the plinth area rates as Rs.9,000/- per square meter which they felt appropriate.

96.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that after arriving at basic building cost by taking the rate as Rs.9,000/- per square meter, the cost in respect of the items shown at Sl.No.2, 3 and 4 of Annexure-A to Ex.P98 report were worked out on percentage basis i.e, 12%, 5% and 12.5% respectively. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he do not know whether the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 60 of 185 actual expenditure incurred by the accused No.1 is less than what is shown in Annexure-A for the items at Sl.No.2, 3 and 4 of Ex.P98 report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the cost of construction varies from place to place, from time to time and increases as time passes and that the cost of construction material varies from shop to shop depending on quality and quantity of the material purchased and the material cost is also depends on the fact whether the cash is paid or taken on credit. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the rates they have adopted is inclusive of labour charges and that the labour charges are equal to men and women as per the Government wages.

97.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that they did not conduct any quality test of the buildings and that

Government rates are fixed considering high quality of work.

98.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that

Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao assisted him in valuation of the properties mentioned in Ex.P98 report and the total value of H.No.3- 118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem

Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad mentioned in Ex.P98 report is inclusive of ground floor and he has not taken the cost of ground floor mentioned in the sale deed and worked out the cost of construction separately.

99.PW54 categorically denied in the cross- examination that he has shown more value of the buildings showing exorbitant rates without considering the actual expenditure incurred, which construction cost of first, second and third floor comes only to the extent of about Rs.56 Lakhs and that he has given unrealistic report

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 61 of 185 vide Ex.P98 and that he has adopted exorbitant rates and taken the value of construction of House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II, Hattiguda Village,

Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad as

Rs.7,13,169/- which is actual Rs.2,52,000/- as per the books of accounts maintained by the accused.

100.PW54 categorically denied in the cross- examination that he has adopted the higher rates of the Central Government in valuation of the properties to the private constructions in a village and that we have increased the cost of construction in Ex.P98 report.

PW54 categorically denied in the further cross- examination that at the time of inspection of the building, the Accused shown the books of account maintained by them for construction of the building mentioned in Ex.P98 report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the entire area covered under description 4A of

Ex.P98 report was not covered with granite flooring and that he did not compare the buildings constructed by the accused with the description of residential accommodation shown in the CPWD manual for applying the plinth area rates.

101.As per the evidence of Mr.M.Hanumantha Rao (PW55), the then Senior Office Superintendent, BDL, Milan Division,

Hyderabad, he knows Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) working as medical officer in BDL and during course of his employment, he used to visit

A1 for medical checkup. PW55 further deposed that during the year 2012, he got PF loan of Rs.5 Lakhs and during the said period

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) requested for a hand loan of Rs.4 to 5 Lakhs and considering his request he advanced an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 62 of 185

A1 by way of self cheque drawn on Andhra Bank, BDL Extension

Branch in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and he en-cashed the said cheque. PW55 further deposed that after two to three months of availing loan, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid his loan amount by issuing the bearer cheque in his name pertaining to the account of

A2 and he has deposited the said cheque in his bank account with

Andhra Bank, BDL Extension Branch and en-cashed the said cheque.

PW55 further deposed that he do not remember the name of the bank of which the cheque of accused No.2 handed over to him for repayment of loan amount and the amount received by en-cashing the cheque issued from the account of Accused No.2 issued by

Accused No.1 is reflected in his statement of account. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

102.As per the evidence of Mr.B.Sairam Reddy (PW56), the then Motor Vehicles Inspector, RTA Uppal, R.R. District, as per instructions of RTA, Uppal, on 13-03-2015, he inspected two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suziki Access two wheeler and submitted his report regarding the maintenance and fuel consumption of the above said vehicles basing on Kilometer run of the said vehicles. PW56 further deposed that as on the date of his inspection, the kilometer reading of

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI is 75,232 kms and the reading of Suziki

Access two wheeler is 3990 kms and the total cost for maintaining two vehicles along with its fuel consumption has been arrived at

Rs.2,88,633/-and he had submitted a detail report to RTA, Uppal,

R.R.District who in turn forwarded the same to CBI officials under the cover of letter dated 13-03-2015. PW56 further deposed that Ex.P99

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 63 of 185 is the inspection report dated 13-03-2015 submitted by him in respect of inspection of two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suzuki Access two wheeler regarding the expenditure of maintenance and fuel consumption of the said two vehicles.

103. During the cross-examination PW56 categorically admitted that he mentioned in Ex.P99 report that the information regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of the vehicles is technically worked out and under Motor Vehicles Act, the motor vehicles inspector is authorized to inspect all the vehicles of Central

Government, State Government and all such enquires regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of motor vehicles and they will give such reports. PW56 further stated in the cross- examination that he has not mentioned the above fact in Ex.P99 report as it is not necessary. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that the vehicles inspected by him covered by Ex.P99 are private vehicles and there is no mention in Ex.P99 report that he physically inspected the vehicles mentioned in the report. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has considered the

Odometer readings of the vehicles provided by the CBI in their letter for estimation of maintenance and fuel consumption of the above referred vehicles and he do not know who actually used the vehicles, but as per the registration certificate Accused No.1 is the registered owner the above said vehicles. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has not mentioned in Ex.P99 report regarding the details of the servicing dealer where the vehicles were serviced and he do not know whether the items mentioned in Ex.P99 were at all attended to or not by any servicing dealer, but as per the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 64 of 185 manufacturer norms regular servicing of the vehicles along with replacement of necessary parts are to be done for free and safe running of the vehicles. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that there is no specific mention in Ex.P99 report that he has verified the user manual of the vehicles and he has not mentioned the relevant check period in Ex.P99.

104.As per the evidence of Dr.N.Krishnam Raju (PW57), he worked as Executive Director (P & A), BDL, Hyderabad from 03-10- 2011 to till his retirement on 31-12-2017. PW57 further deposed that he knows Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) since his joining as the Medical

Department of BDL was working under him and he received a proposal from their Chief Vigilance Officer which in turn was received from CBI to accord sanction for prosecuting Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Chief

Medical Officer, BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad in a case pertaining to Disproportionate of Assets. PW57 further deposed that as Prima facie the case involves disproportionate of Assets, as disciplinary authority he had initiated disciplinary action against Dr.A.Venu Gopal as the controlling authority. PW57 further deposed that on verification of the relevant documents received along with proposal, he being the competent authority accorded sanction for prosecution of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) based on the facts put up in the proposal believing that the valuation of the assets mentioned therein is true and Ex.P100 is the sanction order dated 28-04-2015 issued by him for prosecution of you Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

105.During the course of Cross-Examination PW57 categorically stated that before issuing Ex.P100 sanction order he did not take the approval any of his superior authority as it is not

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 65 of 185 required, as he being the competent authority to issue sanction order and as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 sanction order, the accused No.1 was in the Grade of E4 to the best of his knowledge and remembrance and It may be true that accused No.1 was in the

Grade of E5 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 sanction order.

PW57 categorically stated in the cross- examination that above him

Functional Director is the higher authority and as per the schedule of delegation of powers, promotion to the post from E4 to E5 Grade is approved by the Functional Director and as per the delegation of powers, the appointing authority in respect of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to E5

Grade is Functional Director and that he is not the appointing authority in the case of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to the Grade E5. PW57 categorically denied in the cross- examination that since he is not the appointing authority of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to E5 Grade, he is not the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and that Ex.P100 is not valid in the eye of law.

PW57 categorically stated in the cross- examination that as

Executive Director (P & A) since Dr.A.Venu Gopal was working under him he was the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in terms of BDL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules against the officers working under his control irrespective of the Grade and as such he is the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against the accused No.1 under Ex.P100. PW57 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that as per the policy of BDL, officers of different grades were provided cost of the mobile phones for official purpose and calls charges up to certain limits were reimbursed and he is not aware whether prior to the year 2007, certain payments were paid to the officers through

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 66 of 185 supplementary bills/vouchers as he joined in 2011. PW57 further admitted in the cross- examination that the Central Vigilance

Commission (CVC) guidelines in the matter of conduct rules applicable mutadis-mutandis to the officers of BDL and he do not know whether Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) has given any intimation regarding the acquisition of Item No.6 shown in the table at Para 9 of Ex.P100. PW57 further admitted in the cross- examination that as per rules in vogue reimburses the cost of the school fees of the wards of the officers and that he has not verified the individual figures shown under Statement-C pertaining to Income and the

Statement-D pertaining to Expenditure of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as sufficient time was not given to me.

106.As per the evidence of C.Raghavendra (PW58), working in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, he was the tenant of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani (A2) w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) during the period from 2009 to 2015 and he had paid monthly rent @ Rs.3,500/- initially from

January 2009 to January 2012 and subsequently, he paid monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/- from February 2012 to 2015 till he vacated the house and he paid the rent to his landlord by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

107.As per the evidence of Smt.H.T.Trisandhya (PW59), the then Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Locker

No.239 of Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch belongs to Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani (A2) and she used to operate the locker. PW59 further deposed that in the year 2013, the CBI officials along with Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and A1 came to their bank for verification of the items kept in Locker

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 67 of 185

No.239 of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the CBI officials opened the locker No.239 in their presence and in the presence of other bank officials, herself and gold appraiser of the bank. PW59 further deposed that the CBI officials found the gold ornaments around 10 to 12 items in the said locker and weighed the ornaments with the help of gold appraiser and prepared proceedings in their presence and obtained signatures. PW59 further deposed that the CBI officials after valuation of the gold items again put the said ornaments in the same locker and sealed and seized the locker and the locker key was handed over to the CBI officials. PW59 further deposed that Ex.P3 shown to her is the proceedings of locker operations drawn at

Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch which contains her signatures and the other persons who were present at the time of locker operations signed on the proceedings. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

108.As per the evidence of Mr.Y.Varaprasad (PW60), the then Branch Manager, Sri Ram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda

Branch, in the year 2013, the CBI, Hyderabad addressed a letter to their branch to furnish the information relating to the chits subscribed by their customer namely Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and accordingly he had furnished the information under the letter dated 11-03-2014 by enclosing the three application forms and statement of account of three chits held by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) in their branch. PW60 further deposed that as per their records,

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) subscribed three chits with their branch and its details are 1) Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs, 2)

Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs and 3) Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs.Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 68 of 185 vide Group No.LC 13 with ticket No.39 vide application dated 13-06- 2011 and the value of the said chit is Rs.5 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @ Rs.10,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02-2014 is Rs.2,58,640/-. PW60 further deposed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit vide Group

No.LS 03 with ticket No.23 vide application and the value of the said chit is Rs.10 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @

Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02- 2014 is Rs.5,62,432/-. PW60 further deposed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) lifted the said chit and received an amount of Rs.6,15,370/-.

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit vide Group No.LS 05 with ticket

No.24 vide application and the value of the said chit is Rs.10 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @ Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02-2014 is Rs.2,23,600/-.PW60 further deposed that the passbooks shown to him are the passbooks issued from their Nalgonda Branch in respect of above three chits subscribed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW60 further deposed that

Ex.P101 is the application form in respect of Group No.LC 13, ticket

No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs dated 13-06-2011, Ex.P102 is the passbook in respect of Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs, Ex.P103 is statement of account for Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs.

PW60further deposed that Ex.P104 is the application form in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs dated 13-06-2011,

Ex.P105 is the passbook in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.P106 is statement of account for Group No.LS 03,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 69 of 185 ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs. PW60 further deposed that Ex.P107 is the application form in respect of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for

Rs.10 Lakhs, Ex.P108 is the passbook in respect of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs, Ex.P109 is statement of account for

Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs.

109.During the Cross Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 PW60 categorically stated that he do not remember the exact number of monthly installments paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) in respect of the chit Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 and the first installment of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 was paid by the subscriber i.e., Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the remaining installments were paid by her father and the said chit was discontinued after 14 installments and the said chit was adjusted in other chits subscribed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) after deducting company commission of Rs.50,000/-. During Re-Examination PW60 categorically stated that there is no mention in Ex.P109 as to who paid the installments of the chit other than the subscriber.

110.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Muralidhara (PW61), Nodal

Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI, Hyderabad he had furnished the payment and ownership details of the mobile Numbers bearing No.8978134581 and

No.9866520552, both prepaid numbers belongs to Mr.A.Venu Gopal

C/o.Sharbalingam, H.No.17-11-236/1/A, Madannapet, Saidabad,

Hyderabad and the date of activation of the mobile No.8978134581 is 04-03-2011 and the date of activation of the mobile

No.9866520552 is 12-08-2011. PW61 further deposed that the total amount of bill paid by the customer in respect of mobile

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 70 of 185

No.8978134581 from the date of activation till 13-09-2013 is

Rs.6,772/- and the total amount of bill paid by the customer in respect of mobile No.9866520552 from the date of activation till 13- 09-2013 is 5,947/-. PW61 further deposed that he had furnished the above information on verification of their system records under the cover of letter dated 08-08-2014 signed by him and Ex.P110 is the payment details of the mobile Nos.8978134581 and 9866520552 furnished by him to the CBI Inspector. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

111(a).As per the evidence of B.Satish Prabhu (PW62),

Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, who is the investigating officer of this case, on 12-09-2013, Sri H.Venkatesh, the then DIG,

CBI, Hyderabad Called him and instructed him to register a DA case basing on the source information received in CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

PW62 further deposed that DIG, CBI, Hyderabad issued an authorization under section 17 of P.C. Act for registration and investigation of DA case under Prevention of Corruption Act and basing on the instructions of DIG and the inputs provided to him, he had registered a case vide R.C.No.16(A)/2013 under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dr.A.Venu Gopal,

Chief Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad for possessing Assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to an extent of Rs.1,33,51,844/- for the period from 01-01-1999 to 31-03-2011 and issued Ex.P111 FIR at 11:30 hours. PW62 further deposed that the details of assets acquired during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-A and the details of Income and other receipts during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-B and the details of expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 71 of 185 during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-C to the

FIR.

(b).PW62 further deposed that he took up the investigation and obtained search warrants for conducting searches at the residential and office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) from Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 12-09-2013

under Ex.P112 and Ex.P113 and that he himself along with search team members and two independent witnesses i.e., PW1 and LW2

Mr. M.Prasad Babu left CBI office at about 06:00 hours and reached the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal situated at H.No.3- 118/1, Vijayagopala Villa, Plot No.186/A and B, Bheemreddy Colony,

Boduppal, Hyderabad at about 06:50 hours and made enquiries at the said residential premises and he found Dr.A.Venu Gopal was present in the house and he called him out of the house and disclosed his identity and purpose of their visit. PW62 further deposed that then he served search memo and Dr.A.Venu Gopal signed on the same as a token of having seen it and thereafter,

Dr.A.Venu Gopal was requested to permit the search team to conduct the search of his house and he gave consent. PW62 further deposed that thereafter, the search commenced at 7:00 hours on 13-09-2013, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal was present in the house. PW62 further deposed that a search of the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal consisting of ground plus three floors was conducted in the presence of PW1 and LW2 duly observing all the legal formalities and the Accused No.1 and his wife Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani(A2) were present throughout the search. PW62 further deposed that during the search various original sale deeds in the name of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 72 of 185

Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma, LIC policies, bonds, bank passbooks and cheque books, gold and silver purchase receipts, various expenditure receipts, four locker keys, chit fund deposit receipts in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and cheque books and passbooks in the name of Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma were found at the residence of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and he has seized the above said documents, receipts, vouchers, cheque books, passbooks, locker keys totally items 1 to 52 under the cover of Ex.P1 search list dated 13-09-2013.

(c).PW62 further deposed that during the search, he prepared separate inventory memo for the house hold items and articles found in the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P2 as stated by the Accused No.1 and 2. PW62 further deposed that he had prepared a rough sketch of residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal named “Vijaya Gopal Villa”,PW1 and LW2 signed on the search list, inventory memo and rough sketch after going through the same and in token of its correctness and also search team members signed on the search list, inventory memo and rough sketch after going through the same and in token of its correctness. PW62 further deposed that during the search at about 14:00 hours,

Mr.G.Sudhakar, Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad after completing the search at office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1), joined the search team at the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and remained with the team till the conclusion of the search. PW62 further deposed that during the search the photography and videography of the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal was done by Mr.N.Raghavendra Kumar,

Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad and Mr.Rayappa Raju, PC, CBI,

Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that the observations made

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 73 of 185 during the search and the explanation given by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal and A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with regard to the availability of various sale deeds, passbook, cheque books etc in the name of Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam and Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dr.A.Venu Gopal at the residence was incorporated in the search list. PW62 further deposed that during the search, it is observed that Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani were having five number of gas connections on their names.

(d).PW62 further deposed that the details of various bank accounts as per the various receipts and pay-in-slips found at the residence were noted for the purpose of investigation and both PW1 and LW2 initialed on all the seized 52 items as mentioned in Ex.P1 search list. PW62 further deposed that during the search, he had seized Ex.P32, ExP33, Ex.P11, original sale deed bearing

No.518/2002 dated 28-01-2002 standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani as in Ex.P114, Ex.P10, original agreement for additional works dated November 2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) along with cash receipt for Rs.6,91,500/- and credit voucher for Rs.89,214/-

dated 10-01-2003 as in Ex.P115, Ex.P30, Ex.P25, Ex.P26, Ex.P23,

Ex.P38, Ex.P12, Ex.P18, original sale deed bearing No.5263/2008

dated 04-12-2008 in the name of Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani as in

Ex.P116, Ex.P31, Ex.P35/1, Ex.P46, original invoice of M/s.Sanjay

Electronics dated 14-03-2013 as in Ex.P117, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27-12-2010 as in Ex.P118, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 27-12-2010 as in Ex.P119, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 29-12-2010 as in Ex.P120, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 74 of 185

Hyderabad dated 30-04-2011 as in Ex.P121, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30-04-2011 as in Ex.P122, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 31-12-2010 as in Ex.P123, Ex.P67, Estimate for extra gold dated 19-03-2007 as in Ex.P124, Ex.P68, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad as in

Ex.P125, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter,

Hyderabad dated 05-07-2003 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in

Ex.P126, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter,

Hyderabad dated 30-10-2003 as in Ex.P127, additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 09-08-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P128,

additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 22-02-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in

Ex.P129, additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 28-06-2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P130, additional advance receipt of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 17-04-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P131.

(e)PW62 further deposed that he has seized original LIC policy bearing No.644237436 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in

Ex.P132, LIC policy bearing No.645686797 in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal as in Ex.P133, Ex.P102, Ex.P105, Ex.P108, one note book of

Hyderabad Public School containing the details of expenditure in respect of house warming ceremony and dhoti function at Page

No.37 and 38 as in Ex.P134, miscellaneous receipt bearing No.1637

dated 03-03-2005 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani issued by

Grampanchayat, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 75 of 185

Rs.12,795/- as in Ex.P135, receipt bearing No.066 dated 13-03-2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony Sanskema Sangam in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.3,000/- as in Ex.P136, receipt bearing

No.067 dated 13-03-2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony,

Sanskema Sangam in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,000/- as in Ex.P137, receipt bearing No.6897 dated 05-09-2009 issued by

Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City branch for Rs.6,600/- in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in Ex.P138, the receipt bearing

No.1354 dated 04-04-2013 issued by V-Guide Group of Coaching centres in the name of A.Vaidik for Rs.9,500/- as in Ex.P139, three photo albums of dhoti function and house warming ceremony. PW62 further deposed that a copy of said search list under Ex.P1 and copy of Ex.P2 inventory memo was given to Dr.A.Venu Gopal under acknowledgement. PW62 further deposed that during the search cash amount of Rs.63,840/- was found in the Almariah in the master bedroom in the ground floor and the same was noted in the search list and returned to Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and during the search,

Maruthi Swift Dezir Car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 with meter reading of 75232 kms and Suzuki Access 125 two wheeler bearing

No.AP 29 AQ 8219 showing meter reading of 3990 kms were found parked in the portico (parking area) of the house of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

(f)PW62 further deposed that during the search, daughter and sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal were permitted to leave the premises in the morning hours for attending their classes and further

Dr.A.Venu Gopal was found using the mobile bearing

No.9490797612 and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani was found using mobile bearing No.8978134581 and the mobile number of his daughter is 9866520552 and the landline with number 27205672 and 65572667

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 76 of 185 was found functioning in the house and after conclusion of search at 16:30 hours on 13-09-2013 the search team members along with two independent witnesses left the place duly offering their personal search to Dr.A.Venu Gopal which he declined and then he had taken possession of seized documents/items 1 to 52 as per Ex.P1 search list for further investigation of the case and on 13-09-2013, he had received a Supplementary Case Diary from Mr.G.Sudhakar, the then

Inspector, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad along with search list and seized documents for the searches conducted at the office premises of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) on 13-09-2013 under Ex.P140 .

(g)PW62 further deposed that on 16-09-2013, he submitted the original search lists dated 13-09-2013 (Ex.P1, Ex.P140) withregard to the searches conducted at the residence and office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and the original inventory memo under

Ex.P2 in the court of Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad under a cover of memo. PW62 further deposed that on 23-09-2013, he along with two witnesses visited Andhra Bank, BDL

Campus Branch, Hyderabad at 11:15 hours and conducted search of locker No.255 with key No.240 (72-1045) standing jointly in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and

Mr.M.Matta Reddy, Deputy Manager (Locker incharge) also associated in the said locker operations and it was opened in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and found empty and both Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani were present during the search of the said locker No.255 and a separate proceedings were drawn for the same. PW62 further deposed that on 23-09-2013, he proceeded to

Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad, along with PW1 and LW2 and a locker bearing No.239 standing the name of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 77 of 185

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) was opened in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and smt.H.T.Trisandhya (PW59), Assistant

Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad and

Mr.M.Uma Maheshwar Rao (PW18), Approved Gold Appraiser and twelve items of gold jewellery were found in the locker. PW62 further deposed that the description of the gold items, its gross and net weight were recorded in the locker search proceedings under Ex.P3 as per the version of PW18. PW62 further deposed that the gross weight of gold jewellery were taken on the electronic weighing machine available in the bank by PW18, and the year of acquisition, mode of acquisition were recorded in the locker proceedings as per the version of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2). PW62 further deposed that all the twelve gold jewellery items found in the locker were kept back in the locker and it was locked in the presence of PW1, LW2,

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and nothing was seized and the locker proceedings were drawn incorporating all the happenings during the locker operations at the bank in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and the copy of the same were given to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) under your acknowledgment. PW62 further deposed that the locker proceedings concluded at 15:30 hours on 23-09-2013,

PW1 and LW2, Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, Mr.K.Praveen

Kumar, the then DSP, CBI, Hyderabad, who was part of the locker search operations, signed on the locker search proceedings after going through the same in token of its correctness.

(h)PW62 further deposed that on 24-09-2013, as summoned by him PW1 and LW2 reported before him at CBI Office,

Koti, Hyderabad at 10:00 hours and he explained them the purpose of calling and requested them to act as independent witnesses for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 78 of 185 conducting locker operations at Canara Bank, Uppal Branch,

Hyderabad and South Indian Bank, Medipally Branch, Hyderabad, whose locker keys were seized during the search at the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) on 13-09-2013. PW62 further deposed that thereafter they left CBI office and reached Canara

Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad at 11:00 hours and carried out the search of the locker No.143 standing the name of

Mr.L.Nagabushanam and his wife Lingala Laxmamma father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1). PW62 further deposed that the said locker was searched in the presence of PW1, LW2 and

Mr.Lingala Nagabushaham and it was found empty and a separate proceedings were drawn incorporating all the happenings during the locker operations and the copy of the same was given to Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam, under acknowledgment. PW62 further deposed that after concluding the search of the locker at Canara Bank, Uppal

Branch, the entire team along with PW1 and LW2 and Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam proceeded to South Indian Bank, Medipally Branch,

Hyderabad and conducted locker operation of locker No.34 by using the key No.53, which was seized on 13-09-2013 at the residence of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and the locker was opened and Rs.100/- was found in the locker and the same was kept back and the locker was closed in the presence of PW1, LW2 and Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and all the happenings during the locker proceedings between 12:30 to 13:00 hours were incorporated in the locker proceedings drawn at the bank on 24-09-2013 and a copy of the locker proceedings was served to Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam under acknowledgment.

(i)PW62 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had issued notices under section 91 Cr.P.C to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 79 of 185 various Sub Registrars to submit certified copies of sale deeds,

Certificate of Encumbrance on Property, registration and stamp duty charges collected for the registration of subject immovable properties standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and his family members as well as Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

Smt.L.Laxmamma in laws of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and accordingly he has received the replies from the respective Sub Registrars along with certified copies of sale deeds, Certificate of Encumbrance on

Properties, registration and stamp duty charges. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P33/11 and 12 is the certified copy of Statement of

Encumbrance on Property, which shows that plot No.71 and 72,

Sy.No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part situated at Midhilapuri, Phase-II,

Hattiguda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received

Ex.P33/11 and 12 from PW8 under the cover of letter dated 06-11- 2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P30/9 to 11 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property, which shows that agricultural land admeasuring 3.34 acres in Sy.No.404, 405, 407, 404/A, 405/A, 407/A, 403/A situated at Malkapur Village, Choutuppal

Mandal, Nalgonda District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P30/9 to 11 from PW7 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P24 CC of sale deed bearing No.4514 of 2000 and certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that

Plot No.186/A, 186/B in Sy.No.95, 97 admeasuring 266 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P24 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 80 of 185 2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P25 is the certified copy of

Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that Plot

No.187/part in Sy.No.94 and 95 admeasuring 120 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received

Ex.P25 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013.

(j)PW62 further deposed that Ex.P23/13 and 14 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that Shop No.G6, in Sai Prashnathi Nivas, situated at Plot No.8 in Sy.No.9/2 and 9/3 at Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Saroornagar,

R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13- 09-2013 and he received Ex.P23/12 and 14 from PW5 under the cover of letter dated 01-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that

Ex.P141 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on

Property in respect of Plot No.79 admeasuring 202 Sq. yards in

Sy.No.924, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as on 13-09-2013 and he received the same from SRO Peddamberpet. PW62 further deposed that

Ex.P31/12 and 13 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that house site Plot No.311 in Sy.No.254 and 256 admeasuring 252 Sq. yards situated at NFC Nagar,

Ghatkesar Village, R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani(A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P31/12 and 13 from

PW7 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P27 CC of sale deed bearing No.16286 of 2006 and certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that house No.3-16-95/11 on Plot No.187/part in Sy.No.94, 97 admeasuring 130 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 81 of 185

Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P27 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013.

(k)PW62 further deposed that he had issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the Branch Managers of various banks having bank accounts standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and his family members to furnish the certified copies of Statement of Bank

Accounts, original Account opening forms, related debit and credit vouchers etc in respect of transactions done by the account holders and he has received replies from them along with certified copies of

Statement of Bank Accounts, original Account opening forms, related debit and credit vouchers etc standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and his family members. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 23-09-2013 from the Chief Manager, Andhra

Bank, BDL Branch i.e., PW14 informing about the bank account details of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P41 and Ex.P42 under the cover letter dated 13-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 13-06-2014 from the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, BDL

Branch i.e., PW14 informing about the gold loan account

No.104530100005589 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1), COD account No.104531041900064 Locker No.255, application in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) etc. PW62 further deposed that he received the true extract of Statement of account of SB A/c.No.14410110007679 of UCO Bank, Abids Circle

Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 17-11-2008 to 16-07-2014 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P142. PW62 further deposed that he received Ex.P70 true extract of the Statement of account and original SB account opening form relating to SB

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 82 of 185

A/c.No.732010098872 standing in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani(A2) from PW21 under the cover letter dated 08-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 28-02-2014 from the Branch

Head, ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad along with original debit and credit vouchers of SB A/c.No.732010098872 of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani(A2). PW62 further deposed that he received

Ex.P44 true extract of the Statement of account of SB

A/c.No.062300101000901 of A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, original account opening form of SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of A2

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and Ex.P45 original locker opening form of locker

No.239 of Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch under the cover letter

dated 14-05-2014.PW62 further deposed that Ex.P143 is the original

account opening form of SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

(l)PW62 further deposed that he had issued a letter to

Regional Transport Officer, Uppal, R.R. District to furnish the ownership particulars of Maruthi Swift Dezire Car bearing

Registration No.AP 29 AM 9977 and Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing Registration No.AP 29 AQ 8219 and accordingly PW13 furnished the details vide letter dated 19-02-2014 and 07-08-2014 by enclosing Ex.P39 and Ex.P40, Form No.24 B-Register of Motor

Vehicles referred above. PW62 further deposed that he received

Ex.P34 attested copy of invoice, delivery receipt, three receipt vouchers and copy of insurance policy of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle sold to Dr.A.Venu Gopal from PW10 under the cover of letter

dated 10-02-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received Ex.P35

customer copy of tax invoice cum sale letter in the name of A2

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani along with copy of invoice, temporary certificate of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 83 of 185 registration, Tax receipt, copy of order form and ledger copy of

Suzuki Access vehicle sold to Smt.L.Vijaya Rani from PW11 under the cover of letter dated 23-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he had seized Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 from the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal on 13-09-2013 under Ex.P1 search list. PW62 further deposed that he had received Ex.P85 from PW36 under the cover of letter dated 20-01-2014 and also received Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 from PW16 under the cover of letter dated 18-06-2014 and also received Ex.P49 to

Ex.P66 from PW17 under the cover of letter dated 06-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he collected the gold price prevailing during the check period from Mr.Praveen Kumar, Secretary, Twin Cities

Jewellers Association, Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P144 letter

dated 18-04-2014 .

(m)PW62 further deposed that he had collected Ex.P75

Annual Property Returns of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the years 1999-2013 except 2010 from AGM (P&A), BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad under the cover of letter dated 09-10-2013 and also received Statements I to VI in original as in Ex.P145 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal furnishing the details of movable and immovable properties acquired by himself and his family members from Chief Vigilance Officer, BDL,

Hyderabad vide letter dated 06-11-2013.

(n)PW62 further deposed that during investigation, on his request the CPWD authorities conducted the valuation of the residential buildings of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani situated at Bheemreedynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad and the two rooms situated at Hayathnagar, R.R. District and submitted their valuation report under Ex.P98 under the cover of letter dated 25-02-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 84 of 185 2015. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, on his request the BDL Authorities furnished pay and salary particulars, loans and advances and other emoluments paid to Dr.A.Venu Gopal, during his service in BDL under Ex.P71 to Ex.P74 from AGM (P&A),

BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad under the cover of letters dated 09- 10-2013 and 11-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation he issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to Income

Tax authorities to furnish the Income Tax Returns in respect of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and accordingly, Income Tax authorities furnished Ex.P146 certified copies of Returns of Income filed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003- 04 and 2005-06 to 2011-13 and 2013-14 vide letter dated 06-02- 2014 from Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, he received the details of provident fund loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from BDL,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad vide letter dated 06-01-2014 along with statement of PF loans sanctioned from 1999 to 2013 to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal vide ST.No.30974 under Ex.P147.

(o)PW62 further deposed that in response to the notice issued under section 91 Cr.P.C, he received the housing loan application under Ex.P76, Ex.P77 loan sanction letter and statement of account of housing loan account under Ex.78 and related documents from PW27 Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Abid Circle

Branch, Hyderabad vide letters dated 07-10-2013 and 07-11-2013.

PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of statement of overdraft account bearing No.104531041900064 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P43 from Andhra Bank, BDL

Branch, Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that during investigation,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 85 of 185 in response to his notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the Branch

Managers, LIC of India, Malakpet and Musheerabad Branches,

Hyderabad furnished the details of LIC polices held by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal vide policy Nos.644255264, 644214155 and 644237436 under

Ex.P79 to Ex.P81 from PW29 Branch Manager, LIC of India, Malakpet

Branch, Hyderabad vide letter dated 10-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he has received certified copies of sale deeds registered vide document Nos.1155/1999 under Ex.P15, 5708/1999 under Ex.P13, 5709/1999 under Ex.P14, 8775/2000 under

Ex.P17 and sale deed document No.8387/2001 from SRO,

Champapet under the cover of letter dated 01-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received CC of registered sale deed under

Ex.P22, 7824/2003 under Ex.P19, 4435/2007 under Ex.P21, 4436/2007 under Ex.P20 and sale deed document No.1255/2003 and document No.12504/2003 from SRO, Champapet vide letter dated 07-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he received original Income Tax Returns of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 under Ex.P82 from PW29

G.Vijay Kumar, Income Tax Officer under the cover of Ex.P148 receipt memo dated 23-06-2014 under which Ex.P82 was collected from PW29.

(p)PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he received the details of loans availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from BDL

Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad from

Secretary of the said society vide letter dated 26-02-2014 along with the details of the loan under Ex.P149. PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of sale deed under Ex.P29 from PW6 SRO

Uppal under the cover of letter dated 07-02-2014 and also received

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 86 of 185

Ex.P28 CC of sale deed and Statement of Encumbrance on Property

dated 03-07-2014 from PW6 SRO, Uppal under the cover of letter

dated 03-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received certified

copies of statement of account of SB A/c.No.734010058346 in the name of Mr.L.Nagabhushanam and SB A/c.No.734010062884 in the name of Mrs.L.laxmamma under Ex.P83 and Ex.P84 from PW33

Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank, Miryalaguda Branch under the cover letter dated 21-02-2014 and also debit and credit vouchers in respect of the above SB Accounts from Branch Head, ING Vysya

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch under the cover letter dated 03-07-2014.

PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of Statement of Account of SB A/c.No.34402200069033 standing in the name of

Mr.L.Laxman Das and Statement of Account of SB

A/c.No.34402200032032standinginthenameof

Mr.L.Nagabhushanam from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch.

PW62 further deposed that he received CC of Sale deeds under

Ex.P16, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 along with

Encumbrance Certificates from SRO, Champapet under the cover of letters dated 22-08-2014 and dated 23-08-2014. PW62 further deposed that he also collected the Encumbrance Certificates in respect of registered sale deeds under Ex.P15, Ex.P13, Ex.P14,

Ex.P17, Ex.P16, Documents bearing No.9391/2001 (CC of Ex.P11), 518/2002 (CC of Ex.P114) , 6197/2002 (CC of Ex.P10), 8574/2006 (CC of Ex.P12) and 28305/2006 (CC of Ex.P18) under the cover of letter dated 10-10-2013 and Ex.P150 is the CCs of Encumbrance

Certificates. PW62 further deposed that he also collected Ex.P103,

Ex.P106 and Ex.P109 the Statement of Accounts in respect of amounts invested in Chits at Shriram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 87 of 185 and amount received by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani towards group ticket

No.67013/39, 80003/23 and 80005/24, under cover of letter dated 11-03-2014.

(q)PW62 further deposed that he also collected three

Application forms under Ex.P101, Ex.P104 and Ex.P107 in respect of above said Chits standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani/

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani under the cover of Ex.P151 receipt memo dated 03-09-2014. PW62 further deposed that he collected the details of admission fee, tuition fee etc paid in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud, sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal, the Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 18-12-2013 along with the payment details under

Ex.P152.PW62 further deposed that he collected the School expenditure details in respect of Miss A.Vaidarshi daughter of A1

Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Head Mistress, St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P153 letter dated 07-02-2014 where-under the details of school fee paid by him in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2010- 2011 amounting to Rs.74,410/-. PW62 further deposed that he had collected the College fee details towards in respect of Miss

A.Vaidarshi daughter of Dr. A. Venu Gopal from the Principal Sri

Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Tarnaka, Hyderabad under the cover of

Ex.P154 letter dated 07-12-2013 for the period 2011 to 2013. PW62 further deposed that he also collected the details of tuition and other fees paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for studying Law Course from

Principal, College of Law for Women, Andhra Mahila Sabha,

Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P155 letter dated 04-12-2013, for the academic years 2009-2012.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 88 of 185

(r)PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document Nos.6731/2003, 9027/2003 and 4514/2000 from SRO, Uppal under the cover of Ex.P156 letter dated 19-12- 2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.430/2003 from SRO, Choutuppal under the cover of Ex.P157 letter dated 23-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.695/2009 from

SRO, Ghatkesar under the cover of Ex.P158 letter dated 23-12-2013.

PW62 further deposed that he received details of membership fee paid to the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal along with the original application form under

Ex.P86 and Statement of account under Ex.P87 from PW42 in respect of his Silver Privilege Membership under cover of letter

dated 09-12-2013 of Mr.K.Bhanu Murthy(PW42) and also collected

Ex.P88 application for Master Life Membership of Dr.A.Venu Gopal with M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad from

PW42 under the cover letter dated 04-01-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly electrical charges paid in respect of service No.1603-1344 and 1603-2009 standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Assistant Accounts Officer,

ERO, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad under a cover of Ex.P159 letter dated 09-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of property tax paid in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani from Deputy Commissioner, LB Nagar

Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad under Ex.P89 under the cover of letter

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 89 of 185

dated 05-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received Car loan

and interest paid on the loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from

Assistant Manager (Legal), M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad under the cover of letter dated 15-10-2013 along with Ex.P160 attested copy of loan application and Ex.P95 true extract of statement of account. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of Car loan and interest paid on the loan availed by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal under Ex.P90 letter dated 22-01-2014.PW62 further deposed that he received the details of property tax and water charges paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar

Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu

Gopal, along with Ex.P91 and Ex.P92 under the cover of Ex.P161 letter dated 07-01-2014 of Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat

Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal. PW62 further deposed that on his requisition he received the details of property tax paid in respect of

No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony,

Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under the cover of Ex.P162 letter dated 12-02-2014 of Bill Collector,

Gram Panchayat Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal.

(s)PW62 further deposed that he received the details of housing loan availed and interest paid thereon by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from State Bank of India, Karvan branch, Hyderabad along with attested copies of loan documents and Ex.P163 statement of account of housing loan A/c.No.01593013216 under the cover of letter dated 10-07-2014.PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill amount paid towards landline number 040- 27205672 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Senior

Accounts Officer (TR-I), Office of DGM, BSNL, Musheerabad

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 90 of 185

Telephone Exchange, Hyderabad as in Ex.P94 under the cover of letter dated 23-06-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the certified copy of housing loan account statement vide

No.LBHYD00000357707 standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal from PW49 as in Ex.P96. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of interest and other charges paid along with other details on housing loan availed from United Bank of India, Hyderabad Branch,

Bank Street, Hyderabd by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal and A2- Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani from PW46 as in Ex.P93 statement of account under the cover of letter dated 22-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill payments in respect of mobile

No.9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) from

Sub Divisional Engineer (Tech) office of DGM (NOW-III), CM, Saifabad,

Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 20-06-2014 as in Ex.P97.

PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill payments in respect of mobile No.8978134581 and 9866520552 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal Circle Nodal

Officer, M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 08-08-2014 from PW61 as in Ex.P110. PW62 further deposed that he furnished the meter reading details of Maruthi Swift

Dezire bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 and Suzuki Access BS-III two wheeler bearing No.AP 29 AQ 8219 to Regional Transport Officer,

Rangareddy East, Uppal and requested him to furnish the fuel and maintenance expenditure incurred on the said two vehicles as per their existing rules and procedures and accordingly, based on the inputs provided by him he had received the fuel and maintenance expenditure incurred in respect of the said two vehicles from

Regional Transport Officer, Rangareddy East, Uppal under cover of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 91 of 185 letter dated 13-03-2019 from PW56 as in Ex.P99. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, he also collected attested copy of Bharath Dynamics Limited conduct, discipline and Appeal rules as in Ex.P69 from Vigilance Department, BDL, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad.

(t)PW62 further deposed that during course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements ofwinesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW62 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he has given opportunity to the accused No.1 and A2 at various stages of investigation and recorded their explanation with regard to the assets acquired by them, income and expenditure. PW62 further deposed that the Assets at the beginning of the check period were listed in Statement-A enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to Rs.1,22,800/-. PW62 further deposed that the Assets at the end of the check period were listed in Statement-B enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to

Rs.1,68,65,610.15 ps. PW62 further deposed that the Income and other receipts of Accused persons during the check period were listed in Statement-C enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to

Rs.1,70,14,560/-. PW62 further deposed that the Expenditure and other payments during the check period were listed in Statement-D enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to Rs.85,85,515.70 ps.

(u)PW62 further deposed that basing on the above said statements A, B, C and D, he has calculated the disproportionate assets of accused No.1 and A2 and arrived at an amount of

Rs.83,13,766/- which is disproportionate to their known sources of income and which was not satisfactorily accounted for during the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 92 of 185 investigation and the calculation is done by deducting the value of the assets at the beginning of check period i.e, as on 01-01-1999 from the value of the assets at the end of the check period i.e, as on 13-09-2013 by which the value of the assets acquired during the check period is arrived and further the expenditure and other payments incurred during the check period i.e, between 01-01-1999 to 13-09-2013 was added to the value of assets acquired during the check period and the resulting figure was compared with the income and other receipts of the accused No.1 and 2 during the check period i.e, between 01-01-1999 to 13-09-2013 and found that the value of assets acquired during the check period and expenditure is more than the income and other receipts of the accused No.1 and

A2 during the check period to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- which workout to 48.86% of disproportionate assets more than the income and other receipts of the accused persons.

(v)PW62 further deposed that after conclusion of the investigation, he had served the Statement-A, Statement-B,

Statement-C and Statement-D referred above along with the calculation of DA to the accused persons to submit their explanation for the said disproportionate amount duly explaining them the contents of said statements wherein various values of various properties (Movable and Immovable), income and other receipts, expenditure and payments considered by him based on the evidences elicited during the investigation and accordingly, the accused persons submitted their written explanation with regard to the disproportionate assets arrived at by him and he also gone through the said explanation and as he was not satisfied with regard to the certain additional income and receipts furnished by A1 and A2

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 93 of 185 in their explanation, the same was not allowed and he allowed certain additional income and receipt for which A1 and A2 furnished the documentary evidences. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, A1 and A2 produced before him certain registers with regard to the expenditure incurred by them in respect of construction of additional floor for the house bearing No.3-118/1,

Plot No.186/A and 186/B, Bheem Reddy Colony, Boduppla, Ranga

Reddy District standing the name of the Accused No.1 for considering the total construction cost recorded in the said registers and however, after perusal of those registers as it was found that the entries made in the said registers with regard to the various payments and expenditure incurred with regard to the additional construction of three floors were not commensurate with the construction materials reported required for the construction of three floors, the same was not considered and in that regard he sought the verbal opinion of construction engineers of CPWD. PW62 further deposed that after seeking the final explanation with regard to the disproportionate of assets arrived during the investigation to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- and as he is not satisfied with the said explanation, he obtained sanction order for the prosecution of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) from the competent authority i.e.,

Dr.N.Krishnam Raju (PW57). PW62 further deposed that as his investigation revealed that the accused No.1 incurred expenditure and other payments amounting to Rs.85,85,516/- against the total income and other receipts of Rs.1,70,14,560/- and the likely savings of the A1 is Rs.84,29,044/- and the total assets held by A1 in his name and in the name of his family members worked out to

Rs.1,68,65,610/- against the assets owned at the beginning of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 94 of 185 check period amount to Rs.1,22,800/- and therefore, the total assets acquired by the accused No.1 during the check period workout to

Rs.1,67,42,810/-. PW62 further deposed that the amount of disproportionate assets acquired by A1 in his name and in the name of his family members during the check period is Rs.83,13,766/- which is 48.86% disproportion with reference to the total income and other receipts of the accused persons. PW62 further deposed that based on the outcome of investigation after obtaining the prosecution sanction order against the Accused No.1, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 and against A2 for the offence punishable under section 109 of IPC r/w13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of

P.C. Act, 1988 for abetting the accused No.1 in the said offence

before the Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Assets of

the accused before check period

112.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer in computation of

Statement-A in charge sheet arrived the value of assets as on 01.01.1999 as Rs.1,22,800/- and the Investigating Officer failed to consider the assets of A2 before the check period, as admittedly the marriage of A2 with A1 was performed on 01.05.1994 which is prior to the check period. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that as per the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, they categorically deposed that they have presented 100 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to their daughter ie., A2 at the time of marriage as Sthridhana and they also presented a motorcycle, household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 95 of 185 they have also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995 and the

Investigating Officer ought to have added the assets which were given to A2 by her parents at the time of her marriage, to

Statement-A. The learned counsel for A1 categorically submitted that if the value of 100 tulas gold, household articles, cash of

Rs.5.00 lakhs presented at the time of marriage of A2 and

Rs.1.00 lakh presented to the first child of accused at the time of cradle ceremony is calculated, it comes to Rs.13,19,300/- and if the said amount is added, the total assets at the beginning of the check period comes to Rs.14,42,100/- as against the amount of

Rs.1,22,800/- shown by the Investigating Officer in Statement-A.

113.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, there is no other independent evidence adduced by the accused to prove the same and even the accused not filed any documents in support of their contention and as per the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, they have categorically stated that they have shown the gold, cash and other articles presented to A2 at the time of marriage in their Income Tax

Returns for the relevant assessment years, but failed to file the said

Income Tax Returns to prove the same and therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents and also the Income

Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, it is not safe to rely upon the oral testimony of PW-35 and DW-1 with regard to the presentation of gold, cash and other household articles to A2 at the time of marriage and as such, the accused failed to prove the gold, other articles and cash presented to A2 at the time of her marriage, therefore, the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1 is of no value in the eye of law.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 96 of 185

114.I have perused the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1. PW-35 and DW-1 categorically stated in their evidence about their presentation of 100 tulas of gold, cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of marriage in the year 1994 and also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995. As can be seen from the entire evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, though they have stated about the presentation of gold, household articles and cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to A2 as Sthreedhana at the time of marriage, they have not filed any documents in support of their contention and even they have not filed their Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years to prove the same, as admittedly both PW-35 and DW-1 categorically admitted in their cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that they are Income

Tax Assessees and they have shown the gold, cash and other household articles presented to A2 at the time of her marriage in their Income Tax Returns. Therefore, in the absence of any documents and Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that PW-35 and DW-1 presented Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 100 tulas of gold and Rs.3.00 lakhs worth household articles to A2 at the time of her marriage and also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995, as such I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.13,19,300/- to be added to Statement-A, is not tenable in the absence of any documentary evidence to support the said contention. Therefore, the assets of the accused before the check period is taken as

Rs.1,22,800/- as mentioned in Statement-A annexed to the charge

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 97 of 185 sheet.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Assets of

accused during the Check Period from 01.01.1999 to

13.09.2013

115.As per the charge sheet the assets of A1 and A2 at the end of the check period worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/- and they have shown the said properties as Item Nos.1 to 22 in Statement-B annexed to charge sheet. Out of the 22 items shown in Statement-B annexed to the charge sheet, the accused not disputed the properties shown at Item Nos.1 to 3, 5, 8 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 & 21.

Item No.4:

116.As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, the Investigating Officer shown the value of Item No.4 property at Rs.6,91,500/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 purchased Flat No.G1 in ground

Floor, Sri Ram Residency, Maruthi Nagar under L.B.Nagar

Municipality for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/- under Ex.P10 Sale

Deed and the Investigating Officer added Rs.3,50,000/- to the value of the said property as amount spent for additional/extra work for the said semi-finished Flat as per the Agreement for additional works with M/s. Renuka Constructions, Hyderabad under Ex.P115. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that no

additional works were executed by the accused as alleged, as

Ex.P115 alleged Agreement for additional works does not contain the signature of A2, which is confirmed by PW-62 Investigating Officer and the prosecution failed to examine any witnesses to prove the

additional construction and the receipt annexed to Ex.P115 does not

contain date, bill number, details of cash/cheque payment and as

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 98 of 185 there is no signature of A2 on Ex.P115 and as there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the additional works executed, the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- mentioned in Ex.P115 is to be deleted from the total amount of Rs.6,91,500/- shown against Item No.4 in

Statement-B and if the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is deleted, the value of Item No.4 of Statement-B comes to Rs.3,41,500/- only.

117.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that as per Ex.P10, A2 purchased Flat No.G1 in semi-finished condition for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/-, which is clearly mentioned in the Sale Deed and after purchase of the said semi- finished Flat, A2 entered into Ex.P115 Agreement with M/s. Renuka

Constructions for completion of the remaining works for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and even the Receipt which is annexed to Ex.P115 clearly goes to show that M/s. Renuka Constructions received an amount of Rs.6,91,500/- from A1 and therefore, the contention of accused that no additional works were executed, is not tenable and the total value of the property as taken by the Investigating Officer at Rs.6,91,500/- is supported by documents.

118.As can be seen from Ex.P10 Sale Deed under which A2 purchased semi-finished Flat for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/- which is not in dispute and as can be seen from the contents of

Ex.P10, the Flat was purchased in semi-finished condition. The accused not adduced any evidence to show that even as on the date of registration of this case, the said Flat is in semi-finished condition only. Admittedly, there is no signature of A2 on Ex.P115, but the

Receipt appended to Ex.P115 clearly goes to show that an amount of

Rs.6,91,500/- was paid by A1 to M/s. Renuka Constructions from

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 99 of 185 whom A2 purchased semi-finished Flat under Ex.P10 Sale Deed.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused that the Flat purchased under Ex.P10 is in semi-finished condition and no additional works were executed as on the date of registration of this case and in view of the Receipt appended to Ex.P115 showing the payment of Rs.6,91,500/- by A1 to M/s. Renuka Constructions, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that no additional works were executed after to purchase of semi-finished Flat under

Ex.P10 Sale Deed, therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the total amount of Rs.6,91,500/- is to be deleted from the value of the property shown at Item No.4 in

Statement-B, is not tenable.

Item No.6:

119.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property house bearing

No.3-118/1, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal at Rs.78,84,849/- as per the report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D4 Register which containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction of the above said house which comes to

Rs.56,64,394/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D4 and the Vouchers and bills submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 100 of 185 by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by PW-54 and arrived at Rs.78,84,849/- as the value of the property shown at Item

No.6 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62, during the cross-examination, the Declarations submitted by A1 are marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and the Register in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B as Ex.D4. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of

Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98 Report.

120.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D4 Register during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D4 Register does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in Ex.D4 Register and therefore, PW-62 considered the report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.6.

Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B as per Ex.P98

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 101 of 185

Report.

121.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D4

Register marked through PW-62 during the cross-examination.

PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that the A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of

Bills, Receipts along with original Books of Accounts related to the construction expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the

Books of Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

122.As can be seen from Ex.D4 Register, as well as Bills,

Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked as Ex.D7, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the

Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross-examination of PW- 62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D4 Register and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of Ex.D4 Register as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction of house shown at Sl.No.6 in Statement-B as

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 102 of 185

Rs.56,64,394/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.22,20,455/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B at Rs.78,84,849/-, is not tenable.

Item No.7:

123.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property house bearing

No.3-117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad at

Rs.21,94,417/- as per the Report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D5 Dairy which is containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction of the above said house which comes to

Rs.17,38,982/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D5 and the Vouchers and Bills submitted by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by PW-54 and arrived at Rs.21,94,417/- as the value of the property shown at Item

No.7 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62 during the cross-examination, the Declarations

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 103 of 185 submitted by A1 are marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and Dairy in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at

Sl.No.7 of Statement-B as Ex.D5. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of

Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98 Report.

124.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D5 Dairy during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D5 Dairy does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in Ex.D5 Dairy and therefore,

PW-62 considered the Report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.7. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.7 of Statement-B as per Ex.P98 report.

125.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D5

Dairy marked through PW-62 during the cross-examination. PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of Bills, Receipts along with original books of accounts related to the construction

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 104 of 185 expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the Books of

Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

126.As can be seen from Ex.D5 Dairy, as well as Ex.D7 Bills,

Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked through

PW-62, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross- examination of PW-62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D5 Dairy and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of

Ex.D5 Dairy as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction of house shown at Sl.No.7 in

Statement-B as Rs.17,38,982/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,55,435/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at Sl.No.7 of Statement-B at

Rs.21,94,417/-, is not tenable.

Item No.13:

127.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property ie., 2 rooms and compound wall constructed on Plot Nos.69, 70, 71, 72 and 74

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 105 of 185 admeasuring 1761 sq. yards situated at Mithilapuri, Phase-II of

Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R.District at Rs.7,13,169/- as per the report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D6 Two Note Books which containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction over the said property which comes to Rs.2,53,887/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D6 Two Note Books, Vouchers and bills submitted by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by

PW-54 and arrived at Rs.7,13,169/- as the value of the property shown at Item No.13 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and

Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62 during the cross- examination, the Declarations submitted by A1 marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and Two Note Books in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at Sl.No.13 of Statement-B as

Ex.D6. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that

PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 106 of 185 accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98

Report.

128.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D6 Two Note Books during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D6 Two Note Books does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in

Ex.D6 Two Note Books and therefore, PW-62 considered the report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.13. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.13 of

Statement-B as per Ex.P98 Report.

129.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D6

Two Note Books marked through PW-62 during the cross- examination. PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of Bills, Receipts along with original Books of Accounts related to the construction expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the Books of Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of

Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 107 of 185 of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

130.As can be seen from Ex.D6 Two Note Books, as well as

Ex.D7 Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked through PW-62, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross- examination of PW-62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D6 Two Note Books and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of Ex.D6 Two Note Books as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction over the said property shown at Sl.No.13 in Statement-B as Rs.2,53,887/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,59,282/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at

Sl.No.13 of Statement-B at Rs.7,13,169/-, is not tenable.

131.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 personally supervised the construction of properties shown at item Nos.6, 7 & 13 of Statement-B and therefore, 10% of the construction cost is to be deducted but PW-54 deducted only 6% from the construction cost of the house under the

Head of Personal Supervision. On perusal of Ex.P98 Report, PW-54 deducted 6% of construction cost under the Head of Personal

Supervision. The accused failed to file any authenticated document in support of their contention that 10% of construction cost is to be

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 108 of 185 deducted under the Head Personal Supervision. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents to support the contention of the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that 10% of the construction cost is to be deducted under the Head of Personal Supervision from the total construction cost.

Item No.17:

132.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of Maruti

Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP29 AM 9977 in the name of A1 as

Rs.6,50,447/-. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer added Rs.12,552/- to the said amount as paid for accessories without any evidence and therefore, the amount of Rs.12,552/- is to be deducted from the total value of the vehicle shown at Rs.6,50,447/- and if the said amount is deducted the value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17 of Statement-B comes to

Rs.6,37,895/-.

133.In support of the value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17, the prosecution examined PW-10, who is the General Manager of

M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad, from whom A1 purchased the vehicle and as per the evidence of PW-10, A1 purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs.6,22,307/- and out of which an amount of

Rs.2,46,137/- paid by cash and Rs.4,78,240/- was received from the finance provided by Magma Fincorp Limited and an amount of

Rs.15,588/- was paid towards insurance premium, an amount of

Rs.74,680/- was paid towards life tax and an amount of Rs.12,552/- was paid towards accessories and other charges. The accused disputing the payment of Rs.12,552/- paid towards accessories and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 109 of 185 other charges, but the accused failed to cross-examine PW-10 on this aspect by suggesting him that the accused has not paid

Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges and the learned counsel for the accused reported the cross-examination of PW-10 as ‘Nil’. Therefore, in the absence of any cross-examination to PW-10 disputing the payment of Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges, I am of the opinion that the accused No.1 failed to prove his contention that he has not paid Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges and therefore, he is not entitled for deletion of the said amount of Rs.12,552/- from the total value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17 of Statement-B as Rs.6,50,447/-.

Item No.19:

134.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the gold jewellery Items at Sl.No.19 of Statement-B at Rs.4,52,134/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that all the gold Items are the exchanged gold Items which were received by A2 as Sthreedhana at the time of her marriage and PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 confirmed this fact and as per their evidence they have given 115 tulas of gold to A2 ie., 100 tulas at the time of marriage in 1994 and 5 tulas each at the time of birth of 03 children of A1 and A2 in the year 1995, 1999 and 2003 respectively.

The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the 100 tulas of gold found in the Bank Locker as per Ex.P3 includes the 15 tulas of gold given to the grand children by PW-35 and DW-1 and by rough estimation, 85 tulas was only shown as net weight but it was more than 85 tulas and the difference is due to exchange of old gold

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 110 of 185 for new ornaments and as per the evidence of DW-3, 15 tulas of gold was sold for Rs.4,20,000/- and notwithstanding the above defence, the Court has to consider that out of 12 Items shown in Ex.P3, six items are gifts, Item Nos.2, 7, 11 and 12 were exchanged for old gold items, Item Nos.9 and 10 are one and the same, which was also a gift received at the time of marriage and Ex.P53 shows the value of Item No.11 as Rs.61,500/- but not Rs.63,900/- and PW-17 stated that Ex.P51 relates to an exchange and hence Rs.21,350/- is to be deleted.

135.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that Exs.P67 and P68 are rough calculation slips and estimates as stated by PW-17 and therefore, the difference of Rs.3,52,134/- is to be deleted from the value of gold jewellery shown at Item No.19 of

Statement-B at Rs.4,52,134/- and if the said amount is deleted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be shown as the value of gold jewellery shown at Item No.19 of Statement-B.

136.As can be seen from the evidence available on record, it was already held that the accused failed to prove that the parents of

A2, presented 100 tulas of gold at the time of marriage and 5 tulas of gold each at the time of birth of the 3 children of A2 as they failed to adduce any independent evidence and failed to file any documents including the Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1 as they have admitted to have been shown the above gold presented to A2 in their Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years.

As per the contention of accused, Exs.P67 and P68 are estimates and the prosecution failed to file the purchase bills in respect of the said gold items. As can been from Ex.P67, it is an estimation for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 111 of 185 purchase of vaddanam and PW-17 deposed evidence in support of the same and as can been seen from Ex.P67 there is an endorsement of payment of amount. Even as can be seen from

Ex.P3, two vaddanams were shown found in the locker and out of which one is shown as marriage gift and the other one as purchased and if the vaddanam shown in Ex.P67 estimation is not purchased, there is no explanation from the accused about the second vaddanam shown in Ex.P3 Inventory. As far as the evidence of DW-3 is concerned, his evidence cannot be believed as he categorically stated in his evidence that he has facilitated A2 in selling of 15 tulas of gold items and through DW-3 Exs.D8 and D9 Receipts are marked which were passed by DW-3 in favour of A2. As per the contention of A2, they have sold 15 tulas of gold for Rs.4,20,000/- to DW-3. But

DW-3 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that there is no receipt number on Exs.D8 and D9 and there is no mention in

Exs.D8 and D9 that he has facilitated A2 for selling of gold ornaments and even his signatures were not available on Exs.D8 and

D9. Therefore, in view of the above admission of DW-3 that he has not purchased 15 tulas of gold from A2 and that Exs.D8 and D9 does not contain his signatures, I am of the opinion that the evidence of

DW-3 and Exs.D8 and D9 are no way helpful to the accused to support their contention that they have sold 15 tulas of gold ornaments to DW-3 for a consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. Therefore, on perusal of entire material available on record and in the absence of independence evidence adduced by the accused and in the absence of the Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 to prove the fact of presentation of 115 tulas of gold to

A2, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 112 of 185 amount of Rs.3,52,134/- is to be deleted from the total value of gold jewellery items shown at Sl.No.19 of Statement-B.

Item No.20:

137.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of household articles as per the inventory taken in the house of accused on 13.09.2013 at

Rs.4,39,500/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that in the said amount the Investigating Officer also included the value of Laptop as Rs.26,000/- which was purchased by

A1 with the computer loan of Rs.25,000/- advanced by BDL in the year 2011 as per Ex.P73 and the ceiling fans are included in the internal electrical installations in Ex.P98 Report and in statement-A the TV worth Rs.10,000/- was added but again in Ex.P3 Inventory it was added and therefore, an amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of household articles shown at Sl.No.20 of

Statement-B and if the said amount of Rs.56,000/- is deleted, the value of Item No.20 of Statement-B worked out to Rs.3,83,500/-.

138.As can be seen from the evidence on record, the

Investigating Officer has shown the value of the articles found in the house of the accused during the Search Proceedings and prepared

Ex.P2 Inventory and in the said Inventory the year of acquisition of article was clearly mentioned. As can be seen from Ex.P2 at Sl.No.8, the TV is shown as acquired in the year 1999 and its value is shown as Rs.10,000/-. Even as can be seen from Ex.P98 CPWD Report submitted by PW-54, there is no mention that the value of the ceiling fans were included in the said Report and in Ex.P98 it is mentioned that the value of internal electrical fittings were included. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 113 of 185 accused failed to adduce any evidence and failed to file any documents to show that the ceiling fans and TV found in the house at the time of Ex.P3 Inventory were acquired prior to the check period and admittedly the Laptop was purchased in the year 2011.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the TV and fans were purchased prior to the check period and also in the absence of any evidence that the value of ceiling fans were included in Ex.P98

Report, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of

Rs.4,39,500/- shown towards the value of household articles at

Sl.No.20 of Statement-B.

Item No.22:

139.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown Rs.19.00 lakhs as investment made by

A2 in M/s. Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital, Balanagar. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 invested an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs by way of three cheques and the said amount was provided by her father and the remaining amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs, a personal cheque was given to PW-16 by

A2 and the same was withdrawn by PW-16 and therefore, as the entire amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested in M/s. Sri Royal India Multi

Specialty Hospital by A2 is to be deleted from the assets of accused

No.2 during the check period.

140.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri Royal India Multi Specialty

Hospital and in support of the said contention, the prosecution examined PW-16 and got marked Exs.P47 and P48 and as per the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 114 of 185 evidence of PW-16, the invested amount was paid by A2 by way of three cheques issued in favour of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty

Hospital and they were realized in the Hospital Account and for the balance amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs, A2 issued a cheque on his name and he has withdrawn the said amount and Ex.P47 Statement of

Bank account of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital clearly goes to show the amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested by A2 and Ex.P48

Partnership Agreement also reflects the name of A2 as one of the

Partners of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital during the check period.

141.I have perused the evidence of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and

P48. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and

P48, A2 issued three cheques for Rs.5.00 lakhs each favouring Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital towards her investment and she has also issued another cheque for Rs.4.00 lakhs favoring PW-16 and the same was withdrawn by PW-16. PW-16 in his evidence categorically stated that the amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested by

A2 against her 20% share in the Hospital which is reflected in Ex.P48

Partnership Agreement. Therefore, on perusal of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and P48, I am of the opinion that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital during the check period, as the accused failed to prove that the amount invested by A2 in Sri Royal

India Multi Specialty Hospital was provided by DW-1. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused and in view of the fact that A2 invested the amount in Sri Royal India Multi

Specialty Hospital by way of cheques issued by her which were reflected in Ex.P47 Statement and also in view of the evidence of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 115 of 185

PW-16 as nothing was elicited from him adverse to the case of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs shown at Item No.22 of Statement-

B is to be deleted, is not tenable.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Income

of the accused during the check period

142.Out of the 23 items shown as income and other receipts of the accused during the check period, the accused not disputed the amounts mentioned at Sl.Nos.2 to 23 and he has claimed

additional income and submitted the same along with his written

arguments.

Item No.1:

143.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the income of A1 from salary during the check period at Rs.38,16,679/-. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to file the supplementary payments received by A1 during the check period as admittedly Ex.P73 Pay Particulars does not include the supplementary payments made to the accused during the check period which was admitted by PW-24. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that during the course of trial, the accused made an application and called for the supplementary payments received by A1 during the check period and re-called

PW-24 for further cross-examination and during the further cross- examination, the supplementary payments statement produced by

PW-24 is marked as Ex.D1 and as per Ex.D1 an amount of

Rs.1,14,936/- was paid to A1 towards supplementary bills and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 116 of 185 therefore, the learned counsel for the accused requested to add this amount of Rs.1,14,936/- to the income of A1 from salary shown at

Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

144.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-24 admitted in the cross-examination that number of other perks received by A1 were not shown in Exs.P71 to P73 which approximately comes to Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and the check period contains 156 months and if an average amount of

Rs.2,500/- per month is taken towards perks paid to A1, it works out to Rs.3,90,000/- and therefore, the supplementary payment is not

Rs.1,14,936/- as shown in Ex.D1 but it should be Rs.3,90,000/-. But as can been seen from the evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1 supplementary payment particulars, it covers the various allowances paid to A1 during the check period. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that the perks paid to A1 during the check period comes to Rs.3,90,000/- is not tenable and in view of evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1, the amount of Rs.1,14,936/- paid to A1 by way of supplementary bills is to be added to the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

145.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that during the check period, the accused availed a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- towards Car Advance and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards Computer Advance and the Investigating Officer failed to give the benefit of the said amount in the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

146.I have perused Exs.P71 to P73 which were marked

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 117 of 185 through PW-24 and also the evidence of PW-24. PW-24 in his evidence categorically stated that the advances availed by the A1 were included in the gross salary amount and the learned counsel

for the accused not even suggested to PW-24 during the cross-

examination that the Car Advance and Computer Advance were not included in the gross salary. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion given to PW-24 during the cross-examination that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards Car Advance and Rs.25,000/- towards Computer Advance were not included in the gross salary of

A1, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) is to be added to the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the amount received by A1 towards supplementary bills during the check period for an amount of Rs.1,14,936/- as shown in Ex.D1 is to be added to the income of the A1 from salary at

Sl.No.1 of Statement-C. If the said amount of Rs.1,14,936/- is added to the income of accused from salary, the total income received by

A1 from salary comes to Rs.39,31,615/-.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding

Additional Income claimed by the accused by way of defence

shown from Sl.No.24 to 35 of Written Arguments

Item No.24:

147.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A1 availed a personal loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from

HDFC Bank in the month of July, 2013 and the Investigating Officer failed to include the said amount of loan availed by A1 during the check period to the income of the accused in Statement-C. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 118 of 185 learned counsel for the accused submitted that A1 availed a loan of

Rs.5.00 lakhs from HDFC Bank during the check period and the said amount was transferred to the savings account of accused with

Andhra Bank, BDL Branch and the same was reflected in Ex.P43 and even the accused summoned the concerned Officer of HDFC Bank from where he availed the loan and examined as DW-2 and during the evidence of DW-2, the Statement of Account in respect of the personal loan availed by A1 is marked as Ex.C1. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62

Investigating Officer in his cross-examination categorically admitted that as per Ex.P43 Statement of Account, on 28.06.2013 an amount of Rs.4,86,010/- was credited to his account from HDFC Bank.

PW-62 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he has not mentioned the availing of said loan by A1 and its repayment in the charge sheet. Admittedly, the said loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs was availed by A1 from HDFC Bank during the check period and he has paid only one instalment of Rs.11,764/- during the check period and admittedly as per Ex.C1 Statement, the entire loan was repaid after to the check period. Therefore, in view of the evidence of DW-2 and

Ex.P43 and Ex.C1, I am of the opinion that as A1 availed the loan during the check period and an amount of Rs.4,86,010/- was credited to his savings account under Ex.P43 and as A1 repaid one instalment at Rs.11,764/- during the check period, which has to be deleted from the amount of loan of Rs.4,86,010/- received by A1, which comes to Rs.4,74,246/- and as A1 availed the loan during the check period, the said amount of Rs.4,74,246/- is to be added to the income of the accused in Statement-C.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 119 of 185

Item No.25:

148.The learned counsel for the accused categorically stated that the Investigating Officer charged the interest on loan availed by

A1 for purchase of TATA Indica Car in the year 2007 as expenditure in Statement-D, which was disposed by A1 in the year 2010 but the

Investigating Officer failed to add the sale proceeds of Rs.2,50,000/- received by A1 as income during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that A1 during his 313

Cr.P.C. examination submitted the explanation and documents pertaining to the transfer of Indica Car and as such the sale proceeds of Rs.2,50,000/- received by A1 towards sale of his Indica

Car is to be included to the income of accused during the check period.

149.As can been from the entire evidence on record, except the transferring of vehicle on the name of third party obtained from

RTA website, A1 failed to adduce any independent evidence and failed to file any documents to show that he has sold his TATA Indica

Car for Rs.2,50,000/- during the check period. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents in proof of the sale of

Indica Car by A1 during the check period for a consideration of

Rs.2,50,000/-, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove the sale proceeds of TATA Indica Car to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- received by him during the checkperiod is to be added to his income.

Item No.26:

150.The learned counsel for the accused categorically

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 120 of 185 submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs which was received by A2 from her father in the year 2006 by way of gift after selling of 10 acres of agricultural land in Agapally Village and 28 acres of land in Chintapally Village. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62

Investigating Officer admitted in the cross-examination that the father of A2 whose statement recorded by him during the course of investigation categorically stated that he has sold the land at

Agapally Village and Chintapally Villages. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that DW-1 in his evidence categorically stated that he has provided Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 after selling of 10 acres of land at Agapally Village.

151.As can be seen from the entire evidence available on record, except the oral evidence of DW-1 that he has paid Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 in the year 2006 after selling his agricultural land at

Agapally Village, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. The accused failed to file any Sale Deed under which the father of A2 sold 10 acres of land at

Agapally Village during the check period of this case and that he has given Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 by way of gift. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in proof of gift of Rs.10.00 lakhs by

DW-1 to A2, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that

A2 received an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs from DW-1 during the check period and that the said amount is to be included to the income of A2 during the check period.

Item No.27:

152.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 121 of 185 that PW-35 and DW-1 gifted Rs.1.00 lakh each to the children of A2 at the time of their births in the years 1995, 1999 and 2003 respectively totalling to Rs.3.00 lakhs and if the amount of

Rs.1.00lakh presented to elder child of accused born in 1995 is deleted, the remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs presented to 2nd and 3rd child of accused, who were born during the check period is to be considered as income of accused during the check period and the same has to be added to the income of accused in Statement-C.

153.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.2.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period towards gift to their 2nd and 3rd child during the check period and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.28:

154. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of A2 provided an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of construction of house bearing No.3-117/22, Boduppal in the year 2006 and even though PW-35 and DW-1 stated to the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of

Rs.20.00 lakhs received by A2 from her parents as income during

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 122 of 185 the check period and failed to show the same in Statement-C.

155.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.20.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for construction of house bearing No.3-117/22,

Boduppal and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No. 29 :

156.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of A2 provided an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of construction of house bearing No.3-118/1, Boduppal in the year 2012 and even though PW-35 and DW-1 stated to the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs received by A2 from her parents as income during the check period and failed to show the same in Statement-C.

157.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 123 of 185 accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.15.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for construction of house bearing No.3-118/1, Boduppal and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.30:

158.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to show an amount of

Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by the parents of A2 for Dhothi function of the children of accused in the year 2011 and the Investigating

Officer wrongly included an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- as expenditure at Item No.42 of Statement-D and as the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs was provided by the parents of A2 for Dhothi function of the children of accused during the check period, the same has to be added to the income of the accused in Statement-C.

159.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.4.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for Dhothi function of their children and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 124 of 185

Item No.31:

160.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to include an amount of

Rs.34,982/- received by the accused as cash gifts on the occasion of

Dhothi function of their children in the year 2011 though Ex.P134

Note book seized by the Investigating Officer, reflects the gifts received worth Rs.34,982/- and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.34,982/- is to be added to the income of the accused during the check period.

161.I have perused the evidence available on record in this aspect. PW-62 Investigating Officer during cross-examination categorically denied that Ex.P134 contains the receipt of cash gifts amounting to Rs.34,982/-. I have perused Ex.P134 Note Book wherein it is categorically mentioned about the cash gifts received amounting to Rs.34,982/-. As can be seen from the record, the

Investigating Officer relied upon Ex.P134 for the purpose of proving the expenditure in connection of Dhothi function of the children of accused. When PW-62 relied upon Ex.P134 Note Book to prove the expenditure, he ought to have considered the entries in Ex.P134 with regard to the cash gifts reflected in the said Note Book.

Therefore, in view of entries in Ex.P134, which is seized by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and as there were entries relating to the cash gifts received during the Dhothi function of the children of the accused, I am of the opinion of that the said amount of Rs.34,982/- received by the accused towards cash gifts at the time of Dhoti function of their children during the check period is to be added to the income of accused during the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 125 of 185 check period.

Item No.32:

162.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to include an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh received by the children of accused at the time of

Dhothi function from PW-35. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-35 she categorically stated that she has gifted Rs.50,000/- each to her grandsons ie., the sons of accused at the time of Dhoti function in the year 2011 and in view of the evidence of PW-35, the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh received by the accused during the check period from PW-35 is to be added to the income of the accused.

Except the oral evidence of PW-35, there is no document filed by the accused to prove the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.1.00 lakh ie., Rs.50,000/- each to their sons from PW-35 during the check period at the time of

Dhothi function and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.33:

163.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of

Rs.6.00 lakhs received by A2 from her mother ie., PW-35 as gift in the year 2010 and 2011 after availing a gold loan from Syndicate

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 126 of 185

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-35 in her evidence categorically stated that she has given Rs.6.00 lakhs to A2 by availing a Gold Loan from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and in spite of the evidence of PW-35, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs as income of A2 during the check period.

164.Except the oral evidence of PW-35, the accused failed to file any document in support of the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received Rs.6.00 lakhs from PW- 35 during the check period as gift by availing the Gold Loan from

Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.34:

165.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of

Rs.2,69,000/- received by A2 from her father in the year 2010. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that DW-1 in his evidence categorically deposed that he has given an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- to A2 in the year 2010 and in spite of the evidence of DW-1, whose statement also recorded by PW-62 during the course of investigation failed to consider the said amount of Rs.2,69,000/- as income of the accused during the check period.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 127 of 185

166.I have perused the evidence of DW-1. DW-1 in his chief- examination itself categorically stated that he has given an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- to his daughter in the year 2010 and he has shown the said amount in his Income Tax Returns. Admittedly, DW-1 failed to file his Income Tax Returns before this Court to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents, more particularly, the Income Tax Returns of DW-1 during the relevant assessment years, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- from DW-1 during the check period and that the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.2,69,000/- is to be added to the income of accused during the check period in Statement-C, is not tenable.

Item No.35:

167.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that in the year 2011, A2 sold 15 tulas of gold for a consideration of

Rs.4,20,000/- to DW-3 and received the said amount from DW-3 and the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said sale proceeds of gold amounting to Rs.4,20,000/- as income of the accused during the check period.

168.In order to prove this aspect, the accused relying upon the evidence of DW-3. As can be seen from the evidence of DW-3, in his chief-examination itself he has categorically stated that A2 brought the gold to him for selling the same and on request he sold the said gold ornaments to 3rd party and issued Ex.D8 and Ex.D9

Receipts. DW-3 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he facilitated A2 in selling of the gold and admitted that there is no

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 128 of 185 receipt number of Exs.D8 and D9 and that there is no mention in

Exs.D8 and D9 that he has facilitated A2 for selling of her gold ornaments and Exs.D8 and D9 does not contain his signatures.

Therefore, in view of the above admission of DW-3 and in the absence of the signatures of DW-3 on Exs.D8 and D9 and as DW-3 not purchased the gold from A2, I am of the opinion that the evidence of DW-3 and Exs.D8 and D9 are no way helpful to the accused to substantiate their contention that A2 received an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- from DW-3 during the check period by way of sale of 15 tulas of gold. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of DW-3 and his admissions during the cross-examination and as there were no signatures of DW-3 on Exs.D8 and D9, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received an amount of

Rs.4,20,000/- from DW-3 during the check period by way of sale of gold and that the said amount is to be added to the income of the accused.

169.Therefore, on analyzing the income of the accused with available evidence, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,14,936/- received by A1 towards supplementary bills during the check period and an amount of Rs.4,74,246/- received by the accused as personal loan from HDFC Bank during the check period and an amount of Rs.34,982/- received by the accused towards cash gifts at the time of Dhoti function of their children, totaling to

Rs.6,24,164/- is to be added to the income of accused during the check period and if the said amount is added to the income of accused, the total income received by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.1,76,38,724/-.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 129 of 185

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding

Expenditure of accused during the check period

170.Out of the 61 items shown in the charge sheet towards expenditure and other payments of the accused during the check period, the accused has not disputed the expenditure shown at Item

Nos.4 to 27, 32, 34, 36 to 40, 42, 45, 46, 49 to 52, 54, 56, 57 and 59.

Item No.1:

171.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

Investigating Officer calculated the expenditure of the accused towards household expenses at Rs.31,36,975/- which is 1/3 rd of gross salary of A1 during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the household expenditure shall be computed on the net salary of the accused instead of the same, the

Investigating Officer wrongly considered the gross salary of the accused and 1/3 rd of the net salary of A1 during the check period comes to Rs.12,72,226/-and the Investigating Officer calculated the household expenditure from the 1/3rd of gross salary received by A1 during the check period.

172.As per the contention of the accused, 1/3rd of net salary is to be considered as household expenditure of A1 but the

Investigating Officer calculated 1/3rd of gross salary of

Rs.94,10,924/- received by the accused during the check period.

Though, the learned counsel for the accused suggested to PW-62

Investigating Officer that 1/3rd of net salary is to be taken as household expenditure, but failed to substantiate any material or any document in support of his contention that the household expenditure has to be calculated from the net salary of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 130 of 185

Government Servant. Except giving suggestion to PW-62

Investigating Officer, no independent evidence is adduced by A1 to prove the said fact that 1/3 rd of the net salary is to be considered as household expenditure. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents produced by the accused in support of his contention, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that 1/3rd of net salary is to be considered as household expenditure of A1 during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.2:

173. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,86,890/- towards the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic S/o Accused

No.1 at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW-39, who is the Accounts Manager of Hyderabad

Public School deposed that the School provides snacks in the morning and evening and lunch in the afternoon everyday and non- vegetarian lunch weekly once and the School works for 222 days in a year and even by a conservative estimate and take Rs.50/- per day, the cost of food shall be Rs.11,100/- and for 10 years during the check period, it shall be Rs.1,11,000/- and this amount has to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused in respect of educational expenditure of his son Master Vaidic.

174.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per Ex.P152, the Term Fee of 2013-14 was also wrongly added without ascertaining the dates of payment which comes to

Rs.20,800/- and the same has to be deleted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic S/o Accused No.1 and in total an

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 131 of 185 amount of Rs.1,31,800/- is to be deducted from the total expenditure of Rs.3,86,890/- shown at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D and if the said amount is deducted the educational expenditure in respect of Master

Vaidic S/o Accused No.1 comes to Rs.2,55,090/-.

175.As can be seen from the record, except suggesting to

PW-39 and PW-62 Investigating Officer, the accused failed to adduce any independent evidence and also failed to file any documents to show that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,11,000/- towards lunch and snacks provided by the School to Master Vaidic during the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P152, there is a clear mention of payment of fee in respect of Master Vaidic to Hyderabad

Public School, Ramanthapur. The accused failed to file any document to show that the last Term Fee for the academic year 2013-14 was paid after to the date of check period. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents produced by the accused,

I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,31,800/- is to be deducted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic shown at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.3:

176.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.2,85,600/- towards the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh S/o Accused

No.1 at Sl.No.3 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW-39, who is the Accounts Manager of Hyderabad

Public School deposed that the School provides snacks in the morning and evening and lunch in the afternoon everyday and non-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 132 of 185 vegetarian lunch weekly once and the School works for 222 days in a year and even by a conservative estimate and take Rs.50/- per day, the cost of food shall be Rs.11,100/- per year and for 5 years during the check period, it shall be Rs.55,500/- and this amount has to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused in respect of educational expenditure of his son Master Vaidesh.

177.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per Ex.P152, the Term Fee of 2013-14 was also wrongly added without ascertaining the dates of payment which comes to

Rs.20,800/- and the same has to be deleted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh S/o A1 and in total an amount of

Rs.76,300/- is to be deducted from the total expenditure of

Rs.2,85,600/- shown at Sl.No.3 of Statement-D and if the said amount is deducted the educational expenditure in respect of Master

Vaidesh S/o A1 comes to Rs.2,09,300/-.

178.As can be seen from the record, except suggesting to

PW-39 and PW-62 Investigating Officer, the accused failed to adduce any independent evidence and also failed to file any documents to show that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.55,500/- towards lunch and snacks provided by the School to Master Vaidesh during the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P152, there is a clear mention of payment of fee in respect of Master Vaidesh to

Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur. The accused failed to file any document to show that the last Term Fee for the academic year 2013-14 was paid after to the date of check period. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the contention of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 133 of 185 accused that an amount of Rs.76,300/- is to be deducted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh shown at Sl.No.3 of

Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.28:

179.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the expenditure incurred by A1 towards payment of LIC premium during the check period in respect of LIC Policy bearing No.644214155 at Rs.48,077/-.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the premium in respect of the said policy was commenced from 1997 and the check period started from 01.01.1999 and therefore, the premium paid by

A1 from 1997 to 31.12.1998 is to be deducted from the total amount of expenditure shown at Sl.No.28 of Statement-D.

180.In respect of this item, the prosecution examined PW-28 and got marked the policy statement in respect of the above policy as Ex.P80. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no suggestion to the witness that the total amount of expenditure shown at Rs.48,077/- includes the premium paid by A1 prior to the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P80, the total premium amount paid by A1 in respect of the said policy was Rs.2,78,864/-.

Even PW-28 in his evidence categorically stated that the total premium paid in respect of the said policy was Rs.48,077/-.

Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 and also in the absence of any documents filed by the accused that the expenditure shown at Item No.28 of Statement-B includes the premium paid prior to the check period, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.16,392/- paid prior

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 134 of 185 to the check period is to be deleted from the amount of Rs.48,077/- shown as expenditure in Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.29:

181.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the expenditure incurred by A1 towards payment of LIC premium during the check period in respect of LIC Policy bearing No.64423746 at Rs.1,86,614/-.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the premium amount not paid by the accused was also added and PW-28 in his cross-examination categorically stated that they have received six quarterly payments at Rs.9,962/- totaling to Rs.59,772/- upto April, 2004 and as such the balance amount of Rs.1,26,842/- wrongly charged has to be deleted.

182.In respect of this item, the prosecution examined PW-28 and got marked the policy statement in respect of the above policy as Ex.P81. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no suggestion to the witness that an amount of Rs.1,26,842/- was wrongly charged and even PW-62 Investigating Officer denied the said suggestion. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that as per Ex.P81, the total amount of premium paid by A1 directly is Rs.1,86,614/-. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 and also in view of the evidence of PW-28 that an amount of Rs.1,86,614/- was paid by the accused during the check period, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the Investigating Officer wrongly charged Rs.1,26,842/- towards the expenditure of accused in respect of Ex.P81 LIC policy.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 135 of 185

Item No.30:

183.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the interest paid on loan availed against

LIC Policy No.644255264 standing on the name of A1 at Rs.24,392/-.

The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer wrongly shown the said amount towards expenditure of the accused even though the accused not paid any interest on the said policy as PW-28 not stated about the same.

184.I have perused the evidence of PW-28 and Ex.P79 Status

Report relating to the above said Policy. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no cross-examination to PW-28 that A1 not paid any interest on the loan outstanding in respect of policy shown in Ex.P79 Status Report. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that A1 repaid the entire loan availed by him on the said policy with interest of Rs.24,392/- as on 06.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of PW-28 and in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 that the accused not paid any interest on the outstanding loan of the said policy, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that he has not paid

Rs.24,392/- towards interest in respect of the above said policy and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of

Rs.24,392/- is to be deleted which is shown at Sl.No.30 of Statement-

D, is not tenable.

Item No.31:

185.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the interest paid on loan availed against

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 136 of 185

LIC Policy No.644214155 standing on the name of A1 at Rs.56,751/-.

The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer wrongly shown the said amount towards expenditure of the accused even though the accused not paid any interest on the said policy as PW-28 not stated about the same.

186.I have perused the evidence of PW-28 and Ex.P80 Status

Report relating to the above said Policy. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no cross-examination to PW-28 that A1 not paid any interest on the loan outstanding in respect of the policy shown in Ex.P80 Status Report. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that A1 repaid the entire loan availed by him on the said policy with interest of Rs.56,751/- as on 06.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of PW-28 and in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 that the accused not paid any interest on the outstanding loan of the said policy, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that he has not paid

Rs.56,751/- towards interest in respect of the above said policy and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of

Rs.56,751/- is to be deleted which is shown at Sl.No.31 of Statement-

D, is not tenable.

Item No.33:

187.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,76,600/- as expenditure of the accused towards interest on Car Loan availed from M/s. Magma Finance Corporation Limited. The learned counsel

for the accused further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-48

and Ex.P95 Statement of Account of Car Loan, the same was availed

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 137 of 185 in the year 2010 and closed in the year 2012 and the accused paid 24 monthly instalments @ Rs.11,160/- which comes to Rs.2,67,840/- and on account of dis-honouring of six cheques, Rs.6,960/- was charged and the fore-closure amount paid was Rs.3,65,000/- and the grand total EMIs paid, dis-honouring of cheque amounts and fore- closure amount comes to Rs.6,39,800/- and since the loan amount taken was Rs.4,93,000/- and if it is deducted from the above total, the interest paid comes to only Rs.1,46,800/- which has to be shown as expenditure but the Investigating Officer shown the interest paid as Rs.1,76,600/- and therefore, an amount of Rs.29,800/- is to be deleted from the total expenditure shown at Sl.No.33 of Statement-

C.

188.I have perused the evidence of PW-48 and Ex.P95.

PW-48 in his evidence categorically stated that he has furnished

Ex.P95 Statement of Account of A1 in respect of Car Loan and A1 availed a Car Loan of Rs.4,93,000/- and repaid the entire loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.6,69,600/- in 60 equal monthly instalments @ Rs.11,160/-. As can be seen from evidence of PW-48, the learned counsel for the accused not even suggested to the witness that the interest paid by the accused on the Car Loan is only Rs.1,46,800/- and not Rs.1,76,600/-. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-48 suggesting the interest, I am of the opinion that the contention of A1 that the interest paid by him on the

Car Loan is only Rs.1,46,800/-, is not tenable.

Item No.35:

189.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.4,250/- as expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 138 of 185 incurred by A2 towards Life Tax and Registration Charges paid on two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Life Tax is included in total amount of Rs.55,120/- paid to the dealer as shown in Ex.P35 which is also shown as income of the accused at Sl.No.18 of Statement-B and therefore, the entire amount of Rs.4,250/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted.

190.The relevant witness examined to prove this aspect is

PW-11 and the relevant document is Ex.P35. I have perused the evidence of PW-11 and Ex.P35. PW-11 in his evidence categorically stated that an amount of Rs.4,250/- was paid towards Life Tax and

Registration Charges on purchase of vehicle. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-11, the learned counsel for the accused reported no cross-examination to this witness. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-11 that the total amount of Rs.55,120/- paid towards purchase of the two wheeler includes the Life Tax and

Registration amounting to Rs.4,250/-, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the amount of Rs.4,250/- paid towards

Life Tax and Registration Charges were included in the total amount paid to the dealer and as such, I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,250/- shown as expenditure towards

Life Tax and Registration Charges on purchase of two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.41:

191.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.36,500/- as expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 139 of 185 of the accused towards house warming ceremony of H.No.3-118/1,

Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal on 23.11.2011. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer relied upon Ex.P134 Note Book entries for charging the above amount as expenditure of accused towards house warming ceremony, but as can be seen from Ex.P134, there were no dates of entries and the prosecution failed to examine any witnesses to prove the contents of Ex.P134 and therefore in the absence of any evidence and as there were no dates to the entries in Ex.P134, the total amount of Rs.36,500/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted.

192.I have perused Ex.P134 Note Book and the evidence available on record in respect of this item. The accused claimed the benefit of income of Rs.34,982/- cash gifts received on the occasion of Dhothi function of their children by relying upon the entries in

Ex.P134 Note Book and the same was considered as additional income of accused during the check period and the said benefit was given to the accused. When the accused claimed the additional income by relying upon the entries in Ex.P134 Note Book, the accused are estoped from denying the contents of Ex.P134 Note

Book when comes to the expenditure. Therefore, as the accused admitted Ex.P134 to claim the benefit of income, the contents of

Ex.P134 Note Book are to be considered to prove the expenditure incurred by the accused towards house warming ceremony.

Therefore, in view of the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.36,500/- shown as expenditure at Item No.41 is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 140 of 185

Item No.42:

193.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- expenditure incurred by the accused towards Dhothi function of sons of accused held on 09.12.2011. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Dhothi function of the sons of accused were performed by

PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 on their own and the accused also claimed that an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by

PW-35 and DW-1 for consideration of their income in Statement-C and as the entire amount for Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by WP-35 and DW-1, the total expenditure shown at

Sl.No.42 for an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused in Statement-D.

194.I have perused the evidence available on record. Except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, there is no independent evidence and documents produced by the accused to prove the fact that the entire expenditure towards the Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by PW-35 and DW-1. While considering the claim of the accused that the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by PW-35 and DW-1 for Dhothi function of the sons of accused to be considered as income of the accused during the check period, is rejected while answering the claim of the accused in Statement-C.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the expenditure of

Rs.3,60,920/- towards Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by PW-35 and DW-1, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that the amount of Rs.3,60,920/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused shown at Item No.42 of Statement-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 141 of 185

D, is not tenable.

Item No.43:

195.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as expenditure towards interest paid to PW-50 J.Srinivas Reddy against the hand loan taken from him at the time of construction of the house by A1. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

PW-50 not stated in his evidence that he has received an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 towards interest on the hand loan provided by him and therefore, in the absence of evidence of PW-50, the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure for payment of interest to

PW-50 is to be deleted from Statement-D.

196.I have perused the evidence of PW-50. As can be seen from the evidence of PW50, he has categorically stated that in the year 2012, A1 availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the purpose of construction of his house and accordingly he advanced the same by way of cheque and subsequently, A1 took an amount of Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.65,000/- on another occasion for the purpose of construction of house and after two years of availing loan, A1 repaid the loan of Rs.6,15,000/- by way of cheque pertaining to the account of A2 and the same is reflected in Ex.P70/7

Statement of Account of A2.

197.As can be seen from the evidence of PW-50, he has not stated anywhere that he has received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 towards interest against the hand loan and the prosecution failed to file any document to show that PW-50 received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 142 of 185 towards interest and the prosecution even failed to cross-examine

PW-50 to put-forth its contention that he has received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 as interest against the hand loan provided by him to A1.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that PW-50 received an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 as interest against the hand loan, I am of the opinion that the said amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure towards payment of interest to PW-50 by A1, is to be deleted from

Statement-D.

Item No.44:

198.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,00,606/- as expenditure towards interest paid on housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from SBI, Karwan Branch by A1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that no separate interest was paid by A1 as the interest was included in EMI and the same was deducted from the salary which confirms in Ex.P72 Salary Particulars and PW-51 also deposed about the same and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.1,00,606/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from Statement-

D.

199.I have perused the evidence of PW-51 and Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars of the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of PW- 51, the learned counsel for the accused not suggested to PW-51 that no separate interest is paid against the said housing loan. PW-51 categorically stated in his chief-examination that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.6,50,606/- which includes the principal, interest and pre-closure charges. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 143 of 185

PW-51 that no separate interest was paid by the accused against the housing loan and also in the absence of any independent evidence, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,00,606/- shown as interest paid on housing loan is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.47:

200.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,66,215/- as expenditure towards interest paid on housing loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs from United Bank of India, Hyderabad Branch by A1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that no separate interest was paid by A1 as the interest was included in EMI and the same was deducted from the salary which confirms in Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars and PW-46 also deposed about the same and therefore, the said amount of Rs.3,66,215/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from Statement-D.

201.I have perused the evidence of PW-46 and Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars of the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW-46, the learned counsel for the accused not suggested to PW-46 that no separate interest is paid against the said housing loan.

PW-46 categorically stated in his chief-examination that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.11,66,251/- which includes the principal, interest and pre-closure charges, out of which Rs.8.00 lakhs principal and Rs.3,66,215/- interest and pre-closure charges. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-46 that no separate interest was paid by the accused against the housing loan and also in the absence of any independent evidence, I am of the opinion that the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 144 of 185 contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,66,215/- shown as interest paid on housing loan is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.48:

202.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.53,910/- as expenditure towards mobile phone bill bearing No.9490797612 standing in the name of A1. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that as per the evidence of PW-52 and the documents submitted by A1 during 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the said mobile phone was provided by BDL to the accused and the bill in respect of the said mobile phone was paid by BDL and therefore, the said amount of Rs.53,910/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from

Statement-D.

203.I have perused the evidence of PW-52 and the documents submitted by the accused during 313 Cr.P.C.

examination, more particularly, the Certificate issued by HR

Manager, BDL dt. 09.10.2014. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW-52, he categorically stated in the cross-examination that the said mobile No.9490797612 stands in the name of A1, is the official mobile provided by the employer. I have also perused the

Certificate issued by Deputy General Manager (P&A), Bharath

Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad which is filed by A1 at the time of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said mobile bearing No.9490797612 is the official phone and the bill amount in respect of the said mobile phone was paid by the Company with a monthly ceiling of Rs.350/- + taxes and the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 145 of 185 excess amount will be recovered from the salary of the employee.

Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-52 and the Certificate issued by the authorities of BDL filed by A1 at the time 313 Cr.P.C.

examination, I am of the opinion that the mobile bearing

No.9490797612 was provided by the employer and it is an official phone and the bill of which was paid by the Company and therefore, the expenditure of Rs.53,910/- shown at Sl.No.48 of Statement-D is to be deleted.

Item No.53:

204.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- as expenditure towards chit instalments paid by A2 at Sri Ram Chits,

Nalgonda. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that A2 paid only one instalment of Rs.20,000/- and the remaining amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- was paid by the father of A2 which is confirmed by

PW-60 and therefore, only Rs.20,000/- has to be shown as expenditure and remaining amount of Rs.1,37,000/- paid by the father of A2 towards instalments of the above chit is to be deleted.

205.I have perused the evidence of PW-60 and Ex.P109

Statement of Account in respect of the Chit No.LS05 Ticket No.24 of

Sri Ram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-60, the said Chit was standing on the name of A2 and the total value of Chit Rs.10.00 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly instalments paid by the customer till 21.02.2014 is Rs.2,23,600/-.

PW-60 in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for A2 categorically admitted that the first instalment in respect of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 146 of 185 above Chit was paid by A2 and the remaining instalments were paid by her father. As can be seen from Ex.P109, the above Chit was standing on the name of A2 and the instalments were paid to a tune of Rs.1,57,000/- during the check period. Even though PW-60 admitted that except the first instalment, the remaining instalments were paid by the father of A2, the Chit was standing on the name of

A2 and it has to be presumed that the entire instalments are paid by

A2 itself though the father of A2 visited the Chit Fund Office and paid the instalments. Therefore, in view of evidence of PW-60 and

Ex.P109, I am of the opinion that the instalments paid by A2 in respect of the above Chit is Rs.1,57,000/- during the check period and as such, I hold that the contention of accused that an amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused from the total amount of Rs.1,57,000/- shown at Sl.No.53 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.55:

206.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.6,000/- as expenditure towards the amount paid by the accused to Bheemreddy Nagar

Colony Welfare Association vide Receipt Nos.66 and 67 dt.

13.03.2005. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

Ex.P136 and P137 Receipts are one and the same covering the same

H.No.3-118/1 and therefore, only Rs.3,000/- is to be taken into consideration towards expenditure and the other Rs.3,000/- is to be deleted.

207.I have perused the evidence available on record and

Ex.P136 and P137 which are the Receipts passed by Bheemreddy

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 147 of 185

Nagar Colony Welfare Association, dt. 13.03.2005. As can be seen from Exs.P136 and P137, they are independent Receipts, one is bearing No.66 and another is bearing No.67. Therefore, in view of the fact that Ex.P136 and P137 being independent Receipts, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that Exs.P136 and

P137 are one and same is not tenable and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of Rs.6,000/- shown as expenditure at Sl.No.55 of

Statement-D, is also not tenable.

Item No.58:

208.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,22,505/- as expenditure towards interest paid on overdraft account standing in the name of A1 with Andhra Bank, BDL Branch. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, PW-14 while speaking about Ex.P43 Statement of Account, did not state regarding interest payment and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.1,22,505/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused in

Statement-D.

209.I have perused the evidence of PW-14 as well as Ex.D43

Statement of Account. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-14, he has categorically stated that as per Ex.P43, overdraft limit of

Rs.3.00 lakhs was sanctioned and salary of A1 was being credited in this account and the debit balance as on 15.11.2008 was Rs.91,812/- and the debit balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,95,707/- which indicates that the said amount is due to the Bank by A1 as on said date. The learned counsel for the accused reported no cross

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 148 of 185 examination to this witness. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-14 that the accused not paid any interest in respect of the overdraft account, I am of the opinion that A1 failed to prove that he has not paid interest of Rs.1,22,505/- on overdraft account and as such I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,22,505/- is to be deleted from the expenditure shown at Sl.No.58 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item Nos.60 & 61:

210.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.2,81,313/- as expenditure incurred by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges in respect of Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP29AM 9977 at Sl.No.60 and an amount of Rs.7,320/- as expenditure incurred by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges in respect of Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 at

Sl.No.61 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that there is no receipts or bills filed by the

Investigating Officer to prove the said expenditure and the same was charged only on technical lines without any evidence and the same is admitted by PW-56. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that DW-1, who is the father of A2 used to stay with her for 15 days and above in a month, who used the four wheeler vehicle during the said stay and therefore, the expenditure charged by the Investigating Officer towards fuel and maintenance charges is to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused.

211.I have perused the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99

Inspection Report submitted by PW-56. As per the evidence of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 149 of 185

PW-56, he has inspected two vehicles bearing No.AP29AM 9977

Maruti Swift Dzire and AP29AQ 8219 Suzuki Access two wheeler and submitted his report under Ex.P99 regarding the expenditure incurred for the maintenance and fuel consumption of the above said vehicles basing on kilometer run and the total cost for maintaining two vehicles along with its fuel consumption has been arrived at Rs.2,88,633/-. PW-56 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he mentioned in Ex.P99 Report that the information regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of the vehicle is technically worked out and he is the authorized person to inspect all the vehicles of Central and State Governments.

212.Admittedly, both the vehicles were standing on the name of A1 and A2 respectively. The contention of the accused that

Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle was used by the father of A2 and incurred expenditure for fuel and maintenance, is not tenable in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and even

DW-1 not stated the same in his evidence before this Court.

213.Therefore, on perusal of evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99, I am of the opinion that as PW-56 is competent person to inspect and give report regarding the fuel and maintenance charges in respect of the vehicles, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the accused to disprove the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99, the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99 are to be believed. In view of the above facts, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.2,81,313/- shown as fuel and maintenance charges in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP29AM 9977 at Sl.No.60 and an amount of Rs.7,320/- shown as fuel and maintenance charges in

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 150 of 185 respect of vehicle bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 at Sl.No.61 is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

214.Therefore, on analyzing the Expenditure of the accused with available evidence, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure of the Accused No.1 towards interest paid to PW50 during the check period at Sl.No.43 of

Statement-D and an amount of Rs.53,910/- shown as expenditure of the Accused No.1 towards Mobile bill of Mobile No.9490797612 during the check period at Sl.No.48 of Statement-D, totaling to

Rs.2,18,910/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused during the check period and if the said amount is deleted from the expenditure of accused, the total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.83,66,606/-.

215.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-57 is not the competent person for issuance of

Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1 as the accused is working in the cadre of E5 as on the date of registration of the case and the competent authority for issuance of sanction order for prosecution of A1 is Functional Director and PW-57 was the

Executive Director, who is not competent to issue sanction proceedings for prosecution of A1 and therefore, as PW-57 is not competent person to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against A1 basing on Ex.P100

Sanction Order issued by the authority, who is not competent to issue the said Sanction Order is not maintainable and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal on this ground alone.

216.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 151 of 185 that as on the date of registration of the case, A1 is working in

Grade-IV and as such PW-57 being the Executive Director is the disciplinary authority against the Officers working in Grade-IV and therefore, Ex.P100 Sanction Proceedings issued by Ex.P57 for prosecution of A1 is valid.

217.I have perused the evidence of PW-57 and Ex.P100. As can be seen from Ex.P100, it is categorically mentioned that PW-57 being the Executive Director of BDL accorded sanction for prosecution of A1 u/s. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. PW-57 in his cross-examination categorically stated that as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 Sanction Order, A1 was in the Grade of E4 to the best of his knowledge and further stated that he may be in Grade-E5 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 Sanction Order.

PW-57 further admitted in the cross-examination that he is not the appointing authority in the case of Dr.A.Venugopal to the Grade-E5, but categorically denied the suggestion that since he is not the appointing authority of A1, he is not the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against A1. PW-57 in his cross- examination categorically stated that as Executive Director (P&A) since Dr.A.Venugopal was working under him, he was the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in terms of BDL

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules against the Officers working under his control irrespective of the Grades and as such he is the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against

A1 under Ex.P100. As can be seen from the entire material available on record, the accused failed to file any document to show that he was in a particular Grade as on the date of registration of this case and that PW-57 is not the competent authority to issue Ex.P100

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 152 of 185

Sanction Order for prosecution of the accused. Therefore, in the absence of any documents filed by the accused that PW-57 is not the competent person to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1, I am of the opinion that in view of evidence of PW- 57 that he is the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action against A1 as Executive Director, he is competent to issue Ex.P100

Sanction Proceedings and as such, the contention of the accused

No.1 that PW-57 is not competent to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1, is not tenable.

218.The Learned counsel for the accused No.1 in support of his contention regarding validity of sanction proceedings relied on the following citations reported in

1) (1963) Crl.L.J 556 between Sahebkhan Umerkhan vs The

State wherein their lordships of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat categorically held that “ Under Section 6 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Act except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub- section (1) of Section 6 have no application to the facts of this case and, therefore, they do not arise for consideration and it is clear from the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act that the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office must have been given before the Special Judge's Court appointed to try the case can take cognizance of the offence.”

2) ILR 2013 KAR 3803 between M Manjunath vs State By

Lokayuktha Police wherein His lordship of Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka categorically held that “When there is no valid sanction to prosecute the offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act , the Special Judge would have no jurisdiction to try the case and the entire trial would be vitiated

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 153 of 185 and the Special Judge could not deal with any specific charge when the trial itself is vitiated, has allowed the appeal holding that since the trial for an offence under Section 5(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, is null and void, the Special

Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 409

of the IPC, in respect of the same cause of action”.

219.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 further relied upon the following citations reported in

1) 2000 (4) ALD 663 between Maddu Lakshmana Rao vs

State Of Andhra Pradesh wherein His lordship of our

Hon’ble High Court categorically held that“'This is an

infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.'

11. This observation indicates that the infirmity of the complainant being the Investigation Officer has far reaching significance affecting the credibility of the prosecution case. But, whether this could be interpreted as the Supreme Court having laid down that in every such a case, irrespective of the facts, the prosecution and the result of the trial are vitiated does not arise for consideration in this case as the case is at the investigation stage.

12. In this case, the question is raised at the earliest stage when the investigation is still in progress. There is no point in allowing the investigation to continue with this infirmity and if it results in filing of the charge-sheet, to allow the trial to proceed and then at the end of the trial to consider the question, whether the fact of the complainant being the Investigating Officer has adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution case. When the matter is brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest and where there is an opportunity to correct the malady at the earliest stage, there is no point in allowing the proceedings of investigation to continue with this infirmity”

2) 2003 (1) ALD Cri 740 between M. Sreeramulu vs

State Of A.P. wherein His lordship of our Hon’ble High

Court categorically held that “It is true that in the list of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 154 of 185 sources of income, the prosecution had included the income from items 1 and 2 and the two trucks referred to above. The house rent was estimated at Rs. 58,968/- and income from two lorries was estimated at Rs. 2,29,220/-and

Rs. 14,325/- respectively. However, in the items of expenditure also the said items were referred to. The expenditure for these items would almost neutralize the income said to have been derived from them. The net result is that if items 1 3, 6, 9, 10 and 12 are deleted from the list of assets expenditure and income the appellant does not hold any assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The trial Court did not take these aspects into account. It had accepted the ownership in respect of these items on the basis of certain assumptions. When a finding in this regard is going to result in serious and for reaching consequences, it is required to be on sound principles of appreciation and on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. It has been pointed in the preceding paragraphs that even the Investigating Officer was not sure about the ownership of the petitioner vis-a-vis the said items. Under these circumstances, this court is convinced that the appellant did not hold any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income”.

3) (1999) 6 SCC 559 between P.Nallammal vs State

Rep. By Inspector Of Police wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“Shri K.K.Venugopal endeavoured to establish that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act is to be understood as an offshoot of the different facets of misconduct of a public servant enumerated in clauses

(a) to (d) of the sub-section which a public servant might commit. According to him, unless the ill-gotten wealth has a nexus with the sources contemplated in the preceding clauses the public servant cannot be held guilty under clause (e) of Section 13(1) . Learned senior counsel elaborated his contention like this: If a public servant is able to account for the excess wealth by showing some clear sources, though not

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 155 of 185 legally permissible, but not falling under any of the preceding clauses of the sub-section, he would be discharging the burden cast on him. He cited an example like this:

If the public servant satisfies the court that the excess wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the public servant is not liable to be convicted under the aforesaid clause.

Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.

The last illustration is this:

If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act ”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 156 of 185

4) (2006) 1 SCC 420 between D.S.P., Chennai vs K.

Inbasagaran wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “Therefore, the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish whether the accused has acquired the property disproportionate to his known source of income or not. But at the same time it has been held in a case of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 that accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.

Now, in this background, when the accused has come forward with the plea that all the money which has been recovered from his house and purchase of real estate or the recovery of the gold and other deposits in the Bank, all have been owned by his wife, then in that situation how can all these recoveries of unaccounted money could be laid in his hands. The question is when the accused has provided satisfactorily explanation that all the money belonged to his wife and she has owned it and the Income-tax Department has assessed in her hand, then in that case, whether he could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act . It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in the

Income-tax return and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 157 of 185 husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Income-tax

Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which has been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife. Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed”.

5) (2018) 1 SCC 202 between Khekh Ram vs State Of

H.P. wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that ”It is a common place proposition that in a criminal trial suspicion however grave cannot take

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 158 of 185 the place of proof and the prosecution to succeed has to prove its case and establish the charge by adducing convincing evidence to ward off any reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused. For this, the prosecution case has to be in the category of “must be true” and not “may be true”.

6) (2017) 14 SCC 442 betweenVasant Rao Guhe vs The

State Of Madhya Pradesh wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “In view of the

materials on record and the state of law as above, we are thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and punishable under Section 13(2) thereof against the appellant. He is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of “must be true” category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of “may be true”.

7) (1981) 3 SCC 199 betweenState Of Maharashtra vs

Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwarwherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “That takes us to the difficult question as to the nature and extent of the burden of proof under s. 5 (1) (e) of the Act.

The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden. i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 159 of 185 discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under s.

5(2) read with s.5(1)(e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 5(1)(e) , namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under s. 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under s. 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in Jahgan's case (supra), i.e.

to establish his case by a preponderance of probability”.

8) 2021 SCC online SC 1208 between The State By S.P.

Through The SPE CBI ... vs Uttamchand Bohra wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The material to implicate someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant, alleged to have committed misconduct, under the PCA, or amassed assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of income, thus, has to be on firm ground. In the present case, only two circumstances - the custody of the sale deed (of the property allegedly belonging to A-1) and the fact that it was witnessed by Uttamchand’s employee - are alleged against the respondent. These are wholly insufficient to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 160 of 185 raise a reasonable suspicion, or make out a prima case against him, for conspiracy.

30. It would be useful, in the context of the present case, to recollect the decision of this Court, in P.Nallammal v. State which observed, as follows:

“Thus, the two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb. So it is contended that a non-public servant has no role in the trial of the said offence and hence he cannot conceivably be tagged with the public servant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.”

9) (2010) 12 SCC 254 between Babubhai vs State Of

Gujarat & Ors wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that “Thus, it is evident that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances.

34. In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-sided, biased and mala fide. One party has been favoured by the investigating agency. The natural corollary to this finding is that the other party has been harassed in an unwarranted manner. Thus, the cause of the other party has been prejudiced. The charge sheets filed by the investigating agency in both the cases are against the same set of accused. A charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation. If the investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 161 of 185

220.The above referred citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary by marking relevant documents categorically proved the sanction proceedings and even as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution discharged its initial burden and it was categorically held that the accused failed to rebut the prosecution evidence by way of defence evidence that the properties acquired on his name and on the name of accused No.2 are not disproportionate to his known sources of income.

221.The learned counsel for the accused No.2 submitted that the offence under section 109 of IPC r/w section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act is not made out against the Accused No.2 as the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged abetment.

222.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 relied upon the following citation reportedin (2007) 10 SCC 797 between Kishori Lal vs State Of M.P wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 162 of 185

223. The above referred citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary by marking relevant documents categorically proved that properties acquired by the

Accused No.1 on his name and on the name of accused No.2 are disproportionate to his known sources of income as the Accused failed to rebut the evidence of prosecution.

224.On the other hand, in support of the case of the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following citations reported in.

1) 1964 AIR 464 between Sajjan Singh vs The State Of

Punjab wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The question then is: Was this disproportionate to the appellant's known sources of income? As was held by this Court in Swamy's Case(1) "the expression 'known sources of income' must have reference to (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 461.

Sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case" and that it could not be contended that 'known sources of income' meant sources known to the accused”.

2)(1999) 6 SCC 559 between P.Nallammal vs State

Rep. By Inspector Of Police wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“If the public servant satisfies the court that the excess wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the public servant is not liable to be convicted under the aforesaid clause.

Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 163 of 185 fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.

The last illustration is this:

If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act ”.

3)(2017) 6 SCC 263 between State Of Karnataka vs Selvi J.

Jayalalitha & Ors wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that “The Trial Court held that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and we find that the Trial

Court was right in coming to the conclusion relying on the decision of Nallammal (supra), wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that Under Section

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 164 of 185 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and in our opinion, the

Trial Court correctly held in this matter that private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act committed by the public servant. Furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial Court in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment, after scrutinizing the evidence of this case, is correct in the face of the overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by

A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences under

Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act” .

225.On perusal of the entire material available on record and in view of the detailed discussion and proper appreciation of documents and evidence adduced by the prosecution with reference to the statements A to D annexed to the charge sheet and evidence on record, the assets of the accused No.1 & 2 prior to the check period as shown in statement-A works out to Rs.1,22,800/- as shown in the charge sheet, the assets of A1 and A2 during check period from 1.1.1999 to 13-09-2013 as shown in Statement-B works out to Rs.1,68,65,610.15/- rounded to Rs.1,68,65,610/- as shown in the charge sheet, the income of the accused No.1 & 2 during check period as shown in statement-C works out to

Rs.1,76,38,724/- as against the value of Rs.1,70,14,560/- shown in the charge sheet and the expenditure of the accused No.1 & 2 during the check period as shown in statement-D works out to

Rs.83,66,606/- as against the value of Rs. 85,85,515.70/- shown in the charge sheet.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 165 of 185

226.In view of the above evidence available on record and as per values arrived at after appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents, the assets possessed by the accused, prior to check period and the assets, income and expenditure of the accused during the check period i.e., from 1.1.1999 to 13.9.2013 is to be computed as follows:

1) Assets at the Beginning of the check period

(Statement-A) Rs. 1,22,800.00

2) Assets at the end of the check period

(Statement-B) Rs. 1,68,65,610.00

3) Income received during check period

(Statement-C) Rs. 1,76,38,724.00

4) Expenditure incurred during check period

(Statement-D) Rs 83,66,606.00

5) Disproportionate Assets {(B-A) – (C-D) } {(Rs.1,68,65,610.00 - Rs.1,22,800.00)–(Rs.1,76,38,724.00- Rs.83,66,606.00)} = (Rs.1,67,42,810.00) – (Rs.92,72,118.00) = Rs. 74,70,692/- % of Disproportionate assets = Quantum of DA x 100 Income

That is : Rs. 74,70,692 x100 = 42.35 % 1,76,38,724 i.e., 42.35 % of the income.

227.It is settled law that in a case of disproportionate assets, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the public servant acquired assets on his name and on the name of his family members disproportionate to his known sources of income and if the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the evidence of prosecution that the properties acquired and shown in the charge sheet are from the known sources of income. In the present case, the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence both oral and documentary categorically

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 166 of 185 proved the disproportionate assets acquired by A1 on his name and on the name of his wife i.e., Accused No.2 to the tune of

Rs.74,70,692/- and on the other hand, the accused failed to rebut the prosecution evidence by leading convincing defence evidence.

228.Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence available on record, i.e., the evidence of PWs 1 to 62, Exs. P1 to P163, Ex.C1, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 and Ex.D1 to D9, I am of the opinion that the prosecution by examining the witnesses and by marking relevant documents categorically proved that the accused No.1 being a public servant acquired assets to a tune of Rs.Rs.74,70,692/- on his name and on the names of his wife i.e.,A2 disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the other hand, the accused failed to prove their defence that the properties acquired by them with known sources of income, as they have failed to prove by leading co- gent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, I answered the points 1 to 4 in favour of the prosecution and against the accused No.1 & 2 holding that the prosecution successfully bring home the guilty of the accused A1 for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused No.1 and 2 are liable for conviction for the said offences.

229.In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and the accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 167 of 185 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

230.The accused No.1 & 2 are heard on the quantum of sentence that has to be imposed on them.

231.The accused No.1 stated that he has not committed any offence and he is having Blood Pressure and Diabeties and prayed to reduce the sentence.

232.The accused No.2 submitted that she has not committed any offence and prayed to reduce the sentence.

233.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences proved against the accused No.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to extend the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused

No.1 & 2.

234.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused No.1 & 2 and their counsel, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5 0,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ‘three’ months for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 168 of 185

235.The accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5 0,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ‘three’ months for the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

236.The accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for set-off of the remand period if any, under section 428 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

237.The accused No.1 and A2 are informed about their right to file an appeal against this judgment and also informed their right to get a free legal aid from Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, if they have no means to engage counsel to file the appeal and they are provided with free copy of judgment.

238.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as it is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the offence pertains to Disproportionate Assets and therefore, the properties which are declared as disproportionate assets may be confiscated to the State.

239.In view of the conviction of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the disproportionate of assets proved to the tune of Rs.74,70,692/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs seventy thousand six hundred and ninety two only) for which the accused could not satisfactorily accounted for shall be

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 169 of 185 confiscated to the State under section 452 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, after appeal time is over.

240.The total fine amount payable by the accused No.1 & 2 is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

: 170 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1K.Venkatesh, Branch Manager, Cetnral Bank of India, NAARM Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-2J.Srikanth Reddy, Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda

PW-3D.Vishnu Vardhan Raju, District Registrar (Retired), Hyderabad South

PW-4S.V.Narasimha Rao, Assistant Registrar of Chits (Retired), Regional Office, Ranga Reddy (East) District.

PW-5Rajagopal Subramanyam, Sub-Registrar, Vallabnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-6G.Vishnuvardhan Rao, Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-7N.Sravan Kumar, Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nalgonda District

PW-8Jayanth Reddy, Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Maheswaram

PW-9M.Krishna Ram Bhupal, Senior Assistant, District Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy East, R.R.District

PW-10Jithender Reddy, General Manager in M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad.

PW-11Syed Wahed Ali, Sales Manager, M/s. Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

PW-12P.Ram Mohan Rao, Businessman, M/s. Nivas Constructions

PW-13A.V.Krishna Rao, Administrative Officer, RTO, Uppal

PW-14S.Bhaskara Rao, Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Chandigarh

PW-15Ketha Shanthi Kiran, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Bongiri, Nalgonda.

PW-16Ramesh Reddy, Businessman, Royal Hospital, Balanagar

PW-17Bhaskar B.Kotari, Manager (Administration and Operation), PMJ Gems and Jewellers Private Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

PW-18M.Umamaheswara Rao, Bank Panel Gold Appraiser, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-19P.Srinivas Rao, Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad.

: 171 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

PW-20B.Chandra Mohan, Senior Assistant, GHMC, Hyderabad.

PW-21Anand Vinay Marneni, Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, A.S.Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-22Smt.P.Sulochana, Home Maker

PW-23Licky Krishna Reddy, Business, Krishna Reddy Kirana and General Store, Badangpet, near Old Gram Panchayath

PW-24P.V.N.Manyalu, Deputy General Manager (Finance), Bharat Bynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad.

PW-25Dr.L.V.S.N.Murthy, Manager (P & A) in Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-26G.V.Brahmaiah, Deputy General Manager (Finance) in Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-27J.Satya Chandra Sekhara Murthy, Chief Manager (Retired), UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai

PW-28P.Vinod Babu, Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch-VII, Abids, Hyderabad.

PW-29Vijaya Kumar Gangaraj, Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Range-17, Hyderabad.

PW-30K.Vijaya Rani, Home Maker

PW-31S.Chitra, Home Maker

PW-32G.Bhaskar Prasad, Deputy General Manager, Bharat Dynamics Limited

PW-33B.Venkatapparao, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Limited, Arya Vysya Sangham, Amarapuram, Ananthapur District.

PW-34L.Laxman Dass, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda

PW-35Smt.L.Laxmamma, Home Maker

PW-36Prakash Chand Jain, Partner in Sanjay Electronics, Koti, Hyderabad.

PW-37G.Vijay Kumar, Dean, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Hyderabad.

PW-38Smt.P.Lakshmi, Principal, College of Law for Woman, Andhra Mahila Saba, Hyderabad.

PW-39Ch.Ashok Kumar, Accounts Manager, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

PW-40K.V.V.S.N.Rangacharyulu, Assistant Accounts Officer : 172 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

(Retired), ERO, Habsiguda.

PW-41Sister.Lucy, Head Mistress, St.Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

PW-42K.Bhanumurthy, Manager, Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-43K.J.Vijaya Krishna, Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle-IV, L.B.Nagar.

PW-44Hakim Noor Mahamood, Legal Manager, Magma Housing Finance.

PW-45M.Ravinder Reddy, Panchayath Secretary, Dadapur Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District.

PW-46A.Mendelson Navaraj, Retired Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Southern Regional Office, Chennai

PW-47S.Satyanarayana, Retired Telephone Revenue Inspector

PW-48P.Bhupati Sarvesh Babulu, Senior Legal Manager, Origo Finance Private Limited.

PW-49Avinash Shinde, Officer, ICICI Bank, Madapur Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-50J.Srinivas Reddy, Tandur Stones Business

PW-51V.Venkata Ramana, Chief Manager, SBI(ADB), Suryapet.

PW-52A.Yadagiri, Accounts Officer, BSNL, CGM Office, Abids, Hyderabad.

PW-53N.Narsinga Rao, Senior Master Technician (CMT-II), BDL, Kanchanbagh

PW-54M.Sitarama Rao, Superintendent in Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad.

PW-55M.Hanumantha Rao, Senior Office Superintendent, BDL, Milan Division, Hyderabad.

PW-56B.Sairam Reddy, Retired Motor Vehicles Inspector, RTA Kondapur, R.R.District.

PW-57Dr.N.Krishnam Raju, Retired Executive Director (P & A), BDL, Hyderabad

PW-58C.Raghavendra, Private Employee in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

PW-59Smt.H.T.Trisandhya, Retired Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

: 173 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

PW-60Y.Varaprasad, Divisional Manager, Sri Ram Chits, Miryalaguda

PW-61S.Muralidhara, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-62B.Satish Prabhu, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defence:

DW-1Lingala Nagabhushanam Goud, Agriculturist

DW-2Smt.M.Meenakshi, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad.

DW-3K.Srinivas Singh, Goldsmith at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1Search List dt. 13.09.2013 conducted at the residence of accused (3 sheets)

Ex.P2Inventory Memo dt. 13.09.2013 along with rough sketch (5 sheets)

Ex.P3Proceedings of Locker oeprations drawn at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch on 23.09.2013 (2 sheets)

Ex.P4Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12503/2003 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.S.Kishan Rao for Rs.25,000/- (9 sheets)

Ex.P5Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12502/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.Ch.Mallikarjun Rao for Rs.25,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P6Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12499/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.D.Uma Devi for Rs.15,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P7Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12500/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.Sandhya Rani for Rs.15,000/- (10 sheets).

Ex.P8Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12501/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.M.Padma for Rs.15,000/- (10 sheets).

Ex.P9Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance : 174 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Certificate dt. 09.11.2000 bearing No.8776/01 executed by Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu represented by GPA holder Mr.L.Krishna Reddy in favour of Mrs.Vijaya Rani for Rs.27,000/- (7 sheets).

Ex.P10Sale Deed bearing No.6197/2002, dt. 21.08.2002 executed by Smt.D.Balamani W/o Mr.D.Sriram Murthy and Smt.P.Suvarna Latha W/o Mr.P.Jagadishwar andn M/s. Renuka Constructions represented by Smt.P.Renuka in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.3,41,500/- (16 sheets).

Ex.P11Sale Deed bearing No.9391/2001, dated 31.12.2001 executed by Smt.Nukala Padma W/o. Mr.N.Ravi in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.41,500/-(10 sheets).

Ex.P12Sale Deed bearing No.8574/2006, dated 17.04.2006 executed by Smt.K.Chandrika W/o Mr.K.Mallikarjun Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.1,78,000/- (7 sheets).

Ex.P13Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5708/99 executed by Mr.C.Sonthosh Reddy S/o Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.C.Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr.A.Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr.A. Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/-(8 sheets).

Ex.P14Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5709/99 executed by Mr.C.Sonthosh Reddy S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.C.Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr.A.Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr.A.Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/-(8 sheets).

Ex.P15Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 18.02.1999 bearing No.1155/99 executed by Mr.P.Madhava Reddy S/o. Papi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.1,25,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P16Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 26.11.2001 bearing No.8387/2001 executed by Smt.C.Padmavathi W/o. Mr.Bhaskar Rao in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr.A.Venugopal for Rs.30,000/-. (10 sheets).

Ex.P17Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8775/2000 executed by Smt.D.R.Lakshmi W/o. Mr.D.Ratnaiah and Smt.D.Padmaja D/o. Mr.D.Ratnaiah in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr.A.Venugopal for Rs.51,500/- (11 sheets).

Ex.P18Sale Deed bearing No.28305/2006, dated 29.12.2006 executed by Mr.G.Bhaskar S/o. Late G.Surayanarayana in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, W/o. A.Venugopal for Rs.3,90,000/- for Plot No.8 admeasuring 390 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 part situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District (10 sheets).

: 175 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P19Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 04.07.2003 bearing No.7824/2003 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Karunakar Reddy S/o. K.Hanmanth Reddy for Rs.2,25,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (15 sheets).

Ex.P20Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4436/2007 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K.Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (12 sheets).

Ex.P21Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4435/2007 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K.Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (12 sheets).

Ex.P22Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 31.07.2006 bearing No.15841/2006 executed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venugopal represented by her GPA Holder Mr.J.Janga Reddy in favour of Mr.P.Venkatrami Reddy S/o. P.Linga Reddy for Rs.3,40,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (11 sheets).

Ex.P23Sale Deed bearing No.5083/2003, dated 30.08.2003 executed by Mr.G.Govardhan Reddy S/o. G.Janardhan Reddy and Smt.G.Aruna W/o. Mr.G.Govardhan Reddy in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.89,500/-, along with Encumbrance Certificate (14 sheets).

Ex.P24Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.4514/2000, dated 03.06.2000 executed by Mr.K.Bhushanam Goud in favour of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (12 sheets).

Ex.P25Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.6731/2003, dated 07.06.2003 executed by Mr. Kandi Basava Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-along with Encumbrance Certificate (10 sheets).

Ex.P26Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.9027/2003, dated 20.07.2003 executed by Smt.M.Chandrakala in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.10,500/-. (7 sheets).

Ex.P27Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.16286/2006, dated 02.11.2006 executed by Smt.V.Sulochana in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,29,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (8sheets).

Ex.P28Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.8494/2012, dated 18.08.2012 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal in favour of Mr.A.Bharath Kumar Reddy for sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (14 : 176 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

sheets).

Ex.P29Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.8602/2003, dated 19.07.2003 executed by Mr.B.Chandramohan Goud in favour of Mr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,75,500/-. (9 sheets).

Ex.P30Sale Deed bearing No.430/2003, dated 03.03.2003 executed by Mr.A.Lachi Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (11 sheets).

Ex.P31Sale Deed bearing No.695/2009, dated 06.03.2009 executed by Mr.B.Surender Reddy GPA Holder of Mr.V.Kumara Swamy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,03,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (13 sheets).

Ex.P32Sale Deed bearing No.7464/1999, dated 13.10.1999 executed by M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.89,000/-(10 sheets).

Ex.P33Sale Deed bearing No.1635/2000, dated 07.03.2000 executed by M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.43,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (12 sheets).

Ex.P34Attested copy of Invoice, Delivery Receipt, three Receipt Vouchers and copy of Insurance Policy (6 sheets).

Ex.P35Customer copy of Tax Invoice-cum-Sale Letter, dated 17.06.2011 for Rs.46,310/- in the name of Lingala Vijaya Rani along with office copy of said Invoice, temporary Certificate of Registration, Tax Receipt for Rs.4,250/-, copy of Order Form and Ledger Copy (7 sheets).

Ex.P36Cash Receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.54,160/- in the name of L.Vijaya Rani issued by M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

Ex.P37Cash Receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.1,000/- in the name of L.Vijaya Rani M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

Ex.P38Receipt dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.1.00 lakh issued by me in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P39Vehicle Abstract Report of motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 8219 registered in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal (2 sheets).

Ex.P40Vehicle Abstract Report of motor car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 registered in the name of Venu Gopal Abbagoni (2 sheets).

Ex.P41Statement of account of Abhaya Gold saving bank account bearing No.104510025080205 in the name of Dr.A.Venu : 177 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Gopal for the period from 08.02.2005 to 31.03.2013 (3 sheets).

Ex.P42Statement of account of saving bank account bearing No.1045100110000974 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 05.05.1997 to 30.09.2013 (44 sheets).

Ex.P43Statement of account of Overdraft bank account bearing No.104531041900064 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14.11.2008 to 13.09.2013 (24 sheets).

Ex.P44Certified copy of statement of SB Account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 20.05.2001 to 13.09.2013.

Ex.P45Locker Opening Form of locker No.239 in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (3 sheets).

Ex.P46FDR Receipt dated 05.07.2002 for Rs.7,000/- in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P47Copy of Statement of Bank Account of Sree Sree Royal India Multispecialty Hospital LLP (7 sheets)

Ex.P48Copy of Partnership Agreement dated 22.01.2013 (18 sheets)

Ex.P49Ledger Account copy of Smt.Vijaya Rani from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.

Ex.P50Retail Invoice dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for purchase of white diamond necklace for Rs.2,61,991.20 ps.

Ex.P51Purchase voucher dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for selling old gold for Rs.2,27,591/-.

Ex.P52Cash Receipt Vouchers in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani

dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 for Rs.10,000/- and

Rs.22,000/- respectively for payment of balance amount for the item covered by Ex.P50 (2 sheets).

Ex.P53Copy of Retail Invoice dated 31.12.2010 in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.2,40,354.06 ps.

Ex.P54Copy of Purchase Voucher dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,78,854/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P55Copy of Ledger Account in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.

Ex.P56Copy of Purchase Voucher dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P57Copy of Retail Invoice dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.66,249.95 ps in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P58Copy of Repair Order Sales Bill dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P59Copy of Cash Receipt Voucher for Rs.1.00 lakh in the name : 178 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P60Copy of Monthly Scheme transactions for customer in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani during the period from 08.03.2013 to 28.09.2013.

Ex.P61Copy of Customer Order/Advance Receipt dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P62Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P63Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 22.05.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P64Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 28.06.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P65Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.P66Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 28.09.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P67Estimate Slip dated 13.09.2013 along with Visiting Card.

Ex.P68Rough Calculation Slip dated 13.09.2013.

Ex.P69Copy of Bharat Dynamics Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (29 sheets).

Ex.P70Savings Account Opening Form, Statement of Account along with Certificate relating to Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani W/ o. A.Venu Gopal pertains to Account No.732010098872 in ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad (10 sheets).

Ex.P71Pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal for the period from June 1997 to December 2001 (2 sheets).

Ex.P72Pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal for the period from January 2002 to September 2013 (6 sheets).

Ex.P73Employee Ledger in respect of Car advance, computer advance and special advance availed by Dr.Venu Gopal (5 sheets).

Ex.P74Copies of Form No.16 of Dr.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (15sheets).

Ex.P75Annual Property Returns (APRs) for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules (47 sheets).

Ex.P76Loan application, dated 15.11.2008 of Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal (8 sheets).

Ex.P77Loan Sanction Letter, dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.28 lakhs. (2 sheets).

: 179 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P78Certified copy of statement of the loan account bearing No.14410610006368 for the period from 17.11.2008 to 05.10.2013. (7sheets).

Ex.P79Status Report of Policy No.644255264 (5 sheets).

Ex.P80Status Report of Policy No.644214155 (6 sheets).

Ex.P81Status Report of Policy No.644237436 (5 sheets).

Ex.P82Bunch of Income Tax Returns of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani pertaining to PAN No.AFNPL6851N for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010-11.(49 sheets).

Ex.P83Certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010to30.09.2013relatingto S.B.A/c.No.734010058346 standing in the name of Lingala Nagabhushanam (7 sheets).

Ex.P84Certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010to30.09.2013relatingtoS.B. A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma (4 sheets).

Ex.P85Copy of Invoice dated 14.03.2013 issued in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.55,500/-.

Ex.P86Application Form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) for silver privilege member dated 6.1.2002 in Country Club, Hyderabad.

Ex.P87True extract of the statement of account of Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.2007.

Ex.P88Application Form submitted by Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) for Master Life Membership in Country Club, Hyderabad dated 18.4.2007.

Ex.P89Annexure showing the assessment details and house tax payment details of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) from 01.09.2005 to 29.03.2010 in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet (2 sheets).

Ex.P90True extract of the statement of account of Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of the car loan availed by him from M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

Ex.P91Attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P92Attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.V.Sulochana.

Ex.P93True extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 24.09.2003 to 31.03.2009 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act (6 sheets along with certificate 1 sheet).

Ex.P94Statement of account showing the payment of monthly bills : 180 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of telephone No.040- 27205672 for the period from 12.07.2001 to 13.09.2013 along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (4 sheets including certificate).

Ex.P95True extract statement of account of Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of the car loan availed by him from M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad (2sheets).

Ex.P96True extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14.02.2003 to 24.08.2012 (6 sheets).

Ex.P97True extract of the payment details in respect of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21.08.2008 to 18.06.2014 along with certificate under section 65-B(4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P98Valuation Report dated 24.02.2015 submitted by us which contains my signatures and the signatures of Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao (8 sheets along with annexures 9 sheets).

Ex.P99Inspection Report dated 13.03.2015 submitted by me in respect of inspection of two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suziki Access two wheeler regarding the expenditure of maintenance and fuel consumption of the said two vehicles.

Ex.P100Sanction Order dated 28.04.2015 issued by me for prosecution of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (16 sheets).

Ex.P101Application Form in respect of Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs dated 13.06.2011.

Ex.P102Passbook in respect of Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs.

Ex.P103Statement of account for Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs (2 sheets).

Ex.P104Application Form in respect of Group No.LS 03, Ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs dated 13.06.2011.

Ex.P105Passbook in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs.

Ex.P106Statement of account for Group No.LS 03, Ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs (2 sheets).

Ex.P107Application form in respect of Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P108Passbook in respect of Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P109Statement of account for Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs (1 sheet).

: 181 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P110Payment details of the mobile Nos.8978134581 and 9866520552 furnished by me to the CBI Inspector.

Ex.P111FIR in R.C.No.16(A)/2013-CBI/ACB/Hyderabad dated 12.09.2013 along with annexure-A, B, C and proceedings of DIG, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad dated 12-09-2013 (11 sheets).

Ex.P112Search Warrant dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for search

of residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P113Search Warrant dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for search

of office premises at BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P114Original Sale Deed bearing No.518/2002 dated 28.01.2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (10 sheets)

Ex.P115Original Agreement for additional works dated November 2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani along with cash receipt for Rs.6,91,500/- and credit voucher for Rs.89,214/-

dated 10.01.2003 (7 sheets)

Ex.P116Original Sale Deed bearing No.5263/2008 dated 04.12.2008 in the name of Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani (12 sheets)

Ex.P117Original Invoice of M/s.Sanjay Electronics dated 14.03.2013.

Ex.P118Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010

Ex.P119Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010.

Ex.P120Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 29.12.2010

Ex.P121Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2011

Ex.P122Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2011

Ex.P123Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2010

Ex.P124Estimate for extra gold dated 19.03.2007

Ex.P125Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad

Ex.P126Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad dated 05.07.2003 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal

Ex.P127Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad dated 30.10.2003

Ex.P128Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, : 182 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

Ex.P129Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 22.02.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

Ex.P130Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 28.06.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P131Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P132Original LIC policy bearing No.644237436 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P133LIC policy bearing No.645686797 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal

Ex.P134One note book of Hyderabad Public School containing the details of expenditure in respect of housing warming ceremony and dhoti function at Page No.37 and 38.

Ex.P135Miscellaneous Receipt bearing No.1637 dated 03.03.2005 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani issued by Grampanchayat, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District for Rs.12,795/-.

Ex.P136Receipt bearing No.066 dated 13.03.2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony, Sanskema Sangam in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P137Receipt bearing No.067 dated 13.03.2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony, Sanskema Sangam in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P138Receipt bearing No.6897 dated 05-09-2009 issued by Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City branch for Rs.6,600/- in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P139Receipt bearing No.1354 dated 04.04.2013 issued by V- Guide Group of Coaching centres in the name of A.Vaidik for Rs.9,500/-.

Ex.P140Search List dated 13.09.2013 in respect of search and seizure of documents from the office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P141Certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property in respect of Plot No.79 admeasuring 202 Sq. yards in Sy.No.924, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as on 13.09.2013.

Ex.P142True Extract of Statement of account of SB A/c. No.14410110007679 of UCO Bank, Abids Circle Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 17.11.2008 to 16.07.2014 in : 183 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

the Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P143OriginalAccountOpeningFormof SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

Ex.P144Letter dated 18.04.2014 received from the Secretary, Twin Cities Jewellers Association, Hyderabad furnishing the gold price from 31.03.2004 to 31.03.2014.

Ex.P145Statements I to VI in original submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal furnishing the details of movable and immovable properties acquired by himself and his family members (7 sheets).

Ex.P146Certified copies of Returns of Income filed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and 2005-06 to 2011-13 and 2013-14 (24 sheets).

Ex.P147Statements of PF loans sanctioned from 1999 to 2013 to Dr.A.Venu Gopal vide ST.No.30974.

Ex.P148Receipt Memo dated 23.06.2014 under which Ex.P82 was collected from PW29.

Ex.P149Details of loan drawn and foreclosed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal with BDL Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad.

Ex.P150CCs of Encumbrance Certificates (10 sheets).

Ex.P151Receipt Memo dated 03.09.2017.

Ex.P152Payment details of admission fee, tuition fee etc., paid in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud, sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal, the Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

Ex.P153Letter dated 07.02.2014 from Head Mistress, St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Hyderabad furnishing the details of school fee paid by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2010- 2011 amounting to Rs.74,410/-.

Ex.P154Letter dated 07.12.2013 from Principal Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Tarnaka, Hyderabad furnishing the details of college fee paid by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi during the period 2011 to 2013.

Ex.P155Letter dated 04.12.2013 from Principal, College of Law for Women, Andhra Mahila Sabha, Hyderabad furnishing the details of tuition fee and other fees paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the academic years 2009-2012.

Ex.P156Letter dated 19.12.2013 from SRO, Uppal furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document Nos.6731/2003, 9027/2003 and 4514/2000.

Ex.P157Letter dated 23.12.2013 from SRO, Choutuppal furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid : 184 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

towards purchase of property vide document No.430/2003.

Ex.P158Letter dated 23.12.2013 from SRO, Ghatkesar furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.695/2009.

Ex.P159Details of monthly electrical charges paid in respect of service No.1603-1344 and 1603-2009 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (18 sheets).

Ex.P160Attested copy of loan application submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal with M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad (3 sheets).

Ex.P161Letter dated 07.01.2014 from Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal furnishing the details of property tax and water charges paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P162Letter dated 12.02.2014 from Bill Collector, Gram Panchayat Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal furnishing the property tax paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P163Statement of account of housing loan A/c.No.01593013216 with SBI, Karvan Branch, Hyderabad of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 25.02.2002 to 07.02.2004 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act (3 sheets).

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1Payment details made to Dr.A.Venu Gopal through supplementary bills during the period from 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2008 (4 sheets)

Ex.D2Declaration dt. 19.06.2014 submitted by A1 to PW62 (IO)

Ex.D3Letter dt. 16.08.2014

Ex.D4Book of Account Register

Ex.D5Executive dairy of DBL for the year 1999 (There are entries in pages from Jan 4 to Feb 5 excluding pages of Jan., 19, 21, 23 and entries in last 4 pages after 31st December, 1999 & the remaining pages are blank)

Ex.D6Two note books Vol-I and Vol-II (Vol-I – 1 to 12 pages); Vol-I (1 to 30 pages except last page)

Ex.D7Receipts, Estimates, Delivery challans and quotations

Ex.D8Receipt dt. 26.10.2011 passed by DW-3 in favour of : 185 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Smt.A.Vijaya

Ex.D9Receipt dt. 03.11.2011 passed by DW-3 in favour of Smt.Vijaya.

Exhibits marked by Court

Ex.C1Statement of account of personal loan account bearing No.24793610 for the period from 17.06.2013 to 21.12.2019 in the name of A.Venugopal.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CBI CASES, HYDERABAD

Dated : Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2022

Present : Sura Srinivas Reddy III Addl. Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.08 of 2015

Between:

State represented by Central Bureau of

Investigation, ACB, Hyderabad.... Complainant

AND

1. Dr.Abbagoni Venugopal S/o A.Saharabhalinga, Age 58 years, Occ: Chief Medical Officer, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

... Accused No.1

2. Smt.A.Vijaya Rani @ Lingala Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal, Age: 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-118/1, Bheem Reddy Nagar

Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad.... Accused No.2

This case is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.Anil Kumar Kompally, Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI/Complainant and of Sri.K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for A1, Sri.Lakkaraju Padma Rao, Learned counsel for A2 and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record and after 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 is a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police,

CBI, ACB, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and under section 109 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against A2.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) has been working as Chief Medical

Officer M/s. Bharath Dynamics Limited, Ministry of Defence,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 2 of 185

Government of India, Kanchanbagh Unit, Hyderabad, as such is a public servant and A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani is the wife of

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) public servant.

b)The Inspector submitted that on 12.09.2013 based on a source information, a case in RC.No.16(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/Hyderabad has been registered under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 Dr.A.Venugopal for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.1,33,51,844/- during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2011. The Inspector further submitted that on 13.09.2013 under the strength of Search Warrants issued by the

Court, Searches were conducted at the residential premises of

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) situated at H.No.3-118/1, Vijaya Gopal Villa, Plot

No.186/A and 186/B, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ranga

Reddy District and office premises of Dr.A.Venugopal situated at

Company premises of M/s. Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad in the presence of independent witnesses, after observing all the legal formalities and during the searches various incriminating documents like original Sale Deeds towards the purchase of immovable properties in the name of A1 and his family members, Bank Pass Books/Cheque Books, Fixed Deposit Receipts,

Locker keys, LIC Policies, Investment details, Expenditure Vouchers/

Bills/Vouchers, etc., were seized from the said premises under the cover of Search Lists.

c)The Inspector further submitted that on 23.09.2013 they have searched Locker No.239 standing jointly in the name of A1 and

A2 at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad in the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 3 of 185 presence of two independent witnesses and A2 and found various gold jewellery items and in this connection, drawn Locker Search

Proceedings incorporating all the happenings during the Search. The

Inspector further submitted that at the time of registration of the case, the check period was taken as 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2011 and that during the course of investigation, it has been reckoned as from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 i.e., the date of search for the purpose of computing the disproportionate assets. The Inspector further submitted that A1 did not inherit any properties from his parents and after completing M.B.B.S. during the period from 1993 to 1996, A1 worked as Doctor on temporary basis in various Private Hospitals in and around Hyderabad and on 16.06.1997 he joined M/s. Bharath

Dynamics Limited as Medical Officer in the scale of Assistant

Manager Gr.II, and thereafter he worked as Medical Officer in various scales of Deputy Manager, Manager and got promoted to the scale of Senior Manager on 01.09.2009 and since then he is working as

Chief Medical Officer.

d)The Inspector further submitted that 01.05.1994

Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) got married to A2 Smt.Vijaya Rani, D/o Lingala

Nagabhushanam, native of Miryalaguda and he was blessed with one daughter and two sons and his daughter Vydarshi did her Primary and Higher Education from St.Ann’s School, Tarnaka from 2000 to 2010 and studied Intermediate in Sri Chaitanya Junior College,

Tarnaka in the year 2010-12 and his elder son Master Vaidic studied in Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur from 1st to 10th Class and younger son Master Vaidesh is studied in the same School from 1st

Class.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 4 of 185

e)The Inspector further submitted that A2 Smt.Vijaya Rani was born and brought up in Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and she studied in Miryalaguda upto Intermediate and after marriage, she did her MBA from Vanitha College, Nampally, Hyderabad and LL.B from Andhra Mahila Sabha, Osmania University, Hyderabad and her father Mr.Lingala Nagabhushanam was an Excise Contractor and her mother Lingala Laxmamma is a housewife and her father owned agricultural lands at Devarakonda, Miryalaguda, Ibrahimpatnam in

Nalgonda District besides various other movable and immovable properties.

f)The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that A1 Dr.A.Venugopal acquired/ possessed assets in his name and in the name of his wife

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and the details of assets at the beginning of the check period as on 01.01.1999 were clearly shown in Statement-A annexed to the Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,22,800/- and the assets of A1 and A2 at the end of the check period as on 13.09.2013 were clearly shown in Statement-B annexed to the

Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/-, the Income and other receipts of A1 and A2 during the check period were clearly shown in Statement-C annexed to the Charge sheet which worked out to Rs.1,70,14,560/- and the expenditure and other payments of

A1 and A2 during the check period were clearly shown in Statement-

D annexed to the charge sheet which worked out to Rs.85,85,516/-.

g)The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation several witnesses have been examined and their statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and various

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 5 of 185 documents have been collected in support of the same and further during the course of investigation several opportunities were given to A1 and A2 to satisfactorily account for the assets held by them and found in their possession, but A1 and A2 could not give satisfactory explanation, since their contentions are false and not tenable. The Inspector further submitted that the investigation also revealed that A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani did not have sufficient source of income to substantiate the quantum of assets acquired in her name and that she played an active role and abetted A1 Dr.A.Venugopal in acquiring the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- and investigation also revealed that the transactions done in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani were orchestrated by her husband A1 Dr.A.Venugopal with her active collusion and therefore, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani has been arrayed as A2 in this case during the course of investigation.

h)The Inspector further submitted that for the purpose of computation of disproportionate of assets, the details of the assets held by A1 Dr.A.Venugopal at the beginning of the check period ie., as on 01.01.1999 is shown as Statement-A, the details of the assets held by A1 at the end of the check period ie., as on 13.09.2013 is shown as Statement-B, the details of income and other receipts received by A1 during the check period is shown as Statement-C and the details of the expenditure and other payments incurred by A1 during the said check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 is shown as Statement-D and the computation of disproportionate of assets is as under:

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 6 of 185

Rs.

1. Assets at the end of check period 1,68,65,610-00 (Statement-B)

2. Assets at the beginning of check -1,22,800-00 period (Statement-A)

3. Assets acquired during check 1,67,42,810-00 period (Statement B minus Statement A)

4. Expenditure during the check +85,85,516-00 period (Statement -D) 2,53,28,326-00

5. Income during the check period -1,70,14,560-00 (Statement-C)

Disproportionate Assets (B-A+D-C)83,13,766-00 % of Disproportionate assets = Quantum of DA x 100 Income

Thus, the percentage of DA works out to 48.86%

i)The Inspector further submitted that the investigation revealed that during the check period Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) had an expenditure and other payments amounting to Rs.85,85,516/- against the total income and other receipts of Rs.1,70,14,560/- and thus, the likely savings of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) is Rs.84,29,044/- and the total assets held by Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) in his name and in the name of his family members at the end of the check period worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/- against the assets hold at the beginning of the check period amounting to Rs.1,22,800/- and therefore, total assets acquired during the check period worked out to

Rs.1,67,42,810/- and as such Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) is in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.1,67,42,810/- against the likely savings of

Rs.84,29,044/- during the check period and therefore, the amount of disproportionate assets acquired by Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) during the check period is Rs.83,13,766/-, which works out the disproportionate

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 7 of 185 of assets at 48.86% with reference to the total income and other receipts of the accused persons.

j)The Inspector further submitted that Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) being a public servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 for which he could not satisfactorily account for during investigation and thereby A1 has committed the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation also revealed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) has abetted A1 Dr.A.Venugopal in commission of the said offence which constitutes commission of offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

k)The Inspector further submitted that Dr.Namburi

Krishnam Raju, Executive Director, (P&A), M/s. Bharath Dynamics

Limited, Ministry of Defence, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad accorded sanction u/s. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1).

l)The Inspector further submitted that the investigation revealed that Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) committed an offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) committed an offence punishable u/s.

109 of IPC r/w sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and hence the charge sheet is filed.

3.The then Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 8 of 185 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against

A1 and for the offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 and the summons were issued to A1 and A2 for their appearance and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents filed along with the charge sheets were furnished to them as required u/s.

207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C. and upon hearing them u/s. 240 of Cr.P.C., charge u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and the charge u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 were framed. The framed charges were read over and explained to the accused, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PW-1 to PW-62 and got marked Exs.P1 to P163 and reported the closure of evidence. The details of the witnesses and the documents that were mentioned in the appendix of evidence attached to the

Judgment. During the cross-examination of PW-24, Ex.D1 is marked and during the cross-examination of PW-62, Exs.D2 to D7 are marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the incriminating evidence and reported defence evidence and A1 filed certain documents during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and A2 filed her written

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 9 of 185 statement.

7.In support of their defence, the accused got examined

DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked Exs.D8 and D9 through DW-3 and

Ex.C1 through DW-2 and reported the closure of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 and A2. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for A1 and A2 submitted their written arguments.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and the documents that are marked through prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that A1 acquired properties on his name and on the name of his wife i.e., A2, disproportionate to his known sources of income to a tune of Rs.83,13,766/- and as such A1 and A2 are liable for conviction for the alleged offences.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer without computing the assets, income and expenditure during the check period and without considering the income of A2 before the check period, filed a false charge sheet against the accused and if the

Investigating Officer calculated the assets, income and expenditure of A1 and A2 before the check period and during the check period properly, there will not be any assets on the name of A1 and A2 which are disproportionate to the known sources of income of A1 and therefore, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit

A1 and A2 for the alleged offences.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 10 of 185

11. Basing on the charges framed against the accused and basing on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the following points are determined for consideration.

1) Whether A1 during the check period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 has been in possession of assets worth Rs.83,13,766/- disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for?

2) Whether A2 abetted A1 in any manner for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

3) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A2 for the offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point Nos.1 to 4:

12.In order to avoid conflicting findings and repetition of facts, Point Nos.1 to 4 are taken up together for consideration.

13.In order to prove the guilty of A1 for the offence u/s.

13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.

109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that A1 being public servant acquired properties which were shown in Statement-B disproportionate to his known sources of income and that A2 abetted

A1 in acquiring the properties on her name. In order to prove the same, the prosecution examined as many as 62 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P163.

14.As per the evidence of Mr.K.Venkatesh (PW1), the then

Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, Koti, on the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 11 of 185 instructions of his Regional Manager, Mr.Dharmalingam, on 13.09.2013, at 5:00 am he reported at CBI Office, Koti, Hyderabad, and met Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI and one Mr.Prasad, a Clerk from Bank of India was also present in CBI Office. PW1 further deposed that Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI informed them that he obtained search warrant for conducting search at a residence in

Uppal and they agreed for being accompanying with them as witnesses and at 6:00 am they left CBI office and proceeded towards

Uppal and around 6:40 am they reached Uppal and were taken to a residential building consisting of ground+3 floors and found occupants of the building were available i.e., A1 and A2. PW1 further deposed that Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI, has shown search warrants to the occupants of the building and explained the accused about the purpose of search and then the accused signed on the search warrant and then the team members of the search have shown their belongings to the accused and entered inside the building and started searching all the four floors. PW1 further deposed that during the search the documents relating to Credit

Cards, Bank Accounts, Locker Key, property documents, fixed deposit receipts were found, then he along with the other mediator subscribed their initials on all the documents found in the search and

CBI officials seized the documents found in the search under the cover of a search list attested by him and other mediator. PW1 further deposed that he identified Ex.P1 search list, dated 13.09.2013 conducted at residence of the accused. PW1 further deposed that CBI officials prepared an inventory memo for other items found in the residence of the accused, then himself and other mediator attested the inventory memo and copy of the search list

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 12 of 185 and inventory memo was furnished to the accused No.1 and the accused signed in token of receipt of the same. PW1 further deposed that CBI officials also prepared a rough sketch of the building of the accused, then himself and other mediator attested the rough sketch of the building of accused. PW1 further deposed that Ex.P2 is inventory memo, dated 13.09.2013 along with rough sketch and the items covered by Ex.P2 inventory memo were left at the residence of the accused and the value of the items mentioned in the inventory memo was noted based on the information provided by the accused. PW1 further deposed that the documents and locker key covered by Ex.P1 search list were seized and carried by

CBI officials and an amount of Rs.63,000/- was found during the search and it was returned to the accused. PW1 further deposed that the search proceedings were conducted from 7:00 am to 04:30 pm and it was recorded with the help of a video camera. PW1 further deposed that after 10 days, again he was called by the CBI officials for witnessing locker opening proceedings at Andhra Bank,

Kanchanbagh Branch, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch and Canara

Bank, Uppal Branch and around 01:00 pm, himself and other mediator accompanied CBI officials to Corporation Bank, Tarnaka

Branch and the accused No.1 and A2 were present there. PW1 further deposed that the CBI official has shown the search warrant to the bank officials and the Bank officials after completing necessary formalities allowed CBI officials to open the locker and on opening the locker they found some gold ornaments in the locker, then the

CBI officials secured Gold Appraiser to examine and weigh the gold ornaments, then CBI officials prepared proceedings under Ex.P3 dt.23.09.2013 at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka branch and it was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 13 of 185 attested by him and other mediator as well as both the accused.

PW1 further deposed that the accused provided information pertaining to the year of acquisition and mode of acquisition of the ornaments available in the locker. PW1 further deposed that all the items available in the locker were handed over to the accused and they were kept in the locker and locker key was handed over to

Mr.Satish Prabhu, Inspector CBI. PW1 further deposed that on 02.05.2014, at the request of CBI officials, he went to CBI office, Koti,

Hyderabad at about 11:00 am and he was shown the video recording of the search proceedings conducted at the residence of the accused, which was recorded earlier.

15.During Cross examination PW1 categorically admitted that at the time of the values mentioned in the inventory list no documents were verified with regard to the values, source and description of the items and that at the time of preparing the inventory list, the accused was informed that the information in the inventory list is prepared tentatively subject to final verification.

16.As per the evidence of J.Srikanth Reddy (PW2), the then

Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet, R.R. District, on the request of CBI police, their office furnished certain certified true copies of sale deeds and encumbrance certificates in respect of properties, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet and Ex.P4 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12503/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.S.Kishan Rao for Rs.25,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P5 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 14 of 185

No.12502/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of

Mr.Ch.Mallikarjun Rao for Rs.25,000/-. PW2 further deposed that

Ex.P6 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12499/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.D.Uma Devi for Rs.15,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P7 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing

No.12500/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of

Mrs.M.Sandhya Rani for Rs.15,000/-.PW2 further deposed that Ex.P8 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance

Certificate, dated 13.10.2003 bearing No.12501/03 executed by

Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.M.Padma for Rs.15,000/-. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P9 is certified true copy of sale deed along with Encumbrance Certificate, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8776/01 executed by Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu represented by GPA holder

Mr.L.Krishna Reddy in favour of Mrs.Vijaya Rani for Rs.27,000/- and as per Ex.P9, an amount of Rs.1,350/- paid towards stamp duty and an amount of Rs.291/- paid towards registration fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

17.As per the evidence of Mr. D. Vishnu Vardhan Raju (PW3), the then District Registrar, Hyderabad South, on the request of CBI, he visited their office and identified certain sale deeds which were registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Champapet, R.R.

District, during his tenure. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P10 is sale deed bearing No.6197/2002, dated 21-08-2002 executed by Smt.D.

Balamani W/o. Mr.D. Srirammurthy and Smt. P. Suvarnalatha W/o.

Mr. P. Jagadishwar and M/s. Renuka Constructions represented by

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 15 of 185

Smt. P. Renuka in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr. A.

Venugopal for Rs.3,41,500/-.PW3 further deposed that the property pertains to semi-finished flat No. G1 with plinth area of 1000 Sq.fts of ‘Sriram Residency’ situated at Maruthinagar of Sultanvalva

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and the stamp duty paid was Rs.34,735/- and a registration fee of Rs.1,715/- along with

Rs.125/- towards user charges. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P11 is sale deed bearing No.9391/2001, dated 31-12-2001 executed by

Smt. Nukala Padma W/o. Mr. N. Ravi in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani

W/o. Dr. A. Venugopal for Rs.41,500/- PW3 further deposed that the property pertains to bearing Plot No.9 admeasuring 413 sq.yds situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and the stamp duty paid was Rs.4,565/- and a registration fee of Rs.441/- along with Rs.50/- towards user charges and Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were registered by him. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P12 is sale deed bearing No.8574/2006, dated 17-04-2006 executed by Smt. K.

Chandrika W/o. Mr. K. Mallikarjun Reddy in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya

Rani W/o. Dr. A. Venugopal for Rs.1,78,000/- and the property pertains to bearing Plot No.21 admeasuring 222 sq.yds situated at

Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. The stamp duty paid was Rs.15,920/- and a registration fee of Rs.890/- along with Rs.100/- towards user charges and Ex.P12 was registered by Mr.

M. Veeraiah, Sub Registrar. PW3 further deposed that on the request of CBI police, their office furnished certain certified true copies of sale deeds and encumbrance certificates in respect of properties, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet and Ex.P13 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5708/99 executed by Mr. C. Sonthosh Reddy S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 16 of 185

C. Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder

Mr. A. Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr. A. Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.

Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.2,700/- and registration fee of RS.271/- has been paid.PW3 further deposed that Ex.P14 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5709/99 executed by Mr. C. Sonthosh Reddy

S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt. C. Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr. A. Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr. A.

Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for

Rs.24,000/-and the stamp duty of Rs.2,700/- and registration fee of

RS.271/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that andEx.P13 and Ex.P14 were registered by him. PW3 further deposed that

Ex.P15 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 18.02.1999 bearing

No.1155/99 executed by Mr.P. Madhava Reddy S/o. Papi Reddy in favour of Mr. A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.1,25,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.15,000/- and registration fee of Rs.896/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P16 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 26.11.2001 bearing No.8387/2001 executed by Smt. C. Padmavathi W/o. Mr. Bhaskar Rao in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal for Rs.30,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.3,300/- and registration fee of Rs.321/- has been paid. PW3 further deposed that Ex.P17 is certified true copy of sale deed, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8775/2000 executed by Smt.

D.R. Lakshmi W/o. Mr. D. Ratnaiah and Smt.D. Padmaja D/o. Mr. D.

Ratnaiah in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr. A. Venugopal for

Rs.51,500/- and the stamp duty of Rs.5,665/- and registration fee of

Rs.531/- has been paid.PW3 further deposed that Ex.P15 to Ex.P17

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 17 of 185 were registered by Mr. Basheer Ahmed. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

18.As per the evidence of Mr. S.V. Narasimha Rao (PW4), the then Sub Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East), Champapet, Ranga

Reddy District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he identified

Ex.P18 sale deed bearing No.28305/2006, dated 29-12-2006 executed by Mr. G. Bhaskar S/o. Late G. Surayanarayana in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani, W/o. A. Venugopal for Rs.3,90,000/- for Plot No.8 admeasuring 390 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 part situated at Badangpet

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District at their office and the

Stamp duty of Rs.36,000/- and registration fee of Rs.1,950/- has been paid. PW4 further deposed that Ex.P19 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 04.07.2003 bearing No.7824/2003 executed by

Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K. Karunakar

Reddy S/o. K. Hanmanth Reddy for Rs.2,25,000/- along with

Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.32 western part admeasuring 250 sq.yds in sy.no.166/67,68, 170 to 173, 177, 180 and 181 ward No.8, Block No.1, Kharmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar

Mandal, R.R. District.PW4 further deposed that Ex.P20 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4436/2007 executed by Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K.

Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K. Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.73 admeasuring 267 sq.yds in sy.no.123 and 124/1, Almasguda Village,

Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. PW4 further deposed that Ex.P21 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing

No.4435/2007 executed by Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr. K. Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K. Venkateswar Rao

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 18 of 185 for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot

No.72 admeasuring 267 sq.yds in sy.no.123 and 124/1, Almasguda

Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. PW4 further deposed that

Ex.P22 is certified true copy of sale deed dated 31.07.2006 bearing

No.15841/2006 executed by Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venugopal represented by her GPA Holder Mr. J. Janga Reddy in favour of Mr. P.

Venkatrami Reddy S/o. P. Linga Reddy for Rs.3,40,500/- along with

Encumbrance Certificate pertains to Plot No.68 and 69 admeasuring 567 sq.yds in sy.no.139, Almasguda Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal,

R.R. District. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

19.As per the evidence of Mr. Rajagopal Subramanyam (PW5), the then Sub Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, at the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he identified Ex.P23 sale deed bearing No.5083/2003, dated 30-08-2003 executed by Mr. G.

Govardhan Reddy S/o. G. Janardhan Reddy and Smt. G. Aruna W/o.

Mr. G. Govardhan Reddy in favour of Smt. S. Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr. A.

Venugopal for Rs.89,500/-, along with Encumbrance Certificate at their office and the property pertains to a Shop No.6, Ground Floor,

Sai Prashant Nivas on Plot No.8, Sri Venkateshwara Colony,

Saroornagar Village, R.R. District. An Amount of Rs.10,740/- and

Rs.450/- were paid towards stamp duty and registration fee respectively. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

20.As per the evidence of Mr. G. Vishnuvardhan Rao (PW6), the then Sub-Registrar, Uppal, R.R. District, on the request of CBI

Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of certain sale deeds

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 19 of 185 and encumbrance certificates pertaining to their office at Uppal and

Ex.P24 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.4514/2000, dated 03-06-2000 executed by Mr. K. Bhushanam Goud in favour of Dr. A.

Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.49,500/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.2,521/-. PW 6 further deposed that

Ex.P25 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.6731/2003, dated 07-06-2003 executed by Mr. Kandi Basava Reddy in favour of Smt. A.

Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.3,300/-.

Registration Fee paid was Rs.150/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P26 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.9027/2003, dated 20-07- 2003 executed by Smt. M. Chandrakala in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya

Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.10,500/-, stamp duty paid was Rs.1160/-, Registration Fee paid was Rs.55/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P27 is certified copy of sale deed bearing

No.16286/2006, dated 02-11-2006 executed by Smt. V. Sulochana in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,29,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.28,260/-, Registration Fee paid was

Rs.1,645/-. PW6 further deposed that Ex.P28 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8494/2012, dated 18-08-2012 executed by Mr. A.

Venugopal in favour of Mr. A. Bharath Kumar Reddy for sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with encumbrance certificate.

PW6 further deposed that Ex.P29 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8602/2003, dated 19-07-2003 executed by Mr. B.

Chandramohan Goud in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,75,500/-, Stamp duty paid was Rs.45,060/-,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 20 of 185

Registration Fee paid was Rs.1,880/-. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

21.As per the evidence of Mr. N. Sravan Kumar (PW7), the then in charge Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Nalgonda District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he visited CBI Office and identified

Ex.P30 sale deed bearing No.430/2003, dated 03-03-2003 executed by Mr. A. Lachi Reddy in favour of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu

Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.15,290/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.700/- and he further identified Ex.P31 sale deed bearing No.695/2009, dated 06-03-2009 executed by Mr.

B. Surender Reddy GPA Holder of Mr. V. Kumara Swamy in favour of

Smt. A. Vijaya Rani W/o. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of

Rs.3,03,000/- along with encumbrance certificate, Stamp duty paid was Rs.24,240/-. Registration Fee paid was Rs.1515/-. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

22.As per the evidence of Mr. Jayanth Reddy(PW8), the then

Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Maheswaram, he was in charge Sub-Registrar, for Hyderabad East, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy

District and at that time on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of certain sale deeds and encumbrance certificates and identified sale deeds shown by CBI which are Ex.P32 sale deed bearing No.7464/1999, dated 13-10-1999 executed by

M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.89,000/-, stamp duty paid was Rs.9,800/-,

Registration Fee paid was Rs.726/-. PW8 further deposed that Ex.P33

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 21 of 185 is sale deed bearing No.1635/2000, dated 07-03-2000 executed by

M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A. Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.43,500/- along with encumbrance certificate, stamp duty paid was Rs.4,500/-, Registration Fee paid was Rs.471/-.

The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

23.As per the evidence of Mr. M. Krishna Ram Bhupal (PW9), the then in charge Sub-Registrar, Champapet, R.R. District, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished certified copies of sale deeds shown to him under exhibits P13, P14, P15, P16 and P17 and he attested the said certified copies. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

24.As per the evidence of Mr.K.Jithender Reddy(PW10), the then General Manager in M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad, M/s. Acer

Motors is dealer of Maruthi Suzuki and deals sales and service of

Maruthi four wheelers and on the request of CBI police, he furnished details of payment received from the customer Dr.A.Venugopal regarding purchase of Maruthi Suzuki Swift Dezire Car for an amount of Rs.6,22,307/- and an amount of Rs.2,46,137/- paid by cash and Rs.4,78,240/- was received from the finance provided by

Magma Fincorp Limited and an amount of Rs.15,588/- was paid as premium towards Insurance Policy, an amount of Rs.74,680/- was paid towards Life Tax, an amount of Rs.12,552/- was paid towards accessories and other charges and Ex.P34 is attested copy of invoice, delivery receipt, three receipt vouchers and copy of insurance policy. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 22 of 185

25.As per the evidence of Mr.Syed Wahed Ali (PW11), Sales

Manager, M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited,

Secunderabad, their company deals with sales and service of Suzuki two wheeler motor cycles and on the request of CBI police, he provided attested copies of documents relating to the sale of Suzuki

Access motor cycle to Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani W/o.Dr.Venu Gopal on 17.06.2011 and Ex.P35 is customer copy of tax invoice cum sale letter, dated 17.06.2011 for Rs.46,310/- in the name of Lingala

Vijaya Rani along with office copy of said invoice, temporary certificate of registration, tax receipt for Rs.4,250/-, copy of order form and ledger copy. PW 11 further deposed that Ex.P36 is cash receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.54,160/- and Ex.P37 is cash receipt

dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.1,000/- both are in the name of L.Vijaya

Rani issued by M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited,

Secunderabad and the total amount collected from the customer towards on road price is Rs.55,120/-, Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 bears signature of the then cashier Mr.Murali Mohan. The learned counsel

for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as

nil.

26.As per the evidence of Mr. P.Ram Mohan Rao(PW12), doing construction business in the name and style of M/s Nivas

Constructions, he was one of the vendors under Ex.P23 sale deed executed in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal for sale of shop in Sai Prasad Nivas as mentioned in schedule for

Rs.1,05,000/- and Ex.P38 is receipt dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.1 lakh issued by him in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Ex.P38 was issued for receipt of sale consideration amount. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 23 of 185 learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

27.As per the evidence of A.V.Kirshna Rao (PW13),

Administrative Officer, RTO, Uppal, on the request of CBI, police,

Hyderabad, their office furnished attested copies of vehicle abstract record of certain motor vehicle registered in their office and Ex.P39 is vehicle abstract report of motor cycle bearing No.AP 29 8219 registered in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

PW 13 further deposed that as per Ex.P39, an amount of Rs.4,170/- was paid towards life tax and Rs.160/- towards registration fee. PW 13 further deposed that Ex.P40 is vehicle abstract report of motor car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 registered in the name of Venu Gopal

Abbagoni and as per Ex.P40, an amount of Rs.74,680/- was paid towards life tax and Rs.425/- towards registration fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

28.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Bhaskara Rao (PW14), the then Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, BDL Campus Branch, Hyderabad on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, he furnished certified copies of statement of accounts pertaining to account

No.104510025080205,1045100110000974 and 104531041900064 maintained with BDL Campus Branch. PW 14 further deposed that

Ex.P41 is statement of account of Abhaya Gold saving bank account bearing No.104510025080205 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from 08.02.2005 to 31.03.2013 and as per Ex.P41, the opening balance was Rs.1,978/- and effective available balance as on 13.12.2013 was Rs.2,030.75 ps., including interest. PW14 further

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 24 of 185 deposed that Ex.P42 is statement of account of saving bank account bearing No.1045100110000974 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from 05.05.1997 to 30.09.2013 and as per Ex.P42, the opening balance was Rs.1,485/- and effective available balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.7,252.90 ps., including interest.PW14 further deposed that Ex.P43 is statement of account of Overdraft bank account bearing No. 104531041900064 in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) for the period from 14.11.2008 to 13.09.2013 and as per

Ex.P43, overdraft limit of Rs.3 lakhs was sanctioned and the salary of you Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) was being credited in this account. PW14 further deposed that the debit balance as on 15.11.2008 was

Rs.91,812/- and debit balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,95,707/- which indicates that said amount is due to the bank by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) as on said date and he was having locker facility. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

29.As per the evidence of Ketha Shanthi Kiran (PW15), the then Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch,

Secunderabad Branch, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, their bank furnished certified copy of account statement of SB account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and locker opening form of locker No.239 with key No.24 and Ex.P44 is certified copy of statement of SB account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 20.05.2001 to 13.09.2013. PW15 further deposed that as per Ex.P44, an amount of

Rs.1,000/- was deposited initially and balance as on 13.09.2013 was

Rs.29.50 ps. PW15 further deposed that Ex.P45 is locker opening form of locker No.239 in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 25 of 185

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and the Locker rent was Rs.500/- per annum and at the time of opening locker A1 and A2 deposited an amount of

Rs.7,000/- on 05.07.2002. PW15 further deposed that Ex.P46 is FDR receipt dated: 05.07.2002 for Rs.7,000/- in the name of Mr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2). The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

30.As per the evidence of Mr. Ramesh Reddy(PW16), he is running Royal Hospital, Balanagar, since 2013 and he knows

Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) and Smt.L.Vijaya Rani (A2) and he got acquaintance with Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) when he visited Remedy

Hospital for inspection, and at that time he was working in that hospital and later he started Royal Hospital in the year 2013. PW16 further deposed that Dr.A.Venugopal (A1) invested 20% share of

Rs.20 Lakh in Royal Hospital in the name of his wife Smt.L.Vijaya

Rani (A2)and the amount was paid by way of three cheques issued by Smt.L.Vijaya Rani (A2) for Rs.5 lakhs each dated 20.02.2013, 23.04.2013 and 08.07.2013 in favour of Sree Royal India

Multispecialty Hospital LLP and they were realized in the hospital account. PW16 further deposed that the balance amount of Rs.4 lakh was also paid by way of cheques dated 12.09.2013 and he had drawn the amount personally for ING Vysya Bank, Uppal. Accordingly an amount of Rs.19 lakh was invested against 20% share amount of

Rs.20 lakh and he has not paid any payment to the A1 and A2 after the said investment. PW16 further deposed that he had provided

Ex.P47 copy of statement of bank account of Sree Royal India

Multispecialty Hospital LLP and Ex.P48 copy of partnership agreement dated 22.01.2013.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 26 of 185

31.During Cross examination PW16 categorically admitted that all the four cheques deposed by him were issued on the account of Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) and that the agreement vide Ex.P48 was entered with Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) among others and he did not say that the investment was made by Dr. Venu Gopal (A1) and the investment was made by Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2).

32.As per the evidence of Mr.Bhaskar B.Kotari (PW17),

Manager (Administration and Operation), PMJ Gems and Jewellers

Private Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, he was in-charge of sale operation and administration and on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad, he has provided Ex.P49 ledger account copy of

Smt.Vijaya Rani from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. PW17 further deposed that he also provided copies of retail invoices of Smt.Vijaya

Rani for purchase of diamond and gold ornaments and Ex.P50 is retail invoice dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for purchase of white diamond necklace for Rs.2,61,991.20 ps.,Ex.P51 is purchase voucher dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for selling old gold for

Rs.2,27,591/-.PW17 further deposed that the amount covered by

Ex.P51 was adjusted towards the cost of item covered by Ex.P50.

PW17 further deposed that Ex.P52 is cash receipt vouchers in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 for

Rs.10,000/- and Rs.22,000/- respectively for payment of balance amount for the item covered by Ex.P50. PW17 further deposed that later Smt.Vijaya Rani purchased gold necklace and necklace tops on 31.12.2010 for Rs.2,40,354.06 ps., and A2 exchanged old gold items for Rs.1,78,854/- and paid the balance amount later. PW17 further deposed that again Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) purchased gold ear rings on 30.04.2011 for Rs.66,250/- and exchanged one gold ear ring on

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 27 of 185 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- and paid the balance amount. PW17 further deposed that A2 got repaired one gold item on 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/-. and paid earlier balance amount of Rs.1 lakh on 30.04.2011. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P53 is copy of retail invoice dated 31.12.2010 in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for

Rs.2,40,354.06 ps. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P54 is copy of purchase voucher dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,78,854/- in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW17 further deposed that Ex.P55 is copy of ledger account in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and Ex.P56 is copy of purchase voucher dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya

Rani and Ex.P57 is copy of retail invoice dated 30.04.2011 for

Rs.66,249.95 ps in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P58 is copy of repair order sales bill dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) and

Ex.P59 is copy of cash receipt voucher for Rs.1 lakh in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P60 is copy of monthly scheme transactions for customer in the name of

Smt.Vijaya Rani during the period from 08.03.2013 to 28.09.2013 and Ex.P61 is copy of customer order/advance receipt dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani. PW17 further deposed thatEx.P62 is copy of additional advance receipt

dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P63 is copy of additional advance receipt dated 22.05.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P64 is copy of

additional advance receipt dated 28.06.2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P65 is copy of additional advance receipt dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 28 of 185 for Rs.20,000/-. PW17 further deposed that Ex.P66 is copy of

additional advance receipt dated 28.09.2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/- and the estimate slip dated 13.09.2013 shown to him is in the hand writing of our Director

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain for Rs.3,06,570/- towards cost of Vaddanam.

PW17 further deposed thatEx.P67 is estimate slip dated 13.09.2013 along with visiting card Rough calculation slip dated 13.09.2013 shown to him is in the hand writing of his Director

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain for estimating cost of Matil and ring and

Ex.P68 is rough calculation slip dated 13.09.2013.

33.During Cross examination PW17 categorically admitted that Ex.P67 is only an estimate and he has not seen the bill for

Ex.P67 and final bill will be issued after negotiations in case of sale of the item mentioned in the estimation.

34.As per the evidence of Mr.M.Umamaheswara Rao (PW18), Bank Panel Gold Appraiser, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka

Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of Manager, Corporation Bank,

Tarnaka Branch, he went to the said branch one day in the year 2013 and found CBI officials and the accused No.1 and A2 present.

PW18 further deposed that a locker was opened and found some gold ornaments in the locker and he was asked to weigh the said gold ornaments with the help of electronic weighing machine available in the bank, accordingly he weighed the said gold ornaments and also valued the ornaments, Ex.P3 Proceedings were prepared for the same and he attested said proceedings.

35.During Cross examination PW18 categorically admitted that Ex.P3 proceedings was prepared by CBI Inspector and the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 29 of 185 details relating to year of acquisition and mode of acquisition were not based on any documents and they were noted tentatively by CBI

Inspector and the accused No.2 intimated that it is difficult to give exact information about said details.

36.As per the evidence of Mr.P.Srinivas Rao (PW19), the then Deputy Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Bharat

Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad, previously, Mr.M.Eshwar was their

Chief Vigilance Officer and on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, they asked Dr.A.Venu Gopal to furnish I-VI statements and the A1 furnished the statements I to VI and same were forwarded to CBI police. PW19 further deposed that on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad, they furnished Ex.P69 copy of Bharat Dynamics Limited

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

37.As per the evidence of Mr. B.Chandra Mohan (PW20),

Senior Assistant, GHMC, Hyderabad, on 19.07.2003, he alienated a house plot located in Lakshma Reddy colony, Uppal to Dr.Venu

Gopal for Rs.7,13,000/- and executed a sale deed for Rs.3,75,500/- as per Sub Registrar value vide original of Ex.P29 sale deed.

38.During Cross examination PW20 categorically admitted that the accused A1 did not pay the amount mentioned above in the chief examination and there is no proof for the payment of

Rs.7,13,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand only).

39.As per the evidence of Mr. Anand Vinay Marneni(PW21),

Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P70 Savings

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 30 of 185

Account Opening Form, statement of account along with certificate relating to Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal pertains to

Account No.732010098872 in ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch,

Hyderabad. PW21 further deposed that as per Ex.P70, the account was opened on 19.04.2012 and the balance as on 26.04.2012 was

Rs.10,000/- and as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,661.08 ps. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 11.06.2012 an amount of Rs.6,15,310/- was credited through RTGS from account of

Mr.Y. Varaprasad. PW21 further deposed that on 13.06.2012 an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was debited by NEFT to Mr.J.Srinivas Reddy.

PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 26.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was debited to Mr.Hanumanth

Rao through clearing cheque bearing No.633880. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 24.07.2012 an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- was debited to Magma Fincorp through clearing cheque bearing No.633886. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account, on 05.01.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 26.02.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was debited to Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque bearing No.633889. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 23.04.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 24.04.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was debited to Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque bearing No.633890. PW21 further deposed that as per the statement of account on 04.07.2013 an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was credited by deposit of cash. PW21 further stated that as per the statement of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 31 of 185 account on 10.07.2013 an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was debited to Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital through cheque

No.633891.PW21 also stated that as per the statement of account on 11.09.2013 an amount of Rs.4 Lakh was credited by transfer from account No.734010058346 from ING Vysya Bank, Miryalguda branch. PW21 also stated that as per the statement of account on 12.09.2013 an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was debited to Obbareddy

Ramesh Reddy.

40.During Cross examination PW 21 categorically stated that as per statement of account, on 14.06.2012 an amount of

Rs.41,000/- was credited from Mr.Lingala Nagabhushanam by NEFT, on 14.06.2012 an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- was credited by

Smt.Lingala Laxamma by NEFT, on 14.06.2012 an amount of

Rs.1,99,000/- was credited by Mr.Lingala Laxman Das by NEFT, on 15.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was credited from Lingala

Nagabhushanam from Miryalguda Branch and on 16.06.2012 an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was credited by Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma from

Miryalguda Branch.

41.As per the evidence of Mrs.P.Sulochana (PW22), Ex.P27 sale deed dated 02.11.2006 shown to her was executed by her in favour of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,29,000/- as her husband and the husband of Smt.Vijaya Rani had made the sale negotiations relating to Ex.P27 and the sale consideration was paid by cash.

42.During Cross examination PW22 categorically admitted that she do not remember whether Ex.P27 was shown to her during examination by CBI officer and she do not know that who is

V.Sulochana W/o. V.Narasimha Reddy and she do not know how her

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 32 of 185 name is described in Ex.P27 sale deed and she do not know English and do not know that Smt.Vijaya Rani her self made negotiations and purchased the property by paying the sale consideration.

43.As per the evidence of Mr.Licky Krishna Reddy(PW23) running a Kirana and General Store in the name of Krishan Reddy

Kirana and General Store, Badangpet, near old Gram Panchayat, in the year 2000 he did real estate business and he knows Dr.Venu

Gopal (A1), as he purchased a house plot from him and he executed a sale deed in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani (A2) wife of Dr.Venu

Gopal (A1). PW23 further deposed that Ex.P9 is the true copy of sale deed executed by him in the year 2000 in favour of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.75,000/- and the market value was shown in the sale deed as

Rs.27,000/- as per Government value. PW23 further deposed that he received cash of Rs.75,000/- towards sale consideration and the land originally belong to Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu and he executed a sale deed as GPA holder for Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu.

44.During Cross examination PW23 categorically stated that at the time of sale of property in favour Smt.Vijaya Rani, her husband Dr.Venu Gopal came along with her and made negotiations and he did not show any document to CBI for receiving Rs.75,000/- and that in sale deed there is no mention about payment of

Rs.75,000/-.

45.As per the evidence of Mr.P.V.N.Manyalu (PW24), the then Deputy General Manager (Finance), Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad who previously worked as Senior Manager (Finance), Central Pay Roll Division, BDL, Hyderabad, Central Pay

Roll Division will take care of salary disbursement pertaining to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 33 of 185 employees of BDL. PW24 further deposed that Mr.S.Narayanan,

Additional General Manager (P & A) forwarded the salary particulars

of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1), the then Chief Medical Officer, BDL,

Hyderabad for the period from 1997 to 2001 and 2002 to September 2013 compiled by Pay Roll Department and signed by him. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P71 is pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from June 1997 to December 2001. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P72 is pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal(A1) for the period from January 2002 to September 2013. PW24 further deposed that Ex.P73 is employee ledger in respect of Car advance, computer advance and special advance availed by Dr.Venu Gopal(A1). PW24 further deposed that Ex.P74 is copies of Form No.16 of Dr.Venu

Gopal(A1) for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. PW24 further deposed that as per Ex.P71, the gross salary for the period from June 1997 to December 2001 is

Rs.8,02,518/- and net salary is Rs.7,43,335/-. PW24 further deposed that as per Ex.P72, the gross salary for the period from January 2002 to September 2013 is Rs.92,57,686/- and net salary is

Rs.33,26,055/-. PW24 further deposed that the advances were included in the gross salary amount and the details relating to all deductions were shown in the above salary statements.

46.During Cross examination PW24 categorically admitted that he do not know about check period in the case and he has no personal knowledge about the happenings prior to his date of joining in Pay Roll Division in July 2013. PW24 further admitted that on the above documents he did not mention that all precautions were taken for preparing the statements. PW24 further stated that

Computerized salary statements are being raised since 1996 to his

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 34 of 185 knowledge. PW24 categorically denied the suggestion that the note in Ex.P71 that “As the copies of payslips are not available the above statement is prepared based on the information in the appointment letter, applicable DA rates and pay fixation statements.” is not correct and further added that earlier pay particulars were prepared by several divisions and therefore, they are not available at Central

Pay Roll Division and hard copies were also not available. PW24 categorically admitted that in Ex.P71 he did not mention that he contacted other divisions and could not get details and that some payments will be made through supplementary bills prepared month wise and the Supplementary bills will be prepared for payment of allowances relating to conveyance, medical, canteen, telephone, news paper etc. and Ex.P71 does not contain information about supplementary bills relating to above allowances and that in Ex.P72 there is no declaration that all supplementary bills were taken into consideration and that the total amount of above allowances paid per month may be around Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- to an employee.

47.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that to his knowledge performance linked incentive was there from 1997 till the year 2006 and from 2007 onwards they were having performance related pay which is also an incentive and further admitted that in Ex.P71 there is no information about performance linked incentive. PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that the employees used to give declaration till the year 2007 about conveyance allowances, medical expenses, canteen expenses that they have spent the amount and from August 2009 employees need not give declaration.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 35 of 185

48.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that all the employees will be receiving uniform cloth, stitching allowance, washing allowance, annual school fee reimbursement for two children to certain limit, annual gifts some times in electronic gadgets/gift cards for exchange to purchase grocery items.

49.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that CBI officer did not ask him about the details relating to above allowances, perks and concessions given to their employees and that in his statement given to CBI I stated that the gross salary is

Rs.97,20,216/-.

50.PW24 further admitted in the Cross-Examination that

Ex.P71 and Ex.P72 do not contain full details of above allowances, perks and concessions given to Dr.Venu Gopal and that he was informed that CBI asked salary particulars in connection with assets case and he furnished salary particulars only as in normal course and he cannot say the total emoluments paid including the above allowances, perks and concessions covering the period from June 1997 to September 2013.

51.As per the evidence of Mr.Dr.L.V.S.N.Murthy (PW25), the then Deputy Manager (P & A) in Bharath Dynamics Limited,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI, Hyderabad the then Manager Mr.S.Narayanan provided Annual Property Returns for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical

Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules. PW25 further deposed that Ex.P75 is Annual Property Returns (APRs) for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical Officer,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 36 of 185

Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules. PW25 further deposed that as per Ex.P75/15 which relates to APR for the year 2008, there is no mention about Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 sale deeds executed in March 2007. PW25 further deposed that as per Ex.P75/6 relates to APR for the year 2004, there is no mention about sale of any immovable property.

52.During Cross examination PW25 categorically admitted that there will not be any correspondence with the employee by the company with regard to entries mentioned in APRs submitted by the employee and the company will receive the APRs submitted by the employee and file them in records. PW25 further admitted in the

Cross-Examination that he was not dealing with the work of APRs during the period covered by Ex.P75/15 and Ex.P75/6 and the source of income for acquiring a property mentioned in APR will not be mentioned in APR and he did not state any specific rule relating to

APRs during my examination by CBI. PW25 further admitted in the

Cross-Examination that he do not know when the properties covered by Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 were sold and that he was not asked about

Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 during my examination by CBI.

53.As per the evidence of Mr.G.V.Brahmaiah(PW26), the then Senior Manager, BDL, Hyderabad, their department deals with provident fund matters relating to employees of Bharath Dynamics

Limited, Hyderabad. PW26 further deposed that Dr.A.Venu Gopal was working as Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited,

Hyderabad and on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished information relating to loans availed by Dr.Venu Gopal (A1)

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 37 of 185 from provident fund and as per their records, Dr.A.Venu Gopal availed non-refundable loan of Rs.17,72,700/- during the period from 01.01.1999 to 13.09.2013 from the provident fund account and he also availed refundable loan of Rs.2,32,800/- during above period and it was repaid fully through his salary. During Cross examination

PW26 categorically admitted that the Loan will be sanctioned after verifying the purpose of seeking loan mentioned in the loan application.

54.As per the evidence of Mr. J. Satya Chandra Sekhara

Murthy(PW27), the then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Abids Circle

Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he furnished original and certified copies of certain documents relating to housing loan availed by Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal from UCO Bank,

Abids Circle Branch in the year 2008. PW27 further deposed that

Ex.P76 is loan application, dated 15.11.2008 of Dr. Abbagoni

Venugopal (A1) and Ex.P77 is loan sanction letter, dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.28 lakhs.PW27 further deposed that Ex.P78 is certified copy of statement of the loan account bearing No.14410610006368 for the period from 17.11.2008 to 05.10.2013. PW27 further deposed that as per above documents, Smt. Vijaya Rani (A2) was the co-applicant for the loan and the loan was sanctioned for take over loan from

United Bank of India in respect of house bearing No.3-118/1 on plot

No.186/A and 186/B in Sy.No.95, 94, 97 located at Bheemireddy

Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal.PW27 further deposed that the as per statement of account an amount of Rs.16,77,100/- loan was repaid as on 13.09.2013 by way of monthly installments recovered from salary of Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal. The learned

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 38 of 185 counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

55.As per the evidence of Mr. P. Vinod Babu(PW28), the then Branch Manager,LIC of India, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI Police, Hyderabad, he furnished information and documents relating to Policy Nos.644255264, 644214155, 644237436 in the name of Dr. A. Venugopal. PW28 further deposed that Ex.P79 is status report of policy No.644255264., Ex.P80 is status report of policy No.644214155., Ex.P81 is status report of policy

No.644237436. PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P79, the policy was commenced on 11.02.2002 for the sum assured Rs.5 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.2,400/- and the total premium amount paid was Rs.3,33,600/- and the policy holders availed a loan of

Rs.37,500/- on 28.07.2005 and repaid entire loan amount with interest of Rs.24,392/- as on 06.04.2011. PW28 further deposed that again the Accused No.1 availed a loan of Rs.1,71,000/- on 06.04.2011 and same is outstanding and said loan amount was paid after deducting the earlier loan amount of Rs.61,892/- and the balance amount was paid by way of cheque issued in favour of Dr. A.

Venugopal.PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P80, the policy stands in the name of Mr. A. Venugopal commenced on 28.08.1997 was the sum assured Rs.3 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.1,366/- and the total premium amount paid was Rs.2,78,864/- and the policy holder availed loan of Rs.87,250/- on 28.07.2005 and repaid entire loan amount on 06.04.2011 with interest of Rs.56,751/- PW28 further deposed that again A1 availed loan on 06.04.2011 for Rs.2,20,000/- and the above outstanding loan amount was deducted from the loan and balance of Rs.74,633/- was paid by way of cheque issued in

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 39 of 185 favour of Mr. A.Venugopal.PW28 further deposed that as per Ex.P81, the policy stands in the name of Mr. A. Venugopal commenced on 28.11.2002 was the sum assured Rs.5 lakhs with monthly premium of Rs.3,321/- and the total premium amount as was paid

Rs.4,42,000/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy holder availed a loan of Rs.2,42,000/- on 27.04.2011 and the premium amount of

Rs.3,321/- was deducted from the loan amount and balance amount of Rs.2,38,679/- was paid by way of cheque in favour of Dr. A.

Venugopal. PW28 further deposed that as per above documents the policies covered by Ex.P79 to Ex.P81 were taken under ordinary mode initially and premium amount was paid directly and later on 16.05.2009, the policy covered by Ex.P79 was converted into salary savings scheme and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is Rs.1,43,361/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy covered by Ex.P80 was converted into salary savings scheme on 19.11.2007 and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is

Rs.48,077/-. PW28 further deposed that the policy covered by Ex.P81 was converted into salary savings scheme in November, 2007 and thereafter the premium was received through salary under the total amount of premium paid directly till its conversion is Rs.1,86,614/-.

56.During the Cross examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No.1 PW28 categorically admitted that from the commencement of the policy bearing No. 644237436 they have received 6 quarterly payments @ Rs.9,962/- totaling to Rs.59,772/- upto April,2004 in ordinary mode i.e., the premium amount paid by the policy holder personally by way of cash or cheque and after

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 40 of 185

April,2004 onwards they received premiums through salary deductions of the policy holder from his employer. PW28 further admitted in the Cross- Examination that the loans will be sanctioned to the policy holder on the basis of number of premiums received to total receivable premiums plus bonus accrued and while disbursing the subsequent loan to the policy holder, they will deduct the

principal and interest as on the date in respect of outstanding loan.

PW28 further admitted in the Cross- Examination that as per Ex.P81 status report the policy holder has not paid any interest on loan outstanding.

57.As per the evidence of Mr. Vijaya Kumar

Gangaraj(PW29), the then Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (2),

Hyderabad, on request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P82 bunch of Income Tax Returns of Smt. A. Vijaya Rani (A2) pertaining to PAN No.AFNPL6851 N for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010- 11.PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051027 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged as it was filed beyond the time limit. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051028 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged as it was filed beyond the time limit.

PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051029 and the assessee did not pay any tax as her income was below taxable limit and the return was lodged

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 41 of 185 as it was filed beyond the time limit.PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the income tax return was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051030 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.3,610/-. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 the income tax return was filed on 17.03.2010 vide acknowledgment No.0110051031 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.1,930/-. PW29 further deposed that as per Ex.P82 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 the income tax return was filed on 19.11.2010 vide acknowledgment No.1120007616 and the assessee paid tax of Rs.5,740/-. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

58.As per the evidence of K.Vijaya Rani (PW30) residing at 3-117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad since

July 2007 as tenant, her landlord is Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) w/o.

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and she paid monthly rent @ Rs.1,000/- from

July 2007 to January 2012, subsequently, paid monthly rent @

Rs.1,500/- from February 2012 to 2015 and she paid the rent to A2 by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

59.As per the evidence of S.Chitra (PW31) residing at 3- 117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad since

August 2009 as tenant, her landlord is Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) w/o.

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and she paid monthly rent @ Rs.3,000/- from

August 2009 to 2011 and subsequently, paid monthly rent @

Rs.3,500/- from 2012 for three years and she paid the rent to A2 by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 42 of 185

60.As per the evidence of Mr.G.Bhaskar Prasad(PW32),

Deputy General Manager, Bharat Dynamics Limited, since May 2012 and also holding the post of Secretary, Bharat Dynamics Employees

Co-Operative Credit Society, since December, 2013, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad he furnished certain information about the loans availed by Dr.A.Venugopal, Chief Medical Officer, Bharath

Dynamics Limited from their society during the period from 31.12.2002 to 31.03.2013. PW32 further deposed that as per the records of Society, Dr.A.Venugopal has availed total loan amount of

Rs.5,67,000/- during the above period and repaid an amount of

Rs.4,72,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.67,116/- towards interest and out of the said amount repaid, an amount of

Rs.1,65,200/- was recovered from salary and an amount of

Rs.3,06,800/- was paid directly by way of cash and cheques and outstanding loan amount as on 31.03.2013 is Rs.95,000/-. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

61.As per the evidence of B.Venkatapparao (PW33), the then Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ashoknagar, Nagarjuna

Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, While he was working in

ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ashoknagar, Nagarjuna Sagar Road,

Miryalguda, Nalgonda District on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he furnished certain documents relating to SB

A/c.No.734010058346 standing in the name of Lingala

Nagabhushanam and SB A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma. PW33 further deposed that Ex.P83 is certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2013 relating to SB A/c.No.734010058346

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 43 of 185 standing in the name of Lingala Nagabhushanam . PW33 further deposed that Ex.P84 is certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2013 relating to SB

A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma.

PW33 further deposed that as per Ex.P83, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to the account bearing No.732010098872 at Uppal on 15.06.2012 and Rs.4 lakhs on 11.09.2013 to the said account.

PW33 further deposed that as per Ex.P84, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to the account bearing No.732010098872 in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani at Uppal Branch on 16.06.2012. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

62.As per the evidence of Mr.L.Laxman Dass (PW34) doing cultivation at Miryalaguda, Nalagonda District, on 14.06.2012, on request of his sister Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, he transferred an amount of

Rs.1,99,000/- from his account in Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda

Branch, Nalagonda District to his sister’s account in ING Vysya

Bank, Boduppal, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

63.As per the evidence of Smt.L.Laxamamma(PW35),

Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2) is her daughter and she is having savings bank accounts in ING Vysya Bank, Miryalaguda branch and Syndicate

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and in the year 2010/2011 she took gold loan of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda

Branch and also availed another gold loan for Rs.5 lakhs in 2012/2013 from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch. PW35 further deposed that she also availed agricultural loan from Syndicate Bank,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 44 of 185

Miryalaguda Branch and out of the above loan amount she has given an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2).

PW35 further deposed during re- Examination that she has paid the above amounts stated by her to her daughter ie.,A2 by way of cash only and she has shown all the amounts in her Income Tax Returns.

64.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW35 categorically admitted that she has presented 100 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.5 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya

Rani(A2) at the time of marriage towards pasupu kumkuma and she also presented a motor cycle, household goods and electronic goods worth of Rs.3 lakhs to her at the time of marriage and at the time of marriage she promised her to give a house accordingly she has given a house worth of Rs.20 lakhs at Boduppal to her for construction. PW35 further admitted that her daughter Smt.Vijaya

Rani(A2) is having 3 children and at the time of birth of each child she has presented Rs.1 lakh cash and 5 tulas of gold to each child and she gave Rs.15 lakhs to her daughter Smt.Vijaya Rani(A2) when she constructed first floor on the house given to her .

65.PW35 further admitted that she has spent Rs.4 lakh at the time of celebrating dhoti function of her grand children and she presented an amount of Rs.50,000/- each and 5 tulas of gold to her grandsons at the time of dhoti function. PW35 further admitted that she used to present RS.10,000/- each to her daughter and son-in-law and Rs.5,000/- each to her grand children for diwali festival every year and she used to present Rs.10,000/- to her daughter and

Rs.5,000/- to her grand children at the time of rakhi festival and she used to send groceries to her daughter every year which were

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 45 of 185 received from their land and she was helping her daughter as and when she was in need of money.

66.As per the evidence of Prakash Chand Jain (PW36) a partner in Sanjay Electronics, 5-1-720, Kushal Chambers Complex,

Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he furnished Ex.P85 copy of invoice dated 14-03-2013 issued in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.55,500/- for purchase of Samsung Refrigerator which containing his signature The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

67.As per the evidence of Mr. G. Vijay Kumar (PW37),

Principal, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, on the

request of CBI Police, Hyderabad he furnished fee particulars of Miss.

Abbagoni Vaidarsh D/o. Mr. A. Venugopal who studied Intermediate in their college during the period 2011-2013 with Admission

No.112536087 and as per their records a total amount of Rs.59,605/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Five only) was paid towards admission fee, tuition fee, material fee and exam fee etc., for the above period for the above student. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

68.As per the evidence of Smt.P.Lakshmi (PW38) Principal,

College of Law for Woman, Andhra Mahila Saba, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police and after perusing the office records she furnished information that Smt.L.Vijaya Rani D/o. L.Nagabhushanam studied in their college during the academic year 2009-12 with role

No.172109831050 and during that period she paid an amount of

Rs.35,500/- as fee, out of the said fee an amount of Rs.26,400/- was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 46 of 185 tuition fee. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

69.As per the evidence of Ch.Ashok Kumar (PW39),

Accounts Clerk, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, he could identify the signature of Mrs.Ramandeep Kaur Samra, the then Principal of Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad as he worked along with her. PW39 further deposed that the letter

dated 18-12-2013 contains the signature of Mrs.Ramandeep Kaur

Samra and on the request of CBI police and after verification of their office records, they furnished information that Master A.Vaidik Goud,

Master A.Vaidesh Goud were admitted in their school vide Admission

No.5622/2004 (2004-05) and No.6662/2008 (2008-09) respectively.

PW39 further deposed that an amount of Rs.3,86,890/- was paid towards fee in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and out of which an amount of Rs.3,52,840/- paid towards tuition fee for the said period and an amount of Rs.2,85,600/- was paid towards fee in respect of

Master A.Vaidesh Goud and out of which an amount of Rs.2,41,360/- paid towards tuition fee. PW39 further deposed that their Admission

Clerk Mrs.Uma Maheshwari prepared the chart in respect of the fee particulars of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud which was submitted to the CBI police along with the letter dated 18- 12-2013.

70.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW39 categorically admitted that the school fee includes the amount spent for snacks at 11:00 am and 03:00 pm and for lunch at 12:40 pm provided to the students and he cannot say the exact amount spent by the school for providing snacks and lunch

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 47 of 185 to each student and the school will provide full fledged lunch in all working days serving non vegetarian lunch once in a week. PW39 during Cross-Examination categorically stated that he cannot say whether the school is spending Rs.100/- per day for each student for providing snacks and lunch.

71.As per the evidence of Mr.K.V.V.S.N. Rangacharyulu (PW40), the then Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Habsiguda, on the request of CBI police, Hyderabad, he has furnished demand and collection charges in respect of service No.1603-5099, 1603-3803, 1603-6405, 1603-4735, 1603-5098, 1603-1344, 1603-2009 and the service number 1603-2009 was standing in the name of Mr.

A.Venugopal (A1) and the total amount of Rs.2,61,425/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till

September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-1344 was standing in the name of Mr. A.Venugopal (A1) and the total amount of Rs.72,275/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-5098 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.22,839/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-4735 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.45,722/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and the service number 1603-6405 was standing in the name of

Ch.Hanumantha Rao. PW40 further deposed that the total amount of

Rs.19,798/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and the service number 1603-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 48 of 185 3803 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.26,308/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013. PW40 further deposed that the service number 1603-5099 was standing in the name of Smt. A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the total amount of Rs.22,771/- was paid by the consumer from the date of release of the connection till September 2013 and he has furnished the above details after verification of official records to the CBI police under a covering letter. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

72.As per the evidence of Sister.Lucy(PW41),Head Mistress,

St.Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, she knows Sister Sally

Joseph, the then Head Mistress of St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka,

Secunderabad worked from June 2011 to May 2015 and she could identify the signature of Sister Sally Joseph and the letter dated 7.2.2014 in the letter head of St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, shown to her contains the signature of Sister Sally Joseph. PW41 further deposed that as per the said letter A. Vaidarshi D/o A.Venugopal having Admission No.8030/9338 studied in their school during the year 2001 to 2011 and an amount of Rs.74,410/- was paid as fee in respect of A.Vaidarshi for the said period. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

73.As per the evidence of Mr.K. Bhanumurthy (PW42), the then Manager, Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad, on request of

CBI police, Hyderabad he had furnished the membership particulars and statement of account particulars of Dr.A.Venugopal (A1). PW42 further deposed that initially, Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) joined in Country

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 49 of 185

Club as Silver Privilege member on payment of Rs.25,000/- towards membership fee and after completion of 5 years the membership of

Dr. A.Venugopal was converted into Master Life Member.PW42 further deposed that he had handed over Ex.P86 application form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for silver privilege member dated 6.1.2002 in Country Club, Hyderabad and Ex.P87 true extract of the statement of account of Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.2007.PW42 further deposed that Ex.P88 is the application form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal(A1) for Master Life

Membership in Country Club, Hyderabad dated 18.4.2007.

74.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW42 categorically admitted that the membership fee of Rs.25,000/- paid by Dr.A.Venugopal is a refundable amount after expiry of five years from the date of membership and that he cannot say whether Dr.A.Venugopal visited the Country Club at any point of time.

75.As per the evidence of Mr K.J.Vijaya Krishna (PW43),

Deputy Commissioner, GHMC Circle-IV, L.B.Nagar, he knows

Mr.Srinivas Reddy the then Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Circle-IV,

L.B.Nagar and he could identify his signature as they worked together.PW43 further deposed that the letter shown to him during evidence along with Annexure contain the signature of Mr.Srinivas

Reddy and as per the said letter, they have furnished the tax payment details of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet stands in the name of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal. PW43 further deposed that as per Annexure to the letter Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani paid tax of Rs.6,930/- from 01-09-2005 to 29-03-2010 and Ex.P89 is

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 50 of 185 the Annexure showing the assessment details and house tax payment details of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) from 01-09-2005 to 29-03- 2010 in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet.

76.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW43 categorically admitted that as per Ex.P89, the house tax was paid by Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 01-09- 2005 to 29-03-2010.

77.As per the evidence of Mr. Hakim Noor Mahamood (PW44), the then Legal Manager, M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited,

Begumpet, Hyderabad, the letter along with Annexure shown to him during his evidence contained the signature of Mr.T.Ratnakar, who worked as Officer in M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad and he could identify his signatures as they worked together. PW44 further deposed that as per the Annexure to letter

dated 22-01-2014, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) availed car loan for an

amount of Rs.3,35,000/- on 11-12-2007 for purchase of Tata Indica

DLG Turbo car and the said amount was paid by the company i.e.,

M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet to the dealer and as per the Annexure Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) repaid the entire loan amount along with interest amounting to Rs.3,92,935/- on 17-01- 2009 and the loan account was terminated.PW44 further deposed that Ex.P90 is the true extract of the statement of account of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) in respect of the car loan availed from

M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 51 of 185

78.As per the evidence of M.Ravinder Reddy (PW45),

Panchayath Secretary, Dadapur Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad

District, who previously worked as Bill Collector, Boduppal Gram

Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District from September 2013 to

July 2016, the letter dated 12-02-2014 shown to him during evidence was issued by him in respect of house tax payment details, water charges and permission fees payment details in respect of

H.No.3-118/1 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal, H.No.3- 117/22 standing in the name of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani and H.No.3- 117/24 standing in the name of Mrs.V.Sulochana.PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3- 118/1 from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014 is Rs.14,340/- by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1).PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3-117/22 from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 is

Rs.15,559/- by Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW45 further deposed that the total amount of tax paid in respect of H.No.3-117/24 from 2005- 2006 to 2013-2014 is Rs.3,410/- by Mrs.V.Sulochana. PW45 further deposed that on the request of CBI police, the Executive Officer,

Boduppal Gram Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, furnished Ex.91 attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani and Ex.P92 attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of

Mrs.V.Sulochana vide letter dated 07-01-2014.

79.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW45 categorically admitted that unless the mutation is done, the ownership particulars in respect of the property will not be changed on the name of purchaser and the tax will be collected

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 52 of 185 on the name of the owner on record till the mutation is effected on the name of the purchaser of the property.

80.As per the evidence of Mr.A.Mendelson Navaraj (PW46), the then Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Hyderabad branch, on the request of CBI police, he furnished the details of statement of account in respect of United housing loan jointly availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.8 Lakhs from their branch and the same was disbursed to the Accused No.1 and 2.

PW46 further deposed that as per the records, Dr.A.Venu Gopal and

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani have repaid the total housing loan amounting to

Rs.11,66,215/- including interest and pre-closure charges, out of which Rs.8 lakhs principal amount and Rs.3,66,215/- interest and pre-closure charges. PW46 further deposed that Ex.P93 is the true extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 24-09- 2003 to 31-03-2009 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of

Evidence Act.

81.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 2 PW46 categorically admitted that the EMI cleared through salary deduction of Accused No.1 in respect of housing loan includes the principal and interest.

82.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Satyanarayana (PW47), the then Telephone Revenue Inspector, office of Chief Accounts Officer,

Musheerabad Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, he had submitted a letter signed by their

Accounts Officer Sri G.Kameshwar Rao, furnishing the telephone charges paid by the subscriber namely Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 53 of 185 of telephone No.040-27205672 for the period from 12-07-2001 to 13-09-2013. PW47 further deposed that as per Ex.P94 the statement of account furnished by them Dr.A.Venu Gopal paid an amount of

Rs.1,60,822/- towards monthly bills in respect of telephone No.040- 27205672 for the period from 12-07-2001 to 13-09-2013 along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

83.As per the evidence of Mr.P.Bhupati Sarvesh Babulu (PW48), the then Assistant Manager, Legal, M/s.Magma Fincorp

Limited, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI police, he had submitted a letter dated 15-10-2013 along with Ex.P95 true extract of statement of account in respect of the car loan availed by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal for purchase of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle. PW48 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu Gopal availed car loan for an amount of Rs.4,93,000/- on 14-08-2010 for purchase of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle and the same was disbursed. PW48 further deposed that as per the statement

Dr.A.Venu Gopal repaid the entire loan amount with interest amounting to of Rs.6,69,600/- in 60 equal monthly installments @

Rs.11,160/-.

84.During the Cross examination by the learned counsel for the Accused PW48 categorically stated that by verifying Ex.P95 he can not say the interest on car loan paid by the Accused No.1.

85.As per the evidence of Mr. Avinash Shinde (PW49),

Officer, ICICI Bank, Madapur Branch, Hyderabad from 2012 to 2017, on the request of CBI police, he had furnished the statement of account in respect of the housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from their bank for the period from 14-02-2003 to 24-08-2012. PW49

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 54 of 185 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu

Gopal availed housing loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from their branch on 14- 02-2003 and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani is the Co-Applicant of the loan and the said loan amount was pre-closed on 24-08-2012 by paying entire outstanding amount. PW49 further deposed that as per the statement of account Dr.A.Venu Gopal repaid an amount of

Rs.10,56,075.70 ps., which includes principal, interest and pre- closure charges and the principal amount is Rs.5 Lakhs and

Rs.5,56,075.70 ps. is interest and pre-closure charges and Ex.P96 is true extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by

Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14-02-2003 to 24-08-2012. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

86.As per the evidence of Mr.J.Srinivas Reddy(PW50) doing

Tandur Stones business, he knows Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as his family friend and he had been working as Doctor in Bharath

Dynamics Limited. PW50 further deposed that in the year 2012,

Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) requested for hand loan of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of construction of house and on the request he advanced a hand loan of Rs.5 lakhs to Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) by way of cheque and Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) en-cashed the said cheque.PW50 further deposed that subsequently, Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) took an amount of

Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.65,000/- on another occasion for the purpose of construction of the house and after two years of availing the loan Mr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the loan amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- by way of cheque pertaining to the account of

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) with Andhra Bank, L.B.Nagar Branch. PW50 further deposed that as per Ex.P70/7 statement of account of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 55 of 185

Accused No.2 shown to him the cheque issued in his favour bearing

No.633879 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- was cleared and also the cheque issued in his favour bearing No.633884 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was cleared. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

87.As per the evidence of Mr.V.Venkata Ramana (PW51) the then Branch Manager, SBI, Karvan, in the year 2014, on the request of CBI police, he had furnished the attested copies of housing loan documents pertaining to Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1), who availed housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from their bank and the loan amount was disbursed to A1. PW51 further deposed that Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) has repaid an amount of Rs.6,50,606/- which includes the

principal, interest and pre-closure charges in respect of housing loan

pre-maturely on 07-02-2004. During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the Accused No. 1 PW51 categorically admitted that Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the housing loan amount by issuing cheque drawn on United Bank of India and he cannot say whether this housing loan was taken over by United Bank of India or not.

88.As per the evidence of Mr. A.Yadagiri (PW52), the then

Accounts Officer (Billing), Cellone, BSNL office of DGM, Telephone

Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, on the request of their Sub Divisional

Engineer, he had furnished the payment details of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21-08-2008 to 18-06-2014 to the CBI police. PW52 further deposed that Ex.P97 is the true extract of the payment details in respect of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 56 of 185 name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21-08-2008 to 18- 06-2014 along with certificate under section 65-B (4) (c) of Indian

Evidence Act and as per Ex.P97, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) paid an amount of Rs.53,910/- as of 21-08-2013 towards monthly usage charges in respect of mobile number 9490797612.

89.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW52 categorically admitted that he cannot say as to who paid the monthly bills as shown in Ex.P97 and he has stated to the CBI police that as per office records the said mobile number 9490797612 stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1), CMO, BDL,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad and that on official mobiles issued by the employer the designation of the officer is mentioned in the records and the mobile bearing No. 9490797612 was supplied to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) by his employer.

90.As per the evidence of Mr.N.Narsinga Rao (PW53),

Senior Master Technician (CMT-II), BDL, Kanchanbagh, he joined in

BDL in the year 1983 as Junior Electrician and he knows Dr.A.Venu

Gopal (A1) who is their Medical Officer. PW53 further deposed that In the year 2012, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) availed a hand loan of Rs.1

Lakh from him and he paid the said amount by way of cash and after few months, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid the hand loan amount of

Rs.1 Lakh to him by way of cheque pertaining the account of his wife i.e., Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW53 further deposed that as per

Ex.P70/7 statement of account of Accused No.2 shown to him contains the details of the cheque issued in his favour bearing

No.633881 from the account of Accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.1

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 57 of 185

Lakh was cleared. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the

Cross examination of this witness as nil.

91.As per the evidence of Mr. M.Sitarama Rao (PW54), the then Executive Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad from 2012 to 2014, on the instructions of his superiors and on request of CBI police,

Hyderabad he along with Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao, the then

Assistant Engineer (QA) valued three properties i.e., residential buildings bearing Nos.H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey

Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District,

Hyderabad, H.No.3-117/22, Plot No.187/Part in Sur4vey Nos.94 and 95, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II, Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar

Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and submitted the report on 24-02-2015. PW54 further deposed that they have applied the standard principles of valuation approved by Government of India while valuing the above properties and Ex.P98 is the valuation report

dated 24-02-2015 submitted by them which contains his signatures

and the signatures of Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao . PW54 further deposed that as per Ex.P98, the value of H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony,

Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad is Rs.87,71,975/-, the value of

H.No.3-117/22, Plot No.187/Part in Sur4vey Nos.94 and 95, Bheem

Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad is

Rs.21,53,917/- and the value of House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in

Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II,

Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District,

Hyderabad is Rs.7,13,169/- and the Flat No.G1, Sri Rama

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 58 of 185

Residency, Maruthi Nagar, Sultanvala Village, Saroornagar, Revenue

Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad was not valued by them even though referred by CBI as they could not inspect the said property.

92.During the Cross-Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No. 1 PW54 categorically admitted that he has not seen the letters addressed by CBI police to their office for valuation of the above said properties referred in his chief examination and that he has submitted modified valuation report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he did not prepare any working sheet showing measurement of each component of sub work except other than what is annexed to Ex.P98 report and that an enclosure to

Ex.P98 report does not contain the date on which it was prepared and also the signatures not affixed on each page.

93.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that they have inspected the properties on 12-06-2014 and he has not put the date under his signature in Ex.P98 report and

Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao put the date under his signature in

Ex.P98 report as 10-02-2015 including last page of annexure. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has mentioned in

Ex.P98 report that the accused No.1 was present at the time of inspection of the properties, but he has not obtained the signatures of accused No.1 on Ex.P98 report and on its annexures. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that at column 2.4 of

Ex.P98 report, they have mentioned that the party submitted bills and vouchers pertaining to the properties and at column 3.A.3 of

Ex.P98 report it is mentioned that declared value is not available, at column 4.A.5 of Ex.P98 report it is mentioned that ground floor was

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 59 of 185 purchased in the year 2000 and remaining three floors were constructed subsequently between 2009 to 2012. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has not enclosed the cost index rates which they have adopted to Ex.P98 report.

94.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he do not know whether there were any improvements to the buildings during period from 13-09-2013 to 12-06-2014and that he did not mention the factual details relating to number of rooms constructed in each floor of the building bearing H.No.3-118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem Reddy Nagar Colony,

Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad and that they have considered the total plinth area for all the first, second and third floor of the building without giving any breakup and they have not prepared any drawing of the building.

95.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that without physically verifying the foundation, on notional basis deduction was allowed and that the plinth area rates contained two different rates and he do not remember whether the plinth area rates followed by us contained Rs.9,000/- and Rs.8,500/- per Square meter and they worked out the plinth area rates as Rs.9,000/- per square meter which they felt appropriate.

96.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that after arriving at basic building cost by taking the rate as Rs.9,000/- per square meter, the cost in respect of the items shown at Sl.No.2, 3 and 4 of Annexure-A to Ex.P98 report were worked out on percentage basis i.e, 12%, 5% and 12.5% respectively. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that he do not know whether the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 60 of 185 actual expenditure incurred by the accused No.1 is less than what is shown in Annexure-A for the items at Sl.No.2, 3 and 4 of Ex.P98 report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the cost of construction varies from place to place, from time to time and increases as time passes and that the cost of construction material varies from shop to shop depending on quality and quantity of the material purchased and the material cost is also depends on the fact whether the cash is paid or taken on credit. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the rates they have adopted is inclusive of labour charges and that the labour charges are equal to men and women as per the Government wages.

97.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that they did not conduct any quality test of the buildings and that

Government rates are fixed considering high quality of work.

98.PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that

Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao assisted him in valuation of the properties mentioned in Ex.P98 report and the total value of H.No.3- 118/1, Plot No.186/A & 186/B in Survey Nos.95 and 97, Bheem

Reddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad mentioned in Ex.P98 report is inclusive of ground floor and he has not taken the cost of ground floor mentioned in the sale deed and worked out the cost of construction separately.

99.PW54 categorically denied in the cross- examination that he has shown more value of the buildings showing exorbitant rates without considering the actual expenditure incurred, which construction cost of first, second and third floor comes only to the extent of about Rs.56 Lakhs and that he has given unrealistic report

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 61 of 185 vide Ex.P98 and that he has adopted exorbitant rates and taken the value of construction of House on Plot Nos.71 and 72 in Survey No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part, Maidhilapuri Phase II, Hattiguda Village,

Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad as

Rs.7,13,169/- which is actual Rs.2,52,000/- as per the books of accounts maintained by the accused.

100.PW54 categorically denied in the cross- examination that he has adopted the higher rates of the Central Government in valuation of the properties to the private constructions in a village and that we have increased the cost of construction in Ex.P98 report.

PW54 categorically denied in the further cross- examination that at the time of inspection of the building, the Accused shown the books of account maintained by them for construction of the building mentioned in Ex.P98 report. PW54 further admitted in the cross- examination that the entire area covered under description 4A of

Ex.P98 report was not covered with granite flooring and that he did not compare the buildings constructed by the accused with the description of residential accommodation shown in the CPWD manual for applying the plinth area rates.

101.As per the evidence of Mr.M.Hanumantha Rao (PW55), the then Senior Office Superintendent, BDL, Milan Division,

Hyderabad, he knows Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) working as medical officer in BDL and during course of his employment, he used to visit

A1 for medical checkup. PW55 further deposed that during the year 2012, he got PF loan of Rs.5 Lakhs and during the said period

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) requested for a hand loan of Rs.4 to 5 Lakhs and considering his request he advanced an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 62 of 185

A1 by way of self cheque drawn on Andhra Bank, BDL Extension

Branch in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and he en-cashed the said cheque. PW55 further deposed that after two to three months of availing loan, Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) repaid his loan amount by issuing the bearer cheque in his name pertaining to the account of

A2 and he has deposited the said cheque in his bank account with

Andhra Bank, BDL Extension Branch and en-cashed the said cheque.

PW55 further deposed that he do not remember the name of the bank of which the cheque of accused No.2 handed over to him for repayment of loan amount and the amount received by en-cashing the cheque issued from the account of Accused No.2 issued by

Accused No.1 is reflected in his statement of account. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

102.As per the evidence of Mr.B.Sairam Reddy (PW56), the then Motor Vehicles Inspector, RTA Uppal, R.R. District, as per instructions of RTA, Uppal, on 13-03-2015, he inspected two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suziki Access two wheeler and submitted his report regarding the maintenance and fuel consumption of the above said vehicles basing on Kilometer run of the said vehicles. PW56 further deposed that as on the date of his inspection, the kilometer reading of

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI is 75,232 kms and the reading of Suziki

Access two wheeler is 3990 kms and the total cost for maintaining two vehicles along with its fuel consumption has been arrived at

Rs.2,88,633/-and he had submitted a detail report to RTA, Uppal,

R.R.District who in turn forwarded the same to CBI officials under the cover of letter dated 13-03-2015. PW56 further deposed that Ex.P99

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 63 of 185 is the inspection report dated 13-03-2015 submitted by him in respect of inspection of two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suzuki Access two wheeler regarding the expenditure of maintenance and fuel consumption of the said two vehicles.

103. During the cross-examination PW56 categorically admitted that he mentioned in Ex.P99 report that the information regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of the vehicles is technically worked out and under Motor Vehicles Act, the motor vehicles inspector is authorized to inspect all the vehicles of Central

Government, State Government and all such enquires regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of motor vehicles and they will give such reports. PW56 further stated in the cross- examination that he has not mentioned the above fact in Ex.P99 report as it is not necessary. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that the vehicles inspected by him covered by Ex.P99 are private vehicles and there is no mention in Ex.P99 report that he physically inspected the vehicles mentioned in the report. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has considered the

Odometer readings of the vehicles provided by the CBI in their letter for estimation of maintenance and fuel consumption of the above referred vehicles and he do not know who actually used the vehicles, but as per the registration certificate Accused No.1 is the registered owner the above said vehicles. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that he has not mentioned in Ex.P99 report regarding the details of the servicing dealer where the vehicles were serviced and he do not know whether the items mentioned in Ex.P99 were at all attended to or not by any servicing dealer, but as per the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 64 of 185 manufacturer norms regular servicing of the vehicles along with replacement of necessary parts are to be done for free and safe running of the vehicles. PW56 further admitted in the cross- examination that there is no specific mention in Ex.P99 report that he has verified the user manual of the vehicles and he has not mentioned the relevant check period in Ex.P99.

104.As per the evidence of Dr.N.Krishnam Raju (PW57), he worked as Executive Director (P & A), BDL, Hyderabad from 03-10- 2011 to till his retirement on 31-12-2017. PW57 further deposed that he knows Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) since his joining as the Medical

Department of BDL was working under him and he received a proposal from their Chief Vigilance Officer which in turn was received from CBI to accord sanction for prosecuting Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Chief

Medical Officer, BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad in a case pertaining to Disproportionate of Assets. PW57 further deposed that as Prima facie the case involves disproportionate of Assets, as disciplinary authority he had initiated disciplinary action against Dr.A.Venu Gopal as the controlling authority. PW57 further deposed that on verification of the relevant documents received along with proposal, he being the competent authority accorded sanction for prosecution of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) based on the facts put up in the proposal believing that the valuation of the assets mentioned therein is true and Ex.P100 is the sanction order dated 28-04-2015 issued by him for prosecution of you Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

105.During the course of Cross-Examination PW57 categorically stated that before issuing Ex.P100 sanction order he did not take the approval any of his superior authority as it is not

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 65 of 185 required, as he being the competent authority to issue sanction order and as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 sanction order, the accused No.1 was in the Grade of E4 to the best of his knowledge and remembrance and It may be true that accused No.1 was in the

Grade of E5 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 sanction order.

PW57 categorically stated in the cross- examination that above him

Functional Director is the higher authority and as per the schedule of delegation of powers, promotion to the post from E4 to E5 Grade is approved by the Functional Director and as per the delegation of powers, the appointing authority in respect of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to E5

Grade is Functional Director and that he is not the appointing authority in the case of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to the Grade E5. PW57 categorically denied in the cross- examination that since he is not the appointing authority of Dr.A.Venu Gopal to E5 Grade, he is not the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and that Ex.P100 is not valid in the eye of law.

PW57 categorically stated in the cross- examination that as

Executive Director (P & A) since Dr.A.Venu Gopal was working under him he was the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in terms of BDL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules against the officers working under his control irrespective of the Grade and as such he is the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against the accused No.1 under Ex.P100. PW57 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that as per the policy of BDL, officers of different grades were provided cost of the mobile phones for official purpose and calls charges up to certain limits were reimbursed and he is not aware whether prior to the year 2007, certain payments were paid to the officers through

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 66 of 185 supplementary bills/vouchers as he joined in 2011. PW57 further admitted in the cross- examination that the Central Vigilance

Commission (CVC) guidelines in the matter of conduct rules applicable mutadis-mutandis to the officers of BDL and he do not know whether Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) has given any intimation regarding the acquisition of Item No.6 shown in the table at Para 9 of Ex.P100. PW57 further admitted in the cross- examination that as per rules in vogue reimburses the cost of the school fees of the wards of the officers and that he has not verified the individual figures shown under Statement-C pertaining to Income and the

Statement-D pertaining to Expenditure of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as sufficient time was not given to me.

106.As per the evidence of C.Raghavendra (PW58), working in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, he was the tenant of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani (A2) w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) during the period from 2009 to 2015 and he had paid monthly rent @ Rs.3,500/- initially from

January 2009 to January 2012 and subsequently, he paid monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/- from February 2012 to 2015 till he vacated the house and he paid the rent to his landlord by way of cash. The learned counsel for the Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

107.As per the evidence of Smt.H.T.Trisandhya (PW59), the then Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Locker

No.239 of Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch belongs to Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani (A2) and she used to operate the locker. PW59 further deposed that in the year 2013, the CBI officials along with Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and A1 came to their bank for verification of the items kept in Locker

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 67 of 185

No.239 of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the CBI officials opened the locker No.239 in their presence and in the presence of other bank officials, herself and gold appraiser of the bank. PW59 further deposed that the CBI officials found the gold ornaments around 10 to 12 items in the said locker and weighed the ornaments with the help of gold appraiser and prepared proceedings in their presence and obtained signatures. PW59 further deposed that the CBI officials after valuation of the gold items again put the said ornaments in the same locker and sealed and seized the locker and the locker key was handed over to the CBI officials. PW59 further deposed that Ex.P3 shown to her is the proceedings of locker operations drawn at

Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch which contains her signatures and the other persons who were present at the time of locker operations signed on the proceedings. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

108.As per the evidence of Mr.Y.Varaprasad (PW60), the then Branch Manager, Sri Ram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda

Branch, in the year 2013, the CBI, Hyderabad addressed a letter to their branch to furnish the information relating to the chits subscribed by their customer namely Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and accordingly he had furnished the information under the letter dated 11-03-2014 by enclosing the three application forms and statement of account of three chits held by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) in their branch. PW60 further deposed that as per their records,

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) subscribed three chits with their branch and its details are 1) Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs, 2)

Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs and 3) Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs.Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 68 of 185 vide Group No.LC 13 with ticket No.39 vide application dated 13-06- 2011 and the value of the said chit is Rs.5 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @ Rs.10,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02-2014 is Rs.2,58,640/-. PW60 further deposed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit vide Group

No.LS 03 with ticket No.23 vide application and the value of the said chit is Rs.10 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @

Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02- 2014 is Rs.5,62,432/-. PW60 further deposed that Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) lifted the said chit and received an amount of Rs.6,15,370/-.

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) invested chit vide Group No.LS 05 with ticket

No.24 vide application and the value of the said chit is Rs.10 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription @ Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly installments paid by the said customer from the date of commencement of the chit till 21-02-2014 is Rs.2,23,600/-.PW60 further deposed that the passbooks shown to him are the passbooks issued from their Nalgonda Branch in respect of above three chits subscribed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2). PW60 further deposed that

Ex.P101 is the application form in respect of Group No.LC 13, ticket

No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs dated 13-06-2011, Ex.P102 is the passbook in respect of Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs, Ex.P103 is statement of account for Group No.LC 13, ticket No.39 for Rs.5 lakhs.

PW60further deposed that Ex.P104 is the application form in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs dated 13-06-2011,

Ex.P105 is the passbook in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.P106 is statement of account for Group No.LS 03,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 69 of 185 ticket No.23 for Rs.10 lakhs. PW60 further deposed that Ex.P107 is the application form in respect of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for

Rs.10 Lakhs, Ex.P108 is the passbook in respect of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs, Ex.P109 is statement of account for

Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 for Rs.10 Lakhs.

109.During the Cross Examination by learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 PW60 categorically stated that he do not remember the exact number of monthly installments paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) in respect of the chit Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 and the first installment of Group No. LS 05, ticket No.24 was paid by the subscriber i.e., Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) and the remaining installments were paid by her father and the said chit was discontinued after 14 installments and the said chit was adjusted in other chits subscribed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) after deducting company commission of Rs.50,000/-. During Re-Examination PW60 categorically stated that there is no mention in Ex.P109 as to who paid the installments of the chit other than the subscriber.

110.As per the evidence of Mr.S.Muralidhara (PW61), Nodal

Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, on the request of CBI, Hyderabad he had furnished the payment and ownership details of the mobile Numbers bearing No.8978134581 and

No.9866520552, both prepaid numbers belongs to Mr.A.Venu Gopal

C/o.Sharbalingam, H.No.17-11-236/1/A, Madannapet, Saidabad,

Hyderabad and the date of activation of the mobile No.8978134581 is 04-03-2011 and the date of activation of the mobile

No.9866520552 is 12-08-2011. PW61 further deposed that the total amount of bill paid by the customer in respect of mobile

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 70 of 185

No.8978134581 from the date of activation till 13-09-2013 is

Rs.6,772/- and the total amount of bill paid by the customer in respect of mobile No.9866520552 from the date of activation till 13- 09-2013 is 5,947/-. PW61 further deposed that he had furnished the above information on verification of their system records under the cover of letter dated 08-08-2014 signed by him and Ex.P110 is the payment details of the mobile Nos.8978134581 and 9866520552 furnished by him to the CBI Inspector. The learned counsel for the

Accused reported the Cross examination of this witness as nil.

111(a).As per the evidence of B.Satish Prabhu (PW62),

Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, who is the investigating officer of this case, on 12-09-2013, Sri H.Venkatesh, the then DIG,

CBI, Hyderabad Called him and instructed him to register a DA case basing on the source information received in CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

PW62 further deposed that DIG, CBI, Hyderabad issued an authorization under section 17 of P.C. Act for registration and investigation of DA case under Prevention of Corruption Act and basing on the instructions of DIG and the inputs provided to him, he had registered a case vide R.C.No.16(A)/2013 under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dr.A.Venu Gopal,

Chief Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad for possessing Assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to an extent of Rs.1,33,51,844/- for the period from 01-01-1999 to 31-03-2011 and issued Ex.P111 FIR at 11:30 hours. PW62 further deposed that the details of assets acquired during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-A and the details of Income and other receipts during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-B and the details of expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 71 of 185 during the check period is enclosed in the form of Annexure-C to the

FIR.

(b).PW62 further deposed that he took up the investigation and obtained search warrants for conducting searches at the residential and office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) from Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 12-09-2013

under Ex.P112 and Ex.P113 and that he himself along with search team members and two independent witnesses i.e., PW1 and LW2

Mr. M.Prasad Babu left CBI office at about 06:00 hours and reached the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal situated at H.No.3- 118/1, Vijayagopala Villa, Plot No.186/A and B, Bheemreddy Colony,

Boduppal, Hyderabad at about 06:50 hours and made enquiries at the said residential premises and he found Dr.A.Venu Gopal was present in the house and he called him out of the house and disclosed his identity and purpose of their visit. PW62 further deposed that then he served search memo and Dr.A.Venu Gopal signed on the same as a token of having seen it and thereafter,

Dr.A.Venu Gopal was requested to permit the search team to conduct the search of his house and he gave consent. PW62 further deposed that thereafter, the search commenced at 7:00 hours on 13-09-2013, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani w/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal was present in the house. PW62 further deposed that a search of the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal consisting of ground plus three floors was conducted in the presence of PW1 and LW2 duly observing all the legal formalities and the Accused No.1 and his wife Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani(A2) were present throughout the search. PW62 further deposed that during the search various original sale deeds in the name of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 72 of 185

Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma, LIC policies, bonds, bank passbooks and cheque books, gold and silver purchase receipts, various expenditure receipts, four locker keys, chit fund deposit receipts in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and cheque books and passbooks in the name of Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma were found at the residence of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and he has seized the above said documents, receipts, vouchers, cheque books, passbooks, locker keys totally items 1 to 52 under the cover of Ex.P1 search list dated 13-09-2013.

(c).PW62 further deposed that during the search, he prepared separate inventory memo for the house hold items and articles found in the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P2 as stated by the Accused No.1 and 2. PW62 further deposed that he had prepared a rough sketch of residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal named “Vijaya Gopal Villa”,PW1 and LW2 signed on the search list, inventory memo and rough sketch after going through the same and in token of its correctness and also search team members signed on the search list, inventory memo and rough sketch after going through the same and in token of its correctness. PW62 further deposed that during the search at about 14:00 hours,

Mr.G.Sudhakar, Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad after completing the search at office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1), joined the search team at the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and remained with the team till the conclusion of the search. PW62 further deposed that during the search the photography and videography of the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal was done by Mr.N.Raghavendra Kumar,

Inspector, CBI, Hyderabad and Mr.Rayappa Raju, PC, CBI,

Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that the observations made

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 73 of 185 during the search and the explanation given by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal and A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with regard to the availability of various sale deeds, passbook, cheque books etc in the name of Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam and Mrs.Lingala Laxmamma, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dr.A.Venu Gopal at the residence was incorporated in the search list. PW62 further deposed that during the search, it is observed that Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani were having five number of gas connections on their names.

(d).PW62 further deposed that the details of various bank accounts as per the various receipts and pay-in-slips found at the residence were noted for the purpose of investigation and both PW1 and LW2 initialed on all the seized 52 items as mentioned in Ex.P1 search list. PW62 further deposed that during the search, he had seized Ex.P32, ExP33, Ex.P11, original sale deed bearing

No.518/2002 dated 28-01-2002 standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani as in Ex.P114, Ex.P10, original agreement for additional works dated November 2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) along with cash receipt for Rs.6,91,500/- and credit voucher for Rs.89,214/-

dated 10-01-2003 as in Ex.P115, Ex.P30, Ex.P25, Ex.P26, Ex.P23,

Ex.P38, Ex.P12, Ex.P18, original sale deed bearing No.5263/2008

dated 04-12-2008 in the name of Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani as in

Ex.P116, Ex.P31, Ex.P35/1, Ex.P46, original invoice of M/s.Sanjay

Electronics dated 14-03-2013 as in Ex.P117, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27-12-2010 as in Ex.P118, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 27-12-2010 as in Ex.P119, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 29-12-2010 as in Ex.P120, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 74 of 185

Hyderabad dated 30-04-2011 as in Ex.P121, retail invoice of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30-04-2011 as in Ex.P122, retail invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 31-12-2010 as in Ex.P123, Ex.P67, Estimate for extra gold dated 19-03-2007 as in Ex.P124, Ex.P68, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad as in

Ex.P125, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter,

Hyderabad dated 05-07-2003 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in

Ex.P126, rough calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter,

Hyderabad dated 30-10-2003 as in Ex.P127, additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 09-08-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P128,

additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad dated 22-02-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in

Ex.P129, additional advance receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 28-06-2013 in the name of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P130, additional advance receipt of PMJ

Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 17-04-2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as in Ex.P131.

(e)PW62 further deposed that he has seized original LIC policy bearing No.644237436 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in

Ex.P132, LIC policy bearing No.645686797 in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal as in Ex.P133, Ex.P102, Ex.P105, Ex.P108, one note book of

Hyderabad Public School containing the details of expenditure in respect of house warming ceremony and dhoti function at Page

No.37 and 38 as in Ex.P134, miscellaneous receipt bearing No.1637

dated 03-03-2005 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani issued by

Grampanchayat, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 75 of 185

Rs.12,795/- as in Ex.P135, receipt bearing No.066 dated 13-03-2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony Sanskema Sangam in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.3,000/- as in Ex.P136, receipt bearing

No.067 dated 13-03-2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony,

Sanskema Sangam in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,000/- as in Ex.P137, receipt bearing No.6897 dated 05-09-2009 issued by

Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City branch for Rs.6,600/- in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal as in Ex.P138, the receipt bearing

No.1354 dated 04-04-2013 issued by V-Guide Group of Coaching centres in the name of A.Vaidik for Rs.9,500/- as in Ex.P139, three photo albums of dhoti function and house warming ceremony. PW62 further deposed that a copy of said search list under Ex.P1 and copy of Ex.P2 inventory memo was given to Dr.A.Venu Gopal under acknowledgement. PW62 further deposed that during the search cash amount of Rs.63,840/- was found in the Almariah in the master bedroom in the ground floor and the same was noted in the search list and returned to Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and during the search,

Maruthi Swift Dezir Car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 with meter reading of 75232 kms and Suzuki Access 125 two wheeler bearing

No.AP 29 AQ 8219 showing meter reading of 3990 kms were found parked in the portico (parking area) of the house of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

(f)PW62 further deposed that during the search, daughter and sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal were permitted to leave the premises in the morning hours for attending their classes and further

Dr.A.Venu Gopal was found using the mobile bearing

No.9490797612 and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani was found using mobile bearing No.8978134581 and the mobile number of his daughter is 9866520552 and the landline with number 27205672 and 65572667

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 76 of 185 was found functioning in the house and after conclusion of search at 16:30 hours on 13-09-2013 the search team members along with two independent witnesses left the place duly offering their personal search to Dr.A.Venu Gopal which he declined and then he had taken possession of seized documents/items 1 to 52 as per Ex.P1 search list for further investigation of the case and on 13-09-2013, he had received a Supplementary Case Diary from Mr.G.Sudhakar, the then

Inspector, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad along with search list and seized documents for the searches conducted at the office premises of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) on 13-09-2013 under Ex.P140 .

(g)PW62 further deposed that on 16-09-2013, he submitted the original search lists dated 13-09-2013 (Ex.P1, Ex.P140) withregard to the searches conducted at the residence and office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and the original inventory memo under

Ex.P2 in the court of Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad under a cover of memo. PW62 further deposed that on 23-09-2013, he along with two witnesses visited Andhra Bank, BDL

Campus Branch, Hyderabad at 11:15 hours and conducted search of locker No.255 with key No.240 (72-1045) standing jointly in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and

Mr.M.Matta Reddy, Deputy Manager (Locker incharge) also associated in the said locker operations and it was opened in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and found empty and both Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani were present during the search of the said locker No.255 and a separate proceedings were drawn for the same. PW62 further deposed that on 23-09-2013, he proceeded to

Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad, along with PW1 and LW2 and a locker bearing No.239 standing the name of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 77 of 185

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) was opened in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and smt.H.T.Trisandhya (PW59), Assistant

Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad and

Mr.M.Uma Maheshwar Rao (PW18), Approved Gold Appraiser and twelve items of gold jewellery were found in the locker. PW62 further deposed that the description of the gold items, its gross and net weight were recorded in the locker search proceedings under Ex.P3 as per the version of PW18. PW62 further deposed that the gross weight of gold jewellery were taken on the electronic weighing machine available in the bank by PW18, and the year of acquisition, mode of acquisition were recorded in the locker proceedings as per the version of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2). PW62 further deposed that all the twelve gold jewellery items found in the locker were kept back in the locker and it was locked in the presence of PW1, LW2,

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) and nothing was seized and the locker proceedings were drawn incorporating all the happenings during the locker operations at the bank in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and the copy of the same were given to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal(A1) under your acknowledgment. PW62 further deposed that the locker proceedings concluded at 15:30 hours on 23-09-2013,

PW1 and LW2, Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, Mr.K.Praveen

Kumar, the then DSP, CBI, Hyderabad, who was part of the locker search operations, signed on the locker search proceedings after going through the same in token of its correctness.

(h)PW62 further deposed that on 24-09-2013, as summoned by him PW1 and LW2 reported before him at CBI Office,

Koti, Hyderabad at 10:00 hours and he explained them the purpose of calling and requested them to act as independent witnesses for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 78 of 185 conducting locker operations at Canara Bank, Uppal Branch,

Hyderabad and South Indian Bank, Medipally Branch, Hyderabad, whose locker keys were seized during the search at the residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) on 13-09-2013. PW62 further deposed that thereafter they left CBI office and reached Canara

Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad at 11:00 hours and carried out the search of the locker No.143 standing the name of

Mr.L.Nagabushanam and his wife Lingala Laxmamma father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1). PW62 further deposed that the said locker was searched in the presence of PW1, LW2 and

Mr.Lingala Nagabushaham and it was found empty and a separate proceedings were drawn incorporating all the happenings during the locker operations and the copy of the same was given to Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam, under acknowledgment. PW62 further deposed that after concluding the search of the locker at Canara Bank, Uppal

Branch, the entire team along with PW1 and LW2 and Mr.Lingala

Nagabushanam proceeded to South Indian Bank, Medipally Branch,

Hyderabad and conducted locker operation of locker No.34 by using the key No.53, which was seized on 13-09-2013 at the residence of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) and the locker was opened and Rs.100/- was found in the locker and the same was kept back and the locker was closed in the presence of PW1, LW2 and Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and all the happenings during the locker proceedings between 12:30 to 13:00 hours were incorporated in the locker proceedings drawn at the bank on 24-09-2013 and a copy of the locker proceedings was served to Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam under acknowledgment.

(i)PW62 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had issued notices under section 91 Cr.P.C to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 79 of 185 various Sub Registrars to submit certified copies of sale deeds,

Certificate of Encumbrance on Property, registration and stamp duty charges collected for the registration of subject immovable properties standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) and his family members as well as Mr.Lingala Nagabushanam and

Smt.L.Laxmamma in laws of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and accordingly he has received the replies from the respective Sub Registrars along with certified copies of sale deeds, Certificate of Encumbrance on

Properties, registration and stamp duty charges. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P33/11 and 12 is the certified copy of Statement of

Encumbrance on Property, which shows that plot No.71 and 72,

Sy.No.6 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 part situated at Midhilapuri, Phase-II,

Hattiguda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received

Ex.P33/11 and 12 from PW8 under the cover of letter dated 06-11- 2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P30/9 to 11 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property, which shows that agricultural land admeasuring 3.34 acres in Sy.No.404, 405, 407, 404/A, 405/A, 407/A, 403/A situated at Malkapur Village, Choutuppal

Mandal, Nalgonda District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P30/9 to 11 from PW7 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P24 CC of sale deed bearing No.4514 of 2000 and certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that

Plot No.186/A, 186/B in Sy.No.95, 97 admeasuring 266 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P24 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 80 of 185 2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P25 is the certified copy of

Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that Plot

No.187/part in Sy.No.94 and 95 admeasuring 120 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received

Ex.P25 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013.

(j)PW62 further deposed that Ex.P23/13 and 14 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that Shop No.G6, in Sai Prashnathi Nivas, situated at Plot No.8 in Sy.No.9/2 and 9/3 at Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Saroornagar,

R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) as on 13- 09-2013 and he received Ex.P23/12 and 14 from PW5 under the cover of letter dated 01-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that

Ex.P141 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on

Property in respect of Plot No.79 admeasuring 202 Sq. yards in

Sy.No.924, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as on 13-09-2013 and he received the same from SRO Peddamberpet. PW62 further deposed that

Ex.P31/12 and 13 is the certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that house site Plot No.311 in Sy.No.254 and 256 admeasuring 252 Sq. yards situated at NFC Nagar,

Ghatkesar Village, R.R.District, stands in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani(A2) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P31/12 and 13 from

PW7 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that Ex.P27 CC of sale deed bearing No.16286 of 2006 and certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property which shows that house No.3-16-95/11 on Plot No.187/part in Sy.No.94, 97 admeasuring 130 Sq. yards situated at Boduppal Village Ghatkesar

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 81 of 185

Mandal, R.R.District, stands in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1) as on 13-09-2013 and he received Ex.P27 from PW6 under the cover of letter dated 03-10-2013.

(k)PW62 further deposed that he had issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the Branch Managers of various banks having bank accounts standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and his family members to furnish the certified copies of Statement of Bank

Accounts, original Account opening forms, related debit and credit vouchers etc in respect of transactions done by the account holders and he has received replies from them along with certified copies of

Statement of Bank Accounts, original Account opening forms, related debit and credit vouchers etc standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu

Gopal and his family members. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 23-09-2013 from the Chief Manager, Andhra

Bank, BDL Branch i.e., PW14 informing about the bank account details of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P41 and Ex.P42 under the cover letter dated 13-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 13-06-2014 from the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, BDL

Branch i.e., PW14 informing about the gold loan account

No.104530100005589 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal(A1), COD account No.104531041900064 Locker No.255, application in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani(A2) etc. PW62 further deposed that he received the true extract of Statement of account of SB A/c.No.14410110007679 of UCO Bank, Abids Circle

Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 17-11-2008 to 16-07-2014 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P142. PW62 further deposed that he received Ex.P70 true extract of the Statement of account and original SB account opening form relating to SB

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 82 of 185

A/c.No.732010098872 standing in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani(A2) from PW21 under the cover letter dated 08-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received letter dated 28-02-2014 from the Branch

Head, ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad along with original debit and credit vouchers of SB A/c.No.732010098872 of

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani(A2). PW62 further deposed that he received

Ex.P44 true extract of the Statement of account of SB

A/c.No.062300101000901 of A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, original account opening form of SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of A2

Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and Ex.P45 original locker opening form of locker

No.239 of Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch under the cover letter

dated 14-05-2014.PW62 further deposed that Ex.P143 is the original

account opening form of SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of A2 Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

(l)PW62 further deposed that he had issued a letter to

Regional Transport Officer, Uppal, R.R. District to furnish the ownership particulars of Maruthi Swift Dezire Car bearing

Registration No.AP 29 AM 9977 and Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing Registration No.AP 29 AQ 8219 and accordingly PW13 furnished the details vide letter dated 19-02-2014 and 07-08-2014 by enclosing Ex.P39 and Ex.P40, Form No.24 B-Register of Motor

Vehicles referred above. PW62 further deposed that he received

Ex.P34 attested copy of invoice, delivery receipt, three receipt vouchers and copy of insurance policy of Maruthi Swift Dezire vehicle sold to Dr.A.Venu Gopal from PW10 under the cover of letter

dated 10-02-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received Ex.P35

customer copy of tax invoice cum sale letter in the name of A2

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani along with copy of invoice, temporary certificate of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 83 of 185 registration, Tax receipt, copy of order form and ledger copy of

Suzuki Access vehicle sold to Smt.L.Vijaya Rani from PW11 under the cover of letter dated 23-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he had seized Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 from the residence of Dr.A.Venu Gopal on 13-09-2013 under Ex.P1 search list. PW62 further deposed that he had received Ex.P85 from PW36 under the cover of letter dated 20-01-2014 and also received Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 from PW16 under the cover of letter dated 18-06-2014 and also received Ex.P49 to

Ex.P66 from PW17 under the cover of letter dated 06-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he collected the gold price prevailing during the check period from Mr.Praveen Kumar, Secretary, Twin Cities

Jewellers Association, Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P144 letter

dated 18-04-2014 .

(m)PW62 further deposed that he had collected Ex.P75

Annual Property Returns of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the years 1999-2013 except 2010 from AGM (P&A), BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad under the cover of letter dated 09-10-2013 and also received Statements I to VI in original as in Ex.P145 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal furnishing the details of movable and immovable properties acquired by himself and his family members from Chief Vigilance Officer, BDL,

Hyderabad vide letter dated 06-11-2013.

(n)PW62 further deposed that during investigation, on his request the CPWD authorities conducted the valuation of the residential buildings of Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani situated at Bheemreedynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad and the two rooms situated at Hayathnagar, R.R. District and submitted their valuation report under Ex.P98 under the cover of letter dated 25-02-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 84 of 185 2015. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, on his request the BDL Authorities furnished pay and salary particulars, loans and advances and other emoluments paid to Dr.A.Venu Gopal, during his service in BDL under Ex.P71 to Ex.P74 from AGM (P&A),

BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad under the cover of letters dated 09- 10-2013 and 11-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation he issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to Income

Tax authorities to furnish the Income Tax Returns in respect of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani and accordingly, Income Tax authorities furnished Ex.P146 certified copies of Returns of Income filed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003- 04 and 2005-06 to 2011-13 and 2013-14 vide letter dated 06-02- 2014 from Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, he received the details of provident fund loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from BDL,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad vide letter dated 06-01-2014 along with statement of PF loans sanctioned from 1999 to 2013 to Dr.A.Venu

Gopal vide ST.No.30974 under Ex.P147.

(o)PW62 further deposed that in response to the notice issued under section 91 Cr.P.C, he received the housing loan application under Ex.P76, Ex.P77 loan sanction letter and statement of account of housing loan account under Ex.78 and related documents from PW27 Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Abid Circle

Branch, Hyderabad vide letters dated 07-10-2013 and 07-11-2013.

PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of statement of overdraft account bearing No.104531041900064 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under Ex.P43 from Andhra Bank, BDL

Branch, Hyderabad. PW62 further deposed that during investigation,

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 85 of 185 in response to his notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the Branch

Managers, LIC of India, Malakpet and Musheerabad Branches,

Hyderabad furnished the details of LIC polices held by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal vide policy Nos.644255264, 644214155 and 644237436 under

Ex.P79 to Ex.P81 from PW29 Branch Manager, LIC of India, Malakpet

Branch, Hyderabad vide letter dated 10-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he has received certified copies of sale deeds registered vide document Nos.1155/1999 under Ex.P15, 5708/1999 under Ex.P13, 5709/1999 under Ex.P14, 8775/2000 under

Ex.P17 and sale deed document No.8387/2001 from SRO,

Champapet under the cover of letter dated 01-10-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received CC of registered sale deed under

Ex.P22, 7824/2003 under Ex.P19, 4435/2007 under Ex.P21, 4436/2007 under Ex.P20 and sale deed document No.1255/2003 and document No.12504/2003 from SRO, Champapet vide letter dated 07-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he received original Income Tax Returns of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 under Ex.P82 from PW29

G.Vijay Kumar, Income Tax Officer under the cover of Ex.P148 receipt memo dated 23-06-2014 under which Ex.P82 was collected from PW29.

(p)PW62 further deposed that during investigation, he received the details of loans availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from BDL

Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad from

Secretary of the said society vide letter dated 26-02-2014 along with the details of the loan under Ex.P149. PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of sale deed under Ex.P29 from PW6 SRO

Uppal under the cover of letter dated 07-02-2014 and also received

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 86 of 185

Ex.P28 CC of sale deed and Statement of Encumbrance on Property

dated 03-07-2014 from PW6 SRO, Uppal under the cover of letter

dated 03-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received certified

copies of statement of account of SB A/c.No.734010058346 in the name of Mr.L.Nagabhushanam and SB A/c.No.734010062884 in the name of Mrs.L.laxmamma under Ex.P83 and Ex.P84 from PW33

Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank, Miryalaguda Branch under the cover letter dated 21-02-2014 and also debit and credit vouchers in respect of the above SB Accounts from Branch Head, ING Vysya

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch under the cover letter dated 03-07-2014.

PW62 further deposed that he received certified copy of Statement of Account of SB A/c.No.34402200069033 standing in the name of

Mr.L.Laxman Das and Statement of Account of SB

A/c.No.34402200032032standinginthenameof

Mr.L.Nagabhushanam from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch.

PW62 further deposed that he received CC of Sale deeds under

Ex.P16, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 along with

Encumbrance Certificates from SRO, Champapet under the cover of letters dated 22-08-2014 and dated 23-08-2014. PW62 further deposed that he also collected the Encumbrance Certificates in respect of registered sale deeds under Ex.P15, Ex.P13, Ex.P14,

Ex.P17, Ex.P16, Documents bearing No.9391/2001 (CC of Ex.P11), 518/2002 (CC of Ex.P114) , 6197/2002 (CC of Ex.P10), 8574/2006 (CC of Ex.P12) and 28305/2006 (CC of Ex.P18) under the cover of letter dated 10-10-2013 and Ex.P150 is the CCs of Encumbrance

Certificates. PW62 further deposed that he also collected Ex.P103,

Ex.P106 and Ex.P109 the Statement of Accounts in respect of amounts invested in Chits at Shriram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 87 of 185 and amount received by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani towards group ticket

No.67013/39, 80003/23 and 80005/24, under cover of letter dated 11-03-2014.

(q)PW62 further deposed that he also collected three

Application forms under Ex.P101, Ex.P104 and Ex.P107 in respect of above said Chits standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani/

Smt.L.Vijaya Rani under the cover of Ex.P151 receipt memo dated 03-09-2014. PW62 further deposed that he collected the details of admission fee, tuition fee etc paid in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud, sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal, the Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 18-12-2013 along with the payment details under

Ex.P152.PW62 further deposed that he collected the School expenditure details in respect of Miss A.Vaidarshi daughter of A1

Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Head Mistress, St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P153 letter dated 07-02-2014 where-under the details of school fee paid by him in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2010- 2011 amounting to Rs.74,410/-. PW62 further deposed that he had collected the College fee details towards in respect of Miss

A.Vaidarshi daughter of Dr. A. Venu Gopal from the Principal Sri

Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Tarnaka, Hyderabad under the cover of

Ex.P154 letter dated 07-12-2013 for the period 2011 to 2013. PW62 further deposed that he also collected the details of tuition and other fees paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for studying Law Course from

Principal, College of Law for Women, Andhra Mahila Sabha,

Hyderabad under the cover of Ex.P155 letter dated 04-12-2013, for the academic years 2009-2012.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 88 of 185

(r)PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document Nos.6731/2003, 9027/2003 and 4514/2000 from SRO, Uppal under the cover of Ex.P156 letter dated 19-12- 2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.430/2003 from SRO, Choutuppal under the cover of Ex.P157 letter dated 23-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.695/2009 from

SRO, Ghatkesar under the cover of Ex.P158 letter dated 23-12-2013.

PW62 further deposed that he received details of membership fee paid to the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal along with the original application form under

Ex.P86 and Statement of account under Ex.P87 from PW42 in respect of his Silver Privilege Membership under cover of letter

dated 09-12-2013 of Mr.K.Bhanu Murthy(PW42) and also collected

Ex.P88 application for Master Life Membership of Dr.A.Venu Gopal with M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad from

PW42 under the cover letter dated 04-01-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly electrical charges paid in respect of service No.1603-1344 and 1603-2009 standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Assistant Accounts Officer,

ERO, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad under a cover of Ex.P159 letter dated 09-12-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of property tax paid in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G standing in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani from Deputy Commissioner, LB Nagar

Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad under Ex.P89 under the cover of letter

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 89 of 185

dated 05-11-2013. PW62 further deposed that he received Car loan

and interest paid on the loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from

Assistant Manager (Legal), M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad under the cover of letter dated 15-10-2013 along with Ex.P160 attested copy of loan application and Ex.P95 true extract of statement of account. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of Car loan and interest paid on the loan availed by Dr.A.Venu

Gopal under Ex.P90 letter dated 22-01-2014.PW62 further deposed that he received the details of property tax and water charges paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar

Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu

Gopal, along with Ex.P91 and Ex.P92 under the cover of Ex.P161 letter dated 07-01-2014 of Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat

Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal. PW62 further deposed that on his requisition he received the details of property tax paid in respect of

No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony,

Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal under the cover of Ex.P162 letter dated 12-02-2014 of Bill Collector,

Gram Panchayat Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal.

(s)PW62 further deposed that he received the details of housing loan availed and interest paid thereon by Dr.A.Venu Gopal from State Bank of India, Karvan branch, Hyderabad along with attested copies of loan documents and Ex.P163 statement of account of housing loan A/c.No.01593013216 under the cover of letter dated 10-07-2014.PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill amount paid towards landline number 040- 27205672 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Senior

Accounts Officer (TR-I), Office of DGM, BSNL, Musheerabad

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 90 of 185

Telephone Exchange, Hyderabad as in Ex.P94 under the cover of letter dated 23-06-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the certified copy of housing loan account statement vide

No.LBHYD00000357707 standing in the name of A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal from PW49 as in Ex.P96. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of interest and other charges paid along with other details on housing loan availed from United Bank of India, Hyderabad Branch,

Bank Street, Hyderabd by A1 Dr.A.Venu Gopal and A2- Smt.A.Vijaya

Rani from PW46 as in Ex.P93 statement of account under the cover of letter dated 22-07-2014. PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill payments in respect of mobile

No.9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) from

Sub Divisional Engineer (Tech) office of DGM (NOW-III), CM, Saifabad,

Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 20-06-2014 as in Ex.P97.

PW62 further deposed that he received the details of monthly bill payments in respect of mobile No.8978134581 and 9866520552 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal Circle Nodal

Officer, M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad under cover of letter dated 08-08-2014 from PW61 as in Ex.P110. PW62 further deposed that he furnished the meter reading details of Maruthi Swift

Dezire bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 and Suzuki Access BS-III two wheeler bearing No.AP 29 AQ 8219 to Regional Transport Officer,

Rangareddy East, Uppal and requested him to furnish the fuel and maintenance expenditure incurred on the said two vehicles as per their existing rules and procedures and accordingly, based on the inputs provided by him he had received the fuel and maintenance expenditure incurred in respect of the said two vehicles from

Regional Transport Officer, Rangareddy East, Uppal under cover of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 91 of 185 letter dated 13-03-2019 from PW56 as in Ex.P99. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, he also collected attested copy of Bharath Dynamics Limited conduct, discipline and Appeal rules as in Ex.P69 from Vigilance Department, BDL, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad.

(t)PW62 further deposed that during course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements ofwinesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW62 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he has given opportunity to the accused No.1 and A2 at various stages of investigation and recorded their explanation with regard to the assets acquired by them, income and expenditure. PW62 further deposed that the Assets at the beginning of the check period were listed in Statement-A enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to Rs.1,22,800/-. PW62 further deposed that the Assets at the end of the check period were listed in Statement-B enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to

Rs.1,68,65,610.15 ps. PW62 further deposed that the Income and other receipts of Accused persons during the check period were listed in Statement-C enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to

Rs.1,70,14,560/-. PW62 further deposed that the Expenditure and other payments during the check period were listed in Statement-D enclosed to the charge sheet amounting to Rs.85,85,515.70 ps.

(u)PW62 further deposed that basing on the above said statements A, B, C and D, he has calculated the disproportionate assets of accused No.1 and A2 and arrived at an amount of

Rs.83,13,766/- which is disproportionate to their known sources of income and which was not satisfactorily accounted for during the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 92 of 185 investigation and the calculation is done by deducting the value of the assets at the beginning of check period i.e, as on 01-01-1999 from the value of the assets at the end of the check period i.e, as on 13-09-2013 by which the value of the assets acquired during the check period is arrived and further the expenditure and other payments incurred during the check period i.e, between 01-01-1999 to 13-09-2013 was added to the value of assets acquired during the check period and the resulting figure was compared with the income and other receipts of the accused No.1 and 2 during the check period i.e, between 01-01-1999 to 13-09-2013 and found that the value of assets acquired during the check period and expenditure is more than the income and other receipts of the accused No.1 and

A2 during the check period to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- which workout to 48.86% of disproportionate assets more than the income and other receipts of the accused persons.

(v)PW62 further deposed that after conclusion of the investigation, he had served the Statement-A, Statement-B,

Statement-C and Statement-D referred above along with the calculation of DA to the accused persons to submit their explanation for the said disproportionate amount duly explaining them the contents of said statements wherein various values of various properties (Movable and Immovable), income and other receipts, expenditure and payments considered by him based on the evidences elicited during the investigation and accordingly, the accused persons submitted their written explanation with regard to the disproportionate assets arrived at by him and he also gone through the said explanation and as he was not satisfied with regard to the certain additional income and receipts furnished by A1 and A2

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 93 of 185 in their explanation, the same was not allowed and he allowed certain additional income and receipt for which A1 and A2 furnished the documentary evidences. PW62 further deposed that during the investigation, A1 and A2 produced before him certain registers with regard to the expenditure incurred by them in respect of construction of additional floor for the house bearing No.3-118/1,

Plot No.186/A and 186/B, Bheem Reddy Colony, Boduppla, Ranga

Reddy District standing the name of the Accused No.1 for considering the total construction cost recorded in the said registers and however, after perusal of those registers as it was found that the entries made in the said registers with regard to the various payments and expenditure incurred with regard to the additional construction of three floors were not commensurate with the construction materials reported required for the construction of three floors, the same was not considered and in that regard he sought the verbal opinion of construction engineers of CPWD. PW62 further deposed that after seeking the final explanation with regard to the disproportionate of assets arrived during the investigation to the extent of Rs.83,13,766/- and as he is not satisfied with the said explanation, he obtained sanction order for the prosecution of

Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) from the competent authority i.e.,

Dr.N.Krishnam Raju (PW57). PW62 further deposed that as his investigation revealed that the accused No.1 incurred expenditure and other payments amounting to Rs.85,85,516/- against the total income and other receipts of Rs.1,70,14,560/- and the likely savings of the A1 is Rs.84,29,044/- and the total assets held by A1 in his name and in the name of his family members worked out to

Rs.1,68,65,610/- against the assets owned at the beginning of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 94 of 185 check period amount to Rs.1,22,800/- and therefore, the total assets acquired by the accused No.1 during the check period workout to

Rs.1,67,42,810/-. PW62 further deposed that the amount of disproportionate assets acquired by A1 in his name and in the name of his family members during the check period is Rs.83,13,766/- which is 48.86% disproportion with reference to the total income and other receipts of the accused persons. PW62 further deposed that based on the outcome of investigation after obtaining the prosecution sanction order against the Accused No.1, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 and against A2 for the offence punishable under section 109 of IPC r/w13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of

P.C. Act, 1988 for abetting the accused No.1 in the said offence

before the Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Assets of

the accused before check period

112.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer in computation of

Statement-A in charge sheet arrived the value of assets as on 01.01.1999 as Rs.1,22,800/- and the Investigating Officer failed to consider the assets of A2 before the check period, as admittedly the marriage of A2 with A1 was performed on 01.05.1994 which is prior to the check period. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that as per the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, they categorically deposed that they have presented 100 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to their daughter ie., A2 at the time of marriage as Sthridhana and they also presented a motorcycle, household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 95 of 185 they have also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995 and the

Investigating Officer ought to have added the assets which were given to A2 by her parents at the time of her marriage, to

Statement-A. The learned counsel for A1 categorically submitted that if the value of 100 tulas gold, household articles, cash of

Rs.5.00 lakhs presented at the time of marriage of A2 and

Rs.1.00 lakh presented to the first child of accused at the time of cradle ceremony is calculated, it comes to Rs.13,19,300/- and if the said amount is added, the total assets at the beginning of the check period comes to Rs.14,42,100/- as against the amount of

Rs.1,22,800/- shown by the Investigating Officer in Statement-A.

113.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, there is no other independent evidence adduced by the accused to prove the same and even the accused not filed any documents in support of their contention and as per the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, they have categorically stated that they have shown the gold, cash and other articles presented to A2 at the time of marriage in their Income Tax

Returns for the relevant assessment years, but failed to file the said

Income Tax Returns to prove the same and therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents and also the Income

Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, it is not safe to rely upon the oral testimony of PW-35 and DW-1 with regard to the presentation of gold, cash and other household articles to A2 at the time of marriage and as such, the accused failed to prove the gold, other articles and cash presented to A2 at the time of her marriage, therefore, the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1 is of no value in the eye of law.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 96 of 185

114.I have perused the evidence of PW-35 and DW-1. PW-35 and DW-1 categorically stated in their evidence about their presentation of 100 tulas of gold, cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of marriage in the year 1994 and also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995. As can be seen from the entire evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, though they have stated about the presentation of gold, household articles and cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to A2 as Sthreedhana at the time of marriage, they have not filed any documents in support of their contention and even they have not filed their Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years to prove the same, as admittedly both PW-35 and DW-1 categorically admitted in their cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that they are Income

Tax Assessees and they have shown the gold, cash and other household articles presented to A2 at the time of her marriage in their Income Tax Returns. Therefore, in the absence of any documents and Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that PW-35 and DW-1 presented Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 100 tulas of gold and Rs.3.00 lakhs worth household articles to A2 at the time of her marriage and also given a cash of Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of cradle ceremony of the first child of A1 and A2 in the year 1995, as such I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.13,19,300/- to be added to Statement-A, is not tenable in the absence of any documentary evidence to support the said contention. Therefore, the assets of the accused before the check period is taken as

Rs.1,22,800/- as mentioned in Statement-A annexed to the charge

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 97 of 185 sheet.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Assets of

accused during the Check Period from 01.01.1999 to

13.09.2013

115.As per the charge sheet the assets of A1 and A2 at the end of the check period worked out to Rs.1,68,65,610/- and they have shown the said properties as Item Nos.1 to 22 in Statement-B annexed to charge sheet. Out of the 22 items shown in Statement-B annexed to the charge sheet, the accused not disputed the properties shown at Item Nos.1 to 3, 5, 8 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 & 21.

Item No.4:

116.As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, the Investigating Officer shown the value of Item No.4 property at Rs.6,91,500/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 purchased Flat No.G1 in ground

Floor, Sri Ram Residency, Maruthi Nagar under L.B.Nagar

Municipality for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/- under Ex.P10 Sale

Deed and the Investigating Officer added Rs.3,50,000/- to the value of the said property as amount spent for additional/extra work for the said semi-finished Flat as per the Agreement for additional works with M/s. Renuka Constructions, Hyderabad under Ex.P115. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that no

additional works were executed by the accused as alleged, as

Ex.P115 alleged Agreement for additional works does not contain the signature of A2, which is confirmed by PW-62 Investigating Officer and the prosecution failed to examine any witnesses to prove the

additional construction and the receipt annexed to Ex.P115 does not

contain date, bill number, details of cash/cheque payment and as

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 98 of 185 there is no signature of A2 on Ex.P115 and as there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the additional works executed, the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- mentioned in Ex.P115 is to be deleted from the total amount of Rs.6,91,500/- shown against Item No.4 in

Statement-B and if the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is deleted, the value of Item No.4 of Statement-B comes to Rs.3,41,500/- only.

117.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that as per Ex.P10, A2 purchased Flat No.G1 in semi-finished condition for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/-, which is clearly mentioned in the Sale Deed and after purchase of the said semi- finished Flat, A2 entered into Ex.P115 Agreement with M/s. Renuka

Constructions for completion of the remaining works for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and even the Receipt which is annexed to Ex.P115 clearly goes to show that M/s. Renuka Constructions received an amount of Rs.6,91,500/- from A1 and therefore, the contention of accused that no additional works were executed, is not tenable and the total value of the property as taken by the Investigating Officer at Rs.6,91,500/- is supported by documents.

118.As can be seen from Ex.P10 Sale Deed under which A2 purchased semi-finished Flat for a consideration of Rs.3,41,500/- which is not in dispute and as can be seen from the contents of

Ex.P10, the Flat was purchased in semi-finished condition. The accused not adduced any evidence to show that even as on the date of registration of this case, the said Flat is in semi-finished condition only. Admittedly, there is no signature of A2 on Ex.P115, but the

Receipt appended to Ex.P115 clearly goes to show that an amount of

Rs.6,91,500/- was paid by A1 to M/s. Renuka Constructions from

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 99 of 185 whom A2 purchased semi-finished Flat under Ex.P10 Sale Deed.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused that the Flat purchased under Ex.P10 is in semi-finished condition and no additional works were executed as on the date of registration of this case and in view of the Receipt appended to Ex.P115 showing the payment of Rs.6,91,500/- by A1 to M/s. Renuka Constructions, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that no additional works were executed after to purchase of semi-finished Flat under

Ex.P10 Sale Deed, therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the total amount of Rs.6,91,500/- is to be deleted from the value of the property shown at Item No.4 in

Statement-B, is not tenable.

Item No.6:

119.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property house bearing

No.3-118/1, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal at Rs.78,84,849/- as per the report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D4 Register which containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction of the above said house which comes to

Rs.56,64,394/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D4 and the Vouchers and bills submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 100 of 185 by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by PW-54 and arrived at Rs.78,84,849/- as the value of the property shown at Item

No.6 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62, during the cross-examination, the Declarations submitted by A1 are marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and the Register in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B as Ex.D4. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of

Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98 Report.

120.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D4 Register during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D4 Register does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in Ex.D4 Register and therefore, PW-62 considered the report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.6.

Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B as per Ex.P98

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 101 of 185

Report.

121.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D4

Register marked through PW-62 during the cross-examination.

PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that the A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of

Bills, Receipts along with original Books of Accounts related to the construction expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the

Books of Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

122.As can be seen from Ex.D4 Register, as well as Bills,

Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked as Ex.D7, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the

Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross-examination of PW- 62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D4 Register and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of Ex.D4 Register as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction of house shown at Sl.No.6 in Statement-B as

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 102 of 185

Rs.56,64,394/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.22,20,455/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at Sl.No.6 of Statement-B at Rs.78,84,849/-, is not tenable.

Item No.7:

123.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property house bearing

No.3-117/22, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad at

Rs.21,94,417/- as per the Report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D5 Dairy which is containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction of the above said house which comes to

Rs.17,38,982/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D5 and the Vouchers and Bills submitted by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by PW-54 and arrived at Rs.21,94,417/- as the value of the property shown at Item

No.7 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62 during the cross-examination, the Declarations

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 103 of 185 submitted by A1 are marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and Dairy in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at

Sl.No.7 of Statement-B as Ex.D5. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of

Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98 Report.

124.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D5 Dairy during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D5 Dairy does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in Ex.D5 Dairy and therefore,

PW-62 considered the Report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.7. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.7 of Statement-B as per Ex.P98 report.

125.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D5

Dairy marked through PW-62 during the cross-examination. PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of Bills, Receipts along with original books of accounts related to the construction

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 104 of 185 expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the Books of

Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

126.As can be seen from Ex.D5 Dairy, as well as Ex.D7 Bills,

Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked through

PW-62, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross- examination of PW-62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D5 Dairy and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of

Ex.D5 Dairy as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction of house shown at Sl.No.7 in

Statement-B as Rs.17,38,982/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,55,435/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at Sl.No.7 of Statement-B at

Rs.21,94,417/-, is not tenable.

Item No.13:

127.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of the property ie., 2 rooms and compound wall constructed on Plot Nos.69, 70, 71, 72 and 74

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 105 of 185 admeasuring 1761 sq. yards situated at Mithilapuri, Phase-II of

Hattiguda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R.District at Rs.7,13,169/- as per the report of PW-54 CPWD Engineer. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the property on higher side without considering the actual amount incurred by the accused at the time of construction of the house and the accused during the course of investigation of the case, as per the notice issued by the

Investigating Officer submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations along with

Ex.D6 Two Note Books which containing actual expenditure incurred by the accused for construction over the said property which comes to Rs.2,53,887/- and the Investigating Officer without considering the

Books of Account under Ex.D6 Two Note Books, Vouchers and bills submitted by the accused relied upon Ex.P98 Report submitted by

PW-54 and arrived at Rs.7,13,169/- as the value of the property shown at Item No.13 in Statement-B. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62 Investigating Officer during his cross-examination categorically admitted that the accused shown the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Receipts and

Estimates to him at the time of investigation and he has not considered the same and through PW-62 during the cross- examination, the Declarations submitted by A1 marked as Exs.D2 and D3 and Two Note Books in respect of the accounts maintained for construction of house shown at Sl.No.13 of Statement-B as

Ex.D6. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that

PW-62 without considering the documents submitted by the accused showing the actual expenditure for the construction of the house returned the Books of Accounts, Vouchers, Bills and Estimates to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 106 of 185 accused and shown higher value of the property basing on Ex.P98

Report.

128.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that though PW-62 admitted that the accused submitted Exs.D2, D3 and D6 Two Note Books during the course of investigation, he has returned the same to the accused as there is no evidence in support of the said documents and even Ex.D6 Two Note Books does not contain any signatures of the accused and the accused even failed to examine any of the witnesses in support of the said entries in

Ex.D6 Two Note Books and therefore, PW-62 considered the report submitted by PW-54, who is an authorized Engineer of CPWD submitted under Ex.P98 and arrived the correct valuation of the property shown at Sl.No.13. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to consider the value of the property at Sl.No.13 of

Statement-B as per Ex.P98 Report.

129.I have perused the evidence of PW-62 Investigating

Officer in this regard, as well as Exs.D2, D3 Declarations and Ex.D6

Two Note Books marked through PW-62 during the cross- examination. PW-62 in his cross-examination on this aspect, categorically stated that A1 submitted Exs.D2, D3 Declarations during the course of investigation and also handed over self-attested photo copies of Bills, Receipts along with original Books of Accounts related to the construction expenditure of the buildings and after submitting the Books of Accounts pertaining to the construction of the buildings by the accused, he has examined some of the construction labour and workers, who are named in the Books of

Accounts and after examining them, he has returned the said Books

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 107 of 185 of Accounts to the accused, as it was not satisfactory.

130.As can be seen from Ex.D6 Two Note Books, as well as

Ex.D7 Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by the accused got marked through PW-62, the same does not contain the signatures of accused and even the Bills, Estimates and Vouchers does not contain the signatures and as well as the name of the accused and even the accused failed to adduce any evidence to prove the Bills, Vouchers and Estimates filed by them and marked as Ex.D7 during the cross- examination of PW-62 on confrontation. Therefore, in the absence of the signatures of the accused on Ex.D6 Two Note Books and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused to support the contents of Ex.D6 Two Note Books as well as Ex.D7 Bills, Estimates and Receipts, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the actual amount spent by them for construction over the said property shown at Sl.No.13 in Statement-B as Rs.2,53,887/- and as such the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,59,282/- is to be deleted from the total value of the property shown at

Sl.No.13 of Statement-B at Rs.7,13,169/-, is not tenable.

131.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 personally supervised the construction of properties shown at item Nos.6, 7 & 13 of Statement-B and therefore, 10% of the construction cost is to be deducted but PW-54 deducted only 6% from the construction cost of the house under the

Head of Personal Supervision. On perusal of Ex.P98 Report, PW-54 deducted 6% of construction cost under the Head of Personal

Supervision. The accused failed to file any authenticated document in support of their contention that 10% of construction cost is to be

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 108 of 185 deducted under the Head Personal Supervision. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents to support the contention of the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that 10% of the construction cost is to be deducted under the Head of Personal Supervision from the total construction cost.

Item No.17:

132.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of Maruti

Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP29 AM 9977 in the name of A1 as

Rs.6,50,447/-. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer added Rs.12,552/- to the said amount as paid for accessories without any evidence and therefore, the amount of Rs.12,552/- is to be deducted from the total value of the vehicle shown at Rs.6,50,447/- and if the said amount is deducted the value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17 of Statement-B comes to

Rs.6,37,895/-.

133.In support of the value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17, the prosecution examined PW-10, who is the General Manager of

M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad, from whom A1 purchased the vehicle and as per the evidence of PW-10, A1 purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs.6,22,307/- and out of which an amount of

Rs.2,46,137/- paid by cash and Rs.4,78,240/- was received from the finance provided by Magma Fincorp Limited and an amount of

Rs.15,588/- was paid towards insurance premium, an amount of

Rs.74,680/- was paid towards life tax and an amount of Rs.12,552/- was paid towards accessories and other charges. The accused disputing the payment of Rs.12,552/- paid towards accessories and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 109 of 185 other charges, but the accused failed to cross-examine PW-10 on this aspect by suggesting him that the accused has not paid

Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges and the learned counsel for the accused reported the cross-examination of PW-10 as ‘Nil’. Therefore, in the absence of any cross-examination to PW-10 disputing the payment of Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges, I am of the opinion that the accused No.1 failed to prove his contention that he has not paid Rs.12,552/- towards accessories and other charges and therefore, he is not entitled for deletion of the said amount of Rs.12,552/- from the total value of the vehicle shown at Sl.No.17 of Statement-B as Rs.6,50,447/-.

Item No.19:

134.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the value of the gold jewellery Items at Sl.No.19 of Statement-B at Rs.4,52,134/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that all the gold Items are the exchanged gold Items which were received by A2 as Sthreedhana at the time of her marriage and PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 confirmed this fact and as per their evidence they have given 115 tulas of gold to A2 ie., 100 tulas at the time of marriage in 1994 and 5 tulas each at the time of birth of 03 children of A1 and A2 in the year 1995, 1999 and 2003 respectively.

The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the 100 tulas of gold found in the Bank Locker as per Ex.P3 includes the 15 tulas of gold given to the grand children by PW-35 and DW-1 and by rough estimation, 85 tulas was only shown as net weight but it was more than 85 tulas and the difference is due to exchange of old gold

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 110 of 185 for new ornaments and as per the evidence of DW-3, 15 tulas of gold was sold for Rs.4,20,000/- and notwithstanding the above defence, the Court has to consider that out of 12 Items shown in Ex.P3, six items are gifts, Item Nos.2, 7, 11 and 12 were exchanged for old gold items, Item Nos.9 and 10 are one and the same, which was also a gift received at the time of marriage and Ex.P53 shows the value of Item No.11 as Rs.61,500/- but not Rs.63,900/- and PW-17 stated that Ex.P51 relates to an exchange and hence Rs.21,350/- is to be deleted.

135.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that Exs.P67 and P68 are rough calculation slips and estimates as stated by PW-17 and therefore, the difference of Rs.3,52,134/- is to be deleted from the value of gold jewellery shown at Item No.19 of

Statement-B at Rs.4,52,134/- and if the said amount is deleted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be shown as the value of gold jewellery shown at Item No.19 of Statement-B.

136.As can be seen from the evidence available on record, it was already held that the accused failed to prove that the parents of

A2, presented 100 tulas of gold at the time of marriage and 5 tulas of gold each at the time of birth of the 3 children of A2 as they failed to adduce any independent evidence and failed to file any documents including the Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1 as they have admitted to have been shown the above gold presented to A2 in their Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years.

As per the contention of accused, Exs.P67 and P68 are estimates and the prosecution failed to file the purchase bills in respect of the said gold items. As can been from Ex.P67, it is an estimation for

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 111 of 185 purchase of vaddanam and PW-17 deposed evidence in support of the same and as can been seen from Ex.P67 there is an endorsement of payment of amount. Even as can be seen from

Ex.P3, two vaddanams were shown found in the locker and out of which one is shown as marriage gift and the other one as purchased and if the vaddanam shown in Ex.P67 estimation is not purchased, there is no explanation from the accused about the second vaddanam shown in Ex.P3 Inventory. As far as the evidence of DW-3 is concerned, his evidence cannot be believed as he categorically stated in his evidence that he has facilitated A2 in selling of 15 tulas of gold items and through DW-3 Exs.D8 and D9 Receipts are marked which were passed by DW-3 in favour of A2. As per the contention of A2, they have sold 15 tulas of gold for Rs.4,20,000/- to DW-3. But

DW-3 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that there is no receipt number on Exs.D8 and D9 and there is no mention in

Exs.D8 and D9 that he has facilitated A2 for selling of gold ornaments and even his signatures were not available on Exs.D8 and

D9. Therefore, in view of the above admission of DW-3 that he has not purchased 15 tulas of gold from A2 and that Exs.D8 and D9 does not contain his signatures, I am of the opinion that the evidence of

DW-3 and Exs.D8 and D9 are no way helpful to the accused to support their contention that they have sold 15 tulas of gold ornaments to DW-3 for a consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. Therefore, on perusal of entire material available on record and in the absence of independence evidence adduced by the accused and in the absence of the Income Tax Returns of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 to prove the fact of presentation of 115 tulas of gold to

A2, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 112 of 185 amount of Rs.3,52,134/- is to be deleted from the total value of gold jewellery items shown at Sl.No.19 of Statement-B.

Item No.20:

137.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the value of household articles as per the inventory taken in the house of accused on 13.09.2013 at

Rs.4,39,500/-. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that in the said amount the Investigating Officer also included the value of Laptop as Rs.26,000/- which was purchased by

A1 with the computer loan of Rs.25,000/- advanced by BDL in the year 2011 as per Ex.P73 and the ceiling fans are included in the internal electrical installations in Ex.P98 Report and in statement-A the TV worth Rs.10,000/- was added but again in Ex.P3 Inventory it was added and therefore, an amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of household articles shown at Sl.No.20 of

Statement-B and if the said amount of Rs.56,000/- is deleted, the value of Item No.20 of Statement-B worked out to Rs.3,83,500/-.

138.As can be seen from the evidence on record, the

Investigating Officer has shown the value of the articles found in the house of the accused during the Search Proceedings and prepared

Ex.P2 Inventory and in the said Inventory the year of acquisition of article was clearly mentioned. As can be seen from Ex.P2 at Sl.No.8, the TV is shown as acquired in the year 1999 and its value is shown as Rs.10,000/-. Even as can be seen from Ex.P98 CPWD Report submitted by PW-54, there is no mention that the value of the ceiling fans were included in the said Report and in Ex.P98 it is mentioned that the value of internal electrical fittings were included. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 113 of 185 accused failed to adduce any evidence and failed to file any documents to show that the ceiling fans and TV found in the house at the time of Ex.P3 Inventory were acquired prior to the check period and admittedly the Laptop was purchased in the year 2011.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the TV and fans were purchased prior to the check period and also in the absence of any evidence that the value of ceiling fans were included in Ex.P98

Report, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of

Rs.4,39,500/- shown towards the value of household articles at

Sl.No.20 of Statement-B.

Item No.22:

139.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown Rs.19.00 lakhs as investment made by

A2 in M/s. Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital, Balanagar. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A2 invested an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs by way of three cheques and the said amount was provided by her father and the remaining amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs, a personal cheque was given to PW-16 by

A2 and the same was withdrawn by PW-16 and therefore, as the entire amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested in M/s. Sri Royal India Multi

Specialty Hospital by A2 is to be deleted from the assets of accused

No.2 during the check period.

140.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri Royal India Multi Specialty

Hospital and in support of the said contention, the prosecution examined PW-16 and got marked Exs.P47 and P48 and as per the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 114 of 185 evidence of PW-16, the invested amount was paid by A2 by way of three cheques issued in favour of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty

Hospital and they were realized in the Hospital Account and for the balance amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs, A2 issued a cheque on his name and he has withdrawn the said amount and Ex.P47 Statement of

Bank account of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital clearly goes to show the amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested by A2 and Ex.P48

Partnership Agreement also reflects the name of A2 as one of the

Partners of Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital during the check period.

141.I have perused the evidence of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and

P48. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and

P48, A2 issued three cheques for Rs.5.00 lakhs each favouring Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital towards her investment and she has also issued another cheque for Rs.4.00 lakhs favoring PW-16 and the same was withdrawn by PW-16. PW-16 in his evidence categorically stated that the amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs invested by

A2 against her 20% share in the Hospital which is reflected in Ex.P48

Partnership Agreement. Therefore, on perusal of PW-16 and Exs.P47 and P48, I am of the opinion that A2 invested Rs.19.00 lakhs in Sri

Royal India Multi Specialty Hospital during the check period, as the accused failed to prove that the amount invested by A2 in Sri Royal

India Multi Specialty Hospital was provided by DW-1. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the accused and in view of the fact that A2 invested the amount in Sri Royal India Multi

Specialty Hospital by way of cheques issued by her which were reflected in Ex.P47 Statement and also in view of the evidence of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 115 of 185

PW-16 as nothing was elicited from him adverse to the case of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs shown at Item No.22 of Statement-

B is to be deleted, is not tenable.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding Income

of the accused during the check period

142.Out of the 23 items shown as income and other receipts of the accused during the check period, the accused not disputed the amounts mentioned at Sl.Nos.2 to 23 and he has claimed

additional income and submitted the same along with his written

arguments.

Item No.1:

143.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the income of A1 from salary during the check period at Rs.38,16,679/-. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to file the supplementary payments received by A1 during the check period as admittedly Ex.P73 Pay Particulars does not include the supplementary payments made to the accused during the check period which was admitted by PW-24. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that during the course of trial, the accused made an application and called for the supplementary payments received by A1 during the check period and re-called

PW-24 for further cross-examination and during the further cross- examination, the supplementary payments statement produced by

PW-24 is marked as Ex.D1 and as per Ex.D1 an amount of

Rs.1,14,936/- was paid to A1 towards supplementary bills and

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 116 of 185 therefore, the learned counsel for the accused requested to add this amount of Rs.1,14,936/- to the income of A1 from salary shown at

Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

144.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-24 admitted in the cross-examination that number of other perks received by A1 were not shown in Exs.P71 to P73 which approximately comes to Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and the check period contains 156 months and if an average amount of

Rs.2,500/- per month is taken towards perks paid to A1, it works out to Rs.3,90,000/- and therefore, the supplementary payment is not

Rs.1,14,936/- as shown in Ex.D1 but it should be Rs.3,90,000/-. But as can been seen from the evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1 supplementary payment particulars, it covers the various allowances paid to A1 during the check period. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that the perks paid to A1 during the check period comes to Rs.3,90,000/- is not tenable and in view of evidence of PW-24 and Ex.D1, the amount of Rs.1,14,936/- paid to A1 by way of supplementary bills is to be added to the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

145.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that during the check period, the accused availed a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- towards Car Advance and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards Computer Advance and the Investigating Officer failed to give the benefit of the said amount in the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

146.I have perused Exs.P71 to P73 which were marked

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 117 of 185 through PW-24 and also the evidence of PW-24. PW-24 in his evidence categorically stated that the advances availed by the A1 were included in the gross salary amount and the learned counsel

for the accused not even suggested to PW-24 during the cross-

examination that the Car Advance and Computer Advance were not included in the gross salary. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion given to PW-24 during the cross-examination that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards Car Advance and Rs.25,000/- towards Computer Advance were not included in the gross salary of

A1, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) is to be added to the income of the accused from salary at Sl.No.1 of Statement-C.

Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the amount received by A1 towards supplementary bills during the check period for an amount of Rs.1,14,936/- as shown in Ex.D1 is to be added to the income of the A1 from salary at

Sl.No.1 of Statement-C. If the said amount of Rs.1,14,936/- is added to the income of accused from salary, the total income received by

A1 from salary comes to Rs.39,31,615/-.

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding

Additional Income claimed by the accused by way of defence

shown from Sl.No.24 to 35 of Written Arguments

Item No.24:

147.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that A1 availed a personal loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from

HDFC Bank in the month of July, 2013 and the Investigating Officer failed to include the said amount of loan availed by A1 during the check period to the income of the accused in Statement-C. The

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 118 of 185 learned counsel for the accused submitted that A1 availed a loan of

Rs.5.00 lakhs from HDFC Bank during the check period and the said amount was transferred to the savings account of accused with

Andhra Bank, BDL Branch and the same was reflected in Ex.P43 and even the accused summoned the concerned Officer of HDFC Bank from where he availed the loan and examined as DW-2 and during the evidence of DW-2, the Statement of Account in respect of the personal loan availed by A1 is marked as Ex.C1. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62

Investigating Officer in his cross-examination categorically admitted that as per Ex.P43 Statement of Account, on 28.06.2013 an amount of Rs.4,86,010/- was credited to his account from HDFC Bank.

PW-62 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he has not mentioned the availing of said loan by A1 and its repayment in the charge sheet. Admittedly, the said loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs was availed by A1 from HDFC Bank during the check period and he has paid only one instalment of Rs.11,764/- during the check period and admittedly as per Ex.C1 Statement, the entire loan was repaid after to the check period. Therefore, in view of the evidence of DW-2 and

Ex.P43 and Ex.C1, I am of the opinion that as A1 availed the loan during the check period and an amount of Rs.4,86,010/- was credited to his savings account under Ex.P43 and as A1 repaid one instalment at Rs.11,764/- during the check period, which has to be deleted from the amount of loan of Rs.4,86,010/- received by A1, which comes to Rs.4,74,246/- and as A1 availed the loan during the check period, the said amount of Rs.4,74,246/- is to be added to the income of the accused in Statement-C.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 119 of 185

Item No.25:

148.The learned counsel for the accused categorically stated that the Investigating Officer charged the interest on loan availed by

A1 for purchase of TATA Indica Car in the year 2007 as expenditure in Statement-D, which was disposed by A1 in the year 2010 but the

Investigating Officer failed to add the sale proceeds of Rs.2,50,000/- received by A1 as income during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that A1 during his 313

Cr.P.C. examination submitted the explanation and documents pertaining to the transfer of Indica Car and as such the sale proceeds of Rs.2,50,000/- received by A1 towards sale of his Indica

Car is to be included to the income of accused during the check period.

149.As can been from the entire evidence on record, except the transferring of vehicle on the name of third party obtained from

RTA website, A1 failed to adduce any independent evidence and failed to file any documents to show that he has sold his TATA Indica

Car for Rs.2,50,000/- during the check period. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents in proof of the sale of

Indica Car by A1 during the check period for a consideration of

Rs.2,50,000/-, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove the sale proceeds of TATA Indica Car to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- received by him during the checkperiod is to be added to his income.

Item No.26:

150.The learned counsel for the accused categorically

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 120 of 185 submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs which was received by A2 from her father in the year 2006 by way of gift after selling of 10 acres of agricultural land in Agapally Village and 28 acres of land in Chintapally Village. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-62

Investigating Officer admitted in the cross-examination that the father of A2 whose statement recorded by him during the course of investigation categorically stated that he has sold the land at

Agapally Village and Chintapally Villages. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that DW-1 in his evidence categorically stated that he has provided Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 after selling of 10 acres of land at Agapally Village.

151.As can be seen from the entire evidence available on record, except the oral evidence of DW-1 that he has paid Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 in the year 2006 after selling his agricultural land at

Agapally Village, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. The accused failed to file any Sale Deed under which the father of A2 sold 10 acres of land at

Agapally Village during the check period of this case and that he has given Rs.10.00 lakhs to A2 by way of gift. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in proof of gift of Rs.10.00 lakhs by

DW-1 to A2, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that

A2 received an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs from DW-1 during the check period and that the said amount is to be included to the income of A2 during the check period.

Item No.27:

152.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 121 of 185 that PW-35 and DW-1 gifted Rs.1.00 lakh each to the children of A2 at the time of their births in the years 1995, 1999 and 2003 respectively totalling to Rs.3.00 lakhs and if the amount of

Rs.1.00lakh presented to elder child of accused born in 1995 is deleted, the remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs presented to 2nd and 3rd child of accused, who were born during the check period is to be considered as income of accused during the check period and the same has to be added to the income of accused in Statement-C.

153.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.2.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period towards gift to their 2nd and 3rd child during the check period and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.28:

154. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of A2 provided an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of construction of house bearing No.3-117/22, Boduppal in the year 2006 and even though PW-35 and DW-1 stated to the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of

Rs.20.00 lakhs received by A2 from her parents as income during

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 122 of 185 the check period and failed to show the same in Statement-C.

155.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.20.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for construction of house bearing No.3-117/22,

Boduppal and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No. 29 :

156.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of A2 provided an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs to A2 at the time of construction of house bearing No.3-118/1, Boduppal in the year 2012 and even though PW-35 and DW-1 stated to the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of this case, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs received by A2 from her parents as income during the check period and failed to show the same in Statement-C.

157.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 123 of 185 accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.15.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for construction of house bearing No.3-118/1, Boduppal and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.30:

158.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to show an amount of

Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by the parents of A2 for Dhothi function of the children of accused in the year 2011 and the Investigating

Officer wrongly included an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- as expenditure at Item No.42 of Statement-D and as the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs was provided by the parents of A2 for Dhothi function of the children of accused during the check period, the same has to be added to the income of the accused in Statement-C.

159.On perusal of entire evidence on record, except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2, there is no independent evidence and documents filed by the accused to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.4.00 lakhs from PW-35 and DW-1 during the check period for Dhothi function of their children and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 124 of 185

Item No.31:

160.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to include an amount of

Rs.34,982/- received by the accused as cash gifts on the occasion of

Dhothi function of their children in the year 2011 though Ex.P134

Note book seized by the Investigating Officer, reflects the gifts received worth Rs.34,982/- and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.34,982/- is to be added to the income of the accused during the check period.

161.I have perused the evidence available on record in this aspect. PW-62 Investigating Officer during cross-examination categorically denied that Ex.P134 contains the receipt of cash gifts amounting to Rs.34,982/-. I have perused Ex.P134 Note Book wherein it is categorically mentioned about the cash gifts received amounting to Rs.34,982/-. As can be seen from the record, the

Investigating Officer relied upon Ex.P134 for the purpose of proving the expenditure in connection of Dhothi function of the children of accused. When PW-62 relied upon Ex.P134 Note Book to prove the expenditure, he ought to have considered the entries in Ex.P134 with regard to the cash gifts reflected in the said Note Book.

Therefore, in view of entries in Ex.P134, which is seized by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and as there were entries relating to the cash gifts received during the Dhothi function of the children of the accused, I am of the opinion of that the said amount of Rs.34,982/- received by the accused towards cash gifts at the time of Dhoti function of their children during the check period is to be added to the income of accused during the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 125 of 185 check period.

Item No.32:

162.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to include an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh received by the children of accused at the time of

Dhothi function from PW-35. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-35 she categorically stated that she has gifted Rs.50,000/- each to her grandsons ie., the sons of accused at the time of Dhoti function in the year 2011 and in view of the evidence of PW-35, the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh received by the accused during the check period from PW-35 is to be added to the income of the accused.

Except the oral evidence of PW-35, there is no document filed by the accused to prove the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that they have received Rs.1.00 lakh ie., Rs.50,000/- each to their sons from PW-35 during the check period at the time of

Dhothi function and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.33:

163.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of

Rs.6.00 lakhs received by A2 from her mother ie., PW-35 as gift in the year 2010 and 2011 after availing a gold loan from Syndicate

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 126 of 185

Bank, Miryalaguda Branch. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-35 in her evidence categorically stated that she has given Rs.6.00 lakhs to A2 by availing a Gold Loan from Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and in spite of the evidence of PW-35, the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs as income of A2 during the check period.

164.Except the oral evidence of PW-35, the accused failed to file any document in support of the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received Rs.6.00 lakhs from PW- 35 during the check period as gift by availing the Gold Loan from

Syndicate Bank, Miryalaguda Branch and therefore, the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs is to be added to the income of accused during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.34:

165.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider an amount of

Rs.2,69,000/- received by A2 from her father in the year 2010. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that DW-1 in his evidence categorically deposed that he has given an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- to A2 in the year 2010 and in spite of the evidence of DW-1, whose statement also recorded by PW-62 during the course of investigation failed to consider the said amount of Rs.2,69,000/- as income of the accused during the check period.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 127 of 185

166.I have perused the evidence of DW-1. DW-1 in his chief- examination itself categorically stated that he has given an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- to his daughter in the year 2010 and he has shown the said amount in his Income Tax Returns. Admittedly, DW-1 failed to file his Income Tax Returns before this Court to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents, more particularly, the Income Tax Returns of DW-1 during the relevant assessment years, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- from DW-1 during the check period and that the contention of the accused that the said amount of Rs.2,69,000/- is to be added to the income of accused during the check period in Statement-C, is not tenable.

Item No.35:

167.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that in the year 2011, A2 sold 15 tulas of gold for a consideration of

Rs.4,20,000/- to DW-3 and received the said amount from DW-3 and the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said sale proceeds of gold amounting to Rs.4,20,000/- as income of the accused during the check period.

168.In order to prove this aspect, the accused relying upon the evidence of DW-3. As can be seen from the evidence of DW-3, in his chief-examination itself he has categorically stated that A2 brought the gold to him for selling the same and on request he sold the said gold ornaments to 3rd party and issued Ex.D8 and Ex.D9

Receipts. DW-3 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he facilitated A2 in selling of the gold and admitted that there is no

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 128 of 185 receipt number of Exs.D8 and D9 and that there is no mention in

Exs.D8 and D9 that he has facilitated A2 for selling of her gold ornaments and Exs.D8 and D9 does not contain his signatures.

Therefore, in view of the above admission of DW-3 and in the absence of the signatures of DW-3 on Exs.D8 and D9 and as DW-3 not purchased the gold from A2, I am of the opinion that the evidence of DW-3 and Exs.D8 and D9 are no way helpful to the accused to substantiate their contention that A2 received an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- from DW-3 during the check period by way of sale of 15 tulas of gold. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of DW-3 and his admissions during the cross-examination and as there were no signatures of DW-3 on Exs.D8 and D9, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that A2 received an amount of

Rs.4,20,000/- from DW-3 during the check period by way of sale of gold and that the said amount is to be added to the income of the accused.

169.Therefore, on analyzing the income of the accused with available evidence, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,14,936/- received by A1 towards supplementary bills during the check period and an amount of Rs.4,74,246/- received by the accused as personal loan from HDFC Bank during the check period and an amount of Rs.34,982/- received by the accused towards cash gifts at the time of Dhoti function of their children, totaling to

Rs.6,24,164/- is to be added to the income of accused during the check period and if the said amount is added to the income of accused, the total income received by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.1,76,38,724/-.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 129 of 185

Appreciation of evidence and documents regarding

Expenditure of accused during the check period

170.Out of the 61 items shown in the charge sheet towards expenditure and other payments of the accused during the check period, the accused has not disputed the expenditure shown at Item

Nos.4 to 27, 32, 34, 36 to 40, 42, 45, 46, 49 to 52, 54, 56, 57 and 59.

Item No.1:

171.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

Investigating Officer calculated the expenditure of the accused towards household expenses at Rs.31,36,975/- which is 1/3 rd of gross salary of A1 during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the household expenditure shall be computed on the net salary of the accused instead of the same, the

Investigating Officer wrongly considered the gross salary of the accused and 1/3 rd of the net salary of A1 during the check period comes to Rs.12,72,226/-and the Investigating Officer calculated the household expenditure from the 1/3rd of gross salary received by A1 during the check period.

172.As per the contention of the accused, 1/3rd of net salary is to be considered as household expenditure of A1 but the

Investigating Officer calculated 1/3rd of gross salary of

Rs.94,10,924/- received by the accused during the check period.

Though, the learned counsel for the accused suggested to PW-62

Investigating Officer that 1/3rd of net salary is to be taken as household expenditure, but failed to substantiate any material or any document in support of his contention that the household expenditure has to be calculated from the net salary of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 130 of 185

Government Servant. Except giving suggestion to PW-62

Investigating Officer, no independent evidence is adduced by A1 to prove the said fact that 1/3 rd of the net salary is to be considered as household expenditure. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence and documents produced by the accused in support of his contention, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that 1/3rd of net salary is to be considered as household expenditure of A1 during the check period, is not tenable.

Item No.2:

173. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,86,890/- towards the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic S/o Accused

No.1 at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW-39, who is the Accounts Manager of Hyderabad

Public School deposed that the School provides snacks in the morning and evening and lunch in the afternoon everyday and non- vegetarian lunch weekly once and the School works for 222 days in a year and even by a conservative estimate and take Rs.50/- per day, the cost of food shall be Rs.11,100/- and for 10 years during the check period, it shall be Rs.1,11,000/- and this amount has to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused in respect of educational expenditure of his son Master Vaidic.

174.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per Ex.P152, the Term Fee of 2013-14 was also wrongly added without ascertaining the dates of payment which comes to

Rs.20,800/- and the same has to be deleted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic S/o Accused No.1 and in total an

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 131 of 185 amount of Rs.1,31,800/- is to be deducted from the total expenditure of Rs.3,86,890/- shown at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D and if the said amount is deducted the educational expenditure in respect of Master

Vaidic S/o Accused No.1 comes to Rs.2,55,090/-.

175.As can be seen from the record, except suggesting to

PW-39 and PW-62 Investigating Officer, the accused failed to adduce any independent evidence and also failed to file any documents to show that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,11,000/- towards lunch and snacks provided by the School to Master Vaidic during the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P152, there is a clear mention of payment of fee in respect of Master Vaidic to Hyderabad

Public School, Ramanthapur. The accused failed to file any document to show that the last Term Fee for the academic year 2013-14 was paid after to the date of check period. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents produced by the accused,

I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,31,800/- is to be deducted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidic shown at Sl.No.2 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.3:

176.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.2,85,600/- towards the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh S/o Accused

No.1 at Sl.No.3 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW-39, who is the Accounts Manager of Hyderabad

Public School deposed that the School provides snacks in the morning and evening and lunch in the afternoon everyday and non-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 132 of 185 vegetarian lunch weekly once and the School works for 222 days in a year and even by a conservative estimate and take Rs.50/- per day, the cost of food shall be Rs.11,100/- per year and for 5 years during the check period, it shall be Rs.55,500/- and this amount has to be deducted from the expenditure of the accused in respect of educational expenditure of his son Master Vaidesh.

177.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as per Ex.P152, the Term Fee of 2013-14 was also wrongly added without ascertaining the dates of payment which comes to

Rs.20,800/- and the same has to be deleted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh S/o A1 and in total an amount of

Rs.76,300/- is to be deducted from the total expenditure of

Rs.2,85,600/- shown at Sl.No.3 of Statement-D and if the said amount is deducted the educational expenditure in respect of Master

Vaidesh S/o A1 comes to Rs.2,09,300/-.

178.As can be seen from the record, except suggesting to

PW-39 and PW-62 Investigating Officer, the accused failed to adduce any independent evidence and also failed to file any documents to show that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.55,500/- towards lunch and snacks provided by the School to Master Vaidesh during the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P152, there is a clear mention of payment of fee in respect of Master Vaidesh to

Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur. The accused failed to file any document to show that the last Term Fee for the academic year 2013-14 was paid after to the date of check period. Therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence and documents produced by the accused, I am of the opinion that the contention of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 133 of 185 accused that an amount of Rs.76,300/- is to be deducted from the educational expenditure of Master Vaidesh shown at Sl.No.3 of

Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.28:

179.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the expenditure incurred by A1 towards payment of LIC premium during the check period in respect of LIC Policy bearing No.644214155 at Rs.48,077/-.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the premium in respect of the said policy was commenced from 1997 and the check period started from 01.01.1999 and therefore, the premium paid by

A1 from 1997 to 31.12.1998 is to be deducted from the total amount of expenditure shown at Sl.No.28 of Statement-D.

180.In respect of this item, the prosecution examined PW-28 and got marked the policy statement in respect of the above policy as Ex.P80. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no suggestion to the witness that the total amount of expenditure shown at Rs.48,077/- includes the premium paid by A1 prior to the check period. Even as can be seen from Ex.P80, the total premium amount paid by A1 in respect of the said policy was Rs.2,78,864/-.

Even PW-28 in his evidence categorically stated that the total premium paid in respect of the said policy was Rs.48,077/-.

Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 and also in the absence of any documents filed by the accused that the expenditure shown at Item No.28 of Statement-B includes the premium paid prior to the check period, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.16,392/- paid prior

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 134 of 185 to the check period is to be deleted from the amount of Rs.48,077/- shown as expenditure in Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.29:

181.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer shown the expenditure incurred by A1 towards payment of LIC premium during the check period in respect of LIC Policy bearing No.64423746 at Rs.1,86,614/-.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the premium amount not paid by the accused was also added and PW-28 in his cross-examination categorically stated that they have received six quarterly payments at Rs.9,962/- totaling to Rs.59,772/- upto April, 2004 and as such the balance amount of Rs.1,26,842/- wrongly charged has to be deleted.

182.In respect of this item, the prosecution examined PW-28 and got marked the policy statement in respect of the above policy as Ex.P81. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no suggestion to the witness that an amount of Rs.1,26,842/- was wrongly charged and even PW-62 Investigating Officer denied the said suggestion. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that as per Ex.P81, the total amount of premium paid by A1 directly is Rs.1,86,614/-. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 and also in view of the evidence of PW-28 that an amount of Rs.1,86,614/- was paid by the accused during the check period, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the Investigating Officer wrongly charged Rs.1,26,842/- towards the expenditure of accused in respect of Ex.P81 LIC policy.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 135 of 185

Item No.30:

183.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the interest paid on loan availed against

LIC Policy No.644255264 standing on the name of A1 at Rs.24,392/-.

The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer wrongly shown the said amount towards expenditure of the accused even though the accused not paid any interest on the said policy as PW-28 not stated about the same.

184.I have perused the evidence of PW-28 and Ex.P79 Status

Report relating to the above said Policy. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no cross-examination to PW-28 that A1 not paid any interest on the loan outstanding in respect of policy shown in Ex.P79 Status Report. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that A1 repaid the entire loan availed by him on the said policy with interest of Rs.24,392/- as on 06.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of PW-28 and in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 that the accused not paid any interest on the outstanding loan of the said policy, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that he has not paid

Rs.24,392/- towards interest in respect of the above said policy and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of

Rs.24,392/- is to be deleted which is shown at Sl.No.30 of Statement-

D, is not tenable.

Item No.31:

185.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown the interest paid on loan availed against

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 136 of 185

LIC Policy No.644214155 standing on the name of A1 at Rs.56,751/-.

The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the

Investigating Officer wrongly shown the said amount towards expenditure of the accused even though the accused not paid any interest on the said policy as PW-28 not stated about the same.

186.I have perused the evidence of PW-28 and Ex.P80 Status

Report relating to the above said Policy. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, there is no cross-examination to PW-28 that A1 not paid any interest on the loan outstanding in respect of the policy shown in Ex.P80 Status Report. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-28, he categorically stated that A1 repaid the entire loan availed by him on the said policy with interest of Rs.56,751/- as on 06.04.2011. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of PW-28 and in the absence of any suggestion to PW-28 that the accused not paid any interest on the outstanding loan of the said policy, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that he has not paid

Rs.56,751/- towards interest in respect of the above said policy and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of

Rs.56,751/- is to be deleted which is shown at Sl.No.31 of Statement-

D, is not tenable.

Item No.33:

187.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,76,600/- as expenditure of the accused towards interest on Car Loan availed from M/s. Magma Finance Corporation Limited. The learned counsel

for the accused further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-48

and Ex.P95 Statement of Account of Car Loan, the same was availed

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 137 of 185 in the year 2010 and closed in the year 2012 and the accused paid 24 monthly instalments @ Rs.11,160/- which comes to Rs.2,67,840/- and on account of dis-honouring of six cheques, Rs.6,960/- was charged and the fore-closure amount paid was Rs.3,65,000/- and the grand total EMIs paid, dis-honouring of cheque amounts and fore- closure amount comes to Rs.6,39,800/- and since the loan amount taken was Rs.4,93,000/- and if it is deducted from the above total, the interest paid comes to only Rs.1,46,800/- which has to be shown as expenditure but the Investigating Officer shown the interest paid as Rs.1,76,600/- and therefore, an amount of Rs.29,800/- is to be deleted from the total expenditure shown at Sl.No.33 of Statement-

C.

188.I have perused the evidence of PW-48 and Ex.P95.

PW-48 in his evidence categorically stated that he has furnished

Ex.P95 Statement of Account of A1 in respect of Car Loan and A1 availed a Car Loan of Rs.4,93,000/- and repaid the entire loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.6,69,600/- in 60 equal monthly instalments @ Rs.11,160/-. As can be seen from evidence of PW-48, the learned counsel for the accused not even suggested to the witness that the interest paid by the accused on the Car Loan is only Rs.1,46,800/- and not Rs.1,76,600/-. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-48 suggesting the interest, I am of the opinion that the contention of A1 that the interest paid by him on the

Car Loan is only Rs.1,46,800/-, is not tenable.

Item No.35:

189.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.4,250/- as expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 138 of 185 incurred by A2 towards Life Tax and Registration Charges paid on two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the Life Tax is included in total amount of Rs.55,120/- paid to the dealer as shown in Ex.P35 which is also shown as income of the accused at Sl.No.18 of Statement-B and therefore, the entire amount of Rs.4,250/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted.

190.The relevant witness examined to prove this aspect is

PW-11 and the relevant document is Ex.P35. I have perused the evidence of PW-11 and Ex.P35. PW-11 in his evidence categorically stated that an amount of Rs.4,250/- was paid towards Life Tax and

Registration Charges on purchase of vehicle. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-11, the learned counsel for the accused reported no cross-examination to this witness. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-11 that the total amount of Rs.55,120/- paid towards purchase of the two wheeler includes the Life Tax and

Registration amounting to Rs.4,250/-, I am of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that the amount of Rs.4,250/- paid towards

Life Tax and Registration Charges were included in the total amount paid to the dealer and as such, I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.4,250/- shown as expenditure towards

Life Tax and Registration Charges on purchase of two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.41:

191.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.36,500/- as expenditure

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 139 of 185 of the accused towards house warming ceremony of H.No.3-118/1,

Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal on 23.11.2011. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Investigating Officer relied upon Ex.P134 Note Book entries for charging the above amount as expenditure of accused towards house warming ceremony, but as can be seen from Ex.P134, there were no dates of entries and the prosecution failed to examine any witnesses to prove the contents of Ex.P134 and therefore in the absence of any evidence and as there were no dates to the entries in Ex.P134, the total amount of Rs.36,500/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted.

192.I have perused Ex.P134 Note Book and the evidence available on record in respect of this item. The accused claimed the benefit of income of Rs.34,982/- cash gifts received on the occasion of Dhothi function of their children by relying upon the entries in

Ex.P134 Note Book and the same was considered as additional income of accused during the check period and the said benefit was given to the accused. When the accused claimed the additional income by relying upon the entries in Ex.P134 Note Book, the accused are estoped from denying the contents of Ex.P134 Note

Book when comes to the expenditure. Therefore, as the accused admitted Ex.P134 to claim the benefit of income, the contents of

Ex.P134 Note Book are to be considered to prove the expenditure incurred by the accused towards house warming ceremony.

Therefore, in view of the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.36,500/- shown as expenditure at Item No.41 is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 140 of 185

Item No.42:

193.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- expenditure incurred by the accused towards Dhothi function of sons of accused held on 09.12.2011. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Dhothi function of the sons of accused were performed by

PW-35 and DW-1, who are the parents of A2 on their own and the accused also claimed that an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by

PW-35 and DW-1 for consideration of their income in Statement-C and as the entire amount for Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by WP-35 and DW-1, the total expenditure shown at

Sl.No.42 for an amount of Rs.3,60,920/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused in Statement-D.

194.I have perused the evidence available on record. Except the oral evidence of PW-35 and DW-1, there is no independent evidence and documents produced by the accused to prove the fact that the entire expenditure towards the Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by PW-35 and DW-1. While considering the claim of the accused that the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs provided by PW-35 and DW-1 for Dhothi function of the sons of accused to be considered as income of the accused during the check period, is rejected while answering the claim of the accused in Statement-C.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the expenditure of

Rs.3,60,920/- towards Dhothi function of the sons of accused were incurred by PW-35 and DW-1, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that the amount of Rs.3,60,920/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused shown at Item No.42 of Statement-

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 141 of 185

D, is not tenable.

Item No.43:

195.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as expenditure towards interest paid to PW-50 J.Srinivas Reddy against the hand loan taken from him at the time of construction of the house by A1. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

PW-50 not stated in his evidence that he has received an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 towards interest on the hand loan provided by him and therefore, in the absence of evidence of PW-50, the amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure for payment of interest to

PW-50 is to be deleted from Statement-D.

196.I have perused the evidence of PW-50. As can be seen from the evidence of PW50, he has categorically stated that in the year 2012, A1 availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the purpose of construction of his house and accordingly he advanced the same by way of cheque and subsequently, A1 took an amount of Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.65,000/- on another occasion for the purpose of construction of house and after two years of availing loan, A1 repaid the loan of Rs.6,15,000/- by way of cheque pertaining to the account of A2 and the same is reflected in Ex.P70/7

Statement of Account of A2.

197.As can be seen from the evidence of PW-50, he has not stated anywhere that he has received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 towards interest against the hand loan and the prosecution failed to file any document to show that PW-50 received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 142 of 185 towards interest and the prosecution even failed to cross-examine

PW-50 to put-forth its contention that he has received Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 as interest against the hand loan provided by him to A1.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that PW-50 received an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- from A1 as interest against the hand loan, I am of the opinion that the said amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure towards payment of interest to PW-50 by A1, is to be deleted from

Statement-D.

Item No.44:

198.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,00,606/- as expenditure towards interest paid on housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from SBI, Karwan Branch by A1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that no separate interest was paid by A1 as the interest was included in EMI and the same was deducted from the salary which confirms in Ex.P72 Salary Particulars and PW-51 also deposed about the same and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.1,00,606/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from Statement-

D.

199.I have perused the evidence of PW-51 and Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars of the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of PW- 51, the learned counsel for the accused not suggested to PW-51 that no separate interest is paid against the said housing loan. PW-51 categorically stated in his chief-examination that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.6,50,606/- which includes the principal, interest and pre-closure charges. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 143 of 185

PW-51 that no separate interest was paid by the accused against the housing loan and also in the absence of any independent evidence, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,00,606/- shown as interest paid on housing loan is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.47:

200.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.3,66,215/- as expenditure towards interest paid on housing loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs from United Bank of India, Hyderabad Branch by A1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that no separate interest was paid by A1 as the interest was included in EMI and the same was deducted from the salary which confirms in Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars and PW-46 also deposed about the same and therefore, the said amount of Rs.3,66,215/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from Statement-D.

201.I have perused the evidence of PW-46 and Ex.P72 Salary

Particulars of the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW-46, the learned counsel for the accused not suggested to PW-46 that no separate interest is paid against the said housing loan.

PW-46 categorically stated in his chief-examination that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.11,66,251/- which includes the principal, interest and pre-closure charges, out of which Rs.8.00 lakhs principal and Rs.3,66,215/- interest and pre-closure charges. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-46 that no separate interest was paid by the accused against the housing loan and also in the absence of any independent evidence, I am of the opinion that the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 144 of 185 contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,66,215/- shown as interest paid on housing loan is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.48:

202.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.53,910/- as expenditure towards mobile phone bill bearing No.9490797612 standing in the name of A1. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that as per the evidence of PW-52 and the documents submitted by A1 during 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the said mobile phone was provided by BDL to the accused and the bill in respect of the said mobile phone was paid by BDL and therefore, the said amount of Rs.53,910/- shown as expenditure is to be deleted from

Statement-D.

203.I have perused the evidence of PW-52 and the documents submitted by the accused during 313 Cr.P.C.

examination, more particularly, the Certificate issued by HR

Manager, BDL dt. 09.10.2014. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW-52, he categorically stated in the cross-examination that the said mobile No.9490797612 stands in the name of A1, is the official mobile provided by the employer. I have also perused the

Certificate issued by Deputy General Manager (P&A), Bharath

Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad which is filed by A1 at the time of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said mobile bearing No.9490797612 is the official phone and the bill amount in respect of the said mobile phone was paid by the Company with a monthly ceiling of Rs.350/- + taxes and the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 145 of 185 excess amount will be recovered from the salary of the employee.

Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-52 and the Certificate issued by the authorities of BDL filed by A1 at the time 313 Cr.P.C.

examination, I am of the opinion that the mobile bearing

No.9490797612 was provided by the employer and it is an official phone and the bill of which was paid by the Company and therefore, the expenditure of Rs.53,910/- shown at Sl.No.48 of Statement-D is to be deleted.

Item No.53:

204.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- as expenditure towards chit instalments paid by A2 at Sri Ram Chits,

Nalgonda. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that A2 paid only one instalment of Rs.20,000/- and the remaining amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- was paid by the father of A2 which is confirmed by

PW-60 and therefore, only Rs.20,000/- has to be shown as expenditure and remaining amount of Rs.1,37,000/- paid by the father of A2 towards instalments of the above chit is to be deleted.

205.I have perused the evidence of PW-60 and Ex.P109

Statement of Account in respect of the Chit No.LS05 Ticket No.24 of

Sri Ram Chits Private Limited, Nalgonda. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-60, the said Chit was standing on the name of A2 and the total value of Chit Rs.10.00 lakhs for 50 months with monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and the total monthly instalments paid by the customer till 21.02.2014 is Rs.2,23,600/-.

PW-60 in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for A2 categorically admitted that the first instalment in respect of the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 146 of 185 above Chit was paid by A2 and the remaining instalments were paid by her father. As can be seen from Ex.P109, the above Chit was standing on the name of A2 and the instalments were paid to a tune of Rs.1,57,000/- during the check period. Even though PW-60 admitted that except the first instalment, the remaining instalments were paid by the father of A2, the Chit was standing on the name of

A2 and it has to be presumed that the entire instalments are paid by

A2 itself though the father of A2 visited the Chit Fund Office and paid the instalments. Therefore, in view of evidence of PW-60 and

Ex.P109, I am of the opinion that the instalments paid by A2 in respect of the above Chit is Rs.1,57,000/- during the check period and as such, I hold that the contention of accused that an amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused from the total amount of Rs.1,57,000/- shown at Sl.No.53 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item No.55:

206.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.6,000/- as expenditure towards the amount paid by the accused to Bheemreddy Nagar

Colony Welfare Association vide Receipt Nos.66 and 67 dt.

13.03.2005. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that

Ex.P136 and P137 Receipts are one and the same covering the same

H.No.3-118/1 and therefore, only Rs.3,000/- is to be taken into consideration towards expenditure and the other Rs.3,000/- is to be deleted.

207.I have perused the evidence available on record and

Ex.P136 and P137 which are the Receipts passed by Bheemreddy

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 147 of 185

Nagar Colony Welfare Association, dt. 13.03.2005. As can be seen from Exs.P136 and P137, they are independent Receipts, one is bearing No.66 and another is bearing No.67. Therefore, in view of the fact that Ex.P136 and P137 being independent Receipts, I am of the opinion that the contention of the accused that Exs.P136 and

P137 are one and same is not tenable and therefore, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.3,000/- is to be deleted from the total amount of Rs.6,000/- shown as expenditure at Sl.No.55 of

Statement-D, is also not tenable.

Item No.58:

208.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.1,22,505/- as expenditure towards interest paid on overdraft account standing in the name of A1 with Andhra Bank, BDL Branch. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, PW-14 while speaking about Ex.P43 Statement of Account, did not state regarding interest payment and therefore, the said amount of

Rs.1,22,505/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused in

Statement-D.

209.I have perused the evidence of PW-14 as well as Ex.D43

Statement of Account. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-14, he has categorically stated that as per Ex.P43, overdraft limit of

Rs.3.00 lakhs was sanctioned and salary of A1 was being credited in this account and the debit balance as on 15.11.2008 was Rs.91,812/- and the debit balance as on 13.09.2013 was Rs.2,95,707/- which indicates that the said amount is due to the Bank by A1 as on said date. The learned counsel for the accused reported no cross

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 148 of 185 examination to this witness. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion to PW-14 that the accused not paid any interest in respect of the overdraft account, I am of the opinion that A1 failed to prove that he has not paid interest of Rs.1,22,505/- on overdraft account and as such I hold that the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.1,22,505/- is to be deleted from the expenditure shown at Sl.No.58 of Statement-D, is not tenable.

Item Nos.60 & 61:

210.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

Investigating Officer shown an amount of Rs.2,81,313/- as expenditure incurred by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges in respect of Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP29AM 9977 at Sl.No.60 and an amount of Rs.7,320/- as expenditure incurred by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges in respect of Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 at

Sl.No.61 of Statement-D. The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that there is no receipts or bills filed by the

Investigating Officer to prove the said expenditure and the same was charged only on technical lines without any evidence and the same is admitted by PW-56. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that DW-1, who is the father of A2 used to stay with her for 15 days and above in a month, who used the four wheeler vehicle during the said stay and therefore, the expenditure charged by the Investigating Officer towards fuel and maintenance charges is to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused.

211.I have perused the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99

Inspection Report submitted by PW-56. As per the evidence of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 149 of 185

PW-56, he has inspected two vehicles bearing No.AP29AM 9977

Maruti Swift Dzire and AP29AQ 8219 Suzuki Access two wheeler and submitted his report under Ex.P99 regarding the expenditure incurred for the maintenance and fuel consumption of the above said vehicles basing on kilometer run and the total cost for maintaining two vehicles along with its fuel consumption has been arrived at Rs.2,88,633/-. PW-56 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he mentioned in Ex.P99 Report that the information regarding maintenance and fuel consumption of the vehicle is technically worked out and he is the authorized person to inspect all the vehicles of Central and State Governments.

212.Admittedly, both the vehicles were standing on the name of A1 and A2 respectively. The contention of the accused that

Maruti Swift Dzire vehicle was used by the father of A2 and incurred expenditure for fuel and maintenance, is not tenable in the absence of any independent evidence adduced by the accused and even

DW-1 not stated the same in his evidence before this Court.

213.Therefore, on perusal of evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99, I am of the opinion that as PW-56 is competent person to inspect and give report regarding the fuel and maintenance charges in respect of the vehicles, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the accused to disprove the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99, the evidence of PW-56 and Ex.P99 are to be believed. In view of the above facts, the contention of the accused that an amount of Rs.2,81,313/- shown as fuel and maintenance charges in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP29AM 9977 at Sl.No.60 and an amount of Rs.7,320/- shown as fuel and maintenance charges in

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 150 of 185 respect of vehicle bearing No.AP29AQ 8219 at Sl.No.61 is to be deleted from Statement-D, is not tenable.

214.Therefore, on analyzing the Expenditure of the accused with available evidence, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,65,000/- shown as expenditure of the Accused No.1 towards interest paid to PW50 during the check period at Sl.No.43 of

Statement-D and an amount of Rs.53,910/- shown as expenditure of the Accused No.1 towards Mobile bill of Mobile No.9490797612 during the check period at Sl.No.48 of Statement-D, totaling to

Rs.2,18,910/- is to be deleted from the expenditure of accused during the check period and if the said amount is deleted from the expenditure of accused, the total expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.83,66,606/-.

215.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW-57 is not the competent person for issuance of

Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1 as the accused is working in the cadre of E5 as on the date of registration of the case and the competent authority for issuance of sanction order for prosecution of A1 is Functional Director and PW-57 was the

Executive Director, who is not competent to issue sanction proceedings for prosecution of A1 and therefore, as PW-57 is not competent person to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against A1 basing on Ex.P100

Sanction Order issued by the authority, who is not competent to issue the said Sanction Order is not maintainable and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal on this ground alone.

216.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 151 of 185 that as on the date of registration of the case, A1 is working in

Grade-IV and as such PW-57 being the Executive Director is the disciplinary authority against the Officers working in Grade-IV and therefore, Ex.P100 Sanction Proceedings issued by Ex.P57 for prosecution of A1 is valid.

217.I have perused the evidence of PW-57 and Ex.P100. As can be seen from Ex.P100, it is categorically mentioned that PW-57 being the Executive Director of BDL accorded sanction for prosecution of A1 u/s. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. PW-57 in his cross-examination categorically stated that as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 Sanction Order, A1 was in the Grade of E4 to the best of his knowledge and further stated that he may be in Grade-E5 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P100 Sanction Order.

PW-57 further admitted in the cross-examination that he is not the appointing authority in the case of Dr.A.Venugopal to the Grade-E5, but categorically denied the suggestion that since he is not the appointing authority of A1, he is not the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against A1. PW-57 in his cross- examination categorically stated that as Executive Director (P&A) since Dr.A.Venugopal was working under him, he was the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in terms of BDL

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules against the Officers working under his control irrespective of the Grades and as such he is the competent authority to accord sanction of prosecution against

A1 under Ex.P100. As can be seen from the entire material available on record, the accused failed to file any document to show that he was in a particular Grade as on the date of registration of this case and that PW-57 is not the competent authority to issue Ex.P100

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 152 of 185

Sanction Order for prosecution of the accused. Therefore, in the absence of any documents filed by the accused that PW-57 is not the competent person to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1, I am of the opinion that in view of evidence of PW- 57 that he is the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action against A1 as Executive Director, he is competent to issue Ex.P100

Sanction Proceedings and as such, the contention of the accused

No.1 that PW-57 is not competent to issue Ex.P100 Sanction Order for prosecution of A1, is not tenable.

218.The Learned counsel for the accused No.1 in support of his contention regarding validity of sanction proceedings relied on the following citations reported in

1) (1963) Crl.L.J 556 between Sahebkhan Umerkhan vs The

State wherein their lordships of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat categorically held that “ Under Section 6 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Act except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub- section (1) of Section 6 have no application to the facts of this case and, therefore, they do not arise for consideration and it is clear from the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act that the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office must have been given before the Special Judge's Court appointed to try the case can take cognizance of the offence.”

2) ILR 2013 KAR 3803 between M Manjunath vs State By

Lokayuktha Police wherein His lordship of Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka categorically held that “When there is no valid sanction to prosecute the offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act , the Special Judge would have no jurisdiction to try the case and the entire trial would be vitiated

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 153 of 185 and the Special Judge could not deal with any specific charge when the trial itself is vitiated, has allowed the appeal holding that since the trial for an offence under Section 5(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, is null and void, the Special

Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 409

of the IPC, in respect of the same cause of action”.

219.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 further relied upon the following citations reported in

1) 2000 (4) ALD 663 between Maddu Lakshmana Rao vs

State Of Andhra Pradesh wherein His lordship of our

Hon’ble High Court categorically held that“'This is an

infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.'

11. This observation indicates that the infirmity of the complainant being the Investigation Officer has far reaching significance affecting the credibility of the prosecution case. But, whether this could be interpreted as the Supreme Court having laid down that in every such a case, irrespective of the facts, the prosecution and the result of the trial are vitiated does not arise for consideration in this case as the case is at the investigation stage.

12. In this case, the question is raised at the earliest stage when the investigation is still in progress. There is no point in allowing the investigation to continue with this infirmity and if it results in filing of the charge-sheet, to allow the trial to proceed and then at the end of the trial to consider the question, whether the fact of the complainant being the Investigating Officer has adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution case. When the matter is brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest and where there is an opportunity to correct the malady at the earliest stage, there is no point in allowing the proceedings of investigation to continue with this infirmity”

2) 2003 (1) ALD Cri 740 between M. Sreeramulu vs

State Of A.P. wherein His lordship of our Hon’ble High

Court categorically held that “It is true that in the list of

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 154 of 185 sources of income, the prosecution had included the income from items 1 and 2 and the two trucks referred to above. The house rent was estimated at Rs. 58,968/- and income from two lorries was estimated at Rs. 2,29,220/-and

Rs. 14,325/- respectively. However, in the items of expenditure also the said items were referred to. The expenditure for these items would almost neutralize the income said to have been derived from them. The net result is that if items 1 3, 6, 9, 10 and 12 are deleted from the list of assets expenditure and income the appellant does not hold any assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The trial Court did not take these aspects into account. It had accepted the ownership in respect of these items on the basis of certain assumptions. When a finding in this regard is going to result in serious and for reaching consequences, it is required to be on sound principles of appreciation and on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. It has been pointed in the preceding paragraphs that even the Investigating Officer was not sure about the ownership of the petitioner vis-a-vis the said items. Under these circumstances, this court is convinced that the appellant did not hold any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income”.

3) (1999) 6 SCC 559 between P.Nallammal vs State

Rep. By Inspector Of Police wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“Shri K.K.Venugopal endeavoured to establish that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act is to be understood as an offshoot of the different facets of misconduct of a public servant enumerated in clauses

(a) to (d) of the sub-section which a public servant might commit. According to him, unless the ill-gotten wealth has a nexus with the sources contemplated in the preceding clauses the public servant cannot be held guilty under clause (e) of Section 13(1) . Learned senior counsel elaborated his contention like this: If a public servant is able to account for the excess wealth by showing some clear sources, though not

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 155 of 185 legally permissible, but not falling under any of the preceding clauses of the sub-section, he would be discharging the burden cast on him. He cited an example like this:

If the public servant satisfies the court that the excess wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the public servant is not liable to be convicted under the aforesaid clause.

Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.

The last illustration is this:

If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act ”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 156 of 185

4) (2006) 1 SCC 420 between D.S.P., Chennai vs K.

Inbasagaran wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “Therefore, the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish whether the accused has acquired the property disproportionate to his known source of income or not. But at the same time it has been held in a case of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 that accused has to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.

Now, in this background, when the accused has come forward with the plea that all the money which has been recovered from his house and purchase of real estate or the recovery of the gold and other deposits in the Bank, all have been owned by his wife, then in that situation how can all these recoveries of unaccounted money could be laid in his hands. The question is when the accused has provided satisfactorily explanation that all the money belonged to his wife and she has owned it and the Income-tax Department has assessed in her hand, then in that case, whether he could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act . It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in the

Income-tax return and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 157 of 185 husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Income-tax

Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which has been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife. Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed”.

5) (2018) 1 SCC 202 between Khekh Ram vs State Of

H.P. wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that ”It is a common place proposition that in a criminal trial suspicion however grave cannot take

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 158 of 185 the place of proof and the prosecution to succeed has to prove its case and establish the charge by adducing convincing evidence to ward off any reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused. For this, the prosecution case has to be in the category of “must be true” and not “may be true”.

6) (2017) 14 SCC 442 betweenVasant Rao Guhe vs The

State Of Madhya Pradesh wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “In view of the

materials on record and the state of law as above, we are thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and punishable under Section 13(2) thereof against the appellant. He is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of “must be true” category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of “may be true”.

7) (1981) 3 SCC 199 betweenState Of Maharashtra vs

Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwarwherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “That takes us to the difficult question as to the nature and extent of the burden of proof under s. 5 (1) (e) of the Act.

The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden. i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 159 of 185 discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under s.

5(2) read with s.5(1)(e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 5(1)(e) , namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under s. 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under s. 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in Jahgan's case (supra), i.e.

to establish his case by a preponderance of probability”.

8) 2021 SCC online SC 1208 between The State By S.P.

Through The SPE CBI ... vs Uttamchand Bohra wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The material to implicate someone as a conspirator acting in concert with a public servant, alleged to have committed misconduct, under the PCA, or amassed assets disproportionate to a public servant’s known sources of income, thus, has to be on firm ground. In the present case, only two circumstances - the custody of the sale deed (of the property allegedly belonging to A-1) and the fact that it was witnessed by Uttamchand’s employee - are alleged against the respondent. These are wholly insufficient to

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 160 of 185 raise a reasonable suspicion, or make out a prima case against him, for conspiracy.

30. It would be useful, in the context of the present case, to recollect the decision of this Court, in P.Nallammal v. State which observed, as follows:

“Thus, the two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb. So it is contended that a non-public servant has no role in the trial of the said offence and hence he cannot conceivably be tagged with the public servant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.”

9) (2010) 12 SCC 254 between Babubhai vs State Of

Gujarat & Ors wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that “Thus, it is evident that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances.

34. In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-sided, biased and mala fide. One party has been favoured by the investigating agency. The natural corollary to this finding is that the other party has been harassed in an unwarranted manner. Thus, the cause of the other party has been prejudiced. The charge sheets filed by the investigating agency in both the cases are against the same set of accused. A charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation. If the investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 161 of 185

220.The above referred citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary by marking relevant documents categorically proved the sanction proceedings and even as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution discharged its initial burden and it was categorically held that the accused failed to rebut the prosecution evidence by way of defence evidence that the properties acquired on his name and on the name of accused No.2 are not disproportionate to his known sources of income.

221.The learned counsel for the accused No.2 submitted that the offence under section 109 of IPC r/w section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act is not made out against the Accused No.2 as the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged abetment.

222.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 relied upon the following citation reportedin (2007) 10 SCC 797 between Kishori Lal vs State Of M.P wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing”.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 162 of 185

223. The above referred citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary by marking relevant documents categorically proved that properties acquired by the

Accused No.1 on his name and on the name of accused No.2 are disproportionate to his known sources of income as the Accused failed to rebut the evidence of prosecution.

224.On the other hand, in support of the case of the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following citations reported in.

1) 1964 AIR 464 between Sajjan Singh vs The State Of

Punjab wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “The question then is: Was this disproportionate to the appellant's known sources of income? As was held by this Court in Swamy's Case(1) "the expression 'known sources of income' must have reference to (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 461.

Sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case" and that it could not be contended that 'known sources of income' meant sources known to the accused”.

2)(1999) 6 SCC 559 between P.Nallammal vs State

Rep. By Inspector Of Police wherein their lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“If the public servant satisfies the court that the excess wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the public servant is not liable to be convicted under the aforesaid clause.

Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 163 of 185 fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

The first illustration cited is this:

If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

Next illustration is this:

Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.

The last illustration is this:

If a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act ”.

3)(2017) 6 SCC 263 between State Of Karnataka vs Selvi J.

Jayalalitha & Ors wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that “The Trial Court held that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and we find that the Trial

Court was right in coming to the conclusion relying on the decision of Nallammal (supra), wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that Under Section

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 164 of 185 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and in our opinion, the

Trial Court correctly held in this matter that private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act committed by the public servant. Furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial Court in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment, after scrutinizing the evidence of this case, is correct in the face of the overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by

A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences under

Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act” .

225.On perusal of the entire material available on record and in view of the detailed discussion and proper appreciation of documents and evidence adduced by the prosecution with reference to the statements A to D annexed to the charge sheet and evidence on record, the assets of the accused No.1 & 2 prior to the check period as shown in statement-A works out to Rs.1,22,800/- as shown in the charge sheet, the assets of A1 and A2 during check period from 1.1.1999 to 13-09-2013 as shown in Statement-B works out to Rs.1,68,65,610.15/- rounded to Rs.1,68,65,610/- as shown in the charge sheet, the income of the accused No.1 & 2 during check period as shown in statement-C works out to

Rs.1,76,38,724/- as against the value of Rs.1,70,14,560/- shown in the charge sheet and the expenditure of the accused No.1 & 2 during the check period as shown in statement-D works out to

Rs.83,66,606/- as against the value of Rs. 85,85,515.70/- shown in the charge sheet.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 165 of 185

226.In view of the above evidence available on record and as per values arrived at after appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents, the assets possessed by the accused, prior to check period and the assets, income and expenditure of the accused during the check period i.e., from 1.1.1999 to 13.9.2013 is to be computed as follows:

1) Assets at the Beginning of the check period

(Statement-A) Rs. 1,22,800.00

2) Assets at the end of the check period

(Statement-B) Rs. 1,68,65,610.00

3) Income received during check period

(Statement-C) Rs. 1,76,38,724.00

4) Expenditure incurred during check period

(Statement-D) Rs 83,66,606.00

5) Disproportionate Assets {(B-A) – (C-D) } {(Rs.1,68,65,610.00 - Rs.1,22,800.00)–(Rs.1,76,38,724.00- Rs.83,66,606.00)} = (Rs.1,67,42,810.00) – (Rs.92,72,118.00) = Rs. 74,70,692/- % of Disproportionate assets = Quantum of DA x 100 Income

That is : Rs. 74,70,692 x100 = 42.35 % 1,76,38,724 i.e., 42.35 % of the income.

227.It is settled law that in a case of disproportionate assets, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the public servant acquired assets on his name and on the name of his family members disproportionate to his known sources of income and if the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the evidence of prosecution that the properties acquired and shown in the charge sheet are from the known sources of income. In the present case, the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence both oral and documentary categorically

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 166 of 185 proved the disproportionate assets acquired by A1 on his name and on the name of his wife i.e., Accused No.2 to the tune of

Rs.74,70,692/- and on the other hand, the accused failed to rebut the prosecution evidence by leading convincing defence evidence.

228.Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence available on record, i.e., the evidence of PWs 1 to 62, Exs. P1 to P163, Ex.C1, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 and Ex.D1 to D9, I am of the opinion that the prosecution by examining the witnesses and by marking relevant documents categorically proved that the accused No.1 being a public servant acquired assets to a tune of Rs.Rs.74,70,692/- on his name and on the names of his wife i.e.,A2 disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the other hand, the accused failed to prove their defence that the properties acquired by them with known sources of income, as they have failed to prove by leading co- gent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, I answered the points 1 to 4 in favour of the prosecution and against the accused No.1 & 2 holding that the prosecution successfully bring home the guilty of the accused A1 for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused No.1 and 2 are liable for conviction for the said offences.

229.In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and the accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 167 of 185 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

230.The accused No.1 & 2 are heard on the quantum of sentence that has to be imposed on them.

231.The accused No.1 stated that he has not committed any offence and he is having Blood Pressure and Diabeties and prayed to reduce the sentence.

232.The accused No.2 submitted that she has not committed any offence and prayed to reduce the sentence.

233.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences proved against the accused No.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to extend the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused

No.1 & 2.

234.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused No.1 & 2 and their counsel, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5 0,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ‘three’ months for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 168 of 185

235.The accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5 0,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ‘three’ months for the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

236.The accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for set-off of the remand period if any, under section 428 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

237.The accused No.1 and A2 are informed about their right to file an appeal against this judgment and also informed their right to get a free legal aid from Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, if they have no means to engage counsel to file the appeal and they are provided with free copy of judgment.

238.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as it is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the offence pertains to Disproportionate Assets and therefore, the properties which are declared as disproportionate assets may be confiscated to the State.

239.In view of the conviction of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the disproportionate of assets proved to the tune of Rs.74,70,692/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs seventy thousand six hundred and ninety two only) for which the accused could not satisfactorily accounted for shall be

CC.08/ 2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 169 of 185 confiscated to the State under section 452 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, after appeal time is over.

240.The total fine amount payable by the accused No.1 & 2 is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

: 170 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1K.Venkatesh, Branch Manager, Cetnral Bank of India, NAARM Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-2J.Srikanth Reddy, Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda

PW-3D.Vishnu Vardhan Raju, District Registrar (Retired), Hyderabad South

PW-4S.V.Narasimha Rao, Assistant Registrar of Chits (Retired), Regional Office, Ranga Reddy (East) District.

PW-5Rajagopal Subramanyam, Sub-Registrar, Vallabnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-6G.Vishnuvardhan Rao, Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District.

PW-7N.Sravan Kumar, Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nalgonda District

PW-8Jayanth Reddy, Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Maheswaram

PW-9M.Krishna Ram Bhupal, Senior Assistant, District Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy East, R.R.District

PW-10Jithender Reddy, General Manager in M/s. Acer Motors, Secunderabad.

PW-11Syed Wahed Ali, Sales Manager, M/s. Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

PW-12P.Ram Mohan Rao, Businessman, M/s. Nivas Constructions

PW-13A.V.Krishna Rao, Administrative Officer, RTO, Uppal

PW-14S.Bhaskara Rao, Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Chandigarh

PW-15Ketha Shanthi Kiran, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Bongiri, Nalgonda.

PW-16Ramesh Reddy, Businessman, Royal Hospital, Balanagar

PW-17Bhaskar B.Kotari, Manager (Administration and Operation), PMJ Gems and Jewellers Private Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

PW-18M.Umamaheswara Rao, Bank Panel Gold Appraiser, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-19P.Srinivas Rao, Manager (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad.

: 171 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

PW-20B.Chandra Mohan, Senior Assistant, GHMC, Hyderabad.

PW-21Anand Vinay Marneni, Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, A.S.Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-22Smt.P.Sulochana, Home Maker

PW-23Licky Krishna Reddy, Business, Krishna Reddy Kirana and General Store, Badangpet, near Old Gram Panchayath

PW-24P.V.N.Manyalu, Deputy General Manager (Finance), Bharat Bynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad.

PW-25Dr.L.V.S.N.Murthy, Manager (P & A) in Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-26G.V.Brahmaiah, Deputy General Manager (Finance) in Bharath Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

PW-27J.Satya Chandra Sekhara Murthy, Chief Manager (Retired), UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai

PW-28P.Vinod Babu, Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch-VII, Abids, Hyderabad.

PW-29Vijaya Kumar Gangaraj, Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Range-17, Hyderabad.

PW-30K.Vijaya Rani, Home Maker

PW-31S.Chitra, Home Maker

PW-32G.Bhaskar Prasad, Deputy General Manager, Bharat Dynamics Limited

PW-33B.Venkatapparao, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Limited, Arya Vysya Sangham, Amarapuram, Ananthapur District.

PW-34L.Laxman Dass, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda

PW-35Smt.L.Laxmamma, Home Maker

PW-36Prakash Chand Jain, Partner in Sanjay Electronics, Koti, Hyderabad.

PW-37G.Vijay Kumar, Dean, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Hyderabad.

PW-38Smt.P.Lakshmi, Principal, College of Law for Woman, Andhra Mahila Saba, Hyderabad.

PW-39Ch.Ashok Kumar, Accounts Manager, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

PW-40K.V.V.S.N.Rangacharyulu, Assistant Accounts Officer : 172 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

(Retired), ERO, Habsiguda.

PW-41Sister.Lucy, Head Mistress, St.Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

PW-42K.Bhanumurthy, Manager, Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-43K.J.Vijaya Krishna, Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle-IV, L.B.Nagar.

PW-44Hakim Noor Mahamood, Legal Manager, Magma Housing Finance.

PW-45M.Ravinder Reddy, Panchayath Secretary, Dadapur Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District.

PW-46A.Mendelson Navaraj, Retired Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Southern Regional Office, Chennai

PW-47S.Satyanarayana, Retired Telephone Revenue Inspector

PW-48P.Bhupati Sarvesh Babulu, Senior Legal Manager, Origo Finance Private Limited.

PW-49Avinash Shinde, Officer, ICICI Bank, Madapur Branch, Hyderabad.

PW-50J.Srinivas Reddy, Tandur Stones Business

PW-51V.Venkata Ramana, Chief Manager, SBI(ADB), Suryapet.

PW-52A.Yadagiri, Accounts Officer, BSNL, CGM Office, Abids, Hyderabad.

PW-53N.Narsinga Rao, Senior Master Technician (CMT-II), BDL, Kanchanbagh

PW-54M.Sitarama Rao, Superintendent in Engineer, CPWD, Hyderabad.

PW-55M.Hanumantha Rao, Senior Office Superintendent, BDL, Milan Division, Hyderabad.

PW-56B.Sairam Reddy, Retired Motor Vehicles Inspector, RTA Kondapur, R.R.District.

PW-57Dr.N.Krishnam Raju, Retired Executive Director (P & A), BDL, Hyderabad

PW-58C.Raghavendra, Private Employee in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

PW-59Smt.H.T.Trisandhya, Retired Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

: 173 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

PW-60Y.Varaprasad, Divisional Manager, Sri Ram Chits, Miryalaguda

PW-61S.Muralidhara, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

PW-62B.Satish Prabhu, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defence:

DW-1Lingala Nagabhushanam Goud, Agriculturist

DW-2Smt.M.Meenakshi, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad.

DW-3K.Srinivas Singh, Goldsmith at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1Search List dt. 13.09.2013 conducted at the residence of accused (3 sheets)

Ex.P2Inventory Memo dt. 13.09.2013 along with rough sketch (5 sheets)

Ex.P3Proceedings of Locker oeprations drawn at Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch on 23.09.2013 (2 sheets)

Ex.P4Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12503/2003 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.S.Kishan Rao for Rs.25,000/- (9 sheets)

Ex.P5Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12502/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mr.Ch.Mallikarjun Rao for Rs.25,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P6Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12499/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.D.Uma Devi for Rs.15,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P7Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12500/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.Sandhya Rani for Rs.15,000/- (10 sheets).

Ex.P8Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance Certificate dt. 13.10.2003 bearing No.12501/03 executed by Mrs.Vijaya Rani in favour of Mrs.M.Padma for Rs.15,000/- (10 sheets).

Ex.P9Certified true copy of Sale Deed along with Encumbrance : 174 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Certificate dt. 09.11.2000 bearing No.8776/01 executed by Mr.D.S.Venkatesh Babu represented by GPA holder Mr.L.Krishna Reddy in favour of Mrs.Vijaya Rani for Rs.27,000/- (7 sheets).

Ex.P10Sale Deed bearing No.6197/2002, dt. 21.08.2002 executed by Smt.D.Balamani W/o Mr.D.Sriram Murthy and Smt.P.Suvarna Latha W/o Mr.P.Jagadishwar andn M/s. Renuka Constructions represented by Smt.P.Renuka in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.3,41,500/- (16 sheets).

Ex.P11Sale Deed bearing No.9391/2001, dated 31.12.2001 executed by Smt.Nukala Padma W/o. Mr.N.Ravi in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.41,500/-(10 sheets).

Ex.P12Sale Deed bearing No.8574/2006, dated 17.04.2006 executed by Smt.K.Chandrika W/o Mr.K.Mallikarjun Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.1,78,000/- (7 sheets).

Ex.P13Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5708/99 executed by Mr.C.Sonthosh Reddy S/o Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.C.Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr.A.Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr.A. Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/-(8 sheets).

Ex.P14Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 09.09.1999 bearing No.5709/99 executed by Mr.C.Sonthosh Reddy S/o. Late Mohan Reddy and Smt.C.Kamalamma W/o. Mohan Reddy represented by their GPA Holder Mr.A.Bakka Reddy S/o. Mr.A.Adavi Reddy in favour of Mr.A. Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.24,000/-(8 sheets).

Ex.P15Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 18.02.1999 bearing No.1155/99 executed by Mr.P.Madhava Reddy S/o. Papi Reddy in favour of Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam for Rs.1,25,000/- (9 sheets).

Ex.P16Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 26.11.2001 bearing No.8387/2001 executed by Smt.C.Padmavathi W/o. Mr.Bhaskar Rao in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr.A.Venugopal for Rs.30,000/-. (10 sheets).

Ex.P17Certified true copy of Sale Deed, dated 09.11.2000 bearing No.8775/2000 executed by Smt.D.R.Lakshmi W/o. Mr.D.Ratnaiah and Smt.D.Padmaja D/o. Mr.D.Ratnaiah in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. Mr.A.Venugopal for Rs.51,500/- (11 sheets).

Ex.P18Sale Deed bearing No.28305/2006, dated 29.12.2006 executed by Mr.G.Bhaskar S/o. Late G.Surayanarayana in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani, W/o. A.Venugopal for Rs.3,90,000/- for Plot No.8 admeasuring 390 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 part situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District (10 sheets).

: 175 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P19Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 04.07.2003 bearing No.7824/2003 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Karunakar Reddy S/o. K.Hanmanth Reddy for Rs.2,25,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (15 sheets).

Ex.P20Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4436/2007 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K.Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (12 sheets).

Ex.P21Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 bearing No.4435/2007 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal S/o. Sharapa Lingam in favour of Mr.K.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Late K.Venkateswar Rao for Rs.3,20,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (12 sheets).

Ex.P22Certified true copy of Sale Deed dated 31.07.2006 bearing No.15841/2006 executed by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venugopal represented by her GPA Holder Mr.J.Janga Reddy in favour of Mr.P.Venkatrami Reddy S/o. P.Linga Reddy for Rs.3,40,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (11 sheets).

Ex.P23Sale Deed bearing No.5083/2003, dated 30.08.2003 executed by Mr.G.Govardhan Reddy S/o. G.Janardhan Reddy and Smt.G.Aruna W/o. Mr.G.Govardhan Reddy in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venugopal for Rs.89,500/-, along with Encumbrance Certificate (14 sheets).

Ex.P24Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.4514/2000, dated 03.06.2000 executed by Mr.K.Bhushanam Goud in favour of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (12 sheets).

Ex.P25Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.6731/2003, dated 07.06.2003 executed by Mr. Kandi Basava Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-along with Encumbrance Certificate (10 sheets).

Ex.P26Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.9027/2003, dated 20.07.2003 executed by Smt.M.Chandrakala in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.10,500/-. (7 sheets).

Ex.P27Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.16286/2006, dated 02.11.2006 executed by Smt.V.Sulochana in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,29,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate (8sheets).

Ex.P28Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.8494/2012, dated 18.08.2012 executed by Mr.A.Venugopal in favour of Mr.A.Bharath Kumar Reddy for sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (14 : 176 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

sheets).

Ex.P29Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No.8602/2003, dated 19.07.2003 executed by Mr.B.Chandramohan Goud in favour of Mr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,75,500/-. (9 sheets).

Ex.P30Sale Deed bearing No.430/2003, dated 03.03.2003 executed by Mr.A.Lachi Reddy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (11 sheets).

Ex.P31Sale Deed bearing No.695/2009, dated 06.03.2009 executed by Mr.B.Surender Reddy GPA Holder of Mr.V.Kumara Swamy in favour of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani W/o A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.3,03,000/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (13 sheets).

Ex.P32Sale Deed bearing No.7464/1999, dated 13.10.1999 executed by M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr. A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.89,000/-(10 sheets).

Ex.P33Sale Deed bearing No.1635/2000, dated 07.03.2000 executed by M/s. Vasavi Binding Works in favour of Mr.A.Venu Gopal for sale consideration of Rs.43,500/- along with Encumbrance Certificate. (12 sheets).

Ex.P34Attested copy of Invoice, Delivery Receipt, three Receipt Vouchers and copy of Insurance Policy (6 sheets).

Ex.P35Customer copy of Tax Invoice-cum-Sale Letter, dated 17.06.2011 for Rs.46,310/- in the name of Lingala Vijaya Rani along with office copy of said Invoice, temporary Certificate of Registration, Tax Receipt for Rs.4,250/-, copy of Order Form and Ledger Copy (7 sheets).

Ex.P36Cash Receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.54,160/- in the name of L.Vijaya Rani issued by M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

Ex.P37Cash Receipt dated 16.06.2011 for Rs.1,000/- in the name of L.Vijaya Rani M/s.Saboo Marketing and Service Private Limited, Secunderabad.

Ex.P38Receipt dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.1.00 lakh issued by me in favour of Smt.S.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P39Vehicle Abstract Report of motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 8219 registered in the name of Mrs.L.Vijaya Rani W/o. Dr.A.Venu Gopal (2 sheets).

Ex.P40Vehicle Abstract Report of motor car bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 registered in the name of Venu Gopal Abbagoni (2 sheets).

Ex.P41Statement of account of Abhaya Gold saving bank account bearing No.104510025080205 in the name of Dr.A.Venu : 177 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Gopal for the period from 08.02.2005 to 31.03.2013 (3 sheets).

Ex.P42Statement of account of saving bank account bearing No.1045100110000974 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 05.05.1997 to 30.09.2013 (44 sheets).

Ex.P43Statement of account of Overdraft bank account bearing No.104531041900064 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14.11.2008 to 13.09.2013 (24 sheets).

Ex.P44Certified copy of statement of SB Account No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 20.05.2001 to 13.09.2013.

Ex.P45Locker Opening Form of locker No.239 in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (3 sheets).

Ex.P46FDR Receipt dated 05.07.2002 for Rs.7,000/- in the name of Mr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P47Copy of Statement of Bank Account of Sree Sree Royal India Multispecialty Hospital LLP (7 sheets)

Ex.P48Copy of Partnership Agreement dated 22.01.2013 (18 sheets)

Ex.P49Ledger Account copy of Smt.Vijaya Rani from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.

Ex.P50Retail Invoice dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for purchase of white diamond necklace for Rs.2,61,991.20 ps.

Ex.P51Purchase voucher dated 27.12.2010 of Smt.Vijaya Rani for selling old gold for Rs.2,27,591/-.

Ex.P52Cash Receipt Vouchers in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani

dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 for Rs.10,000/- and

Rs.22,000/- respectively for payment of balance amount for the item covered by Ex.P50 (2 sheets).

Ex.P53Copy of Retail Invoice dated 31.12.2010 in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for Rs.2,40,354.06 ps.

Ex.P54Copy of Purchase Voucher dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,78,854/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P55Copy of Ledger Account in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.

Ex.P56Copy of Purchase Voucher dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.41,260/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P57Copy of Retail Invoice dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.66,249.95 ps in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P58Copy of Repair Order Sales Bill dated 30.04.2011 for Rs.11,800/- in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P59Copy of Cash Receipt Voucher for Rs.1.00 lakh in the name : 178 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

of Smt.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P60Copy of Monthly Scheme transactions for customer in the name of Smt.Vijaya Rani during the period from 08.03.2013 to 28.09.2013.

Ex.P61Copy of Customer Order/Advance Receipt dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P62Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P63Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 22.05.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P64Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 28.06.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P65Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.P66Copy of Additional Advance Receipt dated 28.09.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P67Estimate Slip dated 13.09.2013 along with Visiting Card.

Ex.P68Rough Calculation Slip dated 13.09.2013.

Ex.P69Copy of Bharat Dynamics Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (29 sheets).

Ex.P70Savings Account Opening Form, Statement of Account along with Certificate relating to Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani W/ o. A.Venu Gopal pertains to Account No.732010098872 in ING Vysya Bank, Uppal Branch, Hyderabad (10 sheets).

Ex.P71Pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal for the period from June 1997 to December 2001 (2 sheets).

Ex.P72Pay particulars of Dr.Venu Gopal for the period from January 2002 to September 2013 (6 sheets).

Ex.P73Employee Ledger in respect of Car advance, computer advance and special advance availed by Dr.Venu Gopal (5 sheets).

Ex.P74Copies of Form No.16 of Dr.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (15sheets).

Ex.P75Annual Property Returns (APRs) for the years 1999 to 2013 submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal, Medical Officer, Bharath Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad to Common Services (P & A) of BDL, Hyderabad as per Service Rules (47 sheets).

Ex.P76Loan application, dated 15.11.2008 of Dr. Abbagoni Venugopal (8 sheets).

Ex.P77Loan Sanction Letter, dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.28 lakhs. (2 sheets).

: 179 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P78Certified copy of statement of the loan account bearing No.14410610006368 for the period from 17.11.2008 to 05.10.2013. (7sheets).

Ex.P79Status Report of Policy No.644255264 (5 sheets).

Ex.P80Status Report of Policy No.644214155 (6 sheets).

Ex.P81Status Report of Policy No.644237436 (5 sheets).

Ex.P82Bunch of Income Tax Returns of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani pertaining to PAN No.AFNPL6851N for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010-11.(49 sheets).

Ex.P83Certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010to30.09.2013relatingto S.B.A/c.No.734010058346 standing in the name of Lingala Nagabhushanam (7 sheets).

Ex.P84Certified copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2010to30.09.2013relatingtoS.B. A/c.No.734010062884 standing in the name of Lingala Laxmamma (4 sheets).

Ex.P85Copy of Invoice dated 14.03.2013 issued in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.55,500/-.

Ex.P86Application Form submitted by Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) for silver privilege member dated 6.1.2002 in Country Club, Hyderabad.

Ex.P87True extract of the statement of account of Dr. A.Venugopal (A1) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.2007.

Ex.P88Application Form submitted by Dr.A.Venugopal(A1) for Master Life Membership in Country Club, Hyderabad dated 18.4.2007.

Ex.P89Annexure showing the assessment details and house tax payment details of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani (A2) from 01.09.2005 to 29.03.2010 in respect of H.No.9-7-192/G1 situated at Champapet (2 sheets).

Ex.P90True extract of the statement of account of Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of the car loan availed by him from M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

Ex.P91Attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.A.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P92Attested copy of building construction permission accorded in favour of Mrs.V.Sulochana.

Ex.P93True extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal and Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the period from 24.09.2003 to 31.03.2009 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act (6 sheets along with certificate 1 sheet).

Ex.P94Statement of account showing the payment of monthly bills : 180 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of telephone No.040- 27205672 for the period from 12.07.2001 to 13.09.2013 along with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (4 sheets including certificate).

Ex.P95True extract statement of account of Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of the car loan availed by him from M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad (2sheets).

Ex.P96True extract of the statement of account of housing loan availed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 14.02.2003 to 24.08.2012 (6 sheets).

Ex.P97True extract of the payment details in respect of mobile number 9490797612 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (A1) for the period from 21.08.2008 to 18.06.2014 along with certificate under section 65-B(4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P98Valuation Report dated 24.02.2015 submitted by us which contains my signatures and the signatures of Mr.G.Subramanyeswar Rao (8 sheets along with annexures 9 sheets).

Ex.P99Inspection Report dated 13.03.2015 submitted by me in respect of inspection of two vehicles bearing No.AP 29 AM 9977 Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI and AP 29 AQ 8219 Suziki Access two wheeler regarding the expenditure of maintenance and fuel consumption of the said two vehicles.

Ex.P100Sanction Order dated 28.04.2015 issued by me for prosecution of Dr.A.Venu Gopal (16 sheets).

Ex.P101Application Form in respect of Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs dated 13.06.2011.

Ex.P102Passbook in respect of Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs.

Ex.P103Statement of account for Group No.LC 13, Ticket No.39 for Rs.5.00 lakhs (2 sheets).

Ex.P104Application Form in respect of Group No.LS 03, Ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs dated 13.06.2011.

Ex.P105Passbook in respect of Group No.LS 03, ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs.

Ex.P106Statement of account for Group No.LS 03, Ticket No.23 for Rs.10.00 lakhs (2 sheets).

Ex.P107Application form in respect of Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P108Passbook in respect of Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P109Statement of account for Group No.LS 05, Ticket No.24 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs (1 sheet).

: 181 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Ex.P110Payment details of the mobile Nos.8978134581 and 9866520552 furnished by me to the CBI Inspector.

Ex.P111FIR in R.C.No.16(A)/2013-CBI/ACB/Hyderabad dated 12.09.2013 along with annexure-A, B, C and proceedings of DIG, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad dated 12-09-2013 (11 sheets).

Ex.P112Search Warrant dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for search

of residential premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P113Search Warrant dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for search

of office premises at BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P114Original Sale Deed bearing No.518/2002 dated 28.01.2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani (10 sheets)

Ex.P115Original Agreement for additional works dated November 2002 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani along with cash receipt for Rs.6,91,500/- and credit voucher for Rs.89,214/-

dated 10.01.2003 (7 sheets)

Ex.P116Original Sale Deed bearing No.5263/2008 dated 04.12.2008 in the name of Mrs.Lingala Vijaya Rani (12 sheets)

Ex.P117Original Invoice of M/s.Sanjay Electronics dated 14.03.2013.

Ex.P118Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010

Ex.P119Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2010.

Ex.P120Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 29.12.2010

Ex.P121Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2011

Ex.P122Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2011

Ex.P123Retail Invoice of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2010

Ex.P124Estimate for extra gold dated 19.03.2007

Ex.P125Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad

Ex.P126Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad dated 05.07.2003 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal

Ex.P127Rough Calculation of P.Manoharlal Jewellers and Exporter, Hyderabad dated 30.10.2003

Ex.P128Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, : 182 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 09.08.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

Ex.P129Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 22.02.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani

Ex.P130Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 28.06.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P131Additional Advance Receipt of PMJ Gems and Jewellers, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad dated 17.04.2013 in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani.

Ex.P132Original LIC policy bearing No.644237436 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P133LIC policy bearing No.645686797 in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal

Ex.P134One note book of Hyderabad Public School containing the details of expenditure in respect of housing warming ceremony and dhoti function at Page No.37 and 38.

Ex.P135Miscellaneous Receipt bearing No.1637 dated 03.03.2005 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani issued by Grampanchayat, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District for Rs.12,795/-.

Ex.P136Receipt bearing No.066 dated 13.03.2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony, Sanskema Sangam in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P137Receipt bearing No.067 dated 13.03.2005 issued by Bheemreddynagar Colony, Sanskema Sangam in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P138Receipt bearing No.6897 dated 05-09-2009 issued by Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City branch for Rs.6,600/- in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P139Receipt bearing No.1354 dated 04.04.2013 issued by V- Guide Group of Coaching centres in the name of A.Vaidik for Rs.9,500/-.

Ex.P140Search List dated 13.09.2013 in respect of search and seizure of documents from the office premises of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P141Certified copy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property in respect of Plot No.79 admeasuring 202 Sq. yards in Sy.No.924, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District stands in the name of Smt.L.Vijaya Rani as on 13.09.2013.

Ex.P142True Extract of Statement of account of SB A/c. No.14410110007679 of UCO Bank, Abids Circle Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 17.11.2008 to 16.07.2014 in : 183 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

the Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P143OriginalAccountOpeningFormof SB A/c.No.062300101000901 in the name of Smt.A.Vijaya Rani with Corporation Bank, Tarnaka Branch.

Ex.P144Letter dated 18.04.2014 received from the Secretary, Twin Cities Jewellers Association, Hyderabad furnishing the gold price from 31.03.2004 to 31.03.2014.

Ex.P145Statements I to VI in original submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal furnishing the details of movable and immovable properties acquired by himself and his family members (7 sheets).

Ex.P146Certified copies of Returns of Income filed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and 2005-06 to 2011-13 and 2013-14 (24 sheets).

Ex.P147Statements of PF loans sanctioned from 1999 to 2013 to Dr.A.Venu Gopal vide ST.No.30974.

Ex.P148Receipt Memo dated 23.06.2014 under which Ex.P82 was collected from PW29.

Ex.P149Details of loan drawn and foreclosed by Dr.A.Venu Gopal with BDL Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad.

Ex.P150CCs of Encumbrance Certificates (10 sheets).

Ex.P151Receipt Memo dated 03.09.2017.

Ex.P152Payment details of admission fee, tuition fee etc., paid in respect of Master A.Vaidik Goud and Master A.Vaidesh Goud, sons of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Principal, the Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

Ex.P153Letter dated 07.02.2014 from Head Mistress, St. Ann’s High School, Tarnaka, Hyderabad furnishing the details of school fee paid by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi for the academic years 2001-2002 to 2010- 2011 amounting to Rs.74,410/-.

Ex.P154Letter dated 07.12.2013 from Principal Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Tarnaka, Hyderabad furnishing the details of college fee paid by Dr.A.Venu Gopal in respect of his daughter A.Vaidarshi during the period 2011 to 2013.

Ex.P155Letter dated 04.12.2013 from Principal, College of Law for Women, Andhra Mahila Sabha, Hyderabad furnishing the details of tuition fee and other fees paid by Smt.A.Vijaya Rani for the academic years 2009-2012.

Ex.P156Letter dated 19.12.2013 from SRO, Uppal furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document Nos.6731/2003, 9027/2003 and 4514/2000.

Ex.P157Letter dated 23.12.2013 from SRO, Choutuppal furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid : 184 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

towards purchase of property vide document No.430/2003.

Ex.P158Letter dated 23.12.2013 from SRO, Ghatkesar furnishing the details of stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of property vide document No.695/2009.

Ex.P159Details of monthly electrical charges paid in respect of service No.1603-1344 and 1603-2009 standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal from Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (18 sheets).

Ex.P160Attested copy of loan application submitted by Dr.A.Venu Gopal with M/s.Magma Fincorp Limited, Hyderabad (3 sheets).

Ex.P161Letter dated 07.01.2014 from Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal furnishing the details of property tax and water charges paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P162Letter dated 12.02.2014 from Bill Collector, Gram Panchayat Boduppal, Ghatkaser Mandal furnishing the property tax paid in respect of No.3-118/1 and 3-117/22 situated at Bheemreddynagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad standing in the name of Dr.A.Venu Gopal.

Ex.P163Statement of account of housing loan A/c.No.01593013216 with SBI, Karvan Branch, Hyderabad of Dr.A.Venu Gopal for the period from 25.02.2002 to 07.02.2004 along with certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act (3 sheets).

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1Payment details made to Dr.A.Venu Gopal through supplementary bills during the period from 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2008 (4 sheets)

Ex.D2Declaration dt. 19.06.2014 submitted by A1 to PW62 (IO)

Ex.D3Letter dt. 16.08.2014

Ex.D4Book of Account Register

Ex.D5Executive dairy of DBL for the year 1999 (There are entries in pages from Jan 4 to Feb 5 excluding pages of Jan., 19, 21, 23 and entries in last 4 pages after 31st December, 1999 & the remaining pages are blank)

Ex.D6Two note books Vol-I and Vol-II (Vol-I – 1 to 12 pages); Vol-I (1 to 30 pages except last page)

Ex.D7Receipts, Estimates, Delivery challans and quotations

Ex.D8Receipt dt. 26.10.2011 passed by DW-3 in favour of : 185 : CC.08/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Smt.A.Vijaya

Ex.D9Receipt dt. 03.11.2011 passed by DW-3 in favour of Smt.Vijaya.

Exhibits marked by Court

Ex.C1Statement of account of personal loan account bearing No.24793610 for the period from 17.06.2013 to 21.12.2019 in the name of A.Venugopal.

Sd/-

III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CBI

CASES, HYDERABAD.

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CBI CASES, HYDERABAD

Dated the 27th day of June, 2022

Present : Sura Srinivas Reddy III Addl. Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.06 of 2015

Between: State represented by Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Police Establishment, Kendriya Sadan, III Floor, Koti,

Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad.... Complainant

AND M.Satyanarayana S/o Chinnaiah Age: 61 years Occ: Office Superintendent, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad, Telangana R/o Quarter No.C-10101/1, Chilkalguda, Railway Quarters, Secunderabad,

Telangana.... Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.Anil Kumar Kompally, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI/Complainant and of Sri.B.V.R.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for Accused and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record and after the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police,

CBI, ACB, Hyderabad against the accused for the offences

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 2 of 76 punishable under sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)M.Satyanarayana (Accused) is working in Department of

Railways since 15.09.1989 and he was promoted to the post of

Office Superintendent w.e.f. 22.09.2014 and posted at O/o Senior

Divisional Personal Officer (DPO) and before that he worked as

Senior Clerk in the same Office and his duties includes preparation of bills of salaries and arrears of pay and allowances in respect of about 150 persons of Engineering staff among which

T.Jayaprakash Rao, Senior Section Engineer of Vikarabad Section is one.

(b).The Inspector further submitted that T.Jaya Prakasha

Rao is working as Senior Section Engineer at O/o Assistant

Divisional Engineer, Vikarabad and his duties are to attend track works and other special works in the Sub-Division, Vikarabad and he was sanctioned Modified Assured Carrier Progressions Scheme (MACPS) for the grade pay of Rs.4,800/- from the grade pay of

Rs.4,600/-, thereby he is eligible for arrears of difference of pay

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 3 of 76 w.e.f. 02.12.2013, as he has not been paid with the said arrears, he met M.Satyanarayana (accused), the then Senior Clerk, who was dealing with claiming of his arrears bill on 08.08.2014 and requested him to settle his arrears bill and T.Jaya Prakasha Rao has again met the accused on 15.09.2014 at his office and requested him to clear his arrears bill and at this time accused demanded T.Jaya Prakash Rao an amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification or else he would block the bill and T.Jaya Prakash Rao contacted M.Satyanarayana (accused) on 22.09.2014 over phone to know about the present position of the arrears bill, to this

M.Satyanarayana (accused) asked him whether he was coming with the illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- or not and as T.Jaya

Prakash Rao expressed his inability to pay the bribe,

M.Satyanarayana (accused) asked him to pay Rs.2,000/- initially and the balance amount later.

c).The Inspector further submitted that T.Jaya Prakash

Rao was not willing to pay the illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- to

M.Satyanarayana (accused), he lodged a written complaint on 22.09.2014 with SP, CBI, Hyderabad and basing on the said complaint, a case was registered vide RC.No.18(A)/2014, dt.

22.09.2014 u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 4 of 76 the M.Satyanarayana (accused), the then Senior Clerk of O/o

Senior DPO, SCR, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad.

(d).The Inspector further submitted that a team comprising Mr.Sekhar Dora Babu, Inspector of Police as Trap

Laying Officer (TLO), Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, Deputy S.P., CBI, ACB,

Hyderabad, Sri.B.Ramdas, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB,

Hyderabad, Sri.Ashok Kumar Mahail, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI,

ACB, Hyderabad, Sri.Y.A.Reddy, Police Constable, CBI, ACB,

Hyderabad, Sri.P.Shalimia, Police Constable, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad,

Sri.P.Srihari, Technical Officer of Registrar of Companies (ROC),

Hyderabad and Sri.Ch.S.K.Prasad, LDC of Archaeological Survey of

India, Hyderabad as independent mediators for laying the trap against M.Satyanarayana (accused) and to apprehend him if he demands and accepts the illegal gratification from T.Jaya Prakash

Rao.

(e).The Inspector further submitted that complainant

T.Jaya Prakash Rao produced an amount of Rs.2,000/- in two numbers of thousand rupee currency notes to be paid to

M.Satyanarayana (accused) as illegal gratification on demand and the Trap Laying Officer demonstrated and explained about the significance of sodium carbonate phenolphthalein powder and the

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 5 of 76 tainted currency were kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant after taking all required precautions and the complainant was instructed by Trap Laying Officer not to touch the tainted currency until and unless the same is demanded as illegal gratification by M.Satyanarayana. P.Srihari, an independent witness was asked to accompany the complainant and observe the events and the Trap Laying Officer instructed the complainant and the accompanying witness to give signal by wiping their faces with their handkerchief in case, M.Satyanarayana demands and accepts illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant and the said events were reduced into writing under the head of 1st Mediator’s Report.

(f).The Inspector further submitted that on 22.09.2014 at about 03:40 p.m. the complainant and accompanying witness were entering into Engineering Bills Section at O/o Senior DPO and on seeing the complainant, M.Satyanarayana (accused) asked the complainant whether he had brought the cash by saying in

Telugu ‘Techhavaa’ to this, the complainant said ‘yes’ and then as required by M.Satyanarayana all the three went to extreme end of the corridor of O/o Sr. DPO where M.Satyanarayana demanded the complainant to give the illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- and

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 6 of 76 accordingly the complainant gave the same to M.Satyanarayana, who accepted the same with his right hand and kept the same in his shirt pocket and while accepting the same M.Satyanarayana (accused) told the complainant that his work would be completed and he would receive his arrears payment along with September, 2014 salary and then complainant and the accompanying witness turned back and walked for some distance and gave pre-arranged signal to CBI team and when asked by the Trap Laying Officer, the complainant pointed out towards M.Satyanarayana (accused).

(g).The Inspector further submitted that the right hand washes of M.Satyanarayana (accused) were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test and on doing so the colourless solution turned into pink colour and the illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- was recovered by the independent witness from the left side shirt pocket of M.Satyanarayana and the seized currency notes were tallied with the currency note numbers which were recorded in the 1st Mediator’s Report and the shirt pocket was also subjected to sodium carbonate solution test and on doing so, the colourless solution turned into pink colour and the hand washes, shirt washes, other material washes, shirt and bribe amount were seized by the CBI, Inspector.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 7 of 76

(h).The Inspector further submitted that during Post-trap

Proceedings, the Trap Laying Officer seized the relevant file pertaining to claiming of arrears bill in respect of T.Jaya Prakash

Rao from the possession of M.Satyanarayana (accused) and the events were reduced into writing under the head of 2nd Mediator’s

Report and the Trap Laying Officer effected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial custody.

The Inspector further submitted that during the course of investigation, he has collected relevant documents u/s. 91 Cr.P.C.

and Receipt Memo from various authorities and CFSL Report also confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein, sodium and carbonate ions in the exhibits seized at the time of Post-trap

Proceedings and the investigation also proved through CDRs and

CFSL reports that there were calls between the mobile number of accused and mobile number of the complainant.

(i).The Inspector further submitted that the sanction order was issued by S.K.Mishra, Divisional Railway Manager,

Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway u/s. 19(1)(c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 8 of 76

(j).The Inspector further submitted that by demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- on 22.09.2014,

M.Satyanarayana (accused) Office Superintendent, Sanchalan

Bhavan, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad being public servant has committed offences punishable u/ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence the charge sheet is filed.

3.The then Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused and made over the case to I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and upon hearing him, charges under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against the accused and framed charges were read over and explained to him, for which he denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 9 of 76

5. When the matter is under trial, this case was transferred to this Court from I Additional Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Hyderabad, as per the orders of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad vide order in Dis.No.223/PSJ/

CBICRT/2020, dated: 15.02.2020 to dealt with according to law.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PW-1 to PW-12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 8 and reported the closure of evidence. The details of the witnesses and the documents that were mentioned in the appendix of evidence attached to the Judgment. During the cross- examination of PW-5, Ex.D1 is marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported defence evidence. Though the accused reported defence evidence, he filed petition to summon the defence witness and after issuance of summons got closed the defence evidence by filing memo stating that the address of defence witness could not be traced.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 10 of 76

8.Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused. The learned Public

Prosecutor filed written arguments.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that the prosecution by examining PW.1 to PW.12 and by marking

Exs.P1 to P22 and Mos 1 to 8 categorically proved the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as PW1,

PW2 and PW9 categorically supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the Pre-trap and Post-trap Proceedings and through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution proved the alleged demand and acceptance of cash of Rs.2,000/- towards bribe by the accused from PW1 for doing official favour i.e., to clear his MACPS arrears bill and as such, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the alleged offences.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences under

Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, as the evidence of PW1, who is the defacto-

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 11 of 76 complainant is not corroborating with Ex.P1 complaint and also not corroborating with the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged demand of bribe by the accused as the prosecution failed to prove that PW1 met the accused at his office on 08.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 and even the prosecution failed to prove that the accused himself made a call to PW1 on 22.09.2014 and as per the evidence of PW5 the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 was uploaded by the accused on 10.09.2014 itself and as such there is no official favour pending with the accused in respect of

MACPS arrears bill of PW1 as on the alleged dates ie., 15.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 and even there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on material aspects and even the evidence of PW1 before this Court is improved version from his

Ex.P1 complaint and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by PW12 on material aspects and therefore, as the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand of bribe by the accused from PW1, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Basing on the charges framed against the accused and basing on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 12 of 76 following points are determined for consideration.

12.Now the points for consideration are:-

(i)Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused demanded and accepted cash of Rs.2,000/- towards bribe from PW.1 for doing official favour, as alleged?

(ii)Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

13.In order to avoid conflicting findings and repetition of facts, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are taken up together for consideration.

14.In order to prove the guilty of accused for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that accused being public servant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2000/- from PW1 for processing his MACPS arrears bill and thereby committed criminal misconduct with in the meaning of 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In order to prove the said charges, the Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Ex.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 8.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 13 of 76

15.As per the evidence of PW1 Mr.T.Jayaprakash Rao,the then Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way Special works at

Vikarabad (from January, 2014 to June, 2015) he knows the accused, who was working as Senior Clerk/Office Superintendent (Bills) in the office of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (SDPO),

South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division in the year 2013 and 2014. He further stated that in the year 2012, he submitted a complaint to SDPO about his Assured Carrier Progress Pay up- gradation and no action was taken against his complaint and in

August, 2013 he lodged a complaint to Director Personnel

Grievances, New Delhi through on-line and as per the orders of

Director Personnel Grievances his problem was settled and orders were given in June, 2014 and in pursuance of orders, arrears of pay hike have to be paid to him and the said matter was pending with the accused. He further stated that he met the accused on 08.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 and asked to process his arrears payment and the accused demanded him to pay Rs.5,000/- for processing his arrears payment and when PW1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount, the accused told him that if he cannot pay the amount his work will not be processed.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 14 of 76

16.PW1 further stated that on 22.09.2014 the accused called him to his mobile phone and he did not attend the call and he went to CBI office, Koti, Hyderabad met SP, CBI, who entrusted the matter to Mr.Praveen Kumar and he interacted with him and asked him to call the accused over phone and he called the accused over his mobile phone at around 12:00 noon and the accused spoke to him and Mr.Praveen Kumar heard the conversation and the accused asked him whether he is coming with money or not to process the file and as per the instructions of Mr.Praveen Kumar, he informed the accused that he will be coming to office after lunch and he also intimated the accused that he can pay only Rs.2,000/- but the accused told him that he will receive Rs.2,000/- as first installment and he shall pay balance later.

17.PW1 further stated that the CBI Officer asked him to give a report in writing and he prepared EX.P1 report dated 22.09.2014 and presented to the CBI Officer. PW1 further stated that then Mr.Shekar Dora Babu, Inspector, CBI was called there and then CBI Officials called two persons to assist as mediators and he was introduced to the mediators and the CBI Officials asked him to give Rs.2,000/- and he gave Rs.2,000/-(M.O.1) to CBI

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 15 of 76

Officer consisting two thousand rupees currency notes and the

CBI officials noted the numbers.

18.PW1 further stated that the CBI officials conducted demonstration of colour test by applying powder on the currency notes and the color of the solution changed to pink on dipping fingers of the person, who touched the notes and the currency notes were wrapped in a paper and given to him to keep in his pocket and he kept the same in his shirt pocket and he was instructed not to touch the notes till they were given to the accused and one of the mediators was instructed to accompany him to the accused and Ex.P2 First Mediator’s Report dated 22.09.2014 was prepared for all these happenings and he along with the mediators attested the same.

19.PW1 further stated that on that day at about 2:00 pm he along with mediators Mr.Sri Hari and Mr.Prasad, Inspector of

CBI Mr.Shekar Dora Babu went to Sanchalan Bhavan,

Secunderabad in a Car and other CBI officials also came in another Car and they all went to 4th floor of Sanchalan Bhavan and he and Mr.Sri Hari were instructed to go to the seat of the accused and others are waiting in the corridor and he was

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 16 of 76 instructed to wipe his face with kerchief if the accused accepts the amount.

20.PW1 further stated that he himself and Mr.Sri Hari came to the seat of the accused and accused was present and on seeing them accused stood up immediately and asked him whether he brought money and he said he brought money and he was about to pick up money from his pocket, the accused informed him that they will go to verandah and then went to extreme left side of the verandah and there the accused showed right hand and he picked up the cash from his pocket and the accused took the cash from his hand and kept the same in his left side shirt pocket and immediately he and mediator turned back and came back to the starting point of the verandah and he gave signal by wiping his face with kerchief and immediately CBI officials came to the accused and caught hold the accused and he was taken to Assistant Personnel Officer Room (APO) and he was waiting in the verandah and he was called into that room.

21.PW1 further stated that APO was present in the room and the CBI officials took cash from the accused and they also collected one mobile phone and a plastic cover found in the possession of the accused and the CBI officials asked the

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 17 of 76 accused to remove his shirt. PW1 further stated that the CBI officials conducted the colour test to the hands of accused, phone cover and shirt and the liquid turned into pink color and the CBI officials preserved cash, colour liquids and other materials and Ex.P3 Second Mediator’s Report dated 22.09.2014 was prepared for all the happenings and he attested the same and the proceedings were concluded at about 6:30 pm and he left to his home.

22.PW1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that as per order dt. 12.06.2014 bearing No.SOO51/DRL/ENGG/

DRM/2014, his pay was upgraded under MACPS as per Ex.P6 file and his pay is raised with effect from 02.12.2013. PW1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there is no mention in Ex.P1 that he met the accused on 08.08.2014.

Therefore, the above evidence of PW1 that he met the accused on 08.08.2014 is not supported by any evidence and the same is improved version from Ex.P1 complaint.

23.PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that as per his Ex.P7 Pay-slip for the month of September, 2014 he has received MACPS arrears of Rs.11,067/- which he is entitled as per the order dt. 12.06.2014. PW1 further admitted in the cross-

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 18 of 76 examination that the accused used to feed the information relating to pay and arrears thereon in computer system and he is not aware if the particulars of pay of an individual are to be fed in the computer by the accused on or before 15th of every month lest they will not be reflected in the pay-slip of succeeding month and he is not aware that the accused fed the particulars of his

MACPS arrears into the computer on 12.09.2014. PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that he is not aware that a statement viz., Drawn and Due Statement for the arrears will be submitted to the Accounts Department headed by Senior

Divisional Financial Manager and he is not aware that it is the duty of the accused to prepare this statement and that the accused had prepared this statement on the next day of order dt.

12.06.2014 and he is not aware that the statement prepared by the accused sent to the office of DFM which is pending in the office of DFM till 21.08.2014 on which day the office gave concurrence for arrears and obtained sanction from the competent authority and that the sanction was obtained by the accused after putting a note on 08.09.2014 and such sanction was issued on 10.09.2014.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 19 of 76

24.PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that he did not mention in his tour diary that he met the accused on 15.09.2014. As per the case of the prosecution, evidence of PW1 and as per the contents of Ex.P1 complaint, PW1 met the accused on 15.09.2014, but there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that PW1 met the accused on 15.09.2014.

Therefore, the evidence of PW1 before this Court that the accused asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- for processing his MACPS arrears payment on 08.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P1 complaint and not supported by any documentary evidence and even PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that he did not make a mention in the office record of accused on 15.09.2014 showing his visit to the office of accused. Therefore, in view of the above admission of PW1, there is no evidence before this Court to show that PW1 met the accused at his office on 08.08.2014 and 15.09.2014.

25.PW1 in his cross-examination categorically denied that on 22.09.2014 the accused did not make any call to him over his mobile phone bearing No.9701371699 from his mobile no.9652216080 and that he himself called upon the accused on his mobile at 10:25 am on 22.09.2014. But as can be seen from

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 20 of 76 the evidence of PW11 and Ex.P22 call data record produced by the prosecution, it is clearly mentioned that PW1 himself called the accused at 10:25:36 and had conversation for 19 seconds and that on the same day PW1 gave a missed call to the accused at 11:04:41. Therefore, the above evidence of PW11 and Ex.P22 falsifies the evidence of PW1, PW9 and PW12 and also the case of the prosecution that the accused gave a missed call to PW1 on 22.09.2014 at 10:30 am.

26.PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that during his conversation with the accused on 22.09.2014 there was discussion regarding copies of muster sheets and their supply from him. The above admission of PW1 strengthens the defence of the accused that on 22.09.2014 PW1 called the accused for muster sheets and that there is no demand of bribe by the accused from PW1 for processing MACPS arrears bill of PW1. PW1 further admitted in the cross-examination that the accused made a call to him at 11:34 hours on 22.09.2014 but he did not answer the said call and admitted that he do not remember whether he answered the said call and spoke with the accused for 65 seconds and during said conversation they discussed about muster sheets, but as can be seen from Ex.P22 call data record it is clearly

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 21 of 76 mentioned that on 22.09.2014 there is a call from the mobile of accused to PW1 which lasted for 65 seconds.

27.PW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that in Ex.P1 report he did not mention that “He (SP, CBI, Hyd) entrusted the matter to Mr.Praveen Kumar, he (Mr.Praveen Kumar) interacted with me and asked me to call the accused over phone.

I called the accused over my mobile phone at around 12:00 noon.

The accused spoke to me. Mr.Praveen Kumar heard the conversation. The accused asked me whether I am coming with money or not to process the file. As per the instructions of

Mr.Praveen Kumar, I informed the accused that I will be coming to his office after lunch. I also intimated the accused that I can pay only Rs.2,000/-. The accused told me that he will receive

Rs.2,000/- as first instalment and I shall pay balance later.”

Therefore, the above admission of PW1 that he has not mentioned the above fact in Ex.P1 complaint is nothing but improved version from Ex.P1 complaint and also omission from his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement recorded by PW12 and the above omission as stated by

PW1 is admitted by PW12 Investigating Officer that PW1 not stated the above fact to him while recording his statement u/s.

161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the above evidence of PW1 before this

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 22 of 76

Court is nothing but an improved version from Ex.P1 complaint and omission from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by PW12 .

28.PW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that in Ex.P2 First Mediator’s Report, there is no mention that the currency notes were wrapped in a paper before giving them to him for keeping in his pocket. As per the evidence of PW2, who is the independent mediator, MO1 currency notes were kept in a paper before putting the same in the shirt pocket of PW1.

Therefore, the above evidence of PW1 & 2 is contrary to Ex.P2

First Mediator’s Report. PW1 further admitted in the cross- examination that as per Ex.P1 complaint his arrears bill is under the Bill Unit of 02235 and he mentioned the same at two places in

Ex.P1 report and he received arrears from the Bill Unit 02226. As can be seen from Ex.P7, pay bill of PW1 for the month of

September, 2014, he received the arrears of MACPS bill from the

Bill Unit of 02226 and not from the Bill Unit of 02235 as mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint.

29.As per the evidence of PW2 Mr.P.Srihari, the then

Junior Technical Assistant, Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad from May, 2000 to March, 2015 stated that on 22.09.2014, his

Officer instructed him to go to CBI Office, Kendriya Sadan,

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 23 of 76

Hyderabad at about 2:00 pm and immediately, he visited CBI

Office which is located in the same premises and there he met CBI

Inspector Mr.Shekar Dora Babu and he was introduced to

Mr.Ch.S.K.Prasad, who came from another Department and he was also introduced to Mr.Jayaprakash Rao (PW1), who is the complainant and the CBI Inspector explained them that PW1 is working in South Central Railway, Secunderabad and he preferred a complaint against one Mr.Satyanarayana, who is working as

Senior Assistant in Bills Section, South Central Railway,

Secunderabad regarding demand of bribe for releasing arrears of

MACP and the CBI Inspector requested him and Mr.Ch.S.K.Prasad to assist as mediators for the trap proceedings and they accepted his request.

30.PW2 further stated that the CBI Inspector asked PW1 to provide money for the trap proceedings and PW1 produced two one thousand rupee currency notes (MO1) and on receiving the same, numbers of the notes were noted and the CBI Inspector instructed Constable to apply phenolphthalein powder to the notes and accordingly, Constable applied phenolphthalein powder to the notes and the said two notes were kept in a paper and kept in the shirt pocket of PW1 and he was instructed not to touch the

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 24 of 76 notes till the accused makes a demand for bribe and if the accused accepts money, to give a signal by wiping his face with kerchief and the CBI Inspector instructed the Constable to demonstrate the chemical test and accordingly, Constable dipped his fingers in a chemical solution and it turned into pink colour and after demonstration the test solution was destroyed and all the happenings were recorded into a Report under Ex.P2 and he himself and another witness attested the same.

31.PW2 further stated that the CBI Inspector instructed him to follow PW1 to the accused and observe all the happenings and the proceedings were concluded around 2:45 pm and then all of them proceeded to Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad and he along with PW1 and Inspector went there in the Car of PW1 and others followed them in another Car. PW2 further stated that after reaching Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad PW1 told them that the accused will be in 4th Floor of the building and he along with

PW1 went to 4th Floor and other mediator and CBI officials followed them and they reached 4th Floor and he along with PW1 went to Bills Section in the 4th Floor and went to the seat of the accused. PW2 further stated that on seeing PW1 the accused asked him whether he brought money and PW1 told accused that

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 25 of 76 he brought money and when PW1 was about to pick money from pocket, the accused told him not to give money there and took to a place in the corner of the corridor and then accused asked PW1 to give money and PW1 took money from his pocket and gave it to the accused and accused received it and kept it in the pocket on the left side of accused shirt and he was observing all the happenings between the accused and PW1 and the accused and

PW1 came aside and the accused proceeding towards seat and then he gave signal by wiping his face with kerchief.

32.PW2 further stated that on seeing the same, the CBI

Inspector and other officials came there and caught hold the accused in the corridor and disclosed their identity and the CBI

Inspector questioned the accused about money and when showed the money from his shirt pocket and then the accused was taken to in the room of Senior DPO and one Lady Officer was present there and she asked her Assistant Officer to assist CBI Officials.

PW2 further stated that the CBI Officials conducted phenolphthalein test asking the accused to dip his fingers in chemical solution and the accused dipped his right hand fingers and the solution turned into pink colour and the said solution was collected into a clean glass bottle (MO2) and it was sealed and a

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 26 of 76 paper slip was affixed and he along with other mediator and CBI staff signed on the paper slip containing right hand wash of the accused.

33.PW2 further stated that the CBI Officials again conducted phenolphthalein test asking the accused to dip his fingers in chemical solution and the accused dipped his left hand fingers and the solution colour not changed and the said solution was collected into a clean glass bottle (MO3) and it was sealed and a paper slip was affixed, he along with other mediator and

CBI staff signed on the paper slip containing left hand wash of the accused. PW2 further stated that afterwards phenolphthalein test was conducted on the left pocket of the shirt of the accused after it was removed from the accused and the solution turned into pink colour and the said solution was collected into a clean glass bottle (MO4) and it was sealed and a paper slip was affixed and he along with other mediator and CBI staff signed on the paper slip containing left side shirt pocket wash of the accused.

34.PW2 further stated that the CBI Inspector with the help of cotton wiped the mobile phone and the paper in which currency notes were kept and that cotton was subjected to phenolphthalein test and the solution turned into pink colour and

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 27 of 76 the said solution was collected into a clean glass bottle (MO6) and it was sealed and a paper slip was affixed, he along with other mediator and CBI staff signed on the paper slip containing wash of the phone and white paper and he along with other mediator signed on the pocket of the shirt of the accused and the CBI

Inspector arrested the accused. PW2 further stated that CBI

Officials seized the currency notes, mobile phone (MO7), shirt and solution bottles and the specimen of seals as in Ex.P4 was taken on a separate paper and he along with other mediator attested the same. PW2 further stated that a rough sketch under Ex.P5 was prepared for the scene of offence and he along with other mediator attested the same. PW2 further stated that a file relating to work of pay hike of complainant as in Ex.P6 was seized from the table of the accused and he along with other mediator attested the same. PW2 further stated that the numbers of the currency notes were verified with numbers mentioned in Ex.P2 and they were tallied and all the happenings were reduced into writing and he along with other mediator and CBI officials attested the Mediator’s Report under Ex.P3 and the proceedings were concluded at about 6:45 pm.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 28 of 76

35.PW2 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he assisted CBI Police, Hyderabad, as mediator in 10 to 12 cases and denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness of CBI.

PW2 further admitted in the cross-examination that in Ex.P2 First

Mediator’s Report, there is no mention that the two currency notes were kept in a paper before keeping them in the pocket of

PW1. PW2 further admitted in the cross-examination that he was standing at a little distance away from PW1 when he met the accused in his office at his seat on 22.09.2014 and the accused did not enquire PW1 as to who is he and he has no knowledge about the conversations and agreements took place between PW1 and accused prior to 22.09.2014 and there is a possibility of hearing the conversation going between the accused and PW1 by him, if they talk loudly. The above admission of PW2 clearly goes to show that he has not heard the conversation between PW1 and accused at the time of alleged demand and acceptance.

Therefore, in view of the above admission of PW2 that he has not heard the conversation of PW1 and accused, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 with regard to the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from

PW1.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 29 of 76

36.PW2 further admitted in the cross-examination that there is no mention in Ex.P3 Second Mediator’s Report that on seeing PW1 the accused asked him whether he brought money and PW1 told him that he brought money. Therefore, the above evidence of PW2 in his chief-examination is nothing but improved version from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and Ex.P3 Second

Mediator’s Report.

37.As per the evidence of PW3 Mr.Ch.V.Vijaya Bhaskar, the then Assistant Personnel Officer (APO), Sanchalan Bhavan,

Secunderabad (from May, 2014 to August, 2016) he knows the accused for the last 30 years as his colleague in the office and on 22.09.2014 he was in his Chambers when CBI Police laid trap against the accused and around 4:30 p.m. his Superior Officer

Smt.Jotsna Pandey Kusumakar, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO) instructed him to come to her Chambers and immediately he went to her Chambers and he noticed CBI officials and the accused in her Chambers and she instructed him to assist CBI officials as witness for the proceedings. He further stated that in his presence, CBI officials conducted the Sodium Carbonate test to both hands of the accused separately in two glass tumblers and one of such solution turned into pink colour which was

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 30 of 76 transferred into a bottle and sealed it and one mobile phone, currency notes, one plastic pouch and a piece of paper were available in the shirt pocket of the accused and the CBI officials seized the same and the CBI officials verified the numbers of the currency notes and then the shirt pocket was also subjected to sodium carbonate test which also turned to pink colour and the resultant wash was collected into a bottle and sealed. He further stated that the CBI officials asked him to show the place of work of the accused and he took them to the seat of the accused and there they collected a file relating to the case vide Ex.P6 and later some CBI officials have taken the accused to his house and after sometime they came back and they prepared a Report vide Ex.P3 for the happenings and he attested the same.

38.As per the evidence of PW4 Mr.Manohar, Chief Office

Superintendent, ADEN Office, South Central Railaway, Vikarabad,

R.R.District, (since June, 2014), his duties are to look after the office staff matters such as receiving applications and representations of staff and placing before ADEN, Vikarabad with his note. He further stated that Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW1) worked as Senior Section Engineer in their Sub-Division and at time he submitted a representation, dated 28.07.2014 under

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 31 of 76

Ex.P8 addressed to Senior DPO, Secunderabad Division and he forwarded the same on 01.08.2014 and handed over it to

Mr.M.Satyanarayana, Senior Clerk and acknowledgement was taken in the Dispatch Book. He further stated that subsequently,

CBI officials collected the application of PW1, extract of Dispatch,

Monthly Diary of PW1 for the month of August and September, 2014, Pay-slip for the month of June, 2014 of PW1 and Ex.P7 Pay- slip for the month of September of PW1, Ex.P8 Representation

dated 28.07.2014 addressed to Senior DPO, Secunderabad

Division submitted by PW1, Ex.P9 extract of Dispatch Register of

ADEN office, Vikarabad containing entry relating to representation vide Ex.P8, Ex.P10 Diary of PW1 for the month of August and

September, 2014 and Ex.P11 Pay-slip of PW1 for the month of

June, 2014.

39.As per the evidence of PW5 Mr.M.Subramanyam,

Assistant Personnel Officer (APO), Secunderabad Division,

Sanchalan Bhavan, SCR, Secunderabad, he knows the accused, who worked as Office Superintendent, Secunderabad Division,

Sanchalan Bhavan, SCR, Secunderabad and the accused worked under his supervision and accused duties were to look after preparation of pay bills and any arrears payable to employees and

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 32 of 76

Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW1) worked as Senior Section Engineer under Assistant Engineer, Vikarabad and his pay bill and other bills were prepared by his office. He further stated that PW1 was sanctioned a scheme called Modified Assured Carrier Progressions (MACPS) in June, 2014 which was due from December, 2013 and he submitted a representation for the same in Grievance Register/

Log Book in their office and in this regard, the accused put-up a note to Additional Divisional Railway Manager (ADRM),

Secunderabad and then an order was issued by him on 12-06- 2014 and based on the order, the accused prepared, drawn and due statement on 12.06.2014 and it was verified by Senior

Divisional Financial Manager on 20-08-2014. He further stated that on 08.09.2014 MACP arrears note was prepared by the accused to him and he has taken sanction from DPO on 10.09.2014 and after taking sanction the accused has to enter the bill in computer system using accused password and the accused prepared draft bill on 18.09.2014 and it was submitted to

Accounts Section on 19.09.2014 and final bill to be prepared on 23.09.2014 and submitted to Accounts Section on 24.09.2014 vide Ex.P6 file and then amount of Rs.11,067/- was allowed in the salary bill of September, 2014 vide Ex.P7. He further stated that on the request of CBI Police he has provided copy of DPG

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 33 of 76 reference submitted by Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW1) for non- payment of MACP arrears, Log Book showing the details of MACP amount, document for processing details of MACPs available in the file and Pay-slip for September, 2014 of Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW1) and Ex.P12 printout of grievance details dated 06-09-2013 entered in the computer, Ex.P13 Pay-slip for September, 2014 of

Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW1), Ex.P14 Note dated 12-09-2014 regarding schedule for salary bills and Ex.P15 entry No.234 pertaining to Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW1) at page 23 in Staff

Grievance Register maintained at Personnel Branch,

Secunderabad Division.

40.PW5 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that the entry in Ex.P15 shows that the grievance of PW1 has been redressed and Ex.P7 salary slip contains entry of Rs.11,067/- pertaining to MACP arrears and 10.09.2014 will be the muster closing of the month and process will start for preparation of pay bill from 11th onwards and before 18th data entry will be made in the computer regarding pay bill and on 18th draft will be printed.

PW5 further admitted in the cross-examination that he issued an order on 12.06.2014 regarding MACP arrears of PW1 and on the same day drawn and due statement for Rs.11,067/- of PW1 was

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 34 of 76 prepared by the accused and later certification of Senior

Divisional Financial Manager has been obtained on 20.08.2014 and signifying the concurrence the Senior Divisional Financial

Manager sent a letter dt. 21.08.2014 which was received by the accused on the same day and a note was prepared on 08.09.2014 which was put up to him and he forwarded it to DPO on 09.09.2014 and DPO sanctioned it on 10.09.2014. As can be seen from the above evidence of PW5, it clearly goes to show that the accused has processed the MACP arrears bill of PW1 according to the instructions.

41.PW5 further stated in the cross-examination that the date of uploading the details should have been done before printing of draft bill on 18.09.2014 and the data available in computer system may disclose the date of uploading the details.

During further cross-examination PW5 was confronted with Ex.D1 which is obtained by the accused from the office of Dr. DPO, South

Central Railway, Secunderabad, and PW5 categorically admitted that there is a change date showing 10th September, 2014 in

Ex.D1 in respect of the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 and the meaning of change date is the date of uploading the arrears in the draft bill. Therefore, as per the above evidence of PW5 and

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 35 of 76

Ex.D1, it clearly goes to show that the accused uploaded the

MACPS arrears bill of PW1 in the computer on 10.09.2014 itself, which is much earlier to the alleged demand of bribe by the accused on 15.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 as alleged in the charge sheet.

42.As per the evidence of PW6 Mr.Chunduru Eswar Sai

Prasad, the then Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-I in

GEQD, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (from 1999), in the present case one sealed parcel said to have contained a mobile phone has been sent to their Central Forensic Science Laboratory,

Hyderabad through Mr. Shivaji Shingade, P.C. on 11-12-2014 vide forwardingletterNo.RC.18(A)/2014/CBI/HYD/4792,dated 11.12.2014 of Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad and the exhibits in the sealed parcel along with the above forwarding letter was received in their office by the then Director and the exhibit in sealed parcel was entrusted to him for analysis and report by assigning an internal case number CFSL(H)/2319/DOC/ 666/CCH-129/2014 and the sealed parcel contained one mobile phoneofmake-Nokia,model-2626bearingIMEI

No.358087015853687 along with a SIM card (MO7) from the provider Airtel bearing ICCID 89914905040617167455 and the

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 36 of 76 mobile phone was found in switched off mode and the mobile phone was marked as Q1ME and the SIM card was marked as

Q1ME-SIM and the logical level forensic analysis of the mobile phone marked Q1ME was performed by using Universal Forensic

Extraction Device Tool (UFED) and phone book entries, SMS text messages, incoming calls, outgoing calls, missed calls and list of audio footages were retrieved and these details were provided at

Annexure-A page Nos.1 to 20 attached to his report and the soft copy of the audio footages retrieved above was provided in the

CD marked CCH1292014-CD. He further stated that the SIM card was analyzed by using Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) and the phone book entries and SMS text messages were retrieved and the details of these data were provided at

Annexure-A page Nos.21 to 26 attached to his report and the SMS text messages, incoming calls, outgoing calls and missed calls contained data pertaining to 22.09.2014 and after the analysis, the report bearing No.CFSL(H)/2319/DOC/666/CCH which runs in two pages and all the two pages contain his signature and the analysis report along with Annexure-A in 26 pages and CD marked

CCH1292014-CD were handed over to the special messenger

Mr.P.S.Rajaratnam, Police Constable, CBI, Hyderabad on 30-01- 2015 in two sealed parcels vide laboratory forwarding letter

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 37 of 76

No.CFSL(H)/2319/DOC/666/CCH-129/2014/9624, dt. 30.01.2015.

He further stated that Sl.No.66 at page No.6 of 26 of Annexure-A in Ex.P16 relates to phone book entries pertains to mobile

No.9701371699 saved in the name of Mr.Prakash Jaya, Sl.No.1 at page No.16 of 26 of Annexure-A in Ex.P16 relates to incoming SMS text message from mobile No.9701371699, dated 22-9-2014,

Sl.No.14 at page No.17 of 26 of Annexure-A in Ex.P16 relates to incoming call from mobile No. 9701371699, dated 22-9-2014 at 10:25:34 for duration of 19 seconds, Sl.No.8 at page No.18 of 26 of Annexure-A in Ex.P16 relates to outgoing call to mobile

No.9701371699, dated 22-9-2014 at 11:34:05 for duration of 0:01:05, Sl.No.9 and 10 at page No.18 of 26 of Annexure-A in

Ex.P16 relates to outgoing call to mobile No.9701371699, dated 22-9-2014 at 10:24:33 and 10:17:12 respectively and Sl.No.2 at page No.19 of 26 of Annexure-A in Ex.P16 relates to missed call from mobile No.9701371699, dated 22-9-2014 at 11:33:46.

43.As can be seen from the evidence of PW6, who is the

Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and issued

Ex.P16 report he analysed the mobile phone and SIM, which was alleged to have been seized from the accused as in MO7. As per the evidence of PW6, he analysed the mobile phone and SIM card

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 38 of 76 sent to him under MO7 and retrieved the conversation recorded in

MO7 mobile phone into a CD and submitted the same to SP, CBI,

Hyderabad. During the evidence of PW6, the CD which is received from PW6 containing the alleged conversation between

PW1 and accused was played in the open Court with the help of laptop and the said CD contain two audio files, one in .mp3 and another in .amr format and it is noticed that .mp3 file is a music file and .amr file contains some conversation not related to this case and therefore, the said CD was not marked as material object/document. Therefore, in view of the above observation in the evidence of PW6 that the CD contains a music file and conversation not relating to this case, clearly goes to show that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conversation between

PW1 and accused. Therefore, in the absence of any material, it cannot be concluded that the accused demanded the bribe from

PW1 by making a call to him on 22.09.2014.

44.As per the evidence of PW7 Mr.Sushant Kumar Mishra, the then Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway,

Secunderabad, (from August, 2012 to February, 2015) he was the

Administrative Head of the Division as Divisional Railway Manager and as per their Establishment Rules, all Group–C staff comes

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 39 of 76 under the Administrative Competence of Divisional Railway

Manager and the Divisional Railway Manager is competent to impose major penalty on administrative side including removal from service upon Group-C staff members. He further stated that on 29-01-2015, through their Head Quarter Vigilance, he received a requisition of CBI Police for according sanction for prosecution of the accused in the case and he went through all the records provided by CBI and felt that it is a fit case for according sanction for the prosecution of the accused, who was working as Office

Superintendent at that time and on 30-01-2015, he has issued

Ex.P17 proceedings according sanction for the prosecution of the accused in the case for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

45.PW7 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that Ex.P17 proceedings do not have any Annexure showing his competency to issue sanction proceedings and in Ex.P17 there is no mention about the preparation of draft bill by the accused and date of uploading of final bill.

46.As per the evidence of PW8 Mr.S.N.Rasool, Senior

Scientific Officer, CFSL, Hyderabad, he has forwarded the

Chemical Examination Report dated 13.11.2014 under Ex.P18 of

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 40 of 76

Mr.P.Sudhakar, Jr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, Hyderabad to

Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad.

47.As per the evidence of PW9 Mr.Sekhar Dora Babu,

Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad while discharging his duties he received oral instructions from Head of the Branch CBI/ACB

Hyderabad on 22.09.2014 to register the FIR against

M.Satyanarayana (Accused) and based on Ex.P1 Complaint dt:

22.09.2014, he registered Ex.P19 FIR against the accused u/s. 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, and after registering the Ex.P19 FIR, he received instructions from Superintendent of Police, CBI,

Hyderabad, to lay a trap and on the same day he formed a team consisting himself, Praveen Kumar DSP, Ramdas, Inspector of

Police, Ashok Mahil, Sub-Inspector, Y.A. Reddy P.C., Shalimaiah P.C.

48.PW9 further stated that he instructed V.Srinivas Rao, who was the Duty Officer during the relevant period of time to secure two independent witnesses and on 22.09.2014 at about 2 p.m. two independent witnesses i.e. PW2 and Ch.S.K.Prasad came to CBI Office, Koti, Hyderabad, he met them in his

Chambers and he briefed them the purpose of trap and PW1 was waiting outside his Chambers, after a while he called him inside and introduced PW2 and Ch.S.K.Prasad to PW.1 and vise-versa.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 41 of 76

PW9 further stated that he has shown Ex.P1 and Ex.P19 to PW2 and Ch.S.K.Prasad, thereafter the about said witnesses have gone through Ex.P1 and enquired with PW1 about the issue and in turn

PW1 stated to PW2 and Ch.S.K.Prasad that his Modified Assured

Carrier Progression Scheme (MACPS) arrears are pending with Bills

Department of South Central Railway, Secunderabad and the concerned Officer is M.Satyanarayana/Accused, who is looking after the bills and the accused demanded bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- from PW1, in turn PW1 requested the accused to scale down the amount as Rs.2,000/- as first installment, as PW1 was not interested to pay the bribe amount to the accused he lodged

Ex.P1 Complaint and PW2 and Prasad having satisfied with the reply given by PW1, they signed on the copy of complaint under

Ex.P20.

49.PW9 further stated that he asked PW1 to produce

Rs.2,000/- which is to be paid to the accused towards bribe, in turn PW1 has produced two currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each i.e.

MO1 and on his instructions, Sri.Y.A.Reddy has prepared Sodium

Carbonate solution in a glass tumbler, the resultant solution was colourless, in which two independent witnesses were made to dip their fingers in that solution which remained same, thereafter,

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 42 of 76

Sri.Y.A.Reddy applied thin layer of Phenolphthalein power to the currency notes and then he kept the currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of PW1, thereafter Sri.Y.A.Reddy dipped his fingers in the same solution which turned into pink colour and he has explained the significance of chemical reactions to PW1, PW2 and Ch.S.K.Prasad and thereafter, he requested PW2 to closely follow up PW1 and to hear the conversation between PW1 and the accused and he also instructed PW1 not to give shake hand to accused and as and when the accused demands then only PW1 has to pay the bribe amount. PW9 further stated that he instructed PW1 and PW2 as and when the accused accepts the bribe amount to give pre-arranged signal by wiping their faces with handkerchief to the trap team, who will be available in and around the accused office and thereafter they decided to proceed to the office of the accused situated at IV Floor, Railway Sanchal

Nilayam, Secunderabad and the facts are narrated to PW1, PW2 and Prasad and thereafter First Mediator’s Report was prepared under Ex.P2, which commenced at 2.15 P.M on 22.09.2014 and concluded at 2.45 P.M.

50.PW9 further stated that thereafter, all the team members along with the witnesses washed their hands and left

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 43 of 76 the phenolphthalein powder at the office and then they proceeded to the office of the accused and he himself and his team left the office at 2.50 P.M. in two four wheelers and one four wheeler belongs to PW1, wherein himself, complainant, PW2 have traveled in it and the rest of the team traveled in the official car and both the vehicles reached the office of the accused by 3.30

P.M. and on his instructions PW.1 and PW.2 proceeded to the

Chambers of the accused, the rest of the team followed the above said witnesses and there was a corridor in-front of the chambers of the accused and they were waiting there and PW1 and PW2 went into the chamber of the accused.

51.PW9 further stated that PW1 and PW2 came out of the

Chambers of the accused at about 3.50 P.M. and they walked towards the corridor, gave pre-arranged signal by wiping their faces with the help of handkerchief and then he rushed towards

PW1 and PW2 and asked them what has transpired in the chambers of the accused, in turn PW1 and PW2 have shown one person following them that he is the person, who has demanded the bribe and taken the amount and then he approached towards the accused and disclosed his identity and required him to disclose his identity and then accused stated his name as

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 44 of 76

M.Satyanarayana, Office Superintendent (Bills), Sr. DPO Office, IV

Floor, Sanchalan Bhavan, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and then he requested the accused person whether he accepted the bribe amount from PW1 and then he become pale, unable to speak for sometime.

52.PW9 further stated that as the chambers of the accused was filled up with crowd, they entered the chambers of

Smt.J.P.Kushmakar, Sr. Divisional Personal Officer and narrated about the events and requested her to permit them to use her cabin for further proceedings and then she ordered Mr.Vijay

Bhaskar(PW3), Assistant Sr. Divisional Personal Officer, to participate in the proceedings. PW9 further stated that then he instructed Shalimaiah, Police Constable to prepare two sets of

Sodium Carbonate solutions, on his instructions he prepared

Sodium Carbonate solution in two clean glass tumblers with the water available in their office and the resultant solution was colourless, upon his request the accused rinsed his right hand fingers in one of the glass tumbler, on doing so, the colourless solution turned into light pink colour and the accused dipped his left hand fingers in another glass tumbler which remained colourless, which was seized and labeled under MO3.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 45 of 76

53.PW9 further stated that thereafter, he asked PW2 to narrate the events after entering the cabin of the accused and he narrated the events and the same was corroborated by PW1 and then he requested Ch.S.K.Prasad to collect the bribe amount from the accused, which accused disclosed that he kept in his left side shirt pocket, thereafter Ch.S.K.Prasad and PW2 compared the serial numbers of the notes (MO1) with that of Ex.P2 and found to be tallied. PW9 further stated that then he requested B.Ramdas,

Inspector to collect the shirt pocket wash of the accused and upon instructions Sri.P.Shalimaiah prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in the clean glass tumbler and which was colourless and then

Sri.B.Ramdas dipped the inner side pocket of the shirt in the glass tumbler, the solution turned into light pink colour and the resultant solution was seized (MO4) and the shirt of the accused was also seized i.e. MO.5.

54.PW9 further stated that the shirt pocket was containing mobile phone and one white paper which were subjected to swab wash and on his instructions, Shalimaiah, PC has prepared another Sodium Carbonate solution in a glass tumbler and he dipped the swab in the colourless solution and it remained same, then he rubbed the swab on mobile phone cover

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 46 of 76 and white paper and then he dipped the swab into the Sodium

Carbonate solution, upon doing so, the solution turned into light pink colour and the resultant solution was sealed, labeled and seized, which is MO.6.

55.PW9 further stated that the money recovered from the accused is seized under Ex.P3 and the accused was arrested at 4.30P.M. and same was intimated to Smt.Kushmakar, Sr. DPO,

Sri.Vijay Bhaskar, Assistant Sr. DPO (PW.3) and to the spouse of the accused under Ex.P21 arrest memo. PW9 further stated that

PW2 and Prasad signed on the seized material objects and specimen seals were obtained on a white paper and signed by

PW2 and Mr.Prasad under Ex.P4 and he has also prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch of scene of offence.

56.PW9 further stated that he conducted search of the chambers of the accused and seized the file pertaining to PW1 under Ex.P.6 and also seized the mobile phone of the accused under MO.7 and all the above events were narrated in Ex.P3 which was typed and taken print out from their laptop and printer carried by them and obtained signatures of all the witnesses and

Ex.P3 was concluded at 6.45 PM. PW9 further stated that he has informed the arrest of the accused to the local police and

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 47 of 76 thereafter he produced the accused before the Court for remand and he handed over the file to M.M.A.Nanda, Inspector CBI,

Hyderabad.

57.PW9, who is the Trap Laying Officer, in his cross- examination categorically admitted that he endorsed in Ex.P1 complaint as ‘Noted and registered” and he did not endorse on

Ex.P1 that he is laying a trap and the endorsement of SP, CBI on

Ex.P1 does not show that he should lay a trap. PW9 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that it is mentioned in Ex.P1 that PW1 is entitled for arrears of pay w.e.f. 02.12.2013 and it is also mentioned in Ex.P1 since PW1 was not getting the arrears, he also made an appeal in the month of November, 2012. PW9 further admitted in his cross-examination that it is mentioned in

Ex.P1 that the accused gave a missed call at about 10:30 hours from his cell phone number 9652216080 and he is not aware that the averments made by PW1 in Ex.P1 complaint that today ie., 22.09.2014 he gave a missed call at about 10:30 hours from his cell phone number 9652216080 indicating that he should call him back, accordingly he called him and talked to him from his CUG cell phone No.9701371699 of his said phone number.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 48 of 76

58.PW9 further admitted in the cross-examination that he do not know whether PW1 called from his cell phone number 9701371699 to the accused on his cell phone no.9652216080 at 10:25:36 on 22.09.2014 and spoke for a period of 19 seconds as per the call data provided by Bharathi Airtel Limited and he also do not know, if PW1 gave a missed call to the accused on the same date at 11:04:41 and he do not know whether there are no calls excepting these two between PW1 and accused on 22.09.2014. PW9 further admitted in the cross-examination that after laying the trap he seized a file from the office table of accused which is pertaining to the bill of PW1 and he has gone through the file which is seized by him and he is not aware that the file goes to show that the accused has processed the bill of

PW1 and uploaded the same in the computer on 10.09.2014, when confronted Ex.P6 file which is seized by him after trap, PW9 stated that he has not gone through the file after it was seized and admitted that page no.56 of Ex.P6 goes to show that raise in the pay of PW1 was certified for Rs.11,067/- and verified for Sr.

DFM/SC on 20.08.2014 and page 57 of Ex.P6 contains upgradation of MACP arrears of PW1 w.ef. 02.12.2013 and page 58 of Ex.P6 goes to show that concurrence of Sr. DFM to Sr. DPO was given on 20/21.08.2014. PW9 further admitted in the cross-examination

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 49 of 76 that he did not seize the final bill which is uploaded in the computer by the accused and he cannot say that the final bill which is uploaded in the computer by the accused should find place in Ex.P6.

59.PW9 further admitted in the cross-examination that

Mr.Praveen Kumar, DSP, CBI, Hyderabad has verified Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW1 and also verified with PW1 in person about the dates mentioned in the complaint, but as can be seen from the charge sheet Mr.Praveen Kumar, DSP, CBI, Hyderabad is not cited as witness.

60.As per the evidence of PW10, Mr.Y.Yogananda,

Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tandoor, on the instructions of his

Superior Officer i.e., P.Ramachandran, Sr. Divisional Engineer (West), Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, he has verified the office record and furnished the details of the mobile number 9701371690 stating that it was in possession

Mr.Jayaprakash Rao, Sr. Section Engineer Permanent Way, Special

Works, Vikarabad on 22.09.2014. He further stated during his further examination on 09.12.2021, that he has verified the Office record and furnished the details of the mobile No.9701371699 stating that it was in possession of T.Jayaprakash Rao, Senior

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 50 of 76

Section Engineer Permanent Way, Special works, Vikarabad as on 22.09.2014 and during his earlier chief-examination due to oversight he has stated the mobile number as 9701371690 instead of 9701371699.

61.As per the evidence of PW11 S.Muralidhara, the then

Prl. Circle Nodal Officer, Airtel for A.P. and Telangana Circle from 2006 to 2020, in the year 2015 as per the request of SP, CBI,

Hyderabad he has provided Ex.P22 Certified Copies of Call Detail

Records and Subscriber Details Records for the Mobile

Nos.9652216080 and 9701371699 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014 along with Certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence

Act under the cover of letter dated 27.01.2015 and as per the record available, the name of the subscriber for the mobile bearing No.9652216080 is Sathyanarayana R/o. Chilakalaguda,

Secunderabad which is prepaid connection and the name of the subscriber of mobile bearing No.9701371699 is O/o. Sr. DST E/M

SC Railway and it is a postpaid connection.

62.PW11 in his cross-examination categorically stated that as per Ex.P22 on 22.09.2014 at 10:25:36 there is a call from 9701371699 to 9652216080 and the duration of the call is 19 second and so also there is a missed call from 9701371699 to

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 51 of 76 9652216080 at 11:04:44 seconds on 22.09.2014. The above evidence of PW11 and Ex.P22 is contrary to the case of the prosecution, contents of Ex.P1 complaint and the evidence of PW1 that on 22.09.2014 the accused gave a missed call to PW1 at 10:30 hours.

63.As per the evidence of PW12 M.M.A.Nanda, the then

Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad, the present case was registered by PW9 on 22.09.2014 and as per the orders of SP, CBI

Hyderabad the case was transferred to him on 25.09.2014 for further investigation and during the course of further investigation he has sent the material objects i.e., MOs. 2 to 7 and white paper found in the pocket of accused (MO8) to CFSL,

Hyderabad on 29.09.2014 through SP, CBI, Hyderabad. He has examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4,

PW5, PW10 and LW.3 C.H.Shivakoteswara Prasad and on 12.11.2014 he sent letter to PW11 and obtained Ex.P22 Call Data

Record of Mobile No.9652216080 of the accused and 9701371699 of PW1 and on verification of call details, it was found that the accused spoken to PW1 on 22.09.2014 before registration of FIR and there were also two missed calls on the same date before registration of FIR by the accused to PW1. PW12 further stated

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 52 of 76 that on 16.11.2014 he received CFSL Report under Ex.P18 from

PW8 and as per CFSL Report the Sodium Carbonate ion and phenolphthalein were found in MOs 2, 4, 5 and 6 and on 11.12.2014 he sent MO7 to CFSL, Hyderabad to retrieve the call logs and missed calls and on 29.01.2015 he received the Report from PW6 under Ex.P16 and as per Ex.P16 Report one call was made by the accused to PW1 on 22.09.2014 before registration of the case and also there were two missed calls on the same date

before registration of the case to PW1 by the accused and on the

same date PW1 called the accused before registration of the case after getting missed calls from accused. PW12 further stated that he collected the documents under Exs.P7 to P11 from PW4 and also collected Exs.P12 to P15 from PW5 and he also collected

Ex.P17 Sanction order from PW7 for prosecution of the accused.

PW12 further stated that during his investigation as there is sufficient evidence found with regard to demand of bribe of

Rs.2,000/- by the accused from PW1 for processing of MACPS arrears bill for Rs.11,067/- and bribe amount was accepted by the accused from PW1, he has filed Charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 before the Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for

CBI Cases, Hyderabad along with documents and material

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 53 of 76 objects.

64.PW12 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that as per Ex.P22 call data record, PW1 called the accused on 22.09.2014 at 10:25 hours and spoke to him for 19 seconds and that was the first call between PW1 and accused on 22.09.2014 and as per Ex.P22 there is no call made by the accused to PW1 prior to 10:25 hours on 22.09.2014. PW12 further admitted in the cross-examination that as per Ex.P1 the alleged first demand of bribe by the accused to PW1 was made on 15.09.2014 and denied the suggestion that since the accused already uploaded the

MACPS arrears bill of PW1 on 10.9.2014 itself, the question of accused demanding bribe from PW1 on 15.09.2014 for clearing the above bill does not arise. PW12 categorically denied the suggestion that his evidence that as per Ex.P16 report one call was made by the accused to PW1 on 22.09.2014 before registration of the case and also there were two missed calls on the same date before registration of the case to PW1 by accused and that on the same date, PW1 called the accused before registration of the case after getting missed calls from the accused. But as can be seen from Ex.P16 report submitted by

PW6, there is no mention of the accused making any call to PW1

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 54 of 76 on 22.09.2014 and infact there is a mention that PW1 himself called the accused on 22.09.2014 at 10:25:36 hours. Therefore, the above evidence of PW12 Investigating Officer that the accused made a call to PW1 on 22.09.2014 before registration of the case is not supported by any evidence much less Ex.P16 report. PW12 further admitted in the cross-examination that he has not cited Mr.Praveen Kumar, DSP, CBI, Hyderabad as witness in the charge sheet. As per the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW1 and PW9 Trap Laying Officer, Mr.Praveen Kumar,

DSP, CBI, Hyderabad interacted with PW1 and verified Ex.P1 complaint.

65.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that the accused demanded and accepted bribe of MO1 cash from PW1 for doing official favour i.e., for processing of MACPS arrears bill of

PW1.

66.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, the burden is on the prosecution to prove

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 55 of 76 the alleged demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount from the accused and most important ingredient of official favour pending with the accused as on the date of alleged demand and acceptance and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- from PW1 for processing his MACPS arrears bill on 15.09.2014 when PW1 visited his office and again called

PW1 on 22.09.2014 and demanded for the bribe amount, but as per the evidence available on record, the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution is silent that PW1 visited the office of accused on 15.9.2014 and 08.08.2014, as there is no evidence available on record and even the case of the prosecution that the accused gave a missed call to PW1 on 22.09.2014 at 10:30 am indicating that PW1 should call him back and that PW1 called him from his mobile and that the accused demanded the bribe amount, is contrary to the evidence on record, as the call data record produced by the prosecution and marked as Ex.P22 through PW11 and as per the evidence of PW11, PW1 himself made a call to the accused on 22.09.2014 at 10:25:36 hours and had conversation for 19 seconds and that PW1 gave a missed call to the accused at 11:04:41 hours and even as per the evidence of PW5 and Ex.D1 marked through him, the accused fed the MACPS arrears bill of

PW1 along with the salary bill of September, 2014 on 10.09.2014

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 56 of 76 itself and even the salary bill for the month of September, 2014 has to be submitted by 18.09.2014 and therefore, if the evidence available on record is taken into consideration, there is no official favour of PW1 is pending with the accused on the alleged dates of demand of bribe on 15.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 as by that time, the accused fed the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 into the computer on 10.09.2014 itself and therefore, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit the accused.

67.On perusal of evidence available on record, in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW9 attains more importance. As can be seen from the evidence of PW1, his evidence before this Court that he met the accused on 08.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 is not supported by any evidence as PW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention in the office record of the accused on 15.09.2014 showing his visit to the office and he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint that he met the accused on 08.08.2014. Even PW1 in his evidence categorically stated that the accused called him to his mobile phone on 22.09.2014 and he did not attend the call and he called the accused at about 12:00 noon as per the instructions of Mr.Praveen Kumar, DSP, CBI,

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 57 of 76

Hyderabad and the accused spoke to him and Mr.Praveen Kumar heard the conversation. But as can be seen from the case of the prosecution, the above statement of PW1 is improved version from Ex.P1 complaint and even PW12 Investigating Officer not cited Mr.Praveen Kumar as witness to prove the above facts.

68.As per the evidence of PW1, the accused gave a missed call to him at 10:30 am on 22.09.2014, but as can be seen from the evidence available on record and the documents that are filed by the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of PW6,

PW11 and Exs.P16 and P22 which clearly goes to show that it is

PW1, who made a call to the accused on 22.09.2014 at 10:25:36 hours and had conversation for 19 seconds and that PW1 gave a missed call to accused on 22.09.2014 at 11:04:41 hours therefore, the above evidence of PW1 that the accused gave a missed call to him at 10:30am on 22.09.2014 is contrary to the evidence of PW11 and Ex.P22 call data record.

69.As per the contention of the accused, the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 is uploaded by him along with September, 2014 salary bill on 10.09.2014 itself and as such there is no official favour pending with him in respect of arrears bill of PW1 as on the date of alleged demand of bribe by him on 15.09.2014 and

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 58 of 76 22.09.2014. As can be seen from the evidence of PW5, Ex.P7 and

Ex.D1, the arrears bill of PW1 was fed into the computer system by the accused on 10.09.2014 itself and even PW5 categorically admitted that the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 was submitted by the accused through online along with September, 2014 salary bill which has to be submitted by 18.09.2014 itself. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW5, Exs.P7 and Ex.D1, I am of the opinion that there is no official favour of PW1 is pending with the accused as on 22.09.2014 as the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 was submitted by the accused along with September, 2014 salary bill by 18.09.2014 which is the last date for submission of monthly bills.

70.The learned counsel for the accused categorically submitted that PW9 falsely implicated the accused in this case and if PW9 verified the call data of PW1 before laying trap, it would have came to his knowledge that the allegations leveled by

PW1 in Ex.P1 complaint are false with regard to the accused giving missed call to PW1 at 10:30 am on 22.09.2014 as contrary to the same, it is PW1, who made a call to the accused at 10:25:36 hours on 22.09.2014. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that as there is no official favour of

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 59 of 76

PW1 is pending with the accused on the alleged dates of demand ie., 15.09.2014 and 22.09.2014, as the accused already processed the MACPS arrears bill of PW1 on 10.09.2014 itself and as the prosecution failed to prove the official favour of PW1 pending with the accused as on the alleged dates of demand, mere recovery of amount from the accused is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused and moreover the evidence of

PW2 cannot be considered as he is a stock witness to CBI as he himself admitted in the cross-examination that he assisted CBI,

Hyderabad as a mediator in 10 to 12 cases.

71.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the following citations reported in:

1) Krishnan Anbu and another Vs. Inspector of Police

SPE: CBI:ACB:Chennai in Crl.A.Nos.1082 of 2006 & 239 of 2007 dt. 13.03.2015 wherein Her Lordship of Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Madras categorically held that “It is pertinent to note that in the criminal jurisprudence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas it is enough if the accused would prove his defence by preponderance of probabilities.” And further held that “On perusal of the evidence of P.W.7/Anandakrishnan, Inspector of Police, it is seen that when a suggestion was posed to him that P.W.3/Dhanish is a stock witness, P.W.7 had deposed

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 60 of 76 that he was not aware of the fact as to whether Mr.Dhanish was also a witness in several cases. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the evidence of P.W.3/Dhanish cannot be considered as an independent witness and hence, it needs corroboration.”

2) P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs Dist. Insp. of Police & Anr.

reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 wherein their Lordships of

Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that

“18. This Court in A. Subair vs. State of Kerala (2009)6 SCC 587, while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.

19. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao (2011)6 SCC 450, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à- vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.

20. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B.Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 61 of 76 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise.

21. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act.

22. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 62 of 76

3) K.Shanthamma vs. The State of Telangana in Criminal

Appeal No.261 of 2022 dated 21 February, 2022 wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “Thus, this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established.”

72.The above referred citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand of bribe amount by the accused from PW1 and also failed to prove the pendency of official favour of PW1 with the accused on the alleged dates of demand of bribe by the accused from PW1 and even the evidence of PW1 with regard to alleged demand of bribe by the accused on the alleged dates is contrary to the evidence and documents produced by the prosecution and in view of the admission of PW2 that he assisted

CBI, Hyderabad as a mediator in 10 to 12 cases.

73.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that the prosecution by examining PWs 1 to 12 and by marking Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 8 categorically proved the guilt of the accused for the offoences punishable u/ss.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 63 of 76 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt, as the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from

PW1 for doing official favour and even the prosecution proved the trap proceedings by examining independent mediator as PW2, who corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW9 Trap Laying

Officer on all material aspects and therefore, the learned Public

Prosecutor prayed to convict the accused for the offences charged.

74.In support of his contention, the learned Public

Prosecutor relied upon the following citations reported in:

1) State of Andhra Pradesh vs C.Uma Maheswara Rao &

Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 399wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “For appreciating rival stands it would be proper to quote Section 20(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:

"20(1): Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.-(1) Where in any trial or an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 64 of 76 shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate."

Before proceeding further, we may point out that the

expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the ‘Evidence Act’). The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as "factual presumptions" or "discretionary presumptions" and those falling under the latter as "legal presumptions" or "compulsory presumptions". When the expression "shall be presumed" is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act, it must have the same import of compulsion.

When the sub-section deals with legal presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 65 of 76

Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. (1911 (1) KB 988) observed as follows:

"Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion".

The said observation has stood the test of time and can now be followed as the standard of proof. In reaching the conclusion the Court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced or proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-a-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule indicating the stage of shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts the Court

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 66 of 76 can draw an inference and that would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled.

For the purpose of reaching one conclusion the Court can rely on a factual presumption. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion. This Court has indicated so inSuresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra(1998 (7) SCC 337) "A presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning".

Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the Court may presume that "a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession". That illustration can profitably be used in the present context as well when prosecution brought reliable materials that there was recovery of money from the accused. In fact the receipt and recovery is accepted. The other factor is the acceptability of the plea of loan, which the High Court itself has not held cogent or credible.

We may note that a three-Judge Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab (1974 (4) SCC 560) held that the very fact that the accused was in possession of the marked currency notes against an allegation that he demanded and received the amount is "res ipsa loquitur".

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 67 of 76

In Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1980 (2) SCC 390) it was observed that there is no requirement to prove passing of money by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence.In Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC

571) it was observed thus:

"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it".

2) State of A.P vs. P.Venkateshwarlu reported in (2015) 7

SCC 283 wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “10. We are aware of the position in law, as laid down in cases involving the relevant provisions under thePrevention of Corruption Act, that mere recovery of the tainted amount is not a sine qua non for holding a person guilty under Sections 7, 11

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 68 of 76 and 13 of the Act. This Court has observed in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80, that there has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The same point of law has been reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC

153. In the present case the factum of demand and acceptance has been proved by the recovery of the tainted amount and the factum of there being a demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their testimonies have also been corroborated by other material witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is our obligation to raise the presumption mandated by Section 20 of P.C. Act. It is for the accused respondent to rebut the presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered was not a reward or motive as mentioned under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 69 of 76

11. In C.M.Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779, this Court stated:

“It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross- examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has and then it can be held by the court that the prosecution has proved the accused received the amount towards gratification.” In the instant case, the defense has raised various presumptions to disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been able to adduce evidence before us, on the basis of which the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act could be rebutted.”

3) Smt.Shamim vs. The State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal

No.56 of 2018 dated 19 September, 2018 wherein their

Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnicalapproachbytaking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error without going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor omissions in the police statements

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 70 of 76 are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/Trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it.”

75.The above referred citations relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe amount by the accused from PW1 which is sine-quo-non for establishing the offence u/s. 7 and sec.

13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

76.Therefore, on perusal of the entire evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand of bribe amount by the accused from PW1 as

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 71 of 76 the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 complaint lodged by him is contrary to the evidence and documents produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged demand of bribe by the accused from PW1 on the alleged dates and even the evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW2 independent mediator and Exs.P2 and P3 1st and 2nd Mediator’s Reports on material aspects and as the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of official favour of PW1 with the accused as on the date of alleged demand of bribe by the accused and also in view of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused, I am of the opinion that as the evidence of PW1 is contrary to the evidence available on record on material aspects with regard to the demand of alleged bribe by the accused, it is not safe to rely upon uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witnesses to convict the accused for the alleged offences.

77.For the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 7 and sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyound all reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand of bribe by the accused from PW1 which is sine-quo-non to prove the alleged

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 72 of 76 offences and also the prosecution failed to prove that there is any official favour of PW1 is pending with the accused on the alleged dates of demand and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered against the prosecution.

78.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as such, he is acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s. 437A of Cr.P.C.

MO1 cash of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) is ordered to be returned to PW1 after expiry of appeal time. MOs 2 to MO6 and

MO8 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and

MO7 mobile phone is ordered to be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time.

Partly dictated and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2022.

Sd/-

III Additional Special Judge for trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 73 of 76

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1 T.Jayaprakash Rao, Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way at Sanathnagar, South Central Railway (SCR), Hyderabad.

PW-2P.Srihari, Junior Technical Assistant, Registrar of Companies, Kendriya Sadan, Bengaluru.

PW-3Ch.V.Vijaya Bhaskar, Assistant Personnel Officer (APO), Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.

PW-4Manohar, Chief Office Superintendent, ADEN Office, South Central Railway, Vikarabad, R.R.District.

PW-5M.Subramanyam, Assistant Personnel Officer (APO), SecunderabadDivision,SanchalanBhavan,SCR, Secunderabad.

PW-6Chunduru Eswar Sai Prasad, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), CFSL, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

PW-7Sushant Kumar Mishra, Executive Director, Corporate Co- ordination, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.

PW-8S.N.Rasool, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Hyderabad.

PW-9V.Sekhar Dorababu, Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad.

PW-10Y.Yogananda, Divisional Engineer, South Central Railway

PW-11S.Muralidhara, L.E.C. Uber

PW-12M.M.A.Nanda, Inspector, CISF, Airport Chennai

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defence: NIL

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 74 of 76

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P1 Report dt. 22.09.2014 presented by PW-1 to CBI Officer

Ex.P21st Mediator’s Report dt. 22.09.2014

Ex.P32nd Mediator’s Report dt. 22.09.2014 (3 sheets)

Ex.P4Specimens of seals

Ex.P5Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P6File seized from the table of the accused

Ex.P7Pay-slip for the month of September, 2014 of Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW-1)

Ex.P8Representation dt. 28.07.2014 submitted by PW-1 to the Senior DPO, Secunderabad Division

Ex.P9Extract of Dispatch Register of ADEN Office, Vikarabad containing entry relating to representation vide Ex.P8

Ex.P10Diary of PW-1 for the month of August and September, 2014 (2 sheets)

Ex.P11Pay-slip of PW-1 for the month of June, 2014 (1 sheet)

Ex.P12Print out of grievance details dt. 06.09.2013 entered in the computer

Ex.P13Pay-slip for September, 2014 of Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW-1)

Ex.P14Note dt. 12.09.2014 regarding schedule for salary bills.

Ex.P15Entry No.234 pertaining to Mr.T.Jaya Prakash Rao (PW-1) at page 23 in Staff Grievance Register maintained at Personnel Branch, Secunderabad Division.

Ex.P16Examination Report bearing No.CFSL(H)/2319/DOC/ 666/CCH-129/2014, dt. 28.01.2015 along with Annexure-A and forwarding letter (18 sheets)

Ex.P17Sanction proceedings dt. 30.01.2015 (2 sheets)

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 75 of 76

Ex.P18Chemical Examination Report dt. 13.11.2014 of Mr.P.Sudhakar, Junior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Hyderabad.

Ex.P19FIR dt. 22.09.2014

Ex.P20Copy of complaint given by PW-1

Ex.P21Arrest Memo of the accused

Ex.P22Call details records and subscriber details records for the mobile No.9652216080 and 9701371699 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014 along with certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (76 sheets)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1 Letter dt. 18.11.2016 issued by Sr. DPO (SC & PO), South Central Railway vide No.SCR/P-SC/745/226/ RT/5674, the date of entry of MACP arrears in favour of T.Jayaprakash Rao, SEE/Vikarabad working under bill Unit 02-226 in the month of September, 2014 (ie., on 10th September, 2014) are furnished (4 sheets)

Material objects marked

MO1 Cash of Rs.2,000/- (two currency notes of thousand rupee)

MO2Bottle containing right hand wash of the accused

MO3Bottle containing left hand wash of the accused

MO4Bottle containing left side shirt pocket wash of the accused

MO5Shirt of the accused

MO6Bottle containing wash of the phone and white paper

MO7Mobile phone of the accused in cover

CC.06/2015 of III Addl. Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd.

Page 76 of 76

MO8White paper found in the pocket of accused which is sent to CFSL, Hyderabad.

Sd/-

III Additional Special Judge for trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.