Judgement-Sukh Ram DA Case

1
IN THE COURT OF V .K .MAHESHWARI

SPECIALJUDGE: TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Corruption Case No.44/97
CB I Vs. Sukh Ram S/o Late Sh. Bhav Dev, r/o ,

12, Safdarjung Lane, new Delhi.
(Formerly Minister of State
Communication), Govt. of India,
Presently Member of Parliament (Lok
Sabha)
Date of Institution 9.6.1997
R.C No. 4 (A)/96/CBI/ACU-IV/N. Delhi
Under Section U/s 13( 2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P C Act
of 1988.
Arguments
concluded on 17.2.2009
Date of order 20.2.2009

JUDGMENT:
Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that a

case vide RC No. 4 (A)/96/CBI/ACU-IV/N. Delhi was registered
on 27.8.96 against Shri Sukh Ram, Formerly Minister of State
Communication), Govt. of India, the then Member of Parliament
(Lok Sabha) on the written complaint of Sh .B S Jakhar, Dy. S P,
CBI, ACU-IV, New Delhi alleging that Sh. Sukh Ram in his
capacity as public servant during the period from 20.6.91 to
1/150
2
16.8.96 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his

official position as a public servant amassed huge assets including
one palatial house at D-42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, luxuriously
built farm house in his orchard at Surath. Besides this, he was also
alleged to have been in possession of cash of Rs. 3,61,80,364/-,
jewellery items worth Rs.10,29,404/-, bank balances in various
banks of Rs.4,92,739/- and household articles amounting to
Rs.10,30,000/- such as imported electronic gadgets like Star
Typewriter, FAX Machine, Video Camera (Panasonic), Sony
Colour TV, VCR, Microwave oven and fully Automatic Washing
Machine etc. The known sources of income of Sh. Sukh Ram and
Smt. Ram Devi for the period from 1992 onwards were allegedly
not worth more than Rs.30.78 lacs. The sources of income prior
to that period would have been even lesser. He was thus alleged
to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources
of income.
2 Sh. Sukh Ram was elected Member of Parliament for

the first time in 1985 and subsequently became Minister in the
Centre Govt. Sh Sukh Ram lost his Lok Sabha Election in
Dec.1989 but was again elected Member of Parliament on 20.6.91.
On 2.7.92 he became Minister of State for Planning and
Programme Implementation and held this position till 18.1.93. He
became Minister of State for Communications and remained as
such till 16.5.96 as the Congress Government was defeated in the
2/150
3
elections. He was again elected as Member of Parliament on

16.5.96
3 Sh. Sukh Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Devi were
having joint properties i.e. orchard at Surath, house at Samkhetar
(Mandi) and joint bank accounts in their names. Sh. Sukh Ram
has started construction of farm house in the orchard in Mid 1991
and constructed palatial building D-42, Kaushambi from early
1993 till early 1996. From Jan. 1993 onwards Sh. Sukh Ram was
holding portfolio of Minister of State for Communications, the
Ministry which was taking care of the vast expansion of
Telecommunication in India. Keeping in view the acquisitive
tendency of the accused and his continued position as public
servant, the check period in the case has been taken from 20.6.91
to 16.8.96.
4 Sh. Sukh Ram was having movable assets worth

Rs.26,13,010/- at the beginning of check period. He was also
having immovable assets at the beginning of check period.
Details of immovable and movable assets at the beginning of
check period are as follows:
Immovable Assets
1 Orchard measuring 35 bighas, 8 biswa and 19 biswansi in
the name of Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi acquired by them
during 1961 to 1969.
3/150
4
2 Residential house at Samkhetar, Mandi in the name of Sh.

Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi constructed on a plot of land
measuring 359.34 sq. metres around 1981 -82.
3 Ancestral land measuring 3 bighas in native place Kotli
Distt. Mandi in the name of Sukh Ram.
4 Orchard measuring 10 bighas at Kullu Math, Akhara
Bazaar, Kullu, in the name of Smt. Ram Devi given to
her by her mother around 1972.
Movable Asset
Rs.
1 Amount deposited for D42, Kaushambi Plot 2,58,755.00
2 Loan given to Anil Sharma by Ram Devi 4,37,500.00
3 Loan given to Anil Sharma by Sukh Ram 1,92,000.00
4 House hold items 2,80,900.00
5 Jewellery 5,72,373.00
6 Deposited in Nav Sansad Vihar Society 80,004.00
7 Bank Balance 6,41,478.00
8. Three FDRS of Rs. 50,000/- each in PNB
Shimla 1,50,000.00
TOTAL 26,13,010.00
5 The total income of Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram

Devi from different known source i.e. income from salary, income
from interest on loans, agriculture income from orchard accrued to
them during the check period i.e. from 20.6.91 to 16.8.96 comes to
4/150
5
Rs.84,98,180/-. The details of total income are as under:

Rs.
1 Salary as a Member of Parliament 65,105.00
from 20.6.91 to June 1992
2 Salary as MOS (P) 7/92 to 18.1.93 62,655.00

3 Salary as MOS ( C) from 18.1.93
to16.5.96 3,28,975.00
4 Income of Sh. Sukh Ram from Orchard 9,94,373.00
5 Income of Sh. Sukh Ram from interest

(from Anil Sharma) 1,84,436.00
6 Income of Smt. Ram Devi from

Sh. Anil Sharma 4,46,897.00
7 Income of Smt. Ram Devi from

Orchard 18,88,900.00
8 Loan for construction of D-42

Kaushambi 27,37,500.00
9 Income from Libel Suit 3,45,933.00
5/150
6
10 Interest income from 3 FDRs

(PNB) 40,800.00
11 Income from FDRs of Shivali

1993-94 and 1994-95 40,800.00
12 TA DA as MP from 7/91 to
8/92 56,071.00
13 TA DA as MOS ( P) from 7/92 to

12/92 5,335.00
14 TADA as MOS ( C) from 10/93 to

6/93 3,08,859.00
15 TA DA as MP from 5/96 to 8/96 32,341.00
TOTAL 84,98,180.00
6 Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi have incurred

expenditure to the tune of Rs. 46,87,960/- approximately thereby
resulting in the likely saving of Rs.38,10,220/-. The expenditure
incurred by Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi during the check
period are detailed below:
6/150
7
1 Electricity Charges, Kaushambi 38,520.00

2 Water charges of Orchard 11,19.00
3 Electricity charges, Orchard 11,68.00
4 Electricity charges, Samkhetar Mandi 27,361.00
5 Water charges, Samkhetar Mandi 1749.00
6 Mamla Payment Orchard, Surat Mandi 215.00
7 Payment to servant Orchard, Surat Mandi 1,24,390.00
8 LPG (Sukh Ram) for daily residence 6,498.0
9 LPG Sh. Anoop Sharma for daily residents 6,865.00
10 Air Journey to USA in 8/96 by Sh. Sukh
Ram and Smt. Ram Devi 1,28,870,00
11 Payment to Sh. N Goel Architect 30,000.00

12 Service Connection of D-42, Kaushambi 10,000.00
13 Electric Wiring Charges for D-42, Kaushambi 15,000.00
14 To gardener, D-42, Kaushambi 9,000.00
15 Repayment of Loan 4,90,098.00
16 L T Payments 3,12,595.00
17 Agriculture Expenses 2,30,117.00
18 To Bhav Dev Trust 14,00,000.00
19 Transfer from SB a/c of Sh. Sukh Ram to Trust 1,00,000.00
20 To duffdun Education Trust 10,00,000.00
21 Payment to Driver (Sh. Shamsher Singh) 19,200.00
22 Kavia's marriage Reception 1,50,000.00
23 Marriage of Kavita 1,00,000.00
7/150
8
24 Anup's Marriage 1,00,000.00

25 IFB, Washing Machine 17.995.00
26 Rent of Locker No. N-6 Syndicate Bank 1,200.00
27 Household Expenses 3,66,000.00
TOTAL 46,87,960.00
7 Against the aforesaid likely savings of Rs.

38,10,220/- approximately, Shri Sukh Ram has acquired assets
during check period to the tune of Rs. 5,74,77,355/- which are
substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income.
These assets include the farm house constructed in the orchard
valued at Rs.41,30,000/- and a bungalow No D-42, Kaushambi
valued for Rs.29,45,416/- and the investment made towards
renovation of Samkhetar House worth Rs. 5,69,000.00 during the
check period. The cost of these two houses and the amount of
investment for the renovation of the house are based on the
valuation done by the Executive Engineer, Technical Division,
CBI.
8 Accused Sukh Ram was found in possession of hard

cash amounting to Rs. 3,61,80,364/- which was recovered from
his residential premises at 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi and at
Samkhetar Mandi (HP).
9 During the searches conducted in connection with
8/150
9
another case RC-3(A)96-ACU-IV on 16/17.8.96 it transpired that

Sh. Sukh Ram had also given a loan of Rs.1,05,00,000/- to one
Shri Chander Kant Khemka (C K Khemka) in March/April, 1995
who has surrendered this amount to CBI during investigation.
10 Besides this, several bank accounts of Sh.Sukh Ram

and Smt. Ram Devi maintained in different banks in Delhi, Shimla
and Mandi were having cash balances worth Rs.19,13,562.00 at
the end of check period. The details of these immovable and
movable assets including cash balances at the end of check period
are as under:
1 Purchase of orchard land by Smt. Ram Devi 65,000.00
2 Farm House in Surath Orchard 41,30,000.00
3 Renovation of Samkhetar House 5,69,000.00
4 Value of D-42 Kaushambi 29,45,416.00
5 deposited with Nav Sansad Vihar Society 7,35,000.00
6 S.B A/c No.6906 in OBC 49,751.00
7 FDR in OBC, SJ Enclave, N.Delhi 3,50,000.00
8 S.B A/c No. 107735, SBI, main building 42,023.00
9 S.B A/c No. 1873 Canara Bank, Mandi 2,94,953.00
10 S.B A/c No. 25495 Canara Bank,
Parliament Street 7,620.00
11 S.B A/c No. 11495, Syndicate Bank,
New Delhi 2,58,736.00
12 S.B A/c No. 1402, Canara Bank, Mandi 11,35,797.00
9/150
10
13 S.B A/c No. 4053, H P Coop. Bank Shimla 50,929.00

14 S.B A/c No.27008, PNB Shimla 73,753.00
15 Matured Value of three FDRs (PNB) 4,95,933.00
16 FDR in SBI Main, New Delhi 20,000.00
17 Cash and Jewellary in Locker No.6, 4,00,000.00
18 Syndicate Bank Locker (Cash & Jewellery) 4,50,000.00
19 Cash from 12 Safdarjung Lane 2,45,28,844.00
20 Cash from Mandi (House of Sukh Ram) 1,13,51,520.00
21 Money surrendered by Sh. C K Khemka 1,05,00,000.00
22 Household items 64,090.00
23 Electronic items at D-42, Kaushambi 6,23,300.00
24 Antenna 4,400.00
25 Household items 3,14,800.00
26 Outstanding Loan of Sh.Sukh Ram with Anil 1,92,000.00
27 Outstanding Loan of Smt. Ram Devi with Anil 4,37,500.00
TOTAL 6,00,90,365.00
11 All the immovable assets available at the beginning

of check period also continued with Sh. Sukh Ram at the end of
check period. From the aforesaid facts the final position has
emerged as under:
A Assets at the beginning of check period 26,13,010.00
B Assets at the end of Check period 6,00,90,365.00
Assets acquired during the check
period (B-A) 5,74,77,355.00
10/150
11
C Income During Check period 84,98,180.00

D Expenditure during check period 46,87,960.00
Likely saving during the check period

(C-D) 38,10,220.00
Disproportionate Assets:
5.74.77,355 (-) 38,10,220 = 5,36,67,135.00
12 Thus, taking into account the total income of Sh.

Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi, Shri Sukh Ram has been in
possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income to the tune of Rs.5,36,67,135/- at the end of check period.
He could not offer any satisfactory explanation inspite of granting
sufficient opportunities.
13 Sh.Sukh Ram ceased to be a Minister of Union Govt.

w.e.f. 16.5.96, although he continued to be a member of
Parliament (Lok Sabha),
14 Copies required U/S 207 Cr P C supplied to accused.

My Ld. Predecessor after hearing both the parties on 10.7.2001
has framed a charge against accused for the offence punishable
U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P C Act, 1988. Accused pleaded not
guilty to the charge and claimed trial, hence, this trial.
11/150
12
15 Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced

following witnesses:
16 PW 1 Sh. P Kailasham, Executive Engineer, PW2

Janardan Agnihotri, Head Clerk, GDA, Ghaziabad, PW3 Sunil
Dutt, Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, PW4 Sh. Vinod Kumar
Sinha, Section Officer ( Pay Bill), PW5 Sh. Pardeep kumar
Gupta, Assistant Regional Manager, OBC, 4/65 WEA, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi, PW6 S C Khurana, PW7 J N Behl, Official
Incharge, SBI, Parliament House, New Delhi, PW8 Manoj Kumar
M. Naik, PW9 Sh. T Bhattacharya,Asstt. Enforcement Officer,
PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar, Senior Manager, OBC, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi, PW11 Anand Gupta, PW12 Y P Sharma, Chief
Manager, Canara Bank, PW13 Reeta Jailkhani, Committee
Officer, Lok Sabha, Secretariat, New Delhi, PW14 Puneet
Sharma, PW15 Vinod Kumar Nayyar, PW16 Sh. Rajendra
Mahajan, PW17 Sh. Hari Simrat Singh Dua, PW18 Durga Singh
Thakur, PW19 Sh. S Z Khan, PW20 Sh. Basant Ram, PW21 A
N Sharma, PW22 Sh. Munshi Ram, PW23 Sh. Harish Mohan,
PW24 Sh. Shamsher Singh, PW25 Munshi Ram, PW26 Sh.
Vasudev, PW27 Shobha Ram Kanoonago, PW28 Inderbhan
Tomar, PW29 Sh. P V Narshima Rao, PW30 Sh. Dinesh Gupta,
PW31 Raj Kishan Gaur, PW32 Sh. Ram Saran Mehra, PW33
Pratap Chand Sharma, PW34 Sh. Devender Kapur, PW35
12/150
13
Somesh Chander, PW36 Manish Duggal, PW37 Besar Singh,

PW38 Sadhu Ram, PW39 R S Malik, PW40 Sh. P K Kedia,
PW41 Bimi Devi, PW42 Ram Bahadur, PW43 R D Sharma,
PW44 Pravin Kumar, PW45 K K Goel, PW46 Sh. Amitabj
Shukla, PW47 Sh. lekh Ram Sharma, PW 48 P N Khanna,
PW49 R K Khurana, PW50 Sh. Anil Kumar, PW51 Urguyandorje,
PW52 Niranjan Lal Goel, PW53 Chottey Lal, PW54 A V
Ramarao, PW55 V Sridhar, PW56 Sh. Rishi Prakash, PW57 Smt.
Bimla, PW58 Sh. Mahesh Chander Arora, PW59 Sunil Mukhija,
PW60 B S Jakhar, PW61 Shashank Mishra, PW62 Sh. KP S
Dhaka and PW63 Mr. H S Sandhu,
17 PW1 Sh. P Kailasham Executive Engineer BSNL has

proved his report Ex PW-1/A in respect of property No. D42
Kaushambi, annexure Ex PW1/A-1, and another report Ex PW1
/B in respect of Apple Orchard at Mandi and annexures Ex
PW1/B-1, another report in respect of building at Sumkhetar,
Mandi, HP Ex PW1/C and annexure Ex PW1/C-1 all bearing his
signatures at points A.
18 PW2 Janardan Agnihotri Head Clerk, GDA,

Ghaziabad has proved allotment letter Ex PW2/A and details of
payment given in statement Ex PW2/B.
19 PW3 Sh. Sunil Dutt Joint Commissioner Income Tax
13/150
14
Range IV, Amritsar has proved letter Ex PW3/A, proceedings

Ex PW3/B and an inventory of currency notes ExPW3/C, letter Ex
PW3/D and receipt ExPW3/E.
20 PW4 Vinod Kumar Sinha has prepared and given

detail of pay and allowances drawn by accused Sukh Ram vide Ex
PW4/A to Ex.PW4/D and he submitted the statement to CBI vide
letter Ex PW4/E.
21 PW5 Pardeep Kumar Gupta, Assistant Regional

Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karol Bagh has proved
specimen signature card of accused Sukh Ram Ex PW5/A,
attested copy of statement of account Ex PW5/B and Ex PW5/C,
account opening form ExPW5/D and statement of account Ex
PW5/E, account opening form ExPW5/F, statement of account Ex
PW5/G, attested copy of computerised statement of account Ex
PW5/H and Credit transfer voucher ExPW5/I.
22 PW6 S C Khurana has proved statement of accused

Ex. PW6/A,
23 PW7 J N Behl has proved statement of account in

respect of account No. 10775 in SBI, Parliament house New Delhi
Ex PW7/A and ExPW7/B.
14/150
15
24 PW8 Manoj Kumar M. Naik has proved sanction

order Ex PW8/A, acceptance letter Ex PW8/B, carbon copy of
second sanction ExPW8/C and acceptance letter Ex PW8/D.
25 PW9 T Bhattacharya Asstt. Enforcement

Officer,Govt. of India, Calcutta has proved Observation Memo Ex
PW9/A, seizure memo Ex PW9/B, Panchnama Ex PW9/C, and
seizure memo of three keys of lockers Ex PW9/D.
26 PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar, Senior Manager, Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Vasant Kunj has proved TPO ExPW10A.
27 PW11 Sh. Anand Gupta has proved vouchers Ex

PW11/A and Ex PW11/B.
28 PW12 Sh. Y P Sharma has proved the statement of

accused of account No. 25495, Canara Bank, Parliament Street,
Ex PW12/A.
29 PW13 Mr. Reeta Jailkhani, Committee Officer Lok

Sabha has proved the details of salary and allowances Ex
PW13/A, details of TS and DA Ex PW13/B, salary and
allowances for another period Ex PW13/C, details of TA/A for
another period ExPW13/D which were sent by him to CBI under
the cover of letter Ex PW13/E.
15/150
16
30 PW14 Puneet Sharma, Manager, Kiran Gas service

has proved letter Ex PW14/A mentioned details in respect of
connection in the name of Anup Sharma.
31 PW15 Vinod Kumar Nayyar,Section Officer,

Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi has proved
letter Ex PW15/A regarding pay & allowances paid to Mr. Sukh
Ram, as Minister of State for Planning for the period 2.7.92 to
January, 1993 and the details are mentioned in three sheets Ex
PW15/A1 to A3.
32 PW16 Sh. Rajendra Mahajan has proved copy of bill

Ex PW16/A.
33 PW17 Hari Simrat Singh Dua has proved the

statement Ex PW17/A given by him to CBI.
34 PW18 Sh. Durga Singh Thakur has proved letter Ex

PW18/A.
35 PW19 Sh. S Z Khan, has proved details of amount

paid by Sukh Ram towards electricity charges Ex PW19/A.
36 PW20 Sh. Basant Ram has proved certified copy of
16/150
17
the Intkal Ex PW20/A.
37 PW21 Sh. A N Sharma has proved details of

electricity charges paid by Ram Devi Ex PW21/A.
38 PW22 Sh. Munshi Ram has proved the copy of

Jamabandi Ex PW22/A in respect of an Orchard in Surat and
Jamabandi Ex PW22/B in respect of the portion of land in the
name of Smt. Ram Devi, wife of Sh. Sukh Ram.
39 PW23 Sh. Harish Mohan has proved cash memo No.

31525 Ex PW23/A.
40 PW 24 is Sh. Shamsher Singh, PW25 is Munshi Ram

PW26 is Sh. Vasudev, PW 27 is Shobha Ram Kanoongo , PW28
is Sh. Inderbhan Tomar and PW29 is Sh. P V Narsimha Rao.
41 PW30 Sh. Dinesh Gupta has proved letter Ex
PW30/A and documents Ex P-9 and Ex PW30/B
42 PW31is Raj Kishan Gaur and PW32 is Ram Saran

Mehra
43 PW33 Pratap Chand Sharma has proved his letter Ex

PW33/A and chart Ex PW33/B.
17/150
18
44 PW34Sh. Devender Kapur has proved letter Ex

PW34/A, file for the financial year 1992-93 Ex PW34/C. copy of
return acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/C1, copy of
return Ex PW34/C2, statement of income Ex PW34/C3, file for
the financial year 1993-94 Ex PW34/D. copy of return
acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/D1, copy of return
Ex PW34/D2, statement of income Ex PW34/D3, file for the
financial year 1994-95 Ex PW34/E. copy of return acknowledged
by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/E1, copy of return Ex PW34/E2,
statement of income Ex PW34/E3, file for the financial year 1994-
95 Ex PW34/F. copy of return acknowledged by income tax
deptt. Ex PW34/F1, copy of return Ex PW34/F2, statement of
income Ex PW34/F3, file for the financial year 1991-92 Ex
PW34/G. copy of return acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex
PW34/G1, copy of return Ex PW34/G2, statement of income Ex
PW34/G3, file Ex PW34/H. copy of return acknowledged by
income tax deptt. Ex PW34/H1, copy of return Ex PW34/H2,
statement of income Ex PW34/H3, file Ex PW34/I. copy of return
acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/I-1, copy of return
Ex PW34/I-2, statement of income Ex PW34/I-3, file Ex PW34/J.
copy of return acknowledged by income tax deptt. Ex PW34/J-1,
copy of return Ex PW34/J-2, statement of income Ex PW34/J-3,
file Ex PW34/K. copy of return acknowledged by income tax
deptt. Ex PW34/K-1, copy of return Ex PW34/K-2, statement of
income Ex PW34/K-3 and his letter ExPW34/L.
18/150
19
45 PW35 is Somesh Chander, PW36 is Manish Duggal,

PW37 is Besar Singh and PW38 is Sadhu Ram
46 PW39 Sh. R S Malik has proved letter ex PW39/A

and details of cheques vide Annexure II Ex PW39/A1.
47 PW40 is Sh. P K Kedia, PW41 is Smt. Bimi Devi,

PW42 is Sh. Ram Bahadur, PW43 is R D Sharma and PW44 is
Pravin Kumar.
48 PW45 K K Goel has proved Seizure memo Ex

PW45/A, seizure list Ex PW45/B and Observation Memo Ex PW
45/C.
49 PW46 Sh. Amitabj Shukla, Addl. Commissioner,

Income Tax has proved document ExPW46/A, , statement Ex
PW46/B and Ex PW46/C and also various other documents
already proved by PW9 and PW40.
50 PW47 is Lekh Ram Sharma.
51 PW48 P N Sharma has proved seizure memo Ex.

PW48/A and valuation report Ex PW46/B.
52 PW49 Sh. R K Khurana has proved Observation
19/150
20
Memo Ex PW49/A and search list ExPW49/B.
53 PW50 is Sh. Anil Kumar.
54 PW51 Urgyandorjee has proved letter Ex PW51/A

and certified copies of statement Ex P14, P15 and Ex PW51/B.
55 PW52 is Niranjan Lal Goel, PW53 is Chhotey Lal

and PW54 is A V Ramarao.
56 PW55 V Sridhar has proved seizure memo Ex

PW55/A, cheque Ex PW55/B, Pay in counter foils Ex PW55/C.
57 PW56 Rishi Prakash Addl. S P CBI has proved FIR

Ex PW56/A, complaint Ex PW56B, production memo Ex
PW56/C, Receipt Ex PW56/D, production memo Ex PW56/E,
receipt Ex PW56/F, pay in slip Ex PW56/F-1, documents Ex
PW56/G,Ex PW56/H, ExPW56/I, Ex PW56/J, Ex PW56/K, Ex
PW56/L, and Ex PW56/M seizure memo ExPW56/N, documents
Ex PW56/O, Pass book Ex PW 56/P and various other documents
already proved by other witnesses.
58 PW57 is Smt. Bimla, PW58 is Mahesh Chander,

PW59 is Sunil Mukhija, PW60 is B S Jakhar, PW 61 is Sh.
Shashank Mishra, PW62 is Sh. K P S Dhaka and PW63 is H S
20/150
21
Sandhu.
59 Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr PC was

recorded wherein he has denied all the allegations made against
him and evidence produced by the prosecution against them.
60 He has stated that he has been a victim of

conspiracies by some state leader in Congress Party under the
misapprehension that he was potential danger to their positions in
the State. The Ist conspiracy was started when an article under
heading Scandle Gods Indian Telecom in a widely circulated
magazine namely Communication International was published
and its copies were managed to be circulated to the editors of
important dailies in Bombay and Delhi. On the basis of that
article front page news in all most, all the newspapers was
published accusing him of corruption. He was abroad at that time
to attend international conference in Kyota in Japan.
On arrival from foreign tour he filed Libel Suit in the Court
of Queen Bench London against the defendants since defendant
could not substantiate the allegations, the Queen Bench London
awarded him compensation amounting to 50,000/- pounds which
is equal to Rs. 27,37,500/- which was transferred to account no.
6906 (D46) and seized by the CBI during the raid. The
compensation amount awarded to him has been shown in charge
sheet as item No.9 of movable assets as income from Libel Suit.
21/150
22
Conversion of pound 50,000 and its being credited in his

account is proved by document D-46 page4 and also clarified by
PW5 Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta in his statement dt. 5.2.02.
After the decision of the Libel Suit filed in Queen Bench,
London, UK and on publication of An Apology to Sh. Sukh
Ram at front page in the said communication International, he
served notice to all the editors, publishers and correspondent for
publishing a false corruption story against him, the then MOS ( C)
in Communication International, he demanded compensation to
the tune of Rs. One crore failing of which criminal case was told
to be filed against them. Some editors and publishers express
regret and explained that they could not contact him for his
version as he was out of country at that time Having failed to
malign him in the first attempt, the second attempt was made
when the then opposition parties headed by BJP made serious
charge of corruption for showing favour to a company known as
HFCL whose head quarter has been in Solan Distt. Himachal
Pradesh. All the opposition parties did not allow parliament to
function for 13 days which was unparallel in the history of
parliament upto that time. Their one of the demand was that
unless Pt. Sukh Ram, the then MOS (Congress) was removed from
the council of Ministers they would not allow Parliament to
function. When the then Prime Minister, Sh. P V Narsimha Rao
did not concede to their demand they filed writ petition in
Supreme Court opposing the private sector to enter in the field of
22/150
23
communication and one of their complaints was that he (The then

MOSC) showed favor to HFCL. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
rejected their petition of showing favour to HFCL and held that
Govt. implemented the policy and did not show any favour to any
company.
Third attempt was made when M.Ps wrote to the then PM
Sh. Narsimha Rao alleging huge corruption in the Ministry of
Communication and demanded enquiry by Parliamentary
Committee in corruption cases. According to his information CBI
did not investigate the complaint against him as they did not find
any substance in the allegations. However, after the fall of
congress Govt. in the election of 1996 immediately CBI swung
into action on the instigation of Devgoda Govt. due to political
reason.
Sh. B P Morya, the then General Secretary, Incharge of
Himachal Pradesh arranged his meeting with Sh. Sita Ram
Kesari, the then Treasurer of AICC probably in the last week of
July, 1996 and secured his consent for setting up election office in
a part of his official residence at 12 Safdarjung Lane, in Delhi and
at his house at Mandi for election to be held for UP and J & K
Assemblies respectively in September/October, 1996. When he
left in Aug.1996, in connection with his heart ailment, search
order of his houses was obtained by the CBI at the behest of the
Central Govt. in August, 1996 and carried out searches in his
absence as there was nobody at his Delhi Officials residence
23/150
24
except his daughter who was temporarily staying over there in two
rooms with her husband Col. S K Sharma, who could not get his
official accommodation on his transfer to Delhi.
His house at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh was under
repair/renovation with the contractor, his son Sh. Anil Sharma
who was then MOS in Himachal Government was staying with
his family in his official residence at Shimla. There was Election
Office in last two rooms at the first floor being run by the
Congress Party, at his residence at Mandi.
The main apprehension of Sh. Sita Ram Kesri was that
managing election from AICC would not be advisable on account
of strained relation with/between Central Government headed by
Sh. Dev Gauda and Sh. P V Narshima Rao the then Congress
Party president which fact has been admitted by Sh. L R Sharma,
PW47 in his statement. The election of UP and J & K were to be
held in September/October, 1996. Having regard to the difficulty
of the party, he gave his consent to Sh. Sita Ram Kesri, since no
family member was residing at Mandi and in official residence at
Delhi.
Sh. Sita Ram Kesri, the then treasurer, Congress Party, sent
some election funds and election material to his official residence
at Delhi and Mandi House in Himachal Pradesh and when these
funds was recovered by CBI during raid conducted at his aforesaid
residence at Delhi and his house at Mandi, HP his opponents
within the party in HP and in the Centre got suitable opportunity
24/150
25
for maligning him in the media both print and electronic and the
press which was annoyed with him on his legal notices sent to
them as mentioned above and they started compagning against
him and since he was out of India, one sided version continued to
be published within the country to make it a media trial in
connivance with his political opponents. During his police
custody he was subjected to all sort of physical and mental torture
by CBI at the instance of the then High UPs in the Government to
compel him to make a statement that the alleged recovery
belonged to Sh. Narsima Rao, the then President of the party and
not to the congress Party. He was taken to office of Mr. Sandhu
SP where the then Director, CBI happened to be present and he
was asked by them that he should made a statement to CBI to the
above extent. So much so CBI foisted a false case against his son
Anil Sharma to put pressure upon him to make the above
statement that case, was lateron found to be false/baseless and CBI
got the cancellation of the same.
Some leaders of the Congress Party in HP who were
apprehensive of his becoming danger to their positions managed
to write a letter to Special Judge, CBI in which they emphasised
CBI was showing favour to him whereas position was otherwise.
This was a clear proof of conspiracy by some leaders in Himachal.
CBI gave highly exaggerated estimated cost of his
properties in Himachal and outside Himachal Pradesh in Media
for instance Hotel May Fair at Mandi in H P shown in his name
25/150
26
and its cost was shown to be Rs. 50 lacs, that Hotel actually
belongs to his son Anil Sharma and later on CBI Engineer gave its
cost to Rs, 20/- lacs. Similarly his house at Kaushambi was
estimated to the value of one crores at that time which was false
even to their Engineers Report. On knowing about the alleged
recovery of money from his residence at Delhi and his house at
Mandi he immediately issued a statement to the Press in London
that the alleged recoveries belongs to Congress Party, that report
was published in UK Press.
He is a Pawn in Power Politics. He made it clear to the
Investigating Authorities that the alleged recovered amount did
not belong to him. It was specifically told to Mr. H S Sandhu,
Incharge of the case that a part of his premises at his official
residence at Delhi and his house at Mandi was in possession of
Congress Party to run the election office for the election to be held
in UP and J K and the alleged recoveries if any, were of the
Congress Party but the prosecuting agencies instead of making
investigation on these lines tried to conceal this fact and concocted
stories of its own. Even the then General Secretary of AICC Sh. B
P Morya who was incharge of Himachal Pradesh also made a
particular statement to the electronic Media to this effect.
It is in knowledge of every body in this country that Dev
Gowada Govt. came to power on the outside support of Congress
Party in the Parliament but Mr. Dev Gowada, the then Prime
Minister wanted Congress Party to share power in the Central
26/150
27
Govt. for which Sh. P V Narshima Rao did not agree and relation
between Mr. Dev Gowada , the then Prime Minister, Sh. P V
Narshima Rao, the then Congress President (AICC) became
strained. Mr. Dev Gowada wanted to discredit Sh. P V Narshima
Rao and keeping in view this fact a case was instituted against him
in which he was acquitted later on. This paved the way for Mr.
Sita Ram Kesri, the then treasurer to step into the shoes of Mr.P V
Narshima Rao as a Congress President in which he succeeded and
he assumed the charge of Presidentship of Congress Party on
23.9.1996 with a view to please him, Mr. Dev Gowada used the
offices of CBI for putting pressure on him while he was in the
detention of CBI that the recovered money did not belong to Sita
Ram Kesri but it belongs to Sh. Narshima Rao. He did not scumb
to the pressure of CBI, he was mentally and physically tortured
even a false case was instituted against his son Anil Sharma who
was MOS in H M Govt. This case was later on withdrawn by the
CBI as the allegation against him proved to be false during
investigation.
The assets of his family members including his married
daughters were added in his assets by CBI regarding which the
income Tax Tribunal has now given final findings, order of which
have been filed on the record with the application for release of
such assets and on the basis of the same this court has passed
order dt. 18.5.07. It is a false case.
27/150
28
61 In his defence accused has examined DW1 HC

Pawan Kumar who has proved photo copy of letter Ex DW1/A,
photo copy of draft sanction order Ex DW1/B and photocopy of
the noting Ex DW1/C.
62 DW2 Constable Narinder Kumar, Asst. Malkahan

CBI, ACB, Delhi has stated that at page no. 36 of the seizure
property register, no case property has been deposited on 19.8.02
or 20.8.02 in respect of the present case.
63 DW3 Vinod Kumar has proved D D Ex DW3/1.
64 DW-4 is Shailash Ranjan.
65 DW5 Jaswant has proved Press Releases Ex DW5/A

and letter Ex DW5/B.
66 DW6 Sh. P C Gupta has proved his report ex DW6/A

about house no. D42, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Circular Ex
DW6/B, his report Ex DW6/C about renovation of house situated
in Mohalla Shamkhetra, Mandi and his report Ex DW6/D about
Farm House at Saurath.
67 DW7 Kamlesh Thakur has proved attested true copies

of documents Ex DW7/A.
28/150
29
68 DW8 is Deepak Chaurasia
69 DW9 Madhav Prasad Sharma has proved sanction of

five trees to Smt. Ram Devi Ex DW9/A and permit book Ex
DW9/B.
70 DW10 Shiv Kumar Mishra has proved card Ex
DW10/A, DW11 is Ritu Sharma, DW12 is Chander Sharma,
DW13 is Tirath Ram Shrama and DW14 is Neearj Kansal.
71 DW15 A K Dhar has proved the report Ex DW15/A.
72 DW16 Anil Sharma has proved certified copy of

No objection Certificate and order of Special Judge,Shimla dt.
30.6.99 Ex DW16/A and Ex. DW16/B.
73 Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S P Minocha argued that

prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts while
accused has to prove his defence by mere preponderance of
probabilities. He has further argued that accused is entitle for
benefits of all the doubts. Wherever two views are possible in a
criminal case view favourable to accused should be taken.
74 Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S P Minocha argued that

accused Sukh Ram on 16.8.96 when the raid was conducted on his
29/150
30
residence, was a public servant being Member of Parliament. On

9.6.97 when the charge sheet in this case has been filed against
him, was also a public servant being Member of Parliament,
however prosecution has filed this charge sheet against accused
without obtaining sanction or permission from the speaker of Lok
Sabha as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P V Narsimha Rao
Vs. State, 1998 (2) CCC 71, hence his prosecution in this case is
bad, therefore, accused may be acquitted on this ground alone. In
this regard, he has also placed reliance on P V Narsimha Rao Vs.
State, 1998 (2) CCC 108.
75 It is argued that according to proviso of Section 17 of

P C Act, 1988, a case U/s 13 (1) (e) of P C Act, shall not be
investigated without the order of a Police Officer not below the
rank of Superintendent of Police, however in this case, Dy. S P Sh.
B S Jakhar who had conducted raid on 16.8.96, started
investigation, which is clear from his statement recorded as
PW60 in this case, wherein he has stated as follows:
Searches were conducted in connection with the
ivnestigation of case FIR No.3 A/96/ACU/IV at different places
after obtaining search warrant from court of Sessions Judge and
during the searches lot of assets were observed which on
verification were found to be disproportionate to the known
sources of income of Sh. Sukh Ram.
30/150
31
76 Ld. Defence Counsel referring Section 2 (h) of Cr P

C wherein investigation has been defined, argued that collecting of
evidence amounts to investigating the case, thus, verifying of the
information amounts to collection of evidence which Mr. Jakhar
had started without any order of S P, hence the investigation
conducted in this case is bad and the evidence collected thereto
cannot be read in evidence. The entire investigation was
conducted in contravention of Section 17 of P C Act, hence the
same is bad, therefore, charge sheet filed against accused on the
basis of such evidence is also bad, hence accused may be
acquitted.
77 Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi filed written

submissions and also addressed his oral arguments. He has argued
that examination in chief of P V Narsimha Rao, statements of Sh.
Sita Ram Kesari and Mr. C K Khemka recorded U/s 161 Cr PC
are neither relevant nor admissible u/s 33 of Evidence Act as
accused had no right or opportunity to cross examine them. In this
regard he has placed reliance on Shashi Jena Vs. Khadal Swain,
(2004) 4 SCC 236 and V M Mathew Vs. V S Sharma, (1995) 6
SCC 122.
78 Ld. Senior Counsel argued that essential ingredient of

offence punishable U/s 13 (1) (e) of PC Act is possession of
property or resources which a public servant cannot satisfactorily
31/150
32
account for. Word possession has been held to mean possession

of resources of which public servant must have knowledge to
bring in the mental element of conscious possession as well as
custody and control over the property and resources. It is
argued that in this case accused Sukh Ram and his wife were out
of India on 16.8.96 when the searches were conducted at their
premises, prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the cash
recovered from their premises was in their conscious possession.
Ld. Senior Counsel in support of his arguments has placed
reliance on Sanjay Dutt V. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410, Avtar Singh
Vs. State of Punjab (2002) 7 SCC 419, Gurmail Singh V. State of
Punjab (2002) 3 SCC 748 and Gunwantlal V. State of MP, AIR
1972 SC1756 and DSP Chennai Vs. K Inbasgaran , AIR 2006 SC
552.
79 It is argued that even if there is some ambiguity in the

meaning of word possession in relation to Section 13 (1) (e) of P
C Act, 1988 this court must adopt that construction which is more
lenient and lean towards the construction which exempts the
accused from penalty. In this regard Ld. Senior Counsel has
placed reliance on following authorities:
Bijaya Kumar Aggarwala Vs. State of Orissa, (1966) 5 SCC
1 (Para 17-18), Sanjay Dutt. Vs. State (1994) 5 SCC 410,
constitutional Bench (Para 16), Niranjan Singh Karam Singh
Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 (Para 8)
32/150
33
and Tola Ram Relu Mal Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496
(Para 9).
80 Ld. Senior Counsel further argued that conscious

Possession is an essential ingredient of the offence, and burden of
proving it beyond reasonable doubt, is on the prosecution. In this
regard he has placed reliance on following authorities:
G M Tank Vs. State of Gujrat, (2005) 5 SCC 446 (para 30),
HP Administration Vs. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 (para 4 &
7), T Subramanium Vs. State of TN, (2006) 1 SCC 401 (Para 12-
15, 17), Punjab Rao (2002) 10 SCC 371 ( para 3), State of TN V.
Krishnan (2002) 9 SCC 521 (para 5 & 6), Kali Ram V. State of
Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 (Para 25 & 28).
81 Ld. Senior Counsel argued that if two views are

possible, view favourable to accused should be adopted.
82 Sh. T B Bhattacharya, PW9, who has joined as an

independent witness at the time of raid and recovery, does not
deny if the CBI was told by Smt. Ritu Sharma, DW-11, that some
portion of the house was being used by the Congress Party for
election purposes.
83 Sh. Munshi Ram, PW25 specifically admitted that

Smt. Ritu Sharma, told the CBI officials in his presence that the
33/150
34
keys of the small store and puja Room attached with the guest
room was with Mr. Mishra. Yet Mr. Mishra was not called and
the locks of store and puja room were broken, from where the
currency was recovered.
84 It is argued that Mr. L R Sharma, PW47, has deposed

as under:
Mr. Maurya, General Secretary AICC introduced him to
Sh. Sita Ram Kesari, Congress President.
He had discussions with Mr. Maurya with regard to
elections in UP and J & K.
Dewe Gowda had strained relations with Mr. Narsimha
Rao.
Suggested to Mr. Maurya that residence of Mr. Sukh Ram at
Delhi and Mandi can be utilized as election offices as Mr. /Sukh
Ram and wife were going abroad.
Mr. T R Sharma, Sh. S K Mishra were appointed in charge
of Mandi and Delhi offices respectively.
In August 1996, he brought election material in gunny bags
and suitcases from residence of Sh. Sita Ram Kesari to 12,
Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi.
Handed over the material to Mr. S K Mishra.
Mr. Maurya asked Chander Sharma to go to Mandi and
handover the material to Mr. T R Sharma.
34/150
35
85 The statement of Mr. L R Sharma, with respect to his

conversation with Mr. B P Maurya is also admissible in view of
the fact that Mr. Maurya expired and therefore could not be
produced as a witness. Secondary evidence of a witness who
cannot be produced is relevant under the Evidence Act.
86 In this regard Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi has

relied upon Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 6, SCC
671 (Para 5)
87 PW-33 Mr. Pratap Chand Sharma, himself admitted

that at the time of raid at Mandi house of the accused, 2-3 persons
were sitting, one of them was Mr. T R Sharma who told that he
had been sent by Mr. Sita Ram Kesari for election work.
88 PW42 Ram Bahadur, stated that Mr. T R Sharma had

a party office in the house of the top floor. Out of the two rooms
one was used as office and one for keeping goods.
89 PW45 K K Goyal, an independent witness to the raid,

stated that 6-7 person were sitting in the compound. He cannot
deny that they informed CBI that they were to take election
material to J & K. They were asked by CBI to leave, on the first
floor last two rooms were locked; attendant informed keys of
rooms were with Mr. T R Sharma
35/150
36
90 PW20 Basant Ram, a Patwari of Mandi, who has

appeared as a prosecution witness to prove the land ownership of
the accused and his wife, has admitted in his cross examination
that he knew Tirath Ram Sharma, General Secretary of Congress.
He had met Mr. Tirath Ram Sharma at that house. He however
told him that he was there in connection with the election.
91 Cash of Rs.2,45,28,844/- recovered from Delhi

residence and Rs.1,16,51,520/- recovered from Mandi residence,
were from the camp offices of Congress Party set up with regard
to impending elections in UP & J & K from locked rooms and
locked suit cases cannot be said to have recovered from the
possession of accused and is liable to be excluded while
computing the assets of accused.
92 Prosecution has failed to prove that a cash of

Rs.1,05,00,000/-, was given to C K Khemka as loan by Sukh Ram.
It is argued that if this amount of Rs.4,66,80.364/- excluded,
remaining assets cannot be said to be disproportionate, hence
accused is liable to be acquitted.
MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS HELD BY

ACCUSED AND HIS WIFE AT THE BEGINNING OF
CHECK PERIOD
36/150
37
93 Prosecution vide document Ex PW22/A and PW22/B

(D-10) and from the statement of PW 22 Munshi Ram has proved
that Orchard measuring 35 bigha, 8 biswas and 19 biswansi was
acquire in the name of Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi during the
period 1961 to 1969 as shown at serial No.1 of immovable assets
held by accused prior to the beginning of check period in the
charge sheet.
94 Prosecution vide document Ex PW20/A and PW20/B

(D-8) and PW 20 Basant Ram has proved that residential house at
Samkhetra Mandi constructed on a plot measuring 359.34 sq.
metre in the name of Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi around the
year 1981-82 as shown at serial No.2 of immovable assets held by
accused prior to the beginning of check period in the charge
sheet.
95 Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove

the ancestral land measuring 3 bighas owned by Sh. Sukh Ram in
his native village Kotli, Distt. Mandi and Orchard measuring 10
bighas at village Kullumath, Akhara Bazaar, Kullu in the name of
Smt. Ram Devi given to her by her mother around the year 1972
as shown at serial No.3 and 4 of immovable assets held by
accused and his wife prior to the beginning of check period in the
charge sheet, however, as it is admitted by the prosecution in the
37/150
38
charge sheet that accused and his wife were owning these
properties prior to the check period hence this court is of opinion
that accused is entitle for this benefit.
96 Prosecution vide Ex PW2/A and Ex PW2/B (D-25)

and from the statement of PW2 Janardan Agnihotri has proved
that accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.2,58,755/-
for plot No. D42 Kaushambi as shown at serial No.1 of movable
assets held by accused prior to the check period in the charge
sheet.
97 Prosecution vide Ex PW34/G (D-34) and PW34

Devender Kapoor has proved that Smt. Ram Devi wife of
accused Sukh Ram had given a loan of Rs. 4,37,500/- to her son
Sh. Anil Sharma as shown at serial No.2 of movable assets held
by accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.
98 Prosecution vide Ex PW34/G (D-34) and from the

statement of PW34 Devender Kapoor has proved that accused
Sukh Ram had given a loan of Rs. 1,92,000/- to his son Sh. Anil
Sharma as shown at serial No.3 of movable assets held by
accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.
99 Prosecution vide Ex PW9/A, PW45/C, Ex PW49/A

(D-13, D18 and D-23) and from the statement of PW 9 T
38/150
39
Bhattacharya. PW45 K K Goel and PW49 R K Khurana has

proved that accused Sukh Ram was having house hold items
valuing about Rs.2,80,900/- as shown at serial No.4 of movable
sheet.
100 Prosecution vide Ex PW9/E, (D-15) and . and from

the statement of PW 9 T Bhattacharya and PW 32 Ram Saran
Mehra has proved that accused Sukh Ram was having jewellery
valuing about Rs.5,72,373/- as shown at serial No.5 of movable
sheet.
101 Prosecution vide Ex PW17/A (D-26) and from the

statement of PW17 Hari Simrath Singh Dua has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs. 80,004/- with
Nav Sansad Vihar Society as shown at serial No.6 of movable
sheet.
102 Prosecution vide Ex PW7/A, ExPW7/B, Ex PW6/A

and Ex P-9, P-14, P-15 (admitted) ( D-41, 43, 49 and 52), and
from the statement of PW7 Sh. J N Behal and PW6 Sh. S C
Khurana has proved that accused Sukh Ram had a bank balance
of Rs.6,41,478/- as shown at serial No.7 of movable assets held
39/150
40
by accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.
103 Prosecution vide Ex P10, P11 and P13 (admitted) (

D-50) has proved that accused Sukh Ram was having three FDRs
of Rs. 50,000/- each, total amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- in PNB,
Shimla as shown at serial No.8 of movable assets held by
accused prior to the check period in the charge sheet.
104 It is argued by Ld. Sr. Counsel Sh. Tulsi that

calculation of assets by the prosecution at the beginning of check
period is at variance with the income tax returns of accused Sukh
Ram Ex PW34/DA and his wife Smt. Ram Devi Ex PW34/DB.
It is argued that balance sheet w.e.f. 1.4.91 to 31.3.92 of Mrs. Ram
Devi w/o Sukh Ram indicates opening balance of Rs.31,46,604/-
on 1.4.91 i.e. just before the check period, as this amount is as per
the document of prosecution itself hence the same ought to have
taken in account while calculating her assets at the beginning of
check period since her individual assets has also been clubbed to
that of accused Sukh Ram. Similarly, balance sheet of accused
Sukh Ram for the period w.e.f. 1.4.91 to 31.3.92 shows opening
balance of Rs7,45,662/-, however this amount has not been taken
in consideration while calculating the assets held by accused at the
end of pre check period.
40/150
41
105 I have carefully considered this argument of Ld. Sr.

Counsel, first of all, documents Ex PW34/DA and Ex PW34/DB
are not the documents of prosecution. These are the Block Period
Returns filed by accused Sukh Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Devi
which is clear from the following portion of the statement of
PW34.:
I have no knowledge if any block period returns of Sh.
Sukh Ram and Smt. Ram Devi were filed through my office. I
have seen the block period returns of Shri Sukh Ram, summoned
from the Income tax Department. Copy of the same is Ex
PW34/DA. I can identify the signatures of Shri Sukh Ram on the
original return which is mark 'A' on the copy.
I have also seen block period return of Smt. Ram Devi,
(the original return brought from the Income Tax, Deptt.). I
can identify signature of Smt. Ram Devi on the original return
at point A. Copy of the return is Ex PW34/DB. (Original
income tax returns brought by Shri Ram Kumar, Tech.
Assistant, Ward No.31 (1), Income Tax Department, New
Delhi. (Originals seen & returned).
106 Accused and his wife have filed their Block Returns
for the period w.e.f 1986 to 1996 after the raid was conducted and
this case was registered, therefore, these documents are not
reliable.
41/150
42
107 Prosecution has proved income tax return of Smt.

Ram Devi w/o Sukh Ram for the financial year 1991-92,
assessment year 1992-93 Ex PW34/G-1, file Ex PW34/G (D-34
VI). Alongwith this income tax return no balance sheet showing
any opening balance has been filed. Prosecution has proved
income tax return of Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sukh Ram for the
financial year 1992-93, assessment year 1993-94 Ex PW34/H-1,
file Ex PW34/H (D-34 VII). Alongwith this income tax return no
balance sheet showing any opening balance has been filed.

assessment year 1994-95 Ex PW34/I-1, file Ex PW34/I (D-34
VIII). Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been
filed showing opening balance of Rs. 20,52,288/-, gross balance
amount has been shown as Rs. 26,31,408/- and after showing a
withdrawal of Rs.2,85,147/-, net closing balance has been as
Rs.23,46,261/- . Nothing has been shown in this balance sheet as
to how the figure of opening balance of Rs. 20,52,288/- has been
arrived at. According to accused opening balance as per Ex
PW 34/DB as on 31.3.92 was Rs. 31,46,604/-, how can it be
possible when according to the balance sheet filed alongwith
income tax return Ex.PW34/I-I, opening balance was
Rs.20,52,288/- on 31.3.94, thus, this argument appears to be
42/150
43
vague and unreliable.

assessment year 1995-96 Ex PW34/J-1, file Ex PW34/J (D-34 IX).
Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been filed
showing opening balance of Rs. 23,46,261/-, an addition of Rs.
4,67,992/- has been shown in the financial year ended upto
31.3.95 and after showing a withdrawal of Rs. 1,77,548/- net
closing balance of Rs. 26,35,655/- has been shown as on 31.3.95.

assessment year 1996-97 Ex PW34/K-1, file Ex PW34/K (D-34
X). Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been filed
showing opening balance of Rs. 26,36,655/-, an addition of Rs.
5,95,190/- has been shown in the financial year ended upto
31.3.96 and after showing a withdrawal of Rs. 1,23,493/- net
closing balance of Rs.3,108,352/- has been shown as on 31.3.96.
In all these three balance sheets an amount of Rs. 1,89,937/- has
been shown invested on the construction of farm house which is
stated to be under construction. No amount has been shown to be
spent on the renovation work on the house situated in Mohalla
Shamkhetra, Mandi. Thus, from the above discussion it is clear
that various figures shown in the income tax returns of Smt.
43/150
44
Ram Devi are conflicting, hence no reliance can be placed on

the same to hold that her opening balance was Rs.31,46,604/-
at the beginning of check period.
111 Prosecution has proved income tax return of accused

Sukh Ram for the financial year 1990-91, assessment year 1991-
92 Ex PW34/B-2, file Ex PW34/B (D-34 I). Alongwith this
income tax return no balance sheet showing any opening balance
has been filed.

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

95 Ex PW34/D-1, file Ex PW34/D (D-34-III). Alongwith this
has been filed.
114 Prosecution has proved income tax return of Accused

96 Ex PW34/E-1, file Ex PW34/E (D-34 IV). Alongwith this
44/150
45
income tax return balance sheet has been filed showing opening
balance of Rs. 8,30,931/-. it is not disclosed as to how this figure
has been arrived at. An amount of Rs.10,22,021/- has been shown
as loan received from Canfin Home Ltd. and a loan of Rs.
2,68,303/- has been shown received from Smt. Ram Devi. A total
capital of Rs.21,21,255/- has been shown as on 31.3.95, out of
which an amount of Rs.11,12,488/- has been shown to be spent on
construction of house No. D-42, Kaushambi and an amount of Rs.
4,10,000/- has been shown deposited with New Sansad Co-
operative Society. A net closing balance of Rs.8,30,931/- has
been shown as on 31.3.95. Nothing has been shown in this
balance sheet as to how the figure of opening balance of Rs.
8.30.931/- has been arrived at. According to accused opening
balance as per Ex PW 34/DA as on 31.3.92 was Rs.7,45,662.88,
how can it be relied upon, when no capital amount has been
shown in income tax return for the financial years w.e.f. 1990-
91 to 1992-93, thus, this argument appears to be vague and
unreliable.
115 Prosecution has proved income tax return of Accused

Sukh Ram for the financial year 1995-96, assessment year of
which is 1996-97 Ex PW34/F2, file Ex PW34/F (D-34 V).
Alongwith this income tax return balance sheet has been filed
showing opening balance of Rs. 8,30,931/-. A total capital
account of Rs.40,64,632/- has been shown as on 31.3.96 out of
45/150
46
which an amount of Rs.6,43,877/- has been shown as withdrawal.

A net closing balance of Rs34,20,750/-- has been shown as on
31.3.96.
116 I have gone through these balance sheets, all the

benefits as per these balance sheets have already been given to
accused by the prosecuting agency but under different heads.
Check period in our case is w.e.f. 20.6.91 to 16.8.96, thus accused
is entitled for the benefits upto 19.6.91 under the head of pre-
check period.
117 Thus, prosecution has proved that accused and

his wife Smt. Ram Devi were having total movable and
immovable assets valuing Rs.26,13,010/- prior to the check
period, with them.
DETAILS OF TOTAL INCOME OF ACCUSED SUKH RM

AND HIS WIFE RAM DEVI FROM THEIR KNOWN
SOURCES OF INCOME DURING CHECK PERIOD

statement of PW13 Reeta Jalkhani has proved that accused had
received a salary with effect from 20.6.91 to June, 1992 as
Member of Parliament of Rs. 65,150/- as shown at serial No.1 of
46/150
47
the details of income of accused during the check period in the

charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his statement recorded
U/s 313 Cr PC. (Q15)

statement of PW15Vinod Kumar Nayyar has proved that accused
Sukh Ram had received a salary with effect from July, 1992 to
18.1.93 as Minister of State for Planning of Rs. 62,655/- as shown
at serial No.2 of the details of income of accused during the check
period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q16)
120 Prosecution vide Ex PW4/A to Ex PW4/E (D-39)and

from the statement of PW4 Vinod Kumar Sinha has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had received a salary with effect from 18.1.93
to 16.5.96 as Minister of State for Communication of
Rs.3,28,975/- as shown at serial No.3 of the details of income of
accused during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has
not denied it in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q14)
121 Prosecution vide Ex.PW 34/A to Ex PW34/L (D-34)

and from the statement of PW 34 D N Kapoor has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs. 9,94,373/- from his
Orchard as shown at serial No.4 of the details of income of
accused during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has
47/150
48
admitted it correct as matter of record in his statement recorded

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

accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs. 1,84,436/-on account of
interest earned from his son Anil Sharma as shown at serial No.5
of the details of income of accused during the check period in the
charge sheet. Accused has admitted it correct as matter of record
in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q66 to 71)

Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs.
4,46,897/- from her son Anil Sharma as shown at serial No.6 of
the details of income of accused during the check period in the
charge sheet. Accused has admitted it correct as matter of record
in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 65, Q72 to 76)

Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs. 18,
88,900/- from her Orchard as shown at serial No.7 of the details
of income of accused during the check period in the charge sheet.
Accused has admitted it correct as matter of record in his
48/150
49
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 65, Q72 to 76)
125 Prosecution vide Ex.PW8/A to Ex PW8/D (D-27)

and from the statement of PW 8 Manoj Kumar has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had taken a total loan of Rs. 10 lakh (Rs. Five
lakh each) for construction of house No. D-42 Kaushambi from
Canfin Home Ltd. sponsored by Canara Bank as shown at serial
No.8 of the details of income of accused during the check period
in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q 26,27 and Q28)
126 Prosecution vide Ex. PW 5/C and Ex PW10/A ( D

63)and from the statement of PW5 Pardeep Kumar Gupta and
PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar has proved that accused Sukh Ram had a
balance of Rs. 27,37,500/- which amount he had received as
compensation in a libel suit filed by him before Queen Bench,
London and which was transferred in his bank account in India
as shown at serial No.9 of the details of income of accused during
the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as
correct in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q19)
127 Prosecution vide Ex. P 10 to P13 (D-50) (admitted)

has proved that accused Sukh Ram had an income of interest of
Rs.3,45,933/- from Three FDRs in PNB as shown at serial No.10
of the details of income of accused during the check period in the
49/150
50
charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr. PC.
128 Prosecution vide Ex P W34A to L, (D-34) and from

the statement of PW34 D N Kapoor has proved that accused
Sukh Ram had an income of interest of Rs. 40,800/- from FDRs
of Shivalik during the period w.e.f. 1993 to 1995 as shown at
serial No.11 of the details of income of accused during the check
period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q 65, Q72 to 76)
129 Prosecution vide Ex. P W13/A, (D-36) and from the

statement of PW13 Reeta Jalkhani has proved that accused Sukh
Ram had an income of Rs. 56,071/- on account of TA and DA as
Member of Parliament w.e.f. July, 1991 to August, 1992 as
shown at serial No.12 of the details of income of accused during
the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in
his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q15)

statement of PW15 Sh. V K Nayyar has proved that accused Sukh
Minister of State (Planning) w.e.f. July, 1992 to December , 1992
as shown at serial No.13 of the details of income of accused
during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has not
50/150
51
denied it in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q16)
131 Prosecution vide Ex. PW39/A and Ex PW39/A-1 (D-

40) and from the statement of PW39 Sh. R S Malik has proved
that accused Sukh Ram had an income of Rs.3,08,859/- on
account of TA and DA as Minister of State (Communication)
w.e.f. October, 1993 to June, 1996 as shown at serial No.14 of the
details of income of accused during the check period in the charge
sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in his statement recorded
U/s 313 Cr. PC. (/Q 80)

statement of PW13 Reeta Jalkhani has proved that accused Sukh
Member of Parliament w.e.f. May, 1996 to August, 1996 as
shown at serial No.15 of the details of income of accused during
the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has not denied it in
his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC. (Q15)
133 Thus, prosecution has proved that accused and his

wife had a total income of Rs. 84,98,180/- during the check
period from 20.6.91 to 16.8.96.
134 Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi referring the statement

of PW7 argued that accused had received 4200 pounds, (equal to
51/150
52
Rs. 2,09,748/-) from his son in law, credit of which has not been
given by the prosecution, hence this amount may be added in the
income of accused. It is correct that accused in his statement U/s
313 Cr PC has claimed that one of his son in law is a practising
Doctor in U K who had sent 4200 pounds to him. I have gone
through the statement of PW7 who has stated as follows in this
regard:
It is correct that the credit of Rs.2,09,748/- as reflected on
10.7.95 in Ex PW7/A is on account of conversion of 4200 pounds
sterling received by the accounts holder as remittance.
135 In view of the statement of PW7 this court is of

opinion that accused is entitle for the benefit of this amount. This
amount should be added in the income of accused. Thus, the
total income of accused and his wife during the check period
comes to Rs.87,07,928/-.
DETAILS OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURED BY

ACCUSED SUKH RAM AND HIS WIFE RAM DEVI
DURING CHECK PERIOD

statement of PW 19 S Z Khan has proved that accused had paid an
amount of Rs.38,520/- as electricity charges of house no.42
Kaushambi as shown at serial No.1 of the details of expenditure
52/150
53
made during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has
admitted it as correct in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.
PC.(Q46)

statement of PW 18 Durga Singh Thakur has proved that accused
had paid an amount of Rs.1,119/- as water charges of Orchard, in
Saurath from June, 1991 to December, 1996 as shown at serial
No.2 of the details of expenditure made during the check period in
the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.
PC (Q.45) has stated that this water connection is in the name of
Anil Sharma who might had paid this amount. Accused has not
produced any receipt or document showing that water connection
was in the name of Anil Sharma who is his son, however, PW18
has specifically deposed that Orchard was of accused Sukh Ram
and he had deposited this amount, hence there is no reason to
disbelieve this witness, therefore, this court is of opinion that this
amount was spent by accused Sukh Ram.

statement of PW 21Sh. A N Sharma has proved that accused had
paid an amount of Rs.1,168/- towards electricity charges of
house at Village Saurath for the electric connection installed in
the name of Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sukh Ram from June, 1991 to
53/150
54
August, 1996 as shown at serial No.3 of the details of expenditure

made during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh
Ram has deposed in his statement U/s 313 Cr PC that this amount
might have been deposited by his wife (Q No.48) as the
connection is in her name.
139 Prosecution vide Ex PW33/A and Ex PW33/B (D-

58) and from the statement of PW 33 Sh. P C Sharma has proved
that accused had paid an amount of Rs.27,361/- towards
electricity charges of his house at Mandi from June, 1990 to
December, 1996 as shown at serial No.4 of the details of
expenditure made during the check period in the charge sheet.
Accused Sukh Ram has not denied this fact in his statement
recorded U/s 313 Cr PC . (Q64)
140 Prosecution vide Ex P-16 (D-54), which has been

admitted as correct by the accused in admission and denial, has
proved that accused had paid an amount of Rs.1749/- on account
of water charges for his house at Samkhetar Mandi as shown at
serial No.5 of the details of expenditure made during the check
period in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in
his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q1)
141 Prosecution vide Ex PW22/A (D-53)and from the
54/150
55
statement of PW 22 Munshi Ram has proved that accused had

paid an amount of Rs.215/- as Mamla Payment Orchard, Saurath
Mandi as shown at serial No.6 of the details of expenditure made
during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused has admitted
it correct as matter of record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.
PC.(Q 49)
142 Prosecution from the statement of PW 41 Smt. Bini

Devi, PW42 Ram Bhadur, PW57 Bimla and PW38 Sadhu Ram
has proved that accused had paid an amount of Rs1,24,390/- to the
servants serving at his Orchard, Saurath Mandi as shown at serial
No.7 of the details of expenditure made during the check period in
the charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q79, 82, 83 & 100)

statement of PW 14 Sh. Puneet Sharma has proved that accused
had paid an amount of Rs.6498/- towards LPG charges for his
residence at Delhi for the period from 22.7.94 to 16.8.96 as
shown at serial No.8 of the details of expenditure made during the
check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has denied
this fact in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC . (Q41) I have
gone through the statement of PW14 Sh. Puneet Sharma and
relevant documents from which it is clear that LPG connection
vide consumer No. 17099 was in the name of accused Sukh Ram
55/150
56
himself. Gas cylinders were supplied at his official residence

bearing No. 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi, hence this court is of
opinion that prosecution has proved that he had spent Rs.6468/-
for purchasing gas cylinders for his domestic use.
144 Prosecution has produced Ex PW14/A (D-62) and

PW 14 Sh. Puneet Sharma to prove that accused had paid an
amount of Rs.6,865/- towards LPG charges in the name of his son
Sh. Anoop Sharma for the period from 22.7.94 to 16.8.96 as
shown at serial No.9 of the details of expenditure made during the
check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has denied
this fact in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC . (Q41) I have
gone through the statement of PW14 Sh. Puneet Sharma and
relevant documents from which it is clear that LPG connection
vide consumer No. 20321 was in the name of Anoop Sharma s/o
Sh. Sukh Ram. PW14 has stated that he cannot tell who had made
the payment, in these circumstances this court is of opinion that
the amount of Rs. 6865/- can not be added in the expenditure
made by accused Sukh Ram during the check period.

statement of PW 16 Sh. Rajinder Mahajan has proved that
accused had paid an amount of Rs1,28,870/- towards charges of
Air Journey to USA in the month of August 1996 for himself and
for his wife as shown at serial No.10 of the details of expenditure
56/150
57
Ram in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC (Q43) has stated
that he received 4200 pounds from his son in law Sh. S L Vashisht
who has been a practicising doctor in London. Out of this amount
he purchased tickets for himself and his wife. PW16 Sh. Rajinder
Mahajan specifically deposed that a payment of Rs.1,28,870/- was
received against bill Ex PW16/A from Sukh Ram vide a cheque.
thus this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved that this
expenditure was made by accused Sukh Ram.
146 Prosecution from the statement of PW52 Sh. Niranjan

Lal Goel has proved that accused had paid an amount of
Rs30,000/-to Sh. Niranjan Lal Goel for supervising the
construction work at D 42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad w.e.f. 1991 to
1994 as shown at serial No.11 of the details of expenditure made
during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram
has admitted it as correct being matter of record in his statement
recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q88) .
147 Prosecution from the statement of PW26 Sh. Vasudev

has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid an amount of
Rs10,000/-to PW26 Sh. Vaudev for doing the job of plumber at
his residence D 42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad as shown at serial
No.12 of the details of expenditure made during the check period
in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as correct
57/150
58
in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q53) .
148 Prosecution from the statement of PW28 Sh. Inder

Bhan Tomar has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid an
amount of Rs15,000/- to PW28 Sh. Inder Bhan Tomar in the year
1994 for doing electricity work in premises D 42 Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad as shown at serial No.13 of the details of expenditure
Ram has admitted it as correct in his statement recorded U/s 313
Cr PC.(Q54) .
149 Prosecution from the statement of PW 53 Chottey Lal

has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid an amount of
Rs9,000/- to Sh. PW53 Sh. Chottey Lal who was working as
gardener at the residence of accused at house No. D 42
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad from 29.1.96 to August, 1996 as shown at
period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as
correct in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q89) .
150 Prosecution from the statement of PW8 Manoj Kumar

Nayyar has proved that accused Sukh Ram had repaid an amount
of Rs4,93,864/- upto July, 1996 to Canfin Homes Ltd. against the
loan of Rs. 10 lakh taken by him as shown at serial No.15 of the
details of expenditure made during the check period in the charge
58/150
59
sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as correct in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q28) .
151 Prosecution from the statement of PW34 Sh.

Devender Kapoor (D34) has proved that accused Sukh Ram had
paid total amount of Rs3,12,595/- towards Income tax during the
check period as shown at serial No.16 of the details of
Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as correct being matter of
record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q66 to Q 71) .
152 Prosecution from the statement of PW34 Sh.

Devender Kapoor (D-34) has proved that accused Sukh Ram had
spent a total amount of Rs2,30,117/- as agricultural expenses
during the check period as shown at serial No.17 of the details of
record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC.(Q66 to 71)
153 Prosecution vide Ex PW5/H (D-45) and from the

statement of PW 5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused had
paid an amount of Rs.14 lakh to Bhav Dev Trust during the check
period as shown at serial No.18 of the details of expenditure made
during the check period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram
has admitted it as correct being matter of record in his statement
59/150
60
recorded U/s 313 Cr PC (Q22).
154 Prosecution vide Ex PW5/G (D-45) and from the

statement of PW 5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused had
paid an amount of Rs. one lakh to Bhav Dev Trust between
17.7.95 to 12.9.95 as shown at serial No.19 of the details of
record in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC (Q22).
155 Prosecution vide Ex PW5/D and Ex PW5/E (D-44)

and from the statement of PW 5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that
accused had paid an amount of Rs.10 lakh (Rs. Five lakh each) to
Duyffdun Education Trust, Chairman of which was Smt. Ram
Devi w/o accused between 29.2.96 to 15.6.96 as shown at serial
No.20 of the details of expenditure made during the check period
in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as
correct being matter of record in his statement recorded U/s 313
Cr PC (Q21).
156 Prosecution from the statement of PW 24 Sh.

Shamsher Singh has proved that accused Sukh Ram had paid a
total amount of Rs19,200/- to his driver PW24 Shamsher Singh
towards his salary from June, 1991 to June, 1992 as shown at
60/150
61
period in the charge sheet. Accused Sukh Ram has admitted it as

correct being matter of record in his statement recorded U/s 313
Cr PC.(Q52) .
157 Prosecution from the statement of PW 25 Sh. Munshi

Ram s/o Durga Ram has proved that accused Sukh Ram had spent
an amount of Rs1,50,000/- on the reception of marriage of his
daughter Kavita in the year 1992 as shown at serial No.22 of the
details of expenditure made during the check period in the charge
sheet. Accused Sukh Ram in his supplementary statement
recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that exactly he cannot state
whether the expenditure was less than Rs.1,50,000/-, however,
cash and gifts were received in the reception which was also
utilised as a part of expenditure. Some amount of the expenditure
was also made from the earnings of his wife who had an
independent income from her agricultural land. (Q2 of
supplementary statement). It is clear that accused has not
specifically denied the fact of expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the
reception of his daughter. He has claimed that some expenditure
was made from the cash and gifts received in the reception and
some expenditure was made by his wife. It is clear from the above
discussion that income of wife of accused has also been taken in
consideration and all benefits because of her income has already
been granted to accused. Accused has not disclosed as to how
much amount was spent by him and how much amount was spent
61/150
62
by his wife and how much amount was spent from the cash/gifts
received in the reception. Accused even has not produced his wife
in the witness box as defence witness to explain as to how much
amount was spend by her. Accused has not produced any
statement of account in this regard. In these circumstances this
court is of opinion that the prosecution has proved that accused
had spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on the reception of her
daughter in the year 1992.
158 Prosecution from the statement of PW 31 Sh. Raj

Kishan Gaur has proved that accused Sukh Ram had spent an
amount of Rs1,00,000/- on the of marriage of his daughter Kavita
in the year 1992 as shown at serial No.23 of the details of
Accused Sukh Ram in his supplementary statement recorded U/s
313 Cr PC has stated that jewelery was managed from the old
ornaments of his wife. His wife has also incurred some expenses
from her income. Some gifts were also given by relatives. . (Q5 of
supplementary statement). It is clear that accused has not
specifically denied the fact of expenditure on account of dowry
articles of Rs. 1,00,000/- given to her daughter in her marriage.
He has claimed that jewelery was manage from the old
ornaments of his wife and some expenditure was made from the
income of his wife and some gifts were given by the relatives. It
is clear from the above discussion that income of wife of accused
62/150
63
has also been taken in consideration and all benefits because of

her income has already been granted to accused. Accused has not
disclosed as to how much amount was spent by him and how
much amount was spent by his wife and how much amount was
spent from the cash/gifts received in the marriage. Accused even
has not produced his wife in the witness box as defence witness to
state that jewelery was managed from her old ornaments and to
explain as to how much amount was spent by her from her
personal income Word old is a vague term. It can be one month
old or one year old or ten years old and so on. Accused has not
stated any specific time when, how and from whom the jewelery
was acquired. Jewelery has also not been claimed as the stridhan
of the wife of accused. Accused even has not claimed that
jewelery was acquired prior to the check period. It is also clear
that benefit of pre check period earnings/wealth etc. has already
been given to accused. Accused has not produced any statement
of account in this regard. In these circumstances this court is of
opinion that the prosecution has proved that accused had spent an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the marriage of her daughter on
account of dowry articles in the year 1992.
159 Prosecution from the statement of PW 25 Sh. Munshi

Ram s/o Durga Ram has proved that accused Sukh Ram had spent
an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the marriage of his son Anoop
Sharma in the year 1994 as shown at serial No.24 of the details of
63/150
64

Accused Sukh Ram in his supplementary statement recorded U/s
313 Cr PC has stated that the reception was held at his residence
in which some expenses were incurred by his wife from her
income and some cash in the form of sagan was also received
from invitees which was also utilised. (Q3 of supplementary
statement). It is clear that accused has not specifically denied the
fact of expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the reception of his son
Anoop. He has claimed that some expenditure was made from
the cash received in the reception and some expenditure was made
by his wife. It is clear from the above discussion that income of
wife of accused has also been taken in consideration and all
benefits because of her income has already been granted to
accused. Accused has not disclosed as to how much amount was
spend by him and how much amount was spend by his wife and
how much amount was spend from the cash received in the
reception. Accused has not even disclosed as to how much amount
in cash was received as sagan in reception. Accused even has not
produced his wife in the witness box as defence witness to explain
as to how much amount was spend by her. Accused has not
produced any statement of account in this regard. In these
circumstances this court is of opinion that the prosecution has
proved that accused had spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the
reception of his son in the year 1994.
64/150
65
160 Prosecution vide Ex PW11/A and Ex P11/B (D-59)

and from the statement of PW 11 Sh. Anand Gupta has proved
that accused had purchased IFB Washing Machine in sum of
Rs.17,995/- in his name from M/s Appliances India between
4.9.93 to 9.9.93 as shown at serial No.25 of the details of
Accused Sukh Ram has denied it in his statement recorded U/s
313 Cr PC (Q38). Accused Sukh Ram has deposed that his son
Anil Sharma might have purchased it. PW11 Sh. Anand Gupta
has deposed after seeing voucher Ex PW11/A and Ex PW11/B
that sale was made to Mr. Sukh Ram, 12 Safdarjung Lane, New
Delhi, in a total consideration of Rs. 17,995/-. In these
circumstances this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved
that accused Sukh Ram had spent this amount for purchasing a
washing machine.(Q38)
161 Prosecution vide Ex P-17 (admitted during admission

and denial) (D-42) has proved that accused had paid Rs. 1200/-
on account of rent of locker No.6 Syndicate bank, R K Puram as
shown at serial No.26 of the details of expenditure made during
the check period in the charge sheet.
162 According to prosecution accused had spent

Rs.3,66,000/- on household expenses as shown at serial No.27 of
the details of expenditure made during the check period in the
65/150
66
charge sheet. Prosecution has taken check period w.e.f. 20.6.91 to

16.8.96. which comes to more than 61 months. Thus, the
household expenses assessed by the prosecution comes to
Rs.6,000/- per month. After considering the status of accused who
was a Member of Parliament and remained Minister of State in the
Central Govt. of India, this amount appears to be quite reasonable.
Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1964 SC 464 has held that upto 1/3rd of salaried income of a
person can be assessed as living expenses. Even this fact has not
been disputed during the course of arguments by both the Ld.
Defence Counsels on behalf of accused. Thus, this court is of
opinion that prosecution has proved that accused had spent
Rs.3,66,000/- as living expenses during the check period.
163 Though, Prosecution has claimed that accused

Sukh Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Devi had spent a total
amount of Rs.46,87,960/- during the check period but
prosecution could prove their expenditure of Rs.46,81,095/-
(4687960-6865)
DETAILS OF MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS
HELD BY ACCUSED SUKH RM AND HIS WIFE RAM
DEVI AT THE END OF CHECK PERIOD.
164 Prosecution vide Ex PW 22/B (Jamabandi) and from

the statement of PW22 Munshi Ram has proved that Smt. Ram
66/150
67
Devi wife of accused Sukh Ram had purchased Orchard in Saurath

from one Phulla Devi of 8 bighas and 17 biswas in consideration
of Rs.65,000/- as shown at serial No.1 of the details of immovable
and movable assets at the end of check period as mentioned in
the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr
PC has stated that this question (Q50) is vague and stated that as
far as he remember this purchase had taken place in the last
quarter of 1990 or 1991, thus, it is clear that accused had not
denied it. PW 22 Munshi Ram s/o Moti Ram in his examination
in chief has specifically deposed that this land was purchased after
31.3.91 and before 17.12.96. Accused in his statement U/s 313
Cr PC has stated that this land was purchased either in the last
quarter of 1990 or 1991, thus coupled with the statement of PW22
it is proved that this land was purchased during the check period.
165 Prosecution vide Ex PW 1/B and Ex PW1/B1 (D-33)

and from the statement of PW1 P Kalisham has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had spent Rs. 41,29,730/- on the construction
of Farm House in Saurath Orchard during the check period as
shown at serial No.2 of the details of immovable and movable
assets at the end of check period as mentioned in the charge
sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has
stated that this building does not belong to him but to his wife. He
was not aware of any inspection carried out by PW1. Reports Ex
67/150
68
PW1/B and Ex PW1/B1 given by PW1 are wrong. (Q7).
166 Prosecution vide Ex PW 1/C and Ex PW1/C1 (D-33)

and from the statement of PW1 P Kalisham has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had spent an amount of Rs.5,69,000/- on
renovation of building at Shamketar, Mandi, HP during the check
period as shown at serial No.3 of the details of immovable and
movable assets at the end of check period as mentioned in the
charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC
has stated that cost of renovation of building as calculated by
PW1 is wrong. PW1 P Kalisham has not carried out inspection in
his presence. Exact cost of renovation is known to Sh. Dalip
Kumar, Manager of Hotel Mayfair who has been cited as witness
by the prosecution but with the malafide intention prosecution has
not examined him. (Q8)
167 Prosecution has produced its valuer Sh. P Kalisham

as PW1 who was a Civil Engineer (BE) and was working as
Executive Engineer in Post & Telegraph Department who has
stated that in the second week of December, 1996 he had
inspected building at Apple Orchard at Mandi. This building
evaluated as type V specification as per CPWD, though it is of
higher specification as per his knowledge. There was one servant
quarter in this complex which evaluated as Type IV. He had
evaluated the cost of this building as Rs. 41,29,730/-. He has
68/150
69
proved his Report Ex PW1/B and annexures attached to this

report Ex PW1/B-1.
168 PW1 has stated that in the second week of

December, 1996 he had inspected building at Shamkhetra, HP
which was an old building. He had evaluated the cost of renovated
portion of this building only. He had seen the site plan which was
approved in the name of Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sh. Sukh Ram. He
has proved his Report Ex PW1/C and annexures attached to this
report Ex PW1/C-1. This witness has evaluated the cost of
renovation as Rs.5,69,000/-.
169 Accused has also produced his valuer Sh. P C Gupta

as DW6 in his defence evidence who is a retired Chief Engineer
from PWD, Himachal Pradesh. He has stated that he is approved
valuer of Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department,
Panchkula. He has deposed that from 17th July to 19th July, 2004
he had evaluated Orchard house at Surath. He has specifically
stated that this property belongs to Smt. Ram Devi w/o Sh. Sukh
Ram. This house was constructed on hilly terrain. He has stated
that he has given specifications of the construction in his report Ex
PW6/D. He has worked out cost of this building as Rs.10,17,432/-
against the estimated cost given by the XEN, CBI. In his
examination in chief he has stated that he does not dispute the
measurement taken by XEN, CBI in respect of this building. He
69/150
70
has further stated that local stone and wood was used . A tree
would cost Rs. 5 or 10 according to the class of tree. There could
be 50/60 slippers in one tree. He has stated that CBI has applied
rates of DSR whereas the construction was raised in a village in
Distt. Mandi. Himachal Pradesh PWD has its own scheduled rates.
He has applied the scheduled rates of Himachal Pradesh, PWD for
calculating the cost of construction. He has also stated that he
had gone through the Valuation Report of the valuer of CBI and
compared the cost given by him and estimated by CBI.
170 DW-6 has deposed that on 20.7.04 he had inspected

residential property at Mandi in the name of Smt. Ram Devi w/o
Sh. Sukh Ram in Mohalla Shamketra Mandi which was renovated
in the year 1995-96 with few additions and alterations. He has
proved his Valuation report Ex DW6/A. He has worked out cost
of renovation as Rs. 2,92,867/-. In his examination in chief he has
stated that he does not dispute the measurement taken by XEN,
CBI, however, he has stated that XEN of CBI has assessed the
rate of marble as Rs.1550/- psqm but he has worked out the same
as Rs. 650/- psqm. Similarly, he has stated that rate of glazed tile
has been assessed as Rs.509 psqm by the XEN of CBI whereas he
has assessed the same at the rate of Rs. 350/- psqm. He has also
stated that rate of cupboard has been assessed as Rs.4500/- psqm
by the XEN of CBI whereas he has taken the rate as Rs.1250/-
psqm. He has also stated that he had gone through the Valuation
70/150
71
Report of the valuer of CBI and compared the cost given by him
and estimated by CBI. In his examination in chief he has not
disputed the measurement taken by the Executive Engineer of CBI
in respect of this building.
171 It is argued by Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi for

accused that valuer of CBI has applied Delhi Schedule Rates
while the building was constructed in a village of Himachal
Pradesh, hence his calculations can never be correct. It is argued
that according to DW-6 local stones and wood were used in the
construction of building which has reduced the cost of
construction. It is also argued that valuer of CBI is not an
approved valuer, hence his report may not be relied upon. He has
adopted plinth area method for calculating the value which is a
wrong method.
172 PW1 has been cross examined at length on behalf of

accused. Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard
is as under:
Q: What do you mean by D.SR which appears in your
report?
Ans: Delhi Schedule of Rates, which are prescribed by C P W D.
Q Is it correct that each State has its own Schedule of rates?
Which are more or less equivalent to CPWD?
Ans: It is correct, each state has its own schedule of rates, but
71/150
72
they are more or less equivalent to CPWD rates.
173 From the above quoted cross examination it is clear

that Scheduled Rates are almost equal everywhere. It also appeals
to the common sense for example, rate of a bag of cement, iron or
other construction material like glazed tiles etc. will be the same in
Delhi or in Himachal Pradesh, rather it can be more in Himachal
Pradesh because of additional transport charges. Rates may be
less in Delhi as wholesale market is situated in Delhi, however,
certainly unskilled labour is cheaper in villages but the skilled
labour cost more in villages because such people are not available
in villages and have to go there from big cities/towns. PW1 in his
cross examination has specifically stated that local stones and
local wood was not used in the construction. Relevant portion of
his cross examination in this regard is as under:
It is incorrect that the local stones were used in the
construction as the stones of the size used in the construction
could not be available locally
----It is incorrect that wooden work of the building was
done with local wood. For windows and doors teak wood was
used. For wooden lining and false sealing country wood plank
were used. .......
174 DW-6 has not given any reason regarding his claim
of use of local stone and wood in the construction while PW1, as
72/150
73
discussed above, has given reason to show that local stone and
wood was not used in the construction.
175 It is correct that PW-1 is not an approved valuer

however, he is an independent person being a Govt. employee
having sufficient experience. While DW-6 is a private valuer.
There is natural tendency of private expert to support the view of
person who had called him. Hon'ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh in Raj Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1005 Cr.L J
page 810 in this regard has held as follows:
Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 45 -Expert opinion
Conflicting views of two experts Reliability Murder case
Letters written by accused prior to commission of offence
showing the motive Government examiner clearly pointing out
that letters were in hand-writing of accused However expert
produced by accused stating that said letters were not written by
accused There is natural tendency of expert to support view
of person who had called him Evidence of government
examiner more reliable.
176 Hon'ble High Court of Patna in Abhyanand Mishra

Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 Patna 323 with regard to evidence of
an expert engaged by a party observed as follows:
The opinion of an expert engaged by a party suffers from
the defect that it is given by a remunerated witness. He knows
73/150
74
before hand why he has been called and what the party calling him
wishes to be proved. It is not improbable that he has an
unconscious bias in favour of the party. These circumstances to
great extent detract from the weight to be attached to such
witness's opinion.
In para No.7 of this authority it is further observed as
follows:
The opinion of Mr. Beunet suffers from the defect that it
was given by a remunerated witness. He knows beforehand why
he had been called and what the party calling him wishes to be
proved. The witness stated that 10 days before he came to court he
was approached by the appellant about this case. The appellant
told him that he repudiated the two signatures on X and Y. The
witness was also given a copy of the evidence of the Government
Handwriting expert before he was examined in court. He further
admitted that he had been paid his fees in two instalments before
he came to depose. It is not improbable that he had an
unconscious bias in favour of the appellant. These circumstances
to a great extent detract from the weight to be attached in the
witness's opinion.
177 It is correct that PW1 has used Plinth Area Method

for calculating the cost of the building. I have gone through his
report. His report is based on the measurement of Plinth Area.
Thereafter, he has calculated the value. DW-6 has not disputed the
74/150
75
measurements taken by PW1, however he has taken rates of all the

items on lower side with a view to reduce the cost of construction
to favour the accused. DW-6 has considered mild steel for his
estimation whereas Tor steel is used in the Building. The quantity
of steel taken per cubic metre has also been taken by DW-6 on
much lower side than the actual.
178 DW-6 has admitted in his cross examination that he

had taken cash memo etc. from the party but he has not filed the
same alongwith his report hence adverse inference can be drawn
against him that cash memos/bills were not corroborating his
report. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he had
not collected documentary evidence with regard to market price of
the items. In this regard, relevant portion of his cross
examination is as under:
I had taken the documents i.e. cash memo etc. from the
party with regard to expenditure made by the accused for
constructing the property. It is correct that I had not attached
those documents alongwith my report and I had not file the
same in the court. It is wrong to suggest that I had
intentionally not annexed those documents with my report as
they were not supporting my report. It is wrong to suggest
that I was handed over by the party the site plans of the
buildings, valuation report and the statements of the valuer
75/150
76
recorded in court. Vol. I have been provided with valuation

report of CBI Engineer only.
179 DW-6 with regard to building constructed at Saurath

and Mandi, in his report, has stated that the construction was made
under self supervision. Relevant portion of his cross examination
in this regard is as under:
I have mentioned in my report that the property at
Saurath and Mandi were constructed under self supervision as
was disclosed by the accused.
180 Cost of construction under self supervision is less,

however, it is well proved that construction was not carried out at
Saurath and Mandi under self supervision which is clear from the
statement of PW47.
181 PW47 Sh. L R Sharma has stated that he was asked

by Mr. Sukh Ram to supervise the construction work at Mandi
house at D42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. He has stated that Mr.
Sukh Ram appointed Mr. N N Goel to supervise the work as an
Architect. All the bills were received by him and the same were
also checked by N N Goel Associates and thereafter cross
checked by his staff. He has also deposed that he had received
Rs.39,90,000/- from Smt. Ram Devi and Sh. Sukh Ram between
76/150
77
the period April, 1993 to 1995. He had spent this money for
renovation of Houses at Mandi and Hotel Mayfair and for
Kaushambi House. Relevant portion of his examination in chief
in this regard is as under:
----All the bills regarding the said purposes were received
by me and the same were got checked by N N Goel Associates
and subsequent cross checked by my staff, particularly Shri C
Gilotra, Ex-XEN of CPWD.
182 No statement of accused has been produced. This

witness has stated that Rs.39,90,000/- received by him from Smt.
Ram Devi and Sh. Sukh Ram spent by him on renovation of
houses at Mandi and Hotel Mayfair and for Kaushambi House
which includes purchase of TV sets and kitchen ware etc. for
Hotel Mayfair, thus, according to this witness he had spent the
amount received from Smt. Ram Devi and Sukh Ram on
construction work and for purchasing kitchenware and TV Sets for
Hotel Mayfair. According to the Valuation Report of DW6 total
cost of construction of all the three buildings comes to
Rs.33,60,039/- while according to the admission of PW 47 he had
received Rs.39,90,000/- from Smt. Ram Devi and Sukh Ram, thus
the defence evidence itself contradicts report given by this
witness.
183 Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has
77/150
78
stated that the exact cost was known to Dalip Kumar, Manger of
Hotel Mayfair. (Q no.8). Hotel Mayfair belongs to the son of Mr.
Sukh Ram. Even Mr. Sukh Ram has not produced this witness in
his defence evidence to prove the exact cost of construction of
renovation. No documents, bills/receipts have been produced on
the file.
184 Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused is an income tax payee,

in her income tax return for the financial year 1993-94, assessment
year 1994-95 Ex PW34/I-3 (D-34-VIII) file of which is Ex PW-
34/I, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.94 has disclosed that an
amount of Rs.1,89,937/- invested on the construction of Farm
House which is under construction. Similarly, Smt. Ram Devi in
her income tax return for the financial year 1994-95, assessment
year 1995-96 Ex PW34/J -3(D-34-IX) file of which is Ex PW-
34/J, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.95 has disclosed that an
House which is under construction. Similarly, Smt. Ram Devi in
her income tax return for the financial year 1995-96, assessment
year 1996-97 Ex PW34/K -3(D-34-X) file of which is Ex PW-
34/K, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.96 has disclosed that an
House which is under construction. DW 6 has assessed the value
of this building as Rs. 10,17,432/-, thus, again contradicted by the
documents of accused himself.
78/150
79
185 In view of above discussion this court is of opinion

that Valuation of construction given by by DW6 is not reliable
and the valuation of construction given by PW1 in his report is
reliable, therefore, this court is of opinion that prosecution has
proved that accused had spent an amount of Rs.41,29,730/- on the
construction of building in Apple Orchard. Similarly, Valuation
of renovation given by by DW6 is not reliable and the valuation
of renovation given by PW1 in his report is reliable, therefore,
this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved that accused
had spent an amount of Rs. 5,69,000/-- on the renovation of this
building.
186 Prosecution has proved Ex PW 1/A and Ex PW1/A-1

(D-32) and produced PW1 P Kalisham to prove that accused
Sukh Ram had spent an amount of Rs.29,45,416/- on the
construction of building on plot No.D-42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad
during the check period as shown at serial No.4 of the details of
immovable and movable assets held by accused at the end of
check period as mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that PW1 has
adopted a wrong method of calculation. Method of plinth area
basis can be adopted for the building yet to be constructed.
Building in question had already been constructed. Value of
building could have been determined by detailed calculation on
79/150
80
the basis of number of door, number of windows, stone used etc.

Since the method adopted by PW1 is wrong, hence he has given a
wrong valuation of the building. (Q5)
187 PW-1has stated that on 16.10.96 he visited house No.

D42 Kaushambi alongwith Dy. SP Rishi Prakash where from the
side of accused Sukh Ram one Engineer of M/s Goel & Associates
was also present who was looking after the construction of that
building. PW1 has evaluated this building as type V as per
schedule of CPWD though the building was higher specification
than that of type V as stated by him. He has proved his
Evaluation Report Ex PW1/A and annexures to this report Ex
PW1/A-1. This witness has evaluated the value of this building as
Rs. 29,45,416/-
188 DW-6 has deposed that he had visited D-42

Kaushambi, Ghaziabad for the purpose of valuation of property.
He has proved his Valuation report Ex DW6/A. He has worked
out cost of construction of this building as Rs. 20,49,740/-. He has
also stated that he had gone through the Valuation Report of the
valuer of CBI and compared the cost given by him and estimated
by CBI. He has stated that CBI has adopted Plinth Area Method
to arrive the cost of construction of the building which is not fair
in this case. Plinth Area Method should not be used to work out
the cost of construction of constructed building. In his
80/150
81
examination in chief he has not disputed the measurement taken

by the Executive Engineer of CBI in respect of this building. In
his cross examination he has stated that he has no idea whether the
building was got constructed under the supervision of Architect.
In his cross examination question has been put to him whether he
dispute the measurement in respect of the property at Kaushambi.
Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard is as
under:
Q Do you dispute the measurement in respect of property
at Kaushambi?
Ans: The demenour of the witness is noted who is not
answering the question despite the fact that the question has
been repeated several times. The question is again repeated.
Ans: The measurement consists of length, width and height. I am
not disputing the length and width. The height of the building
has not been mentioned by the CBI Valuer in his report.
It is correct that in my examination in chief on page
three I have stated that the measurements taken by the
Executive Engineer CBI in respect of D42 Kaushambi are not
being disputed by me.
I had inspected property D 42 Kaushambi on 14th and

15th of May, 2007. A request was made to me to inspect the
property sometime in July, 2004 but I could not find the time to
81/150
82
inspect the property earlier. The Valuation Report in respect of D

42 Kaushambi was prepared by me on 15.7.07.
189 This witness has admitted in his cross examination

that he had taken cash memo etc. from the party but he has not
filed the same alongwith his report hence adverse inference can be
drawn against him that cash memos/bills were not corroborating
his report. He has also admitted in his cross examination that this
assignment was given to him in the year 2004, however, he has
inspected the building in 2007. He has also admitted in his cross
examination that he had not collected documentary evidence with
regard to market price of the items. He has also admitted that he
had not taken the assistance of Architect/Engineer who had
supervised the construction. In this regard, relevant portion of his
cross examination is as under:
I had not collected any documentary proof/evidence with
regard to market rate of items. It is correct that assignment with
regard to assessing the value of three properties pertaining to my
report was assigned to me in the year 2004. I had assessed the
value of two properties in the year 2004 and had assessed the
value of third property in the year 2007. Delay is because I could
not find time to assess the value of third property. First I prepared
the rough notes for my report thereafter final report was prepared.
It is correct that I have not filed the rough notes in the court
alongwith my report. I had not taken assistance of any
82/150
83
Engineer/Architect etc. who had supervised the construction of

properties. It is wrong to suggest that I had intentionally omitted
to take the services of the Engineer/Architect in arriving at the
valuation of the above said properties. I had taken the
documents i.e. cash memo etc. from the party with regard to
expenditure made by the accused for constructing the
property. It is correct that I had not attached those
documents alongwith my report and I had not file the same in
the court. It is wrong to suggest that I had intentionally not
annexed those documents with my report as they were not
supporting my report. It is wrong to suggest that I was
handed over by the party the site plans of the buildings,
valuation report and the statements of the valuer recorded in
court. Vol. I have been provided with valuation report of CBI
Engineer only.
190 PW47 Sh. L R Sharma has stated that he was asked

by Mr. Sukh Ram to supervise the construction work at Mandi
house at D42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. He has stated that Mr.
Sukh Ram appointed Mr. N N Goel to supervise the work as an
Architect. All the bills were received by him and the same were
also checked by N N Goel Associates and thereafter cross checked
by his staff. He has also deposed that he had received
Rs.39,90,000/- from Smt. Ram Devi and Sh. Sukh Ram between
83/150
84
the period April, 1993 to 1995. He had spent this money for
renovation of Mandi House and Hotel Mayfair and for Kaushambi
House. Relevant portion of his examination in chief in this regard
is as under:
----All the bills regarding the said purposes were received
by me and the same were got checked by N N Goel Associates
and subsequent cross checked by my staff, particularly Shri C
Gilotra, Ex-XEN of CPWD.
191 In his cross examination this witness has stated that

he cannot admit or deny if he had spent Rs.23 lac in construction
of house at Kaushambi because he was not maintaining any
separate account. Accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr
PC has stated that an amount about Rs. 23 lac was spent for the
construction of Kaushambi House. (Q no.85), DW-6 in his report
has worked out the cost of construction of building as
Rs.20,49,740/-, thus, it is clear that accused himself contradicts the
cost of construction given by DW-6. Besides, PW26 Sh. Vasudev
has stated that he had worked as plumber at the residence of Sh.
Sukh Ram at D42, Kaushambi Ghaziabad in the year 1993 for
which he had been paid Rs. 10,000/- as labour charges, material
was provided by the owner. PW28 Sh. Inder Bhan Tomar has
stated that in the year 1994 he had done electricity work in
premises D 42, Kaushambi Ghaziabad. He was paid Rs. 15,000/-
for labour charges, total contract was given for Rs.25,000/- but he
84/150
85
did not complete the work hence he was paid Rs. 15,000/-. PW
52 Sh. Niranjan Lal Goel has stated that construction work of D-
42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad was completed under his supervision.
He has stated that M/s B N Construction was the contractor for
carrying out construction work. Mr. Banwari Lal was the
contractor for fixing marble floors and Mr. Paras Ram had done
POP on walls and floors. He has stated that he had supervised the
work from 1991 to 1994 and charged Rs. 30,000/- as his
professional fees. He has also deposed that he has yet to receive
another sum of Rs. 30,000/- from Sh. Sukh Ram which has not yet
been paid to him. In his cross examination this witness has stated
that initial estimate for complete construction was about Rs. 10
lac, on better specifications provided by the accused estimate was
increased by another 2.5 lac, so according to this witness total cost
of construction of this building was about Rs.12,50,000/-.
192 Accused Sukh Ram is an income tax payee, in his

income tax return for the financial year 1994-95, assessment year
1995-96 Ex PW34/E (D-34-IV) file of which is Ex PW-34/E, in
the balance sheet upto 31.3.95 has disclosed that an amount of
Rs.11,12,4287/- invested on the construction of House No. D-42
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad which is under construction. Similarly,
Accused Sukh Ram in his income tax return for the financial year
1995-96, assessment year 1996-97 Ex PW34/F (D-34-X) file of
which is Ex PW-34/F, in the balance sheet upto 31.3.96 has
85/150
86
disclosed that an amount of Rs.3,67,731/- was more invested on

the construction of House No. D-42 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad which
is under construction. Thus, the total amount spent on the
construction of this building comes to Rs. 14,80,159/-. DW 6
has assessed the value of this building as Rs. 20,49,740/-, thus,
again contradicted by the documents of accused himself.

that Valuation Report given by DW6 with regard to this building
is not reliable and the valuation of this building given by PW1 in
his report is reliable, therefore, this court is of opinion that
prosecution has proved that accused had spent an amount of Rs.
29,45,416/- on the construction of this building.
194 Prosecution vide Ex PW 17/A (D-26) and from the

statement of PW17 Hari Simrath Singh Dua has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had paid an amount of Rs. 7,35,000/- upto
18.8.96, in instalments, for the flat booked by him in Nav Sansad
Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society as shown at serial
No.5 of immovable and movable assets held by accused at the end
of check period as mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has admitted it to be correct
being matter of record. (Q44).
195 Prosecution vide Ex PW 5/C (D-46) and from the
86/150
87
statement of PW5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused Sukh

Ram had deposited an amount of Rs. 49,751/- in OBC S J
Enclave w.e.f. 9.1.96 to 12.8.96 as shown at serial No.6 of details
of immovable and movable assets held by accused at the end of
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has not denied it by stating
that it is a matter of record. (Q20).
196 Prosecution vide Ex PW 5/I (D-46) and from the

statement of PW5 Sh. P K Gupta has proved that accused Sukh
Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in FDR in OBC
Safdarjung Enclave as shown at serial No.7 of details of
197 Prosecution vide Ex PW 7/A and Ex PW7/B (D-41)

and from the statement of PW7 Sh. J N Behal has proved that
accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs 42,023/- in
Saving Bank Account, SBI, Parliament House, New Delhi. w.e.f.
August, 1991 till 6.8.91as shown at serial No7 (note: serial no.7
has been repeated twice in the charge sheet, hence, in order to
avoid confusion same serial no. is being given here) of details of
87/150
88

198 Prosecution vide Ex P-14 (D-52) (admitted) has

proved that accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of
Rs2,94,953/- in Saving Bank account No. 1873 Canara Bank,
Mandi during the check period as shown at serial No.8 of details
check period as mentioned in the charge sheet.

statement of PW12 Sh. Y P Sharma has proved that accused Sukh
Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.7,620/- in saving bank
account no. 25495 Canara Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi
from July, 1993 to 16.8.96 which is in the joint name of Sukh Ram
and Smt. Ram Devi as shown at serial No.9 of details of

statement of PW6 Sh. S C Khurana has proved that there was a
credit balance of Rs.2,58,736/- in saving bank account no. 11495
88/150
89
Syndicate Bank, New Delhi as on 1.8.98 in the name Smt. Ram

Devi W/O Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.10 of the details of
201 Prosecution vide Ex P-15 (D-52) (admitted) has

Rs11,35,797/- in Saving Bank account No. 1402 Canara Bank,
Mandi during the check period as shown at serial No.11 of details
202 Prosecution vide Ex P-9 (D-49 (admitted) has proved

that accused Sukh Ram had deposited an amount of Rs.50,929/-
in Saving Bank account No. 4053 in H P Cooperative Bank
Shimla during the check period as shown at serial No.12 of details
203 Prosecution vide Ex P-11 (D-50 (admitted) has

Rs73,753/- in Saving Bank account No. 27,008/- P NB Shimla
during the check period as shown at serial No.13 of details of
89/150
90

204 Prosecution vide Ex P-10 to P-13 (D-50 (admitted) has

proved that accused Sukh Ram was having three FDRs total
value Rs. 4,95,933/- of PNB as shown at serial No.14 of
205 According to prosecution accused was having one FDR of

Rs. 20,000/- in SBI , Main Branch, New Delhi as shown at serial
No.15 of details of immovable and movable assets at the end of
check period as mentioned in the charge sheet, however
prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove it, even my
Ld. Predecessor has not put any question in this regard to accused
in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC. In these circumstances
this court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove that
accused was having this FDR at the end of check period.
206 Prosecution has proved Ex PW48/A (D 24 (I) and

produced PW48 Sh. P N Khanna and PW46 Sh. Amitabh Shukla
to prove that cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- was recovered from Locker
No.6 in the name of Ram Devi w/o Accused Sukh Ram,
Syndicate bank, RK Puram New Delhi as shown at serial No.16
of immovable and movable assets at the end of check period as
90/150
91
mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that he has no knowledge (Q86).
Accused has produced certified copy of the order of Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Bench B) of April, 2003 titled
Mrs. Aruna Vashisht Vs. ACIT, Co. Circle 2 , ITA No.
260/DEL/1997. It is argued that Ld, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal has held that this amount of Rs.4 lac belongs to Mrs.
Aruna Vashisht, hence, it cannot be included in his assets. In para
No.12 of this order it is held as follows;
No doubt that the locker was in the name of Smt. Ram
Devi, the mother of the assessee but from the day one, the stand
has been taken by the assessee as well as the mother of the
assessee that the locker No. N-6 obtained from Syndicate Bank
belongs to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that this
contention of the assessee and the mother of the assessee was an
after thought. Therefore, in view of these facts and
circumstances and in view of the judicial pronouncements
indicated above, we hold that the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs found
in locker opened in the name of the mother of the assessee was
belonging to the assessee. Likewise, the amount of Rs.23,000/-
deposited in the bank account was also belonging to the assessee.
The amount of gift of Rs. 1,12,000/- was also belonging to the
assessee as the same was out of the amount of Rs.8,03,545/-
received by the assessee over a period of 11 years as stated above.
The remaining amount of Rs. 2,68,542/- as held by the AO that no
91/150
92
amount was available with the assessee, is also not correct because
the same was available out of the amount of Rs.8,03,545/-.
Accordingly, the addition made by the AO on protective basis and
on substantive basis totaling to Rs.8,03,545/- is hereby deleted.
207 In view of the above finding given by Ld. Income

Tax Appellate tribunal that the amount of Rs.4 lakhs found in the
locker in the name of Smt. Ram Devi mother of appellant Aruna
Vashisht belongs to Smt. Aruna Vashisht, this amount cannot be
included in the assets of accused.
208 Prosecution vide Ex PW 48/B (D-24(ii) ) and from

the statement of PW48 Sh. P N Khanna and PW46 Sh. Amitabh
Shukla has proved that jewelery valuing Rs. 4,50,000/- was
recovered from Locker No.6 in the name of Ram Devi w/o
Accused Sukh Ram, Syndicate Bank, RK Puram New Delhi ( No
serial number has been mentioned against this entry in the list of
immovable and movable assets at the end of check period as
mentioned in the charge sheet in order to avoid confusion I am
also not giving any separate No. to this entry ) Accused in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that he has no
knowledge and further stated that valuation report has not been
correctly prepared. Thus it is clear that accused has not denied it
specifically (Q86). Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi argued
that this jewelery has been valued at Rs.4,50,000/- on the basis of
92/150
93
its current value. Prosecution has neither established when the

jewelery was purchased nor cared for determining the age of
jewelery, thus, it cannot be held that it was acquired during the
check period. According to prosecution this jewelery was found
in the locker of Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram and it was
acquired by accused during the check period. According to
accused it is an old jewelery, accused has not produced any
evidence in this regard. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Avadh Kishore, AIR 204, S C page 518 has
held as follows:
Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13 (1) (e)
Acquisition of disproportionate Assets by public servant
Expression 'known source of income' in S. 13 (1) (e) Does not
mean sources known to accused Burden is cast on accused not
only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth
But also to satisfy Court that explanation is worthy of
acceptance Term 'income' Meaning of.
209 It must be in the special knowledge of accused or his

wife when this jewelery was acquired. Neither accused nor his
wife appeared in the witness box to depose that it was her old
jewelery or it was her stridhan. Even no suggestion has been
given to PW 46 or 48 that it was old jewelery purchased prior to
the check period. In these circumstances this court is of opinion
that prosecution has proved that this jewelery belongs to Smt.
93/150
94
Ram Devi.
210 Prosecution vide Ex PW 9/C (D-14) and from the

statement of PW9 Sh. T Bhattacharya, PW44 Parveen Kumar
PW46 Amitabh Shukla and PW 60 B S Jakhar have proved that
Rs.2,45,28,844/- were recovered in cash from house No.12
Safdarjung Lane New Delhi as shown at serial No.17 of
mentioned in the charge sheet. Accused in his statement recorded
U/s 313 Cr PC has stated that only cash available in small steel
almirah in my bed room belong to my wife . An amount about
Rs.3,44,950/- recovered from the room of my daughter belong to
her. Rest of the amount did not belong to him . Alleged recovery
was made from the Guest Room and attached store room which
was in the possession of Congress Party and wherein its election
office was being run, possession of which was given to Sh Shiv
Kumar Mishra at the instance of Sh Sita Ram Kesari then AICC
Cashier and Sh B P Maurya the then General Secretary of
Congress party (Q31).
211 Prosecution vide Ex PW 45/A and PW3/B (D-19) and

from the statement of PW45 K K Goyal and PW 3 Sunil Dutt have
proved that Rs.1,13,51,520/- were recovered in cash from house of
Sukh Ram at Mandi as shown at serial No.18 of immovable and
94/150
95

has stated that only cash available in his house at Mandi was about
Rs.30,000/- which was recovered from the room of his son Anil
Sharma . Rest of the money alleged to have been recovered does
not belong to him. It was the election fund of the Congress party
send by Sh Sita Ram Kesari the then Cashier of AICC to election
office being run by Sh Tirath Ram Sharma in two rooms at first
floor. (Q60).
212 Recovery of the above said two amounts from house

No. 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi and from the house of Sukh
Ram at Mandi has not been disputed on behalf of accused,
however, it is claimed that Sh. B P Maurya, the then General
Secretary of Congress and Sh. Sita Ram Kesari, the then Treasurer
of AICC had secured the consent of accused for setting up camp
election office at 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi and in the house
of accused at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh for the assembly
election to be held in UP and J & K in September/October, 1996.
Camp Election Office was established in Guest Room and side
room/pooja room attached with the guest room having attached
latrine and bath room at 12 Safdarjung Lane and two rooms on the
first floor in the house at Mandi, all the above said amount was
recovered from the camp election office of Congress, thus the
amount belonged to the Congress Party. Ld. Senior Counsel, in
this regard, has referred the statements of PW 20, PW-33, PW-42,
95/150
96
PW-45 and PW-47 and argued that from the cross examination of
these prosecution witnesses it is proved that Congress Party was
maintaining Camp Election Office in both the premises.
213 I have carefully gone through the statements of these

witnesses. PW20 in his cross examination has stated that he knew
Tirath Ram Sharma. He does not know when the house of Sukh
Ram was raided. He had gone to the house of Sukh Ram in the
end of July or first week of August, 1996. He had met Tirath Ram
Sharma in the house of Sukh Ram at Mandi. This witness has
specifically deposed as follows;
I do not know if he was functioning Election Office from
the said house.
214 This witness has not deposed as to why he had gone

to the house of Sukh Ram at Mandi in the end of July or first week
of August, 1996. This witness was the then Patwari. He has been
produced by the prosecution to prove the revenue record. He has
not disclosed above said facts in his statement recorded U/s 161
Cr PC.
215 PW33 Sh. Partap Chand Sharma, SDO, Electricity,

Himachal Pradesh has been produced by the prosecution to prove
the electricity charges paid by Sh. Sukh Ram. In his cross
examination, he has stated that in July, 1996 Sh. Anil Sharma S/o
96/150
97
Sh. Sukh Ram Sharma was a Minister in Himachal Pradesh. He

made a complaint about excessive billing and asked him to check
the wiring, hence he alongwith wireman Bhagat Ram went to
check the wiring. In his cross examination he has deposed as
follows:
The next room was the drawing room which was open and
renovation was going on there. I checked the wiring of the
drawing room. The next room was open and 2/3 persons were
sitting there. One of them was Tirath Ram Sharma who was
known to me. I checked the writing of that room. I had a talk
with Tirath Ram Sharma. He told me that he had been sent there
by Shri Sita Ram Kesari for election work. There was another
room after that which I did not see.
216 This witness was SDO of electricity department. If

there was excess billing job of electricity department was to check
the meter so as to find out the fault for excess billing but not to
check the wiring of the house of consumer, whosoever he may be.
This witness has deposed that he had gone to the house of accused
in July, 1996 and claimed that Tirath Ram Sharma met him there
who told him all the above quoted facts, however, Tirath Ram
Sharma has been produced in the witness box by accused as DW
-13. In his examination in chief he has specifically deposed that
he had taken over the possession of two rooms either on Second
August or third August, 1996. Relevant portion of his
97/150
98
examination in chief is as under:

Possession was handed over to me either on seecond
August, or third August, 1996.
217 Thus, the claim of PW 33 that he had met Tirath Ram

Sharma in July, 1996 who told him that he had been sent by Sita
Ram Kesari for election work, proves to be false. This witness has
not stated a word in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr PC, in this
regard.
218 Prosecution has produced PW42 Ram Bahadhur who

was working in the house of accused Sukh Ram w.e.f. 1992 to
1996 as chowkidar to prove the expenditures made by accused
during the check period on him. In his cross examination he has
stated that in July, 1996 accused Sukh Ram and his son were not
present in their house in Mandi. In August, 1996 Tirath Ram
Sharma was maintaining Congress Party Office at the top floor of
the house in Mandi where he was working as chowkidar. In the
month of August, late in the night 2/3 persons had come. He was
woken up to take their luggage inside. He had taken 7/8 attachies
from the car of one person Mr. Sharma. In his cross examination
on behalf of prosecution this witness has admitted that he had not
disclosed these facts as deposed by him in his cross examination
to the CBI, in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr PC.
98/150
99
219 PW45 Sh. K K Goel, in his cross examination has

stated as follows:
When the CBI team reached at the house of Sh. Sukhram,
we found 6/7 persons sitting at the compound of the house. The
CBI Officials enquired from those persons about their identities
and the reason of their presence over there. I do not know which
of the CBI official made enquiries from them. I do not know as to
what was the distance between us and the CBI officials. We
could not hear the talk between the CBI officials and the
persons present in the compound. I cannot either admit or deny
the suggestions that on query by the CBI officials those persons
informed that they were there to take election material for
elections to be held in Jammu and thereafter they were asked to
leave the place by the CBI officials, on which they left.
220 From the above quoted statement of this witness it is

clear that he could not hear the talks between CBI officials and the
persons present in the compound.
221 Much reliance has been placed by Ld. Senior counsel

on the statement of PW-47 Lekh Ram Sharma during the course
of argument. It is argued that from the statement of this witness it
is proved that Congress Party was maintaining Camp Offices at
the premises of accused and election material was supplied at 12
Safdarjung Lane in presence of this witness. Ld Senior counsel
99/150
100
has argued that statement of L.R Sharma with respect to his

conversation with Mr B P Maurya is admissible in view of the fact
that Mr Maurya expired in the year 2000 and therefore could not
be produced as witness. It is argued that secondary evidence of a
witness who cannot be produced is relevant under the evidence
Act . Ld Defence counsel in this regard has placed reliance on
Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra(2000) 6 SCC 671 ( para No 3.4
of written submission filed on behalf of accused ) I have carefully
gone through the statement of this witness. In his examination in
chief he has stated that he knew accused Sukh Ram since 1985 as
he belonged to Mandi Constituency. He was asked by Sukh Ram
to supervise construction work. Relevant portion of his
examination in chief in this regard is as under:
I know Shri Sukh Ram, present in court since 1985.
Family member since as I belong to Mandi constituency where
from Mr Sukh Ram elected from that constituency in 1985. I had
no business dealing with him. I was told by Mr Sukh Ram to
supervise the construction work at Mandi and Kaushambi, D-42
Ghaziabad. Again said I was asked to supervise the renovation
work at Mandi, as well as Mayfair Hotel.......................................
222 He has also stated that he used to received money

from 12 Safdarjung Lane and had received Rs.39,90,000/- from
Smt Ram Devi and Sukh Ram at the relevant time which shows
that he was close confident of accused.
100/150
101
223 In his cross examination he has stated as follows:

In the year 1993 I was desirous and anxious to
contest the election of Vidhan Sabha in Himachal Pradesh. I knew
Shri B P Maurya, Genl Secretary of AICC. I had a close relation
with him. I also conducted a rally for him. Mr Maurya had
introduced me to Shri Sita Ram Keshri. Shri Maurya had
discussion with me about election to be held in UP and J&K about
regarding election material. At that time Mr H D Devgora was the
Prime Minister of India. It is correct that the relations between
Devgora the then PM and Mr Narsimha Rao, Ex P,M had become
stained as Congress party had not joined the Govt. I had
suggested to Mr Maurya that the residence of Mr Sukh Ram at 12
Safdarjung Lane New Delhi and that of at Mandi , be utilized for
election purposes to be held in two States, since Pt Sukh Ram was
going abroad.
I know Shri Tirath Ram Sharma and Shiv Kumar Mishra of
the Congress party. It is correct that Shri Tirath Ram Sharma was
appointed for Mandi residence and Sh Shiv Kumar for Safdarjung
Lane house. I do now know for what purpose Mr Sukh Ram had
gone abroad. However, he had gone abroad, in the first week of
August 1996. I used to visit both the residence premises in the
absence of Mr Sukh Ram. In August, 1996 in second week, I was
called by Mr B P Maurya at the office of AICC at Akbar Road, I
went there . Mr Maurya met me. One Mr Chander Sharma also
101/150
102
met me. From there, we went to Mr Sita Ram Keshri. I remained

in the car. Mr Chander Sharma and Mr Maurya went inside.
After half an hour, they came back, along with election
material and then we went to 12 Safdarjung lane. The election
material was in some gunny bags and suitcases. Mr BP Maurya
asked me to go to Mandi. I refuged. He then asked Mr Chander
Sharma to go to Mandi and hand over the election material to
Tirath Ram Sharma in Mandi. We met Mr Mishra on reaching
Safdarjung Lane. I had not talked with Mr Mishra . The election
material, which was brought from the house of Sita Ram Keshari,
was handed over to Mr Mishra.
224 This witness has specifically deposed that he

remained in the car while Chander Sharma and Maurya had gone
inside . They had brought election material which was in some
gunny bags and suitcases. It is in the defence evidence that 25 to
26 boxes were alleged to be delivered at Delhi along with gunny
bags and 12 boxes / attachies and one gunny bag had been alleged
to be delivered at Mandi. Even according to recovery memos of
the cash seized at Delhi and Mandi it is clear that an amount of Rs
2,06,49,630/- was recovered from 23 suitcases from the Pooja
Room at 12 Safdarjung Lane and Rs.1,13,51,520/- contained in
12/13 suitcases recovered from house at Mandi. Even PW 42
Ram Bahadur who was working as Chowkidar in the house of
accused at Mandi has stated that he had taken out 7/8 attachies /
102/150
103
briefcases from the car to the house . PW 42 has also stated

that 2/3 person had come. Man may tell lie but not the
circumstances, It is beyond imagination that this much luggage
can be carried in a car.
225 PW47 has not stated even a single word, about the
facts which he has stated in his cross examination , in his
statement recorded U/S 161 Cr PC . An attempt has also been
made to explain it in the cross examination which is clear from the
following portion of his cross examination:
I was interrogated by the CBI. I was not asked by the CBI
about the election material. Therefore I had told these facts to
CBI. CBI seized my car . It was released to me after six years. It
is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Some of the bags
were sent to Mandi.
226 From the statement of this witness it is clear that he

was a close confident of accused and was ready to help the
accused to any extent and actually supported the accused by
admitting his entire defence in cross examination which he has not
disclosed even in his statement recorded U/S 161 Cr P C.
227 In view of above discussion this Court is of opinion

that statements of PW20, PW33, PW 42, PW45 and PW47 cannot
be relied upon to prove that Congress party was maintaining
103/150
104
Election camp office at the premises of accused in Delhi and

Mandi.
228 Ld Senior Counsel argued that in a criminal case

accused has to prove his defence by mere preponderance of
probability. He has referred the statement of DW 10 Shiv Kumar
Mishra , DW.13 Tirath Ram Sharma. DW 11 Ritu Sharma DW 16
Anil Sharma and argued that these DWs have also proved that
Congress party was maintaining its election camp office at the
premises of accused in Delhi and Mandi.
229 DW10 Shiv Kumar Mishra has stated that he was

working as Additional P S of Mr B P Maurya and usually remain
present in Press conference of Mr Maurya. Sh Sita Ram Kesari
had assigned the duty of conducting election and setting up of
election office to Mr Maurya. Accused was also present at the
time of deliberations. Camp office was set up in the last week of
July and August 1996. He had been designated incharge of that
office. He had been provided one guest room with attached latrine
bathroom and attached room thereto. On 8/9 August B P Maurya ,
Chander Sharma and L R Sharma had brought some funds for
election in 22/23 brief cases/attachies and handed over to him.
He had kept the briefcases in one almirah in guest room and two
Almirahs in side room and on the floor of side room. Fund was to
send UP with the permission of Mr. Kesari and Maurya.
104/150
105
Almirahas in the side room were in possession of Pandit Sukh

Ram. Keys of almirahas of the side room were in possession of
the daughter of Pt. Sukh Ram. Keys of almirah of guest room was
with him. On 16.8.96 CBI had conducted raid and seized the cash.
He had informed Mr. Maurya and Mr. Kesari, in this regard. Mr.
Maurya had suggested that when it was party fund they should
accept it but Mr. Kesari had told that it was not possible. Mr.
Maurya had a press conference in which he was also present
wherein Mr. Maurya had stated that it was party fund before the
Journalists and persons from TV channels. In his cross
examination he has stated that he was working as additional PS to
Mr. Maurya w.e.f. January, 1996 to December, 1997 who was the
then General Secretary of AICC. He had denied the suggestion
that Mr. Maurya was removed from the post of General Secretary
immediately, however voluntarily stated that he was removed after
sometime and not immediately.
230 In this regard, DW 5 Jaswant Singh, Clerk AICC has

stated as follows:
Sh. B P Maurya was appointed as General Secretary of
AICC on 4.10.95 and he continued as such till 20.1.96.
231 DW-10 in his cross examination has stated that he has

not narrated the incident in writing to Prime Minister of India,
President of India, Home Minister of India, Director CBI or any
105/150
106
other competent authority. He has voluntarily stated that he had

orally stated to P V Narsimha Rao. He has denied the suggestion
that Mr. Narsimha Rao, B P Maurya and Sita Ram Kesari, in their
statements, denied the claim of Sukh Ram that it was Congress
Party money.
232 This witness was shown the CD of Press Conference

organised by Sita Ram Kesari and B P Maurya. With regard to
CD this witness has stated as follows in his cross examination:
It is correct that as per recording in CD Sh. Sita Ram
Kesari has said that he (Sukh Ram ) wants to throw the blame of
his own vices on the head of the party, it is a shameful act on the
part of Sukh Ram. Vol. However, this interview was not
conducted in my presence.
It is correct that as per recording in CD Sh. V P Maurya has
said Ho Sakta Ye Rupiya Kisi Ki Dharohar rakha ho. Ho
Sakta Hai Ye Party Ka Rupiya Ho. Ho Sakta Hai Ye Brastachar
ka Rupiya Ho. Kuchh abhi tho kaha nahi ja sakta na Ye.. Ho
sakta hai ki party fund me aaya ho, aur vo bimari ke liy chale
gaye, aur vo adjustment nahi ho paya.
Volunteer in this press conference Maurya has stated that it
was the party fund money. It is correct that these lines are not
mentioned in this CD, Volunteer it is incomplete and edited CD. I
am having no CD with me in which Mr. Maurya had stated so. I
am not having copy of any statement prepared by the secretary of
106/150
107
Mr. Maurya in which it has written so, Volunteer this press

conference was organised all of sudden when Pt. SukhRam was
suspended from Congress. It is incorrect to suggest that in order
to help Pt. Sukh Ram I have stated that V P Maurya has made
statement that this money belongs to party.
233 PW13 Tirath Ram Sharma has deposed that election

camp office was established in the house of Pt. Sukh Ram at
Mandi. He had been appointed Incharge of the election camp
office. Anil Kumar s/o Pt. Sukh Ram had given him the
possession of two side rooms to establish camp office for election
on 2nd August or 3rd August, 1996. He had received telephonic call
from Mr. Maurya and Sita Ram to remain present in the office as
they were sending some election material and funds. One Mr.
Chander Sharma had brought material and fund on 9.8.96 at about
11.30 mid night. Chander Sharma had told him that those
briefcases contained amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. On16.8.96 he
came to know that CBI had raided the house of Sukh Ram. He
had told CBI personnels that he was holding camp office but he
was not allowed to enter. He had telephoned to Delhi and
informed about the raid. In his cross examination this witness has
stated that he could not produce any documentary evidence with
regard to his appointment as General Secretary of Congress Party,
Distt. Mandi, Himachal or documentary proof with regard to
asking him by Sh. Sita Ram Kesari and Mr. B P Maurya to set up
107/150
108
election office. He cannot produce any documentary proof with

regard to writing letters to Congress Party President, General
Secretary, PM and President of India.
234 This witness has stated that he has received a fund of

Rs. 1,25,00,000/- while there is recovery of only Rs.
1,13,51,520/- from the house of accused at Mandi. No
explanation has been given by this witness as to where the
remaining money had gone. This witness has also been shown
CD having interview of Sh. Sita Ram Kesri and Mr. B P Maurya.
After seeing and hearing the CD he has stated in his cross
examination as follows:
I have heard the voice of Mr. Kesari and Mr. Maurya and
also identify them in the CD.
Q That in the CD Ex PW3/1A which is played to you now that
Sh. Sukh Ram wants to throw blame of his own voices on the head
of the party. It is shameful act on the part of Sukh Ram.
Ans: It is correct that Mr. Kesari had said these words. Vol. But
he has not said that it was not party fund.
It is correct that Mr. B P Maurya in the said CD has said
Ho Sakta Hai Ye Rupiya Kisi Ki Dharohar rakha ho. Ho Sakta
Ha Yeh Party ka Rupiya ho. Ho sakta hai ye bharashtachar ka
rupiya ho, Kuch Abhi to kaha nahi ja sakta na, Ye Ho Sakta
Hai ki party fund mein aya ho aur vo bimari ke liye chale gaye,
Aur vo adjustment nahi ho paya.
108/150
109
It is incorrect to suggest that I had made a false statement

that money was brought by Chander Sharma and handed over to
me or that there was no party office opened at the house of Pt.
SukhRam at Mandi. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not
deputed by Sh. Sita Ram and Mr. Maurya to look after the election
camp office at Mandi.
Q Sh. Kesari and Mr. B P Maurya had not said that the money
recovered from the premises of Pt. Sukh Ram was sent by them
for election purposes or otherwise. (objected to as the witness
cannot confronted or asked with reference what is stated in the CD
attributed to Sh. Kesari and Sh. Maurya and same being the
contents of CD itself).
Ld. SPP argued that CD has already been played to this
witness which is produced in defence evidence hence witness is
being confronted with the same. (Objection over ruled. Request
allowed).
Ans: It has not been denied by both these persons that it was not
the party fund.
Q Both, Sh. Kesari and Maurya had not said that it was a party
fund.?
Ans: They have stated that it may party money or it may be some
entrustment money.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have made statement in order
to help Pt. Sukh Ram at his instance.
109/150
110
235 It is argued on behalf of accused that CD produced in

this Court is an edited one, hence no reliance can be placed on it.
Accused himself summoned this CD through DW-3 K V L Narain
Rao. In this regard, following portion of his statement is as under:
Our TV Channel takes interview of various persons in
relation of the news. We have got broadcast quality camera
system. Reporter and camera person go to the spot where the
news is there. The recorder comes back to the studio and then it is
telecast. The story which go on air, we maintain a record. I am
aware that an interview was taken of late Sh. B P Maurya, the then
General Secretary, AICC in relation to the news about alleged
recovery of cash etc. from the premises of Pt. Sukh Ram. Vol, that
I being Chief Executive shall not be aware of the details of
interview. The interview was recorded and preserved initially on
a video tape and then we go on transferring interviews/news on
DVD to preserve the same. The said DVD has been brought to me
today in the court. It contains the story about the news item
including the interview of Sh.B P Maurya. It does not containany
news item.
Q Please tell if it is unedited recording of the interview of Sh. B P
Maurya as aforesaid?
Ans: This is edited story which went on air and the DVD brought
by me contains the complete story which went on air.
Every story is edited before it goes on air and similarly, in
this case also there might have been the editing of the story before
110/150
111
it went to air. I cannot say if the original video tape is available or

not.
236 He has further deposed as follows, in his examination

in chief:
The original video tape (at that time) was the unedited
record of the interview. Vol. That is the story footage from that
interview is taken. The DVD is Ex D-3/1.
237 In this regard, statement of DW8 Sh. Deepak

Chaurasia is also relevant which is as follows;
I had taken the interview of Sh. B P Maurya, the then
General Secretary of AICC in connection with the searches at the
house of Pt. Sukh Ram, the then Communication Minister, Govt.
of India. A tape was recorded as per guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the CD are destroyed
after three months until and unless any designated court or enquiry
agency requests the broadcaster to preserve the same.
238 Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that

accused himself has summoned the CD in his defence evidence.
It is well settled legal preposition that a party who produces a
particular evidence is bound by the same. Our Hon'ble High Court
in M/s Rudnap Export-Import V. Eastern Associates Co. and
others, AIR 1984 DELHI 20 has held as follows:
111/150
112
Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.61 Document filed by a party

It can be looked into at the instance of opposite party No proof
thereof is necessary.
Similar view has been expressed by our Hon'ble High Court
in K K Dhawan Vs. Dr. Promila Sunali, 1997 Rajdhani Law
Reporter 608 which is as follows:
If a person's document or letter is on record but is not
exhibited then this may be read in evidence against him.
239 Thus, in my view, now the objection raised on behalf of

accused that the tape is edited one is meritless. In view of above
discussion this court is of opinion that evidence of both these
witnesses is insufficient and unreliable to prove that they were
maintaining Camp Election Office of Congress Party in the
premises of accused at 12 Safdarjung Lane, Delhi and in his native
house at Mandi.
240 Chander Sharma has been produced as DW12. His

examination in chief was recorded on 27.3.2008 and his cross
examination was deferred. Thereafter this witness has not
appeared in the witness box. Prosecution has not received
opportunity to cross examine this witness. Finally Ld. Defence
counsel has given up this witness.
241 DW11 Mrs. Ritu Sharma, daughter of accused Sukh
112/150
113
Ram has stated that on 4.8.96 her father and mother had gone to
USA. Before going to USA her father had handed over one
room, one store and attached toilet to Shiv Kumar Mishra.
She has not named the pooja room given to Shiv Kumar Mishra.
She has further stated that on 16.8.96 CBI personnels raided the
premises. They had allowed her to call Munshi Ram who was the
PS of her father. They had enquired about the keys of the locked
rooms. Guest Room which was with Mr. Mishra was also locked.
She told them that keys were with Mr. Mishra and she can call
him but they did not allowed her to call Mr. Mishra as she had
already called Mr. Munshi Ram. She has further deposed in her
examination in chief as follows:
The store was inside the guest room and toilet was
attached. Store room was also locked. They broke open the
lock, after calling the person for breaking the lock, firstly, that of
guest room. Lock of steel almirah which was in the guest room
was also broke open. They had taken out two briefcases from that
Almirah. They had asked for keys of briefcases from me but I had
told them that I was not having any keys of briefcases. I was
having only knowledge with regard to the keys of guest room
which was with Mr. Mishra but I was not aware about keys of
other articles. Lock of attached store room was also got broke
open. Briefcases were also present in that store Keys of two
cupboards in that store room was with my mother which was
113/150
114
known to me. They had also broke open those two cupboards.
In those cupboards some jewelery of my mother was there
alongwith her clothes etc. and household articles. They broke
open briefcases etc. and found cash. They had collected all
these in drawing room. I was scared. Many persons were there.
About 3-4PM I T officials had also reached there. I T (income
tax) persons had also questioned me. I told them the same thing
which I had disclosed to CBI Personnels.
242 In her cross examination she has stated as follows:

I and Munshi Ram were together present when the
guest room, store room was searched. Munshi Ram was with
them throughout. He used to come to me to enquire about my
help off and on. He was asked to count the money. Signature
of mine and Munshi Ram were taken on all the papers with
regard to search. Signatures of mine are at point B on all the
pages and that of Munshi Ram at point A on Ex PW9/B on all the
pages.......
...... It is correct that they had also given copies of
these documents to us after completion of the proceedings.
.........I did not report to anybody till date in this regard. The
statement made by me voluntarily in this court today. I have stated
in this court only today. Guest Room was totally
furnished.......
114/150
115
............. the articles mentioned from item No.1 to 22 were

recovered from Pooja Ram/store room. Pooja Room/store
room is different than other rooms......
..... I had given my statement to income tax Authority
on oath correctly whichever they had asked from me......
243 I have carefully perused observation memo Ex

PW9/A dt. 16.8.96 of house No. 12 Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi.
An amount of Rs.2,06,49,630/- was recovered from Pooja Room.
Contained in 23 suitcases. An amount of Rs. 26,70,000/- as
shown at serial No.14 (VIII) and an amount of Rs. 1,64,764/- as
shown at serial No.14 (IX) and an amount of Rs.5,39,500/- as
shown at serial No.14 (X) was recovered from guest room
contained in three briefcases. A cash of Rs.1,60,000/- as shown at
serial No.30 (VIII) was recovered from the bed room of Sukh
Ram. A cash of Rs. 3,44,950/- was recovered from the bed room
of Mrs. Ritu Sharma as shown at serial No.20 at page 10 of the
Observation Memo.
244 The articles recovered from Pooja room are as

follows:
1 One Steel Almira containing three suit length ,
miscellaneous cosmetics, six sarees, 24 silver coins, one torch,
poloride camera , Sony walkman , Portable colour TV Citizen.
115/150
116
2 One pistal PA 63 Registration No is BH-3598 alongwith

29 bore containing 384 bullets.
3 10 bottles of scotch of foreign make one bottle of wine
4 One steel almirah containing seven coats and pants and
towels toilattaries .
5 Sony compact disc player.
6 One attachee case containing gift items
7 One suitcase containing woolen and sarees.
8 One suitcase containing six shawls and two pullovers.
9 One eminent suit case containing gift items.
10 One Rexin suitcase containing two pullovers.
11 One Hallmark suit case containing .
12 One suitcase containing six sarees, four suits and chunnies.
13 Aristocrat suit case containing ladies suits and shawls.
14 Large suitcase containing woolen .
15 Skybag suit case containing woolen and shirts.
16 VIP suit case containing four suit length and Kashmere
Blankets.
17 One large suitcase containing woolens towels and bed
sheets.
18 One Magnum suitcase containing woolen cloths.
19 One large suitcase containing miscellaneous woolen
clothes.
20 One big travel suitcase containing woolens
21 Various items, old jewelery for which a separate inventory
116/150
117
cum valuation report has got made from Govt approved.

22 23 suitcases big and small, One containing a total cash
of Rs.2,06,49,630.00
245 I have perused the various articles recovered from the

guest room as shown in Observation Memo Ex PW9/A which also
shows that it was full of domestic articles. Mrs. Ritu Sharma,
DW10 has fully corroborated this fact by stating in her cross
examination that guest room was fully furnished. None of the
article available in the guest room shows that it was being used as
election office. List of the articles found in the pooja room also
shows that it contained all the domestic articles. A pistol as
shown at serial No.2 alongwith 384 bullets has been found in
pooja room. 10 bottles of scotch of foreign make and one
bottle of wine has also been found in the pooja room as shown
at serial No.3. Had the pooja room was being used as election
camp office these articles should not be there.
246 I have also carefully perused inventory/observation

memo Ex PW45/C (D-18). With regard to search of residential
premises of Sukh Ram at Shamkhetra Mandi, Himachal Pradesh
and Seizure cum Search List Ex PW45/A (D-19) vide which a
total amount of Rs.1,16,51,520/- was recovered contained in 12
boxes. From the perusal of both these memos it is clear that no
117/150
118
election material was found in the premises.
247 It is a case of disproportionate asset U/s 13 (1) (e) of

PC Act, 1988. A Full Bench of Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in C
S D Swami Vs. State has held as follows with regard to burden of
proof in such cases:
Section 5 (3) does not create a new offence but only lays
down a rule of evidence, enabling the court to raise a presumption
of guilt in certain circumstances- a rule which is a complete
departure from the established principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove all
ingredients of the offence charged, and that the burden never shifts
on to the accused to disprove the charge framed against him.
It is further held in this authority by our Hon'ble Supreme
Court as follows:
The Legislature has advisedly used the expression
satisfactorily account. The emphasis must be on the word
satisfactorily, and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a
burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as
to how he came by his larger wealth, but also to satisfy the Court
that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
The expression known source of income must
have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough
investigation of the case. It cannot be contended that known
source of income means source known to the accused. The
118/150
119
prosecution cannot in the very nature of things be expected to

known the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters
specially within the knowledge of the accused.
248 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in M Krishna Reddy Vs

State (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 has held as follows:
It is not the mere acquisition of property that
constitutes an offence under S. 5(1) (e) but it is the failure of
satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the
possession objectionable as offending the law. To substantiate a
charge under Section 5(1) (e) of the Act, the prosecution must
prove the following ingredients, namely (1) the prosecution must
establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and
extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in
his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known
sources of income, i e known to the prosecution and (4) it must
prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in
possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known
sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily
established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)
(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such
resources or property . In other words, only after the prosecution
has proved the required ingredients the burden of satisfactorily
accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts
to the accused.
119/150
120
249 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of MP Vs Avadh

Kishore AIR 2004 SC page 517 has held as follows:
Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13(1)
(e) Acquisition of disproportionate assets by public servant-
Expression ' known source of income' in S. 13(1) (e) Does not
mean sources known to accused- Burden is cast on accused not
only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth
But also to satisfy Court that explanation is worthy of
acceptance Term income- Meaning of .
The Legislature has advisedly used the expression
'satisfactorily account.' The emphasis must be on the word '
satisfactorily' and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a
burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as
to how he came by his larger wealth, but also to satisfy the Court
that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.
250 Ld. SPP relying upon the statement of PW29 Sh. P V

Narsimha Rao argued that he has demolished the entire defence of
accused by stating that no amount from party fund was ever
transferred to any other place. Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi
argued that statement of this witness cannot be relied upon as
opportunity to cross examine this witness has not been granted to
accused.
120/150
121
251 Statement of PW29 P V Narsima Rao was recorded

on 6.11.2004 by the then Ld CMM Mrs Reena Singh Nag who
was appointed commission to record his statement. Relevant
portion of his statement is as under :
Nobody is suppose to tell me about the transfer of
Congress party fund to any other person. It is solely for the
Treasurer to have control over the same. No Cabinet Minister ever
told me after the fall of Congress Government regarding the shift
of congress party funds to any other congress leader's house.
Q After the fall of the congress Government did anybody
included Sita Ram Kesari told you having kept / transfer the party
fund to any other leader.
A Sh Keshari did not inform me nor anybody else informed
me about the transfer of the party fund volunteered congress party
fund is kept in bank normally and if for any reason the same is
withdrawn and required to be taken over to some other place the
control over it remains with the Treasurer.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX ( by accused )
The accused has requested to defer the cross . Request
declined for the reason that Mr Rao himself visibly unwell and for
the reason stated in the order sheet .
Nil Opp. Given
RO&AC Sd/
121/150
122
CMM/ Delhi
252 Relevant portion of the order sheet dt. 6.11.2004 of

Ld. CMM who had executed this commission is as under:
An application has been moved before the undersigned
requesting for fixing some other date as Sh. P D Sharma, Ld.
Defence Counsel is unwell as his blood sugar level has gone up
resulting in high blood pressure because of which he is unable to
attend the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has been advised
complete rest which application has been moved by the accused
himself. It may be mentioned that yesterday in the after lunch
Session one application was moved by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. D
S Patial for giving some other date on the same ground as taken
today. Notice was given through Sh. D S Patial but the same
could not be served on the CBI so proceedings were ordered to be
held today. Now the witness Sh. P V Narsimha Rao is present
before me. He appears to be inaffirm and sick also and is aged
about 84 years and it would not be in the interest of justice to defer
the examination of the witness since Ld. Defence Counsel is free
to move application U/s 311 Cr PC as per law if he so desires
before Ld. Special Judge. It was in the knowledge of Ld. Defence
Counsel that he would not be in a position to appear before the
Commission for examination of the witness so he could have
deputed some other counsel or accused could also have
engaged/brought some other counsel. Moreover, it has not been
122/150
123
mentioned in the application for adjournment as to when Ld.

Defence Counsel would be in a position to make himself available
for cross examination of the witness. Sh. Rao has been brought
before the undersigned by his aid as he seems to be unable to walk
comfortably on his own. In these circumstances let the
examination of the witness be proceeded with.
Sd/-
ADJ cum CMM Delhi.6.11.04.
253 From above order sheet it is clear that Mr. Rao was
inaffirm and seriously ill. Every effort was made on behalf of
accused to delay the recording of his statement. No cross
examination of Mr. Rao was conducted on behalf of accused
inspite of opportunity granted to him.
254 Afterword an application u/s 311 Cr PC was moved

on behalf of accused for granting opportunity to cross examine
Mr. Rao which was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor Sh. Dinesh
Dayal and Ld. CMM was again appointed commission to record
the cross examination of Mr. Rao. On 19.11.04 Ld. CMM fixed
27.11.04 for recording the cross examination of Mr. Rao. On
27.11.04 Ld. CMM had gone to the residence of Mr. Rao for
recording his cross examination but his PA Sh. Chetan Sharma
had informed that Mr. Rao was admitted in AIIMS, hence matter
123/150
124
was adjourned for 10.12.04. On 10.12.04 again Ld. CMM had

gone to the residence of Mr. Rao but it was again informed by his
PA Sh. Chetan Sharma that he was admitted in AIIMS hence the
matter was fixed for 5.2.05 for recording of the cross examination
of Mr. Rao. Unfortunately, Mr. Rao expired on 26.12.04, hence
his cross examination could not be conducted.
255 In these circumstances, whether his statement can be

relied upon or not has now become a legal question. Hon'ble High
Court of Patna in Sri Kishun Jhunjhunwala Vs. Emperor, AIR (33)
1946 Patna 384 has held as follows:
Evidence Act (1872) Sec. 33 Applicability witness
dying before cross examination Degree of weight to be attached
to his evidence depends on circumstances.
It is further held that where a witness dies after examination
in chief and before cross examination his evidence is admissible
but the degree of weight to be attached to it depends on the
circumstances of the case
256 In this regard Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in

Ahmed Ali Vs. Jyoti Pershad, AIR 1944 page 188 has held as
follows:
Evidence Act S. 33 Witness dying before cross
examination that his evidence does not become inadmissible.
124/150
125
257 In this regard, Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in

Devar Park Building Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Madhuri Jalan, AIR 2002
Calcutta, 281 has held as follows:
Evidence Act (1 of 1872) Ss. 133. 33 Evidence of person
with unfinished cross examination Admissibility Evidence of
defendant recorded on commission cross-examination only
partly held death of defendant in meantime His evidence
would not be inadmissible There is no provision under law that
if witness is not cross-examined either in full or part his evidence
would be absolutely rendered inadmissible How much weight
shall be attached should be decided considering other facts and
circumstances surrounding it Provision of S.33 would not be
applicable in such case.
258 In this regard, our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mulak

Raj Sikka Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC page 1723 has
held as follows:
Where in a Sessions trial the witness whose deposition
recorded by the committing Magistrate was sought to be brought
on record, could not be found in spite of all reasonable steps taken,
including the one taken by High Court during the hearing of
appeal, and further although the accused had a right to cross
examine that witness in the committing Court, his counsel had
preferred not to cross-examine at that stage and had reversed it for
the Sessions Court, both the conditions of Section 33 were
125/150
126
satisfied and the evidence of such witness recorded in committing

Court was admissible in Sessions trial.
259 In view of above discussed law it is clear that the

statement of late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao is admissible in evidence
in this case, however, it is to be considered as to how much weight
is to be attached to his statement.
260 Late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao was not at all enemical

to accused. Rather, it is the case of accused that CBI wants to
implicate Sh. P V Narsimha Rao for which it was forcing him to
make a statement stating that this money belongs to Mr. Rao but
as he has not obliged the CBI by making such false statement
hence CBI has implicated him in this false case. In these
circumstances why Mr. Rao will depose against accused falsely.
Even otherwise, at the relevant time, when he had made this
statement he was on the death bed, when every hope of this world
is gone and every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is
induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. In
these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve his statement.
This Court is of opinion that statement of Mr. Rao is reliable and
can be used against accused.
261 Mr. B P Maurya and Sh. Sita Ram Kesari have

expired during the pendency of this case. Mr. Sita Ram Kesari has
126/150
127
been cited as a witness in this case. His statement U/s 161 Cr PC

has also been recorded. I fully agree with the contention of Ld.
Senior Counsel that the statement of late Sh. Sita Ram Kesari U/s
161 Cr PC cannot be relied upon as he has not appeared in the
witness box. Similarly, the statement of Mrs. Ritu Sharma
recorded U/s 131 I T Act cannot be relied upon against accused in
these proceedings as no chance has been given to accused to cross
examine her.
262 PW46 has stated, in his examination in chief, as

follows:
During the interrogation, Mr. Sukh Ram told that money
recovered belonged to Congress Party. But when I interrogated
Sh. Sita Ram Kesari and Ahmed Patel they denied this fact
and told that the money does not belong to Congress Party.
263 Similarly, PW 63 Sh. H S Sandhu has stated, in his

cross examination, in this regard, as follows:
As far as I recollect Mr. Sukh Ram has mentioned that a
part of his residential address at Delhi and Mandi were being used
as office of Congress Party for the purpose of election to be held
at UP and J K. Vol. That I investigated this part of the
statement and that is why I interrogated late Sh. Sita Ram
Kesari and late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao and both of them
127/150
128
categorically denied the same. (Objected to by the Ld. Defence

Counsel on the ground that the statement is hit by Section 162 Cr.
PC). It is correct that Pt. Sukh Ram had disclosed that cash
recovered belonged to Congress Party election fund. (Vol. I have
already answered this part was investigated and late Sh. Sita Ram
Kesari and late Sh. P V Narsimha Rao were examined in this
regard). I do not now recollect if Sh. B P Maury, the then General
Secretary of the Congress Party had also made a statement about
the cash recovered at the house of Pt. Sukh Ram. I do not
remember if myself or any CBI officer working under me ever
examined B P Maury.
264 These questions have been asked in cross

examination of this witness and when the answers suitable to
accused not received from this witness an objection of Section 162
Cr. PC had been taken, as recorded by my Ld. Predecessor. Ld.
Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi, with regard to conversation of PW
47 with Sh. B P Maurya, has argued that it is admissible, as
discussed above, in this judgment. This Court is of opinion
that on the same reasoning statement of PW 46 and PW63
with regard to their conversation with late Sh. Sita Ram
Kesari and P V Narsimha Rao is also admissible in evidence
against accused.
128/150
129
265 It is argued that CBI was vindictive against the

accused and harassing him to obtain a statement from him against
Sh. P V Narsimha Rao. CBI has also falsely implicated his son
Anil Sharma in a criminal case vide R C No. 6 of 1996 which later
on got canceled by CBI. Accused has produced Anil Sharma in
his defence evidence as DW-6 who has stated as follows, in this
regard:
SP had told me to inform my father to state that money
was got kept by Mr. Narsimha Rao. I tried to talk my father
who was abroad and informed him what Mr. Sandhu had told
me. My father had told me that he will tell the facts about him
after coming back from abroad. He had stated that he will not
made any such statement as desired by CBI. I had met again
with Mr. Sandhu with the message of my father. Mr. Sandhu
had told me that if we will not state so then case will also be
registered against me. Thereafter, case was also registered against
me vide R C No. 6 of 1996. I had to secure anticipatory bail from
High Court. Thereafter, in order to pressure me CBI had
challenged that order of my bail in Hon'ble Supreme Court. CBI
had got canceled my bail from Supreme Court on technical
ground. CBI had not arrested me thereafter. The case against me
was investigated by CBI and after three months they had tot that
case canceled. Certified copy of the No Objection Certificate for
cancellation of FIR dt. 23.4.99 and order of the Special Judge,
129/150
130
Shimla dt. 30.6.99 in this regard I am placing on the file.
266 In his cross examination he has stated as follows:

I had not gone through the report filed U/s 173 Cr PC by
the CBI in the Court of Special Judge, Shimla for cancellation of
the case. It is correct that my case was canceled as it did not
fall in the category of disproportionate assets as the assets
were within 10.4% of my total income according to the case of
prosecution.
267 The very fact that CBI after investigating the case
reached to the conclusion that no case of DA made out against
Anil Sharma as his assets fall within 10.4% of his total income
proves that CBI was not vindictive against accused or his family
members, had it not been so why the CBI in its investigation
reached to the conclusion that no DA case made out against Anil
Sharma. In these circumstances this court is of opinion that CBI
has not falsely implicated family members of accused.
268 Last but not the least, the defence taken by accused
even does not appeal to common sense as to why the Congress
Party would establish a camp office at the residence of accused
Sukh Ram in Delhi and Mandi for elections to be held in J & K
and UP, when Congress party has its regular office in Delhi and
the then Treasurer of Congress Party, Sh. Sita Ram Kesari was
130/150
131
also having his residence in Delhi, in such circumstances there

was no need for holding a separate camp office for election at the
residence of accused Sukh Ram. Similarly, when the elections
were to be held in J & K and UP what was the need of
establishing election camp office at Mandi at the residence of
accused Sukh Ram. Had there been any need of establishing camp
office for the elections to be held in UP and J & K camp office
would have been established in UP and J & K but not in Himachal
Pradesh.
279 From the above discussion, this court is of opinion

that prosecution has proved its case with regard to recovery of
cash of Rs. 2,45,28,844/- from the official residence 12
Safdarjung Lane of accused Sukh Ram in Delhi and cash of
Rs.1,13,51,520/- from the house of accused Sukh Ram at Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh which belongs to him, there is no merit in the
defence taken by accused.
270 It is argued by Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Tulsi that

prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession of the
money recovered from the premises of accused Sukh Ram.
Possession is a polymorphous term which may have different
meaning in different contexts. It is impossible to work out a
completely logical and precise definition of it (possession) so as to
uniformly applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes.
131/150
132
271 In view of above discussion prosecution has well

proved that this amount was recovered from the premises of
accused Sukh Ram. It is well settled legal preposition that once
the possession is established, burden lies on a person who claims
that it was not in his conscious possession to prove it because it
was within his special knowledge as to how it came in his
possession. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Megh Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 3184 with regard to conscious possession
has held as follows:
The word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular
fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. Once
possession is established the person who claims that it was not a
conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to
be in possession is within his special knowledge. S. 35 of the Act
gives a statutory recognition of this position because of
presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of
S.54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from
possession of illicit articles.
272 In Gopal Dass Udho Dass Vs. Union of India, AIR

2004 SC 3830 our Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this regard, in para
No.19 it is held as follows:
Since possession was an offence, knowledge in possession
of the unauthorised article was an essential ingredient of the said
132/150
133
offence. Where a statute forbids an act doing of that act itself

supplies mens rea. In such a case, the prosecution need only to
prove commission of the prohibited act and it for the person
concerned to bring himself within the statutory defence, which in
the present case was provided for in the proviso to S. 71 (1).
However, in view of S. 98-B, the accused had to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he had no knowledge in the possession of
the unauthorised article.
273 In this regard, our Hon'ble Supreme Court in P K

Arjunan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2007 SC 2331 has held as
follows:
Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077) S.55, S. 64 Possession of
forbidden articles Burden to prove that possession was
conscious Not on prosecution Burden lies on accused in view
of presumption under S. 64.
274 Prosecution has proved Ex PW56/C to Ex PW56/F

and Ex PW55/A and B and Ex.PW56/P (D-28, D-29, D30 and D
-65)and produced PW56, Rishi Prakash, PW58 Mahesh Chandra
Arora, PW59 Sunil Makhija and PW61 Shashant Mishra to prove
that Sh. C K Khemka had given three pay orders of Rs.35 lac each
on 23.11.96, 11.12.96 and total amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000/- to
PW56 Rishi Prakash on three different dates in presence of PW58
Mahesh Chandra, PW59 Sunil Makhija and PW61 Shashant
133/150
134
Mishra and stated that this amount was given to him as loan by
accused Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.19 of immovable and
has stated that he has no knowledge. (Q90,91and 92). Ld. Special
PP argued that all these three pay orders have been recovered vide
recovery memos. In the recovery memos it is clearly mentioned
that Sh. C K Khemka had told to Rishi Prakash in presence of
witnesses Mahesh Chandra, Sunil Makhija and Shashank Mishra
that this amount was given to him as loan by accused Sukh Ram,
therefore, this money belongs to Sh. Sukh Ram. Ld. SPP argued
that prosecution has cited Sh. C K Khemka as a witness in the list
of witnesses, however, he has been won over by accused, hence he
has not appeared in the witness box on behalf of prosecution. It is
further argued by Ld. SPP that it is clear from the fact that accused
has cited him as defence witness in his list of defence witnesses.
It is argued on behalf of prosecution that in these circumstances
prosecution has proved that this amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/-
belongs to accused Sukh Ram which he had given as loan to Sh. C
K Khemka.
275 Prosecution has neither produced Sh.C K Khemka in

the witness box to prove that Sukh Ram had given this amount of
Rs.1,05,00,000/- to him as loan nor any other witness in presence
of whom this amount was given to Sh. C K Khemka as loan by
134/150
135
accused Sukh Ram. Prosecution has produced PW Mahesh

Chandra, Sunil Makhija and Shashank Mishra before whom C K
Khemka handed over three pay orders to PW Rishi Prakash who
had seized the same vide memos mentioned above. It is correct
that it is mentioned in memos that C K Khemka had stated before
the witnesses that this amount was given to him as loan by
accused Sukh Ram. Besides this, prosecution has not produced
any evidence to prove the fact that this amount belongs to accused
Sukh Ram who had given it as loan to Sh. C K Khemka.
276 In my view from the evidence produced by the

prosecution in this regard has only proved that C K Khemka had
handed over these three pay orders of Rs.35 lac each total
amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000/- to Dy. S P. Prosecution has neither
produced C K Khemka in the witness box nor any other
substantive evidence to prove that this amount belongs to accused
Sukh Ram who had given it as loan to Sh. C K Khemka. The
evidence produced by prosecution can only raise a suspicion that
this amount belongs to accused Sukh Ram who had given it as
loan to Sh. C K Khemka. A suspicion, however strong, it may be,
cannot take the place of evidence. In these circumstances this
court is of opinion that in this regard accused is entitle for benefit
of doubt, hence this amount cannot be added in the assets of
accused.
135/150
136
277 Prosecution vide Ex PW 9/A, Ex PW45/C and PW

49/A ( D-13) from the statement of PW9 T Bhattacharya, PW45
K K Goyal and PW 49 R K Khurana has proved that household
articles valuing Rs.64,090/- (which includes the cost of Eureka
Forbes Vacuum Cleaner, Two LPG Cylinders and two colour TV
Sets found at 12 Safdarjung Lane) were found in the house of
Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.20 of immovable and movable
assets at the end of check period as mentioned in the charge
sheet. This entry has not been disputed by the Ld. Counsel Sh.
Tulsi in his oral argument and written submission. Thus, there is
no reason to disbelieve this fact, hence this court is of opinion that
prosecution has proved that accused was having household items
worth Rs.64,090/- at the end of check period.
278 Prosecution has proved Ex PW 49/A and Ex

PW49/B, (D23 (I, & II) and produced PW35 Sh. Somesh Chander
and PW 49 R K Khurana to prove that electronic items valuing
Rs.6,23,300/- were found in house No. D-42, Kaushambi of
accused Sukh Ram as shown at serial No.21 of immovable and
has stated that in the parliamentary election in 1989 he hired a
house at Panchsheel Park for which his wife had purchased and
acquired certain domestic articles. On allotment of official
residence all these articles were shifted to his official residence 12
136/150
137
Safdarjung Lane and on completion of his house at Kaushambi

some of these articles were shifted there. He has also stated that
valuation mentioned in the report is incorrect. (Q78 and Q62). Ld.
Senior Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi argued that PW35 has stated that
he had not physically inspected the articles, no purchase memo of
articles were shown to him. Articles were valued according to new
items. Valuation was given according to the catalogue of price.
From the statement of accused it is clear that he has not disputed
purchasing of these articles, however accused has not produced
any bills or documents with regard to purchasing of these articles.
Accused has clearly admitted that his wife had purchased these
articles meaning thereby she had purchased the new articles at the
relevant time, therefore, PW35 has rightly assessed the price of
new articles according to the catalogue. It was in the special
knowledge of accused or his wife when these articles were
purchased by them. They must have obtained bills/cash memos
of purchasing of these articles but they have not produced the
same. In view of the law laid down by our Hon'ble Supreme
Court in state of M P Vs. Avadh Kishore, AIR 2004 SC page 517
as quoted above burden is cast on the accused not only to offer a
plausible explanation as to acquisition but also to satisfy Court
that his explanation is worthy of acceptance, however, accused has
not produced any evidence in this regard, therefore, this court is
of opinion that prosecution has proved that accused had acquired
electronic items worth Rs. 6,23,300/- which were observed in his
137/150
138
house No.D42, Kaushambi vide Observation Memo Ex PW49/A

and Ex PW49/B.
279 According to prosecution accused had purchased an

Antena of Rs.4400/- as shown at serial No.22 of details of
mentioned in the charge sheet, however prosecution has not
produced any evidence to prove it, even my Ld. Predecessor has
not put any question in this regard to accused in his statement
recorded U/s 313 Cr PC. In these circumstances this court is of
opinion that prosecution failed to prove that accused was having
this FDR at the end of check period.
280 Prosecution has proved Ex PW 9/A, Ex PW45/C and

PW 49/A ( D-13, D-18 and D-23) and produced PW9 T
Bhattacharya, PW45 K K Goyal and PW 49 R K Khurana to
prove that household articles valuing Rs.3,14,800/- were
found/observed at the official residence of accused Sukh Ram as
shown at serial No. 23 of immovable and movable assets at the
end of check period as mentioned in the charge sheet. Ld. Senior
Counsel Sh. K T S Tulsi argued that prosecution has neither given
any breakup nor detail in this regard. Valuation Report has not
been proved. Prosecution has failed to appreciate that accused
was a Cabinet Minister and a Member of Parliament who was
provided fully furnished accommodation including furniture, Air
138/150
139
Conditioner, Refrigerator etc., hence this amount should not have

been added in the assets of accused. I have gone through the
relevant memos. In the memos against the articles which were
provided by the office, it is clearly mentioned as official, thus,
there is no merit in the arguments that investigating agency has
taken the value of articles provided to him officially at his
residence.
281 Prosecution vide Ex P-W34/A to L (D-34) and from

the statement of PW 34 D N Kapoor has proved that an amount of
Rs.1,92,000/- of accused Sukh Ram was outstanding as loan
towards Anil Kumar as shown at serial No.24 of immovable and
charge sheet. Accused has admitted it as correct being matter of
record, in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC.(Q66to Q 76).
282 Prosecution vide Ex P-W34/A to L (D-34) and from

the statement of PW 34 D N Kapoor has proved that an amount of
Rs.4,37,500/- of Smt. Ram Devi w/o accused Sukh Ram was
outstanding as loan towards Anil Kumar as shown at serial No.25
of immovable and movable assets at the end of check period as
mentioned in the charge sheet.. Accused has admitted it as correct
being matter of record, in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.
PC.(Q66 to Q 76).
139/150
140
283 Though the prosecution has claimed that accused

Sukh Ram and his wife Ram Devi had found in possession of
total movable and immovable assets valuing Rs. 6,00,90,365/-
at the end of check period but prosecution could prove the
total assets of accused and his wife at the end of check period
of Rs.4,91,65,965/-,
284 I have carefully gone through the statement of PW

60 Sh. B S Jakhar. In his cross examination he has specifically
stated that he did not call any person for enquiry regarding
recoveries effected on 16.8.96 upto 27.8.96. Searches were
conducted while investigating the case vide RC No. 3 (A)/96.
Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard is as
under:
------ I did not call any person for the purpose of any
enquiry regarding the recovery upto 27.8.96......
....The search of the locker was done by me after registration of
the present case. I was not given any written authorisation by the
SP to search the locker. Vol. That the locker was searched by me
in case RC no. 3(a)/96 for which I had authorisation. It is wrong
to suggest that I had no written authorisation of the SP to
investigate the case RC No. 3A/96. RC No.3A/06 did not relate to
the disproportionate assets. I did not issue any notice to the
accused to explain the recovery in RC 3A/96. Same is my reply
140/150
141
for Smt. Rama Devi and Anil Kumar Sharma.
285 Not even a suggestion has been given to Mr. Jakhar

that he had investigated the case registered vide RC 4A/96. PW
56 Rishi Prakash, the then Dy. SP had partly investigated this case
of disproportionate assets registered against accused vide RC
No.4A/96. This witness has been cross examined at length on
behalf of accused. Not even a single suggestion has been given to
this witness also that B S Jakhar had investigated this case
registered against accused Sukh Ram. Similarly, PW 63 H S
Sandhu has also partly investigated this case and filed charge sheet
in this court. He has also been cross examined at length on behalf
of accused. Not even a single suggestion has been given to this
witness also that Mr. B S Jakhar had investigated this case
registered against accused vide RC 4A/96.
286 Search of premises of accused No.12 Safdarjung

Lane was conducted by Sh. B S Jakhar in RC No. 3A/96. Search
of locker No. 6 at Syndicate Bank, R K Puram was also conducted
in that RC. RC of this case was registered on 27.8.96. RC
No.4A/96 was registered on the complaint of Dy. S P Sh. B S
Jakhar on 27.8.96. In view of above discussion it is clear that
there is no evidence on the record to show that Mr. B S Jakhar had
investigated this case of disproportionate assets registered against
accused vide RC No. 4A/96. Merely on the basis of averments
141/150
142
made in his statement or complaint by Sh. B S Jakhar on

verification were found to be disproportionate it cannot be held
that Mr. Jakhar had investigated this case of disproportionate
assets against accused. In view of above discussion this court is of
opinion that there is no merit in the argument that this case has
been investigated in contravention of Section 17 of PC Act, 1988
by Sh. B S Jakhar.
287 I have carefully gone through the authority P V

Narsimha Rao Vs. State 1998 (2) CC Cases (SC) 71 relied upon
by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S P Manocha, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in this authority has concluded as follows:
(1)A Member of Parliament does not enjoy immunity under
Article 105 (2) or under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution
from being prosecuted before a crim9inal court for an
offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe for the
purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or
in any committees thereof.
(2) A Member of Parliament is a public servant under
Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3) Since there is no authority competent to remove a
Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for his
prosecution under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take cognizance of the
142/150
143
offences mentioned in Section 19 (1) in the absence of

sanction but till provision is made by Parliament in that
regard by suitable amendment in the law the prosecuting
agency before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an
offence punishable U/s 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the 1988
Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal
court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of
the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case
may be.
288 It is correct that accused was a public servant being

Member of Parliament at the time when the charge sheet has been
filed in this court against him. Above quoted authority is dt.
17.4.1998 while charge sheet has been filed in our case in this
court on 9.6.97. Even in the above quoted authority Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that since there is no authority
competent to remove a Member of Parliament and to grant
sanction for his prosecution under Section 19 (1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take
cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19 (1) in the
absence of sanction, charge sheet has been filed in this court on
9.6.97, thereafter my Ld. Predecessor has taken cognizance of
offences against accused on 14.7.97, thus the cognizance taken by
my Ld. Predecessor is not bad, even according to the authority
143/150
144
cited by Ld. Defence counsel. Prior to the view expressed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P V Narsimha Rao Vs. State, 1998 (2)
CCC 71, Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on 5.5.93 in Habibulla
Khan Vs. State of Orissa 1993 Cr. L J 3604 has held that MLA is
such a public servant for whose prosecution under the PC Act no
previous sanction is required. It is observed as follows in this
regard in para No.26 of this authority:
We, therefore, conclude by stating that though we
are satisfied that an MLA would come within the fold of the
definition of public servant, as given in Section 2( c) of the Act,
he is not the type of public servant for whose prosecution under
the Act, previous sanction as required by Section 19 is necessary.
We quite realise the anomaly of our conclusion, because though
Section 19 of the Act makes no distinction between one public
servant and another for the purpose of previous sanction, we have
made so. But this is a result which we could not have truly and
legally avoided. According to us, it is a fit case where the
Parliament should make its mind known unambiguously and
unequivocally.
289 This view has been confirmed by our Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1995
SC 1123 wherein it is held as follows:
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) Ss. 13, 19
Sanction for prosecution Accused persons prosecuted for
144/150
145
criminal misconduct allegedly committed during their tenure as

Ministers and not in their capacity as MLAs Provisions of S. 19
not applicable - Sanction not necessary.
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) Ss. 13, 19
Sanction for prosecution Accused persons alleged to have
committed criminal misconduct during their tenure as Ministers
Prosecution after they ceased to be Ministers - Sanction not
necessary.
290 Thus, till the view expressed by our Hon'ble Supreme

Court on 17.4.98 in P V Narsimha Rao's case the ratio of law with
regard to prosecution of MLA or MP was that no
sanction/permission was required for their prosecution. In our
case charge sheet has been filed on 9.6.97 i.e. prior to the view
expressed in P V Narsimha Rao's case. It is well settled legal
preposition that all the criminal laws are prospective in nature
unless the same are specifically made applicable retrospectively.
In the P V Narsimha Rao's case relied upon on behalf of accused it
is mentioned that till the provision is made by Parliament in this
regard by suitable amendment in the law the prosecuting agency
before filing a charge sheet in respect of an offence punishable U/s
7, 10,11,13 and 15 of the P C Act, 1988 against a Member of
Parliament in a criminal court shall obtain the permission from the
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the
case may be. From the above language it is clear that it is
145/150
146
prospective in nature. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this authority has

not directed that prosecuting agency will also obtain permission of
the Speaker of Lok Sabha /Chairman of the Rajya Sabha for the
prosecution of Member of Parliaments already pending in the
courts.
291 Prevention of Corruption Act is a Social legislation

enacted with a view to curb illegal activities of public servants,
hence it should be liberally construed so as to advance its objects.
In this regard Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs State
of MP (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases-88 has held as follows:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Nature and
interpretation of Held is a social legislation to curb illegal
activities of public servant and should be liberally construed so as
to advance its object and not liberally in favour of the accused--
Interpretation of StatutesParticular statutes or provisions-- Penal
statute Social Legislation-- Interpretation of.
292 I have gone through all the authorities cited by Ld.

Defence Counsels on behalf of accused, there is no dispute with
the preposition of law laid down in all these authorities, however,
every case has its own facts and circumstances, ratio of law laid
146/150
147
down in authorities according to the facts and circumstances of

that particular case, hence may not be applicable in all the cases
as it is. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works etc
Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1073 in this regard
has held as follows:
The ratio of any decision must be understood in the
background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time
ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually
decides, and not what logically follows from it.
293 Similar view has been expressed by our Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kalyan Chander Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan AIR
2005 SC-921 in para No.42 which is as follows:
While deciding the cases on facts, more so in criminal
cases the Court should bear in mind that each case must vest
on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot
be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case.
It is also a well established principal that while considering the
ratio laid down in one case, the Court will have to bear in
mind that every judgment must be read as applicable to the
particular facts proved or assumed to be true. Since the
generality of expressions which may be found therein are not
intended to be exposition of the whole of the law but are
governed and qualified by the peculiar facts of the case in
147/150
148
which such expression are found . A case is only an authority

for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from
it.
294 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University

Vs Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd., 2002 X AD ( SC) 589 = 2003 (
2) SC 111 cautions that - a little difference in facts of additional
facts may make a lot of difference in the presidential value of a
decision. In Bharat Petrolem Corporation Ltd Vs N R Vairamani,
AIR 2004 SC 778, Their Lordship observed that - Observations
of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as
provisions of the statue and that too taken out of their context.
These observation must be read in the context in which they
appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be
construed as statutes. This is also the opinion of the Court in
Punjab National Bank Vs R L Vaid, 2004 IX AD( SC) 333=
(2004) 7 SCC 698. In State of Gujarat Vs Akhil Gujarat Pravasi,
2004 V AD ( SC) 533 = ARI 2004 SCC 3894, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that any observation made during
the course of reasoning in a judgment should not be read divorced
from the context in which they were used. In Zee Tele Films Vs
Union of India, 2005 II AD ( SC) 457, the Apex Court has
unequivocally declared that a decision is not an authority for the
proposition which did not fall for its consideration .
148/150
149
295 In view of above discussion this Court is of opinion

that ratio of law laid down in P V Narsimha Rao's Case on 17.4.98
is not applicable to our case, charge sheet of which was filed on
9.6.97 and cognizance of offences was taken on 14.7.97 against
the accused.

that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts as
follows:
i) That total movable and immovable assets
of accused Sukh Ram and his wife at the
beginning of check period were of Rs. 26,13,010/-.
ii) That total movable and immovable assets
of accused Sukh Ram and his wife at the
end of check period were of Rs. 4,91,65,965/-.
iii) That accused Sukh Ram and his wife

acquired movable and immovable
assets during the check period of Rs. 4,65,52.955/-
( I II)
iv) That total income of accused Sukh Ram
and his wife during the check period
from known sources was of Rs.87,07,928/-
v That accused Sukh Ram made a
total expenditure during the check
149/150
150
period of Rs. 46,81,095/-

vi That total savings of accused Sukh Ram
and his wife during the check period was
of Rs. 40,26,833/-.
(IV-V)
vii That accused Sukh Ram was found in

possession of total movable and
immovable assets disproportionate
to his known sources of
earning which he could not
satisfactorily account for
even in this court of value of Rs. 4,25,26,122./-.
297 As the accused has been found in possession of

disproportionate assets worth Rs. 4,25,26,122/- to his known
sources of earnings which he could not satisfactorily account for
even in this court, therefore, this court convicts accused Sukh Ram
for the offence punishable U/s 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (e) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Announced in open court ( V K MAHESHWARI)

on this 20th day of February,2009 SPECIAL JUDGE; DELHI
150/150

Judgement-Sukh Ram DA Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgement-Sukh Ram DA Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE COURT OF V .K .MAHESHWARI

CB I Vs. Sukh Ram S/o Late Sh. Bhav Dev, r/o ,

Date of order 20.2.2009

Brief facts as per the case of prosecution are that a

16.8.96 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his

2 Sh. Sukh Ram was elected Member of Parliament for

elections. He was again elected as Member of Parliament on

4 Sh. Sukh Ram was having movable assets worth

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

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

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

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

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

5 Income of Sh. Sukh Ram from interest

6 Income of Smt. Ram Devi from

7 Income of Smt. Ram Devi from

8 Loan for construction of D-42

9 Income from Libel Suit 3,45,933.00

10 Interest income from 3 FDRs

11 Income from FDRs of Shivali

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

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

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

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

1 Electricity Charges, Kaushambi 38,520.00

11 Payment to Sh. N Goel Architect 30,000.00

24 Anup's Marriage 1,00,000.00

7 Against the aforesaid likely savings of Rs.

8 Accused Sukh Ram was found in possession of hard

9 During the searches conducted in connection with

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

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

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

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

11 All the immovable assets available at the beginning

C Income During Check period 84,98,180.00

Likely saving during the check period

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

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

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

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

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

Somesh Chander, PW36 Manish Duggal, PW37 Besar Singh,

17 PW1 Sh. P Kailasham Executive Engineer BSNL has

18 PW2 Janardan Agnihotri Head Clerk, GDA,

19 PW3 Sh. Sunil Dutt Joint Commissioner Income Tax

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

20 PW4 Vinod Kumar Sinha has prepared and given

21 PW5 Pardeep Kumar Gupta, Assistant Regional

22 PW6 S C Khurana has proved statement of accused

23 PW7 J N Behl has proved statement of account in

24 PW8 Manoj Kumar M. Naik has proved sanction

25 PW9 T Bhattacharya Asstt. Enforcement

26 PW10 Pardeep Bhaskar, Senior Manager, Oriental

27 PW11 Sh. Anand Gupta has proved vouchers Ex

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

29 PW13 Mr. Reeta Jailkhani, Committee Officer Lok

30 PW14 Puneet Sharma, Manager, Kiran Gas service

31 PW15 Vinod Kumar Nayyar,Section Officer,

32 PW16 Sh. Rajendra Mahajan has proved copy of bill

33 PW17 Hari Simrat Singh Dua has proved the

34 PW18 Sh. Durga Singh Thakur has proved letter Ex

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