JUDGMENT : 1. This Appeal is directed against judgment dated 30th June 2009, passed by court of Special Judge Anticorruption Kashmir, Srinagar (“Trial Court” hereinafter) in File no.3/B titled as State v. Mohammad Aslam Wani in case FIR no.28 of 1995 police station VOK under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 12 and 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983, acquitting accused, and for setting-aside the same and case of appellant-prosecution (VOK) against respondent/ accused may be upheld by awarding full punishment to respondent/ accused. 2. Impugned judgment is being challenged on various grounds including that it is against the law and facts and liable to be set-aside; that the Trial Court has misappreciated the law and evidence on record and has not appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses in their totality; that there is enough evidence on record warranting conviction and sentence of accused/respondent; that Trial Court has not recorded any finding regarding admission made by respondent/accused while replying questionnaire served to him by Trial Court in pursuance of the proceedings under section 342 Cr.P.C in which respondent admitted the value of his house at Bag-e-Hyder as Rs.3,37,000/- and the Trial Court has erred in law by not recording any finding on this important aspect; that Trial Court has not appreciated the object and purport of provisions of Sections 5(1)(e) of PC Act which envisages a mechanism to be adopted by the trial court once the prosecution has established a case of disproportionate assets. 3. I have heard both the sides. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present appeal and also gone through judgment impugned. 4. Briefly stating, the case as projected by appellant/prosecution originates from a communication dated 1st September 1995 addressed by Secretary to Government, Home Department, to respondent/ accused for not filing the property returns and possession of disproportionate assets and to explain his position in this regard and a copy thereof also endorsed to appellant/VOK; on which the Vigilance Organization registered an FIR no.28/1995 for offences under sections 5(2) of PC Act read with section 12 and 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servants declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983 and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, it is stated that house of accused was searched, seizures were made and information was gathered from the concerned quarters in order to establish the information received in the aforementioned letter. It is also stated by appellant accused has his debut in the State service in the year 1973 and by the passage of time he has risen to Class 1st Officer. Accused is alleged to have acquired assets both movable and immovable worth Rs.56,06,622/- and incurred expenditure in the sum of Rs.10,66,898.56 as against the income from his known sources which amounted to Rs.21,75,396.60/-. It is also alleged that accused has amassed wealth during the check period 1973-97 in the shape of a house at Hyderpora which is assessed at Rs.7,14,144, two flats at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, assessed at Rs.6.28 lacs for flat no.7136 and 46.05 lacs for flat no.7258 respectively. He is alleged to be holding six Bank Accounts in different banks and to have transacted Rs.21,23,787/- during the check period. Besides his assets include furnishings, fixtures, electronic gadgets and a car (Maruti) bearing No.JK01-8241. Ultimately investigation culminated in presentation of challan before the Trial Court on 3rd June 1998 after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the competent authority. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and after going through the material available on the record vide order dated 9th June 2001 framed the charges against the accused for the commission of offences under sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 12 and 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servants declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983. Respondent/accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried and, therefore, prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of its case. Prosecution in support of its case produced and examined 31 witnesses till 22nd June 2006 when the Trial Court vide its order dated 22nd June 2006 on an application dated 18th July 2005 filed by prosecution to produce the reply of the accused in response to the questionnaire put to him during the course of investigation, dismissed the same and the Trial Court after having gone through the evidence found that no incriminating material was available on the record which could lead to conviction of accused and, as such, acquitted accused. The Vigilance Organization against the said order went in appeal to High Court and the High Court set aside the acquittal order supra and directed that the leftover two witnesses whose part statements were already recorded be recorded for completion of their statements and also other witnesses, if necessary, be also called. 6. The Trial Court besides the statements of the two witnesses whose part statements were already recorded, also recorded the statements of other two witnesses and ultimately on 2nd January 2009 closed the prosecution evidence. 7. In the meanwhile, prosecution filed an application that new facts have emerged in the case and sought permission for further investigation, which was accordingly allowed and finally on 22nd December 2008, supplementary challan was produced before the Trial Court and the witnesses mentioned in the said supplementary challan were also examined and the evidence in all respects was closed on 11th May 2009. 8. After completion of the prosecution evidence by the Trial Court the statement of accused under Section 342 Cr. P.C. was recorded who besides explaining his position on every aspect did not chose to lead evidence in his defence and the case was fixed for final arguments. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides acquitted accused by holding that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt against the accused. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 10. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to give a brief resume of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. (1) PW-1 Abdul Gani Sofi has stated that in the year 1995 he was posted as Under Secretary to Government in Home Department. The accused had not filed his annual property returns from 1986 to 1995, however, the returns already filed by the accused did not reflect clear entries so he wrote a communication bearing no. Home (Vig) M-32/KAS dated 1.9.1995 to the accused and copy thereof was endorsed to the Vigilance Commissioner. He has testified the correctness of the letter on the file which is exhibited as Expw AGS. Home (Vig) M-32/KAS dated 1.9.1995 to the accused and copy thereof was endorsed to the Vigilance Commissioner. He has testified the correctness of the letter on the file which is exhibited as Expw AGS. On cross examination by the counsel for the accused stated that in the month of December 1994 he was posted in Home Department and was the incharge of Vigilance cell in the month of September 1995, however, he cannot say in which month of year 1995 he was assigned the charge of Vigilance cell of Home Department. It is correct that he has mentioned the initiation of proceedings under law in the letter but he cannot explain lt. On a question put to the witness that if he does not know about the law under which proceeding could be initiated against the accused then how it was mentioned in the letter. To this, witness has stated that he has found that the accused was having the disproportionate assets so he mentioned the initiation of proceedings under law. He has not sought the advice of the law officer for mentioning the initiation of proceedings under law against the accused. He cannot say whether the accused had replied the said letter Expw AGS. He had no proof on which basis he could say that the father of accused was alive in the year 1996. He is not able to give the details of the assets that he had mentioned in the letter but only on seeing the record, he can give his explanation. He has not seen the record in Court on the basis of which letter EXPW GNS was written. He had obtained orders from Mr. Qaisar Din, Special Secretary to Home. He cannot say whether the said officer had sought any approval from his Superior or not. In his opinion, there was no requirement to seek permission or approval from the Minister or Advisor before issuing the letter. He does not have knowledge about the Business Rules of the Government. In his opinion, Secretary, Addl. Secretary or under secretary can put signature on the orders only after the same is duly approved by the Government. He has written the letter Expw AGS in his capacity as undersecretary and there is no mention in the letter that it was written on the direction or was approved. In his opinion, Secretary, Addl. Secretary or under secretary can put signature on the orders only after the same is duly approved by the Government. He has written the letter Expw AGS in his capacity as undersecretary and there is no mention in the letter that it was written on the direction or was approved. He has not issued show cause notice to the accused as per Expw AGS. He cannot say whether any reply was received from the accused and whether the proceedings were dropped. On re-examination the witness deposed that the accused has furnished his reply to the letter Expw AGS received vide no. 851 dated 18.9.1995. On receipt of the reply the case could not proceed ahead as per the record. He is not able to say that by not proceedings against the accused means dropping of action or not. Normally Secretary to Government means, Secretary, Dy. Secretary, under secretary etc. They can make the official correspondence but with the approval of authorities. Before making any correspondence to VOK it should be duly approved but on the record shown, there is no such approval. (2) PW-2 Mohammad Amin Khan has stated that he was posted as Inspector in VOK in the year 1997. He was investigating FIR 19 of 1997 against Mohd Anwar Mir and in this regard he searched his house and seized some documents which related to Mohammad Aslam Wani against whom already a FIR was registered. So he handed over those documents to the concerned I.O and same were seized. As per these documents accused Mohammad Aslam Wani had purchased flats etc. He does not perfectly remember whether I.O had prepared seizure memo or not. (3) PW-3 Ghulam Mohammad Bhat has stated that he was posted as Tehsildar Recovery in the month of May 1997. He does not know accused Mohammad Aslam Wani. He has seen accused first time today. On 27.5.1997 he was directed by Dy. Commissioner to accompany the Vigilance team. They were six persons. They entered a house in Hyderpora and he was told that this was the house of Mohammad Aslam wani. The owner of the house was not there, however, a lady and a person were there. He does not know him. He did not know that the lady, who was in the house, was the wife of the accused. They entered a house in Hyderpora and he was told that this was the house of Mohammad Aslam wani. The owner of the house was not there, however, a lady and a person were there. He does not know him. He did not know that the lady, who was in the house, was the wife of the accused. After they entered the house they searched everything and every room. Search memo was prepared by the I.O. whatever articles were seized, were listed in a memo. The memo was signed by him and he identifies his signature on it. It is already marked as Expw MAL. Seizure memo with regard to cheque book etc was signed by him and is correct, already exhibited as Expw MAL/l. He has seen the superdnama with respect to domestic articles on the file, it is correct and signed by him. He has written the words 'in my presence ' on the last page of superdnama because it was prepared in his presence. He has signed with red lnk marked as Expw GMB. He has testified the correctness of Expw MB/I. On cross examination he has stated that Dy Commissioner gave him verbal orders. Seizure memo Expw MAL was prepared by the I.O in the house which was alleged to be of Mohammad Aslam because they knew it and he signed the seizure memo. In the seizure memo Expw-MAL the model of the articles was not reflected nor it was mentioned whether the articles were functional or not. Some of the articles which were seized were not usable. He has not seen the cheque book in the Court which was seized. What was mentioned in the cheque was not known to him. (4) PW-4 Mohammed Ashraf Inspector has deposed that in the month of May 1997 he was posted with SP Head quarter VOK. As per the direction of Fayaz Hussain he accompanied latter to the residence of accused for search. They were also accompanied by Mr. Bhat, independent witness, Farooq Ahmed Sheikh Head constable and other members. They searched the house of the accused and seized Refrigerator and T.V. and framed two seizure memos. in this behalf he identifies the signature on the seizure memos which are marked as Expw MAL and Expw MAL/I respectively. They were also accompanied by Mr. Bhat, independent witness, Farooq Ahmed Sheikh Head constable and other members. They searched the house of the accused and seized Refrigerator and T.V. and framed two seizure memos. in this behalf he identifies the signature on the seizure memos which are marked as Expw MAL and Expw MAL/I respectively. On cross examination by the counsel for the accused deposed that he knows the accused before the above occurrence, however, he had not gone to his house before the search. He cannot say who identified the house of accused but he was told that the house belongs to the accused. He cannot recall whether the kitchen ware was also seized. His statement was recorded by the I.O. He does not remember whether on 27.5.1997 the house of accused was searched. The date mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 is dated 26.5.1997 when he put his statement on 27th of May. The statements of other members of the team were also reordered on 27th of May. (5) PW-5 Farooq Ahmed has stated that he was posted as head constable in VOK on 10.10.95. On the said date they went to Hyderpora under the command of I.O. Fayaz Ahmed. They had one Mohammad Ashraf, Tehsildar, an independent witness and the members of the team with them. Nobody except the wife and a servant was present in the house of accused. I.O. had some interaction with the wife of accused. Thereafter personal search of the team members was conducted and then they went inside house of accused. They seized some items there and prepared seizure memos Expw MAL and Expw MAL/1. He has identified his signature on them. He has identified his signature on superdnama Expw GMB. Some of the items seized were put on superdnama to the wife of accused and some items were taken to the Vigilance office. On cross examination he has stated that he does not remember whether he has put his signature on the search memo, of the personal search of the team members which was prepared on the spot. The house of the accused was already got identified. He does not personally know whether the house belonged to accused, however the wife of accused told that the house belonged to accused. The house of the accused was already got identified. He does not personally know whether the house belonged to accused, however the wife of accused told that the house belonged to accused. He has not mentioned in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C that the lady who was present in the house was the wife of accused. He does not remember after how many days his statement under section 161 was recorded. It was perhaps after two or ten days. He does not remember who besides Mohammad Ashraf Lone signed the seizure memos. The personal search memo of the team members is not on the file. Seizure memos were prepared by I.O in his presence on 10.10.95. (6) PW-6 Gulab Khan has stated that he was posted as S.G. Constable in VOK on 26th of May 1997. He also accompanied the team along with the I.O Fayaz Hussain, Magistrate and other members to the house of accused. Firstly Magistrate made the search. During search documents and the goods were seized. The seizure memo was made in duplicate. During search, the wife of accused and a servant was there who were given the copy of seizure memos. He has seen the seizure memo Expw MAL and Expw MAL/I on the file. These bear his signature and are correct. On cross examination stated that presently he is posted as PSO to C.O IR III. He has not come in uniform because while on security duty they do not wear the uniform. There were houses around the house where they went for search. He does not remember whether any inhabitant of the area was brought during search. They did not brought patwari concerned who could say that the house belonged to the accused. The head of the team knew that the house belonged to Mohammad Aslam Wani so they went there for search. Team head was Fayaz Hussain. His statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was not recorded. The house was identified by Fayaz Hussain. He personally did not know that the house belonged to the accused. On the way to the house of accused, the head of the team enquired about the house of Mohammad Aslam. A person sighted the house from a distance. He does not know the name of that person. He does not know whether the statement of that person was recorded or not. On the way to the house of accused, the head of the team enquired about the house of Mohammad Aslam. A person sighted the house from a distance. He does not know the name of that person. He does not know whether the statement of that person was recorded or not. He does not know where that person had gone. The Magistrate personally searched them. He prepared a memo and has not seen that memo in the Court. Seizure of documents and cheque book was made. Cheque books belonged to different Banks and does not know how many were these in number. He has not seen them today. He does not know what was written about the cheque books in the seizure memo. He does not know what was written in other seizure memos (7) PW 7 Ghulam Mohi din has stated that on 27.5.97 he was posted as selection grade constable in VOK. Fayaz Ahmed was the I.O in the present case. The team was headed by Fayaz Hussain and G.M. Bhat was the Magistrate in the team. They went to Hydeipora where the accused was residing. When they reached there, the wife of accused was present. They sought permission from her and went inside the house. The domestic goods were seized and a list was prepared and the items were given on superdnama to Rosha Ara. On the objection of the counsel for the accused that the witness has not signed the seizure memo, therefore his statement cannot be recorded, was put for determination at the time of final arguments. The house was identified by I.O concerned. On cross examination he has stated that he is from police department and is on deputation in VOK. Likewise Fayaz Ahmed I.O is also from police and on deputation in VOK. The other members of the team were also from police department. He knows the accused from the time he was Director Estates but has not visited his home. He did not know the house of the accused. He had not associated in secret enquiry. He has heard about secret enquiry from the office and does not remember from whom he heard about this. (8) PW-8 Mushtaq Ahmed is the head constable in VOK, he also went to the house of accused along with the team and has stated that domestic items were seized there. He had not associated in secret enquiry. He has heard about secret enquiry from the office and does not remember from whom he heard about this. (8) PW-8 Mushtaq Ahmed is the head constable in VOK, he also went to the house of accused along with the team and has stated that domestic items were seized there. On cross examination he has stated that he did not know the address of the house of the accused. They were seven persons. On 10.10.95 seizures were affected and memos were prepared. (9) PW-9, Ilham Naseem, deposed that in October 1997 he was posted as Manager Electronics in SIDCO. He has prepared report, with. respect to the assessment of electronic gadgets present in the residence of the accused and submitted to the vigilance commissioner along with a letter. It contains two leaves and is in his hand, is exhibited as Expw IN, and Expw IN/1. As per his assessment the cost of electronic goods came to Rs.64,450/-. On cross examination deposed that he had not visited the residence of accused before October l997.He does not know whether the house was the property of accused alone or his brother or other share holders were residing in the said house. He does not know the wife of accused. He does not know that the wife of the accused is a public servant. He assessed the cost of a item as per model and where the model was not written on the item he assessed it as per experience. In average, in Kashmir every house has electronic gadgets from 30 to 40,000/- rupees. He cannot say whether any assessed item was non-functional, however, some could have been non-functional. (10) PW 10 Ghulam Mohammad Shah has deposed that in the month of July 1997 he was posted as Project Manager in NDP. He knows the accused present in the Court. He was taken to the house of accused by the I.O where he was shown some textile items and he was told to evaluate them. He prepared a list and made measurement of the items and prepared estimated cost for these items. Thereafter he furnished the evaluation report to the VOK. He has seen it today in the Court. It is dated 22.7.97. It is correct and is exhibited as Expw-GM. The textile items mention of which is made in Expw GM, in total valued Rs.68,240/-. Thereafter he furnished the evaluation report to the VOK. He has seen it today in the Court. It is dated 22.7.97. It is correct and is exhibited as Expw-GM. The textile items mention of which is made in Expw GM, in total valued Rs.68,240/-. On cross examination, he has stated that he is graduate in Textile engineering and has national diploma. He has received an order from Government to assist the VOK; however, he has not brought the said order in the Court. I.O identified the house of the accused and also identified the items for assessment. For the items which he has mentioned in Expw GM, he has not maintained any record. Item no, 1 mentioned in Expw GM was four years old at the time of assessment. He has assessed the rates of the items 1 to 32 as per the age of the item. Nowadays woollen wall-to-wall furnishing costs from 25 to 40 rupees per sq. ft. Its cost is assessed as per the weight. He has not mentioned the quality or the weight in his report. He is not able to say the quality and the weight of the carpets, because he has not mentioned the specification of these three items. Light weight carpet costs less. Likewise the cost of curtains could be different. The crewel embroidered curtains costs as per the embroidery work. He has given the specification of the curtains. Pillows are also different kinds like Dunlop, polyphone and the cost is assessed as per the specification which he has not given. He has given the minimum cost. The pillows made of waste polyphone, costs hundred rupee. He has put the depreciation on all the items but has not mentioned in his report Expw GM. Depreciation is given on the basis of the particular item. The items mentioned in the Expw GM were having different ages but he has not mentioned the age of each item in his report Expw GM. (11) PW 11 Abdul Salam Bhat has stated that he has worked in Joinery Mill Pampore for 40 years. On 9.9.97 he along with the investigating officer went to the house of accused where he inspected the furniture and assessed the same to the sum of Rs.16,050/-. He handed over the valuation report to I.O. It is exhibited as Expw ASP. On 9.9.97 he along with the investigating officer went to the house of accused where he inspected the furniture and assessed the same to the sum of Rs.16,050/-. He handed over the valuation report to I.O. It is exhibited as Expw ASP. On cross examination he has stated that he is matriculate and has not got any training for making the furniture items or for having assessing its valuation. The I.O informed him that the furniture belongs to the accused Mohammad Aslam Wani. He assessed the furniture articles on the basis of rates prevalent in the year 1997. There was old as well as new furniture. He has not detailed the items in his report Expw ASB. It is also correct that if old furniture is polished it gives a look like new one. He prepared the valuation on the basis of notings which he has not seen today. There could be variation of 20% in his valuation report. (12) PW 12 Mohammad Sultan Mir is the Executive Engineer. He has stated that he was posted as Asstt Executive Engineer in VOK, in the year 1997. During the investigation of the present case, on the advice of I.O he inspected the house of accused at Hyderpora. He has assessed the construction-cost of the said house. He prepared the valuation report with index plan and furnished to the I.O. It is correct and exhibited as Expw MSM and Expw MSM/I. As per his assessment accused has incurred Rs.4.85 lacs on the construction of the house. On cross examination he has stated that the I.O identified the house, as of the accused. He has not obtained the building permission to see that in whose name the permission had been granted for construction. He has not also obtained the revenue documents to ascertain as to on whose land the construction of house was made. He acted upon the information furnished to him by the I.O. He is B.E (c). He inspected the house in question on 9.9.97 and thereafter furnished the assessment report to the I.O, however he does not remember and cannot say the date of handing over of report to the I.O. Whatever measurement he has done on the spot he has reflected the same in Expw MSM and Expw MSM/I.At the time of assessment he had made noting for preparing report. It is true that the house had a shabby look at the time of inspection. He has not tendered any statement before the I.O. (13) PW 13 Manzoor Ahmed Mir has stated that he was posted as Patwarl Halqa Bagat Barzulla in the year 1990. He furnished the copy of mutation no 31 and 46 with respect to one Kanal of land comprising under Khasra no. 801-min to the I.O during the investigation of the present case. As per the mutation the land was alienated in the name of Mohammad Aslam, accused present in the Court. The mutation is in his hand and is correct. On the objection of counsel for the accused that the revenue extract is the copy as such not admissible in evidence. Subject to final arguments, the extract is exhibited as Expw MA. Copy of mutation no 2115 with respect to one Kanal and three Marlas of land comprising under survey no 801 is also in his hand. He has copied it from the original register and has put a note on it to this effect. As per this mutation the land is alienated in the name of Roshan Ara wife of accused. It is exhibited as Expw MA,/l. The extract of Jamabandi with respect to Khewat no 119 for land l9 Kanals 1 Marla under Khewat no 79 Khasra 801, with regard to one Kanal of land, is in his hand and was prepared as per the original record and is already exhibited as Expw MA and Expw MA/I. The mutation no 2904 mentions transfer of land from Ghulam Nabi to Ghulam Ahmed, Mohammad Aslam, Mohd Yousuf and Manzoor Ahmed. However mutation no. 2903 with respect to land measuring one Kanal 2 Marlas under Khasra no 1245/793 of Ghutam Nabi son of sidiq (share holder) was alienated to lMohammed Yousuf, Mohammad Aslam and Manzoor Ahmed, as being the sons. The extract of Jamabandi is as per original and is exhibited as Expw MA/2. On cross examination the witness has stated that it is correct that there is no mention of comparison of Intikhab Jamabandi Expw MA/2 with original. He has not seen the original record of Expw MA and Expw MA/2 in the Court. The extract of Jamabandi is as per original and is exhibited as Expw MA/2. On cross examination the witness has stated that it is correct that there is no mention of comparison of Intikhab Jamabandi Expw MA/2 with original. He has not seen the original record of Expw MA and Expw MA/2 in the Court. Ghulam Nabi the father of accused had 4Kanals 15 Marlas of land in Bagat Barzulla vide Expw MA and Expw MA/2, however this land came to the share of the father of accused under Khewat no. 19. Khewat 79 has no mention of the father of accused. This land measuring four Kanals and 15 Marlas devolved upon the accused and his three brothers. Besides, from four Kanals and 15 Marlas of land the father of accused had one Kanal and 2 Marlas under Khasra no. 1245/792 which was gifted to the accused and his three brothers as per mutation no 1903. Village Hyderpora did not fall in his jurisdiction, however he knows that the father of the accused had landed property in the said village. (14) PW 14 Shagufta Parveen has stated that she Is doing a business. In 1994 she purchased a flat in Vasant Kunj Delhi and is presently in her possession. Then said she sold the flat through property dealer. She does not remember whether any document was executed. She has passed T.D.C and can read and sign. She was shown photostat of a document. The witness expressed that she could identify signature only on original one. She does not know the accused nor can identify him. VOK people did not ever ask her about the flat. On cross examination she has deposed that the flat was sold through a property dealer and her husband negotiated regarding the sale of the flat with the said dealer. (15) PW 15 Mohammad Anwar Mir has stated that he knows the accused because he is a local officer. Mst Shagufta is his wife. He does not know anything about the case. His wife had a flat no 7136 in Delhi and they sold it through a property dealer Kuldeep Sharma. He does not know to whom the flat was sold. However, they received the money from Kuldeep Sharma. Flat was registered in the name of his wife. VOK people searched his house in 1997. His wife had a flat no 7136 in Delhi and they sold it through a property dealer Kuldeep Sharma. He does not know to whom the flat was sold. However, they received the money from Kuldeep Sharma. Flat was registered in the name of his wife. VOK people searched his house in 1997. The list of the items seized from his house is with VOK. He was not present at the time of search. He does not know whether there was any document of accused in his house. When his house was searched, his wife was present there. The flat was in their possession. He was not called by the VOK people nor has given any statement. He has not told VOK that they have sold the flat to Mohammad Aslam. On cross examination he has stated that a FIR has been lodged against him in VOK. (16) PW 17 C.L. Gupta has stated that he has been living in Delhi since childhood. D.D.A had allotted a flat no D/7-7258 to him in 1987 and because of his hardship he sold the sold flat to D.N. Mehra in 1996. He does not know what D.N. Mehra did to the said flat. The flat is located in Vasant Kunj and he does not know where said Mehra is presently living. He also does not know who is living in the said flat presently. At the time of executing of power of attorney, a possession letter and some receipts were signed by him in favour of D.N. Mehra. (17) PW 18 Rajinder Kumar has deposed that he knows the accused by face and not by name. He (witness) was putting up in Banaras in the year 1997 but used to visit Delhi where he was also putting up in flat no. 7252 in Vasant Kunj. He does not know Mr. D.N. Mehra who is alleged to be residing in flat no 7258. He does not know whether flat no.7258 is located there. He does not know anything about the accused. He does not know who owned the flat no 7258 and who purchased lt. He also does not know from whom it was purchased. The indemnity bond on the file dated 11.4.1997 does not bear his signature, however his name is mentioned in it. It is correct that Vigilance people did not come to him nor he was called by them. He also does not know from whom it was purchased. The indemnity bond on the file dated 11.4.1997 does not bear his signature, however his name is mentioned in it. It is correct that Vigilance people did not come to him nor he was called by them. Likewise the rent agreement dated 11.4.1997 on the file does not bear his signature; however his particulars are mentioned in it. He has seen the possession letter dated 11.4.1997 on the file which bears his particulars; however his signature is not on it. On cross examination he has deposed that he had purchased flat no 7252 in the year 1990 in the name of his son for Rs. 3.00 lacs. In 1999 he purchased another flat no. 7001 which is situated in Vasant pur. It was purchased by him for Rs. 9.00 lacs. It has five bed rooms and three bath rooms with balcony, dinning and drawing rooms. Bed room is 12x15' or l4x12' in size. His niece had also purchased a flat in Vasantpur. Both of them purchased flats separately in 1990-91. It was purchased for 3.25 lacs. He can read English. The documents which were shown to him have no date. He was having a shop in Amira Kadal under the name of Banaras Silk House and had another shop in Regal Chowk with the similar banner. When he was carrying on business here he could have seen the accused. He is income tax payer. The flat which he purchased in 1997, with such dimensions were sold to 4 to 5 lac rupees. The flats are constructed by Delhi Development Authority in Vasantkunj. (18) PW 19 Yogesh Chopra has stated he does not know the accused. He has no knowledge about the purchase of flat by the accused. Vigilance people did not come to him. The receipts dated 4.2.94 and 7.3.97 on the file were shown to the witness. The witness has stated that those receipts were not signed by him. However, the name of the witness mentioned in them is correct. He does not know D.N. Mehra. He puts up in flat no. 7257. Nobody resides in flat no. 7258 which is vacant for years. He does not know who is the owner of flat no 7258. He has been putting up there for fourteen years and since then flat no. 7258 is vacant. He does not know D.N. Mehra. He puts up in flat no. 7257. Nobody resides in flat no. 7258 which is vacant for years. He does not know who is the owner of flat no 7258. He has been putting up there for fourteen years and since then flat no. 7258 is vacant. He has a factory in Ludhiana and uses to visit there. His family puts up in flat no 7257. Flat no 7258 is 200 feet away from his flat. It is located in another building. He does not know who is putting up in flat no 7256. On cross examination he has stated that he has purchased the flat in 1990-91 for about 3.00 lacs. He does not know what is the current rate of the flats there. (19) PW 21 Ms. Naseema Lanker has stated that she was posted as Director Tourism Kashmir in Nov. 1997. She received a communication from VOK for furnishing pay details of Mrs. Roshan Ara, Lady Receptionist in Tourism Department. He sent the details containing eight leaves, as per the record. Along with letter no PF/476/2151/KD dated 25.11.97. Page 8 bears her signature: The letter along with eight leaves of pay details is marked as Expw NL. The pay details are from 4/77 to 9/93. The statement bears the signature of Accounts officer. It was prepared on the basis of the record. On cross examination has stated that the statement was not prepared by her. The I.O may have asked for this period only for which the statement was sent. The official was transferred to SKICC vide no. 164/TSM/GM dated 29.9.93, thereafter pay details from that date could not be given. She knows the official as a colleague and her husband. She also knows that the family has business undertakings as well. (20) PW 22 Ghulam Hassan Khan has stated that he was posted as Branch Manager of State Bank in Tourist Centre Branch. He received a letter bearing no. 28/95-FH-VOK dated 9.12.1997 from the investigating officer VOK. On receipt of the letter he checked the ledger balance of account no. 7/1212 operated by Roshan Ara wife of Mohammad Aslam and replied on the reverse of the said letter along with his signature and the seal of the Bank. He received a letter bearing no. 28/95-FH-VOK dated 9.12.1997 from the investigating officer VOK. On receipt of the letter he checked the ledger balance of account no. 7/1212 operated by Roshan Ara wife of Mohammad Aslam and replied on the reverse of the said letter along with his signature and the seal of the Bank. As per the information the account was opened on 31.3.1988 and on 31.5.L997 an amount of Rs.75,437.45 were at the credit of the account. It is exhibited as Expw GHK. On cross examination he has stated that he did not prepare the statement of account of the above account. Statement of account shows the details of deposit and the withdrawals. He has not seen the Banks ledgers today in the Court. He has furnished information as how many deposits- or withdrawals were made from the account. It is on the record that Roshan Ara is the wife of accused. He has not mentioned the name of the account holder in his reply nor has mentioned that it is the wife of the accused, however, he replied to the letter of I.O. (21) PW-24 Mohammed Ashraf Butt deposed that he was posted as Post Master In Tourist Reception Centre Branch of Post Office. During the investigation of the instant case Fayaz Hussain of V0J came to his office and asked for details about the saving account of Roshan Ara wife of Mohammad Aslam Lalgaroo who had the account bearing no. 1055892 in the said post office and he furnished a statement of the account to said Fayaz Hussain. Said statement is on the file and is in his hand and signed by him. It relates the period from 5.1.94 to 12.11.96. Roshan Ara used to make deposits in the said account occasionally. On the objection of the counsel for the accused that the statement does not bear the certificate in terms of section 4 of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, the witness stated that the record from which the statement was prepared is available in the post office. He was posted as post Master from 5.1.1994 to 12.11.96 in T.R.C. branch. Record relating to account no 1055892 of TRC branch is lying presently in General Post office. He cannot produce the same because he was transferred. He was posted as post Master from 5.1.1994 to 12.11.96 in T.R.C. branch. Record relating to account no 1055892 of TRC branch is lying presently in General Post office. He cannot produce the same because he was transferred. On 1.12.2008 the witness in his examination by CPO has stated that he is presently posted as Post Master post office Buchpora. The concerned record was called from G.P.O. The certificate on the file is in his hand and under his signature. After tallying with the original the entry was found true and correct. Certificate is exhibited as EXT. P24. As per the record the deposits made in account no. 1055892 from 5.01.1994 to 12.11.96 were about Rs. 1.10 lacs. None of the entry in the record is in his hand. From 1994 to 1996 he was the Post Master of Branch TRC and also the incharge of the office. He used to make the entry of deposits thereafter the record used to be sent to GPO where the concerned clerk used to make inventory in his records. He has seen the record of G.P.O. today. The entries with regard to deposits he had made in TRC gutted in fire, in the year 2005. On cross examination he deposed that certificate EXT P24 has complete particulars of account holder and address. After comparing the certificate with the original record only Roshan Ara is mentioned in it and its complete address is not entered. The record on which basis EXT P24 was issued, had gutted in fire so he has not seen that record today. Entry is dated 6.10.94 as reflected in certificate EXT P24 but as per the record in the Court it is dated as 6/8/x. It means that the transaction of 6th date has been entered on 8th in G.P.O and the year is not mentioned but the year is mentioned in the first entry. He cannot say who has made the entry in GPO. It is correct that one copy of deposit is maintained in the post office and another copy goes to GPO on which basis they maintain the record. The copy which goes to G,P.O used to be in his hand and that record remains in G.P.O. On further examination by CPO stated that he cannot produce the copy which he had sent to G.P.O because he is not posted there. The copy which goes to G,P.O used to be in his hand and that record remains in G.P.O. On further examination by CPO stated that he cannot produce the copy which he had sent to G.P.O because he is not posted there. The witness further stated that the requisite record is not available in the GPO. In this behalf Ajay Kumar, Complainant Inspector submitted a letter. In this behalf statement of said Ajay Kumar has been recorded in which he has stated that as per the court order letter bearing No B/Misc/Court-case/08 dated 6.12.2008 is being submitted before the court in which it is mentioned that the requisite record stands weeded out, therefore cannot be produced. (22) PW-25 Rajesh Puri has stated that in year 1997 he was an officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vasant Kunj Delhi. The statement of account in the name of M. Aslam bearing account no 4317 on the file was issued by him. It is the true copy of the ledger and bears his signature. It is exhibited as Exp RP. Nowadays he is posted in Greater Kailash part II branch of the Bank. On cross examination he has stated that the last balance as shown in the statement is Rs. 16712l-. He was junior Management Officer in the Bank. He had the authority to issue and sign the copy of statement of accounts but he can not cite the rule of the Bank. Mr. D.P. Porada was the then Branch Manager. He (witness) marked the date, and the seal of the Bank, as 26.05.97. Mr. Porada was not present on that date. His signature is in red ink. The entries were taken by him from the ledger and are in his hand. The ledger was in his charge. He has not mentioned to whom he Issued the same. The certificate (u/s 4 of Bankers Book of Evidence Act) is not issued on the statement. (23) PW-26 R.K. Chowdhery has stated that he was posted as Senior Manager Allahabad Bank Sindhia House Delhi on 29th of May 1997 where he joined in Feb. 1995. On, 29.2.96 Mohammad Aslam approached said Bank for opening a saving Bank account. Same was opened and it had account no 111861. He had issued a copy of statement of account, which is on the file and bear his signature. The signature is exhibited as EXPW-RKC. 1995. On, 29.2.96 Mohammad Aslam approached said Bank for opening a saving Bank account. Same was opened and it had account no 111861. He had issued a copy of statement of account, which is on the file and bear his signature. The signature is exhibited as EXPW-RKC. The entries have been copied from the ledger maintained by the bank. The last balance shown was Rs.17,847/-. On cross-examination stated that when there were ledgers they used be in the charge of different officials/ Managers. He can not cite the rule under which he issued the statement of account. Perhaps some letter may have come on the basis of which statement may have been issued. He was not shown the letter. It is a computerized statement. On it nothing was written by him but only it was signed by him. It contains the endorsement “got without letter". The seal is in Hindi and in English. He has not given the certificate of its correctness but it is a true copy of the ledger. (24) PW-28 Mohammad Maqbool Ahanger has stated that he was posted as patwar Halqa Ferozpora Gulmarg from 96 to 2000. The accused has a Hotel in Gulmarg alongwith other partners. In this regard he was asked by the VOK to produce the record in the year 1998. He furnished the record in the shape of Jamabandi and Girdawari. Fard Girdawari with respect to no 671 in village Gulmarg is on the file. It is in his hand and is correct. It is exhibited as EXPW-MMA and EXPW-MMA/1. On cross-examination by the counsel for accused stated that the land under no 671 to the extent of 6Kanals 15 Marlas is a state land and is under the occupation of Haji Ghulam Mohammad, Ghulam Nabi, Haji Ghulam Rasool sons of Sidiq residents of Srinagar and Haji Mohammad Abdullah son of Subhan wani in equal shares. On the said land is a hotel of the above persons. The revenue record does not mention the name of Mohammad Aslam Wani with respect to said land. As per record there is no hotel of Mohammad Aslam wani. The above land is leased to the said persons. However, during the days he was patwari of the concerned village he used to visit the hotel. Haji Ghulam Nabi is the father of accused. He does not know whether the father of accused is dead or alive. As per record there is no hotel of Mohammad Aslam wani. The above land is leased to the said persons. However, during the days he was patwari of the concerned village he used to visit the hotel. Haji Ghulam Nabi is the father of accused. He does not know whether the father of accused is dead or alive. (25) PW-29 Ms. Nirmal S. has stated that in the year 1997 she was Notary public in DDA and as such used to attest affidavits, undertakings, agreements to sell etc. She has attested General power of attorney on the file. It bears her signature and seal. The execution of document was admitted by the executants and she attested it. She identifies her signature as Notary public and is exhibited as Expw NS. She has also attested the special power of attorney on the file after its execution was admitted. Her signature on the document is exhibited as Expw NS/1. Other two special power of attorneys also bear her signature exhibited as Expw NS/2, Expw NS/3 after the executants admitted their contents. Her signatures on indemnity bond exhibited as Expw NS/4 and on agreement to appoint arbitrator exhibited as Expw NS/5 is correct. She put signatures after contents of the document were admitted by the executants. Another Special Power of attorney bear her signatures as Notary Public and is exhibed as EXPW-NS-6 after the contents were admitted by the executants. She has seen the affidavit on the file and is signed by her has Notary. The signature is exhibited as Expw NS/7. Rent agreement on the file and agreement to sale and purchase were seen by her. Both these documents bear her signatures as public Notary. The signatures are exhibited as Expw NS/8 and Expw NS/9. The signatures were put only after the execution was admitted by the executants. Her signatures exhibited as EXPW-NS/10 on affidavits, EXPW-NS/11 on affidavit and Expw NS/12 Receipt, and on Expw NS/13, being Possession letter were attested by her after the contents of each document were admitted by the executants. At the time of attestation of the documents she sees signatures on the documents and Identity Cards. On cross examination she has stated that she has been Notary from 1990. She has not brought the Notary licence with her, however she has an identity card issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court. At the time of attestation of the documents she sees signatures on the documents and Identity Cards. On cross examination she has stated that she has been Notary from 1990. She has not brought the Notary licence with her, however she has an identity card issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The documents Expw NS, Expw NS/1 had some blanks and from the contents it cannot be ascertained as to who is the executant and in whose favour the documents have been executed. In whose favour the documents Expw NS and Expw NS/1 have been executed (executants) signatures are not on them nor the document has been accepted by the executant. Likewise is the position of documents Expw NS/2 and Expw NS/3. There is no identifying witness, attesting witness or the name of the person who has drafted the documents nor the signature of the person who has accepted the document. She has seen indemnity bond Expw NS/4, it has also blanks. On what basis Mr. D.N. Mehra has obtained the possession of flat no. 7259 this aspect has been left blank. The marginal witnesses have not put date under their signatures. There is no mention of the person who has scribed the documents. This document has been accepted by the person in whose favour it has been written. EXPW-NS/5 has also not been accepted by any person. In this document paras 1,3 4,5 and 6 are left blank. Expw NS/5 mentions the second party but there is no signature of the party. This document has not also been accepted by the person. The witness has been shown an Advocate However Notary has not been mentioned. She does not know T.N. Mehra and D.N. Mehra of Safdar Jung. EXPW-NS does not bear the signatures of any witness nor there is any witness on the document. There is also no identifying witness on it. She attested the document on the basis of identity card and has not mentioned that in the document. Expw NS does not bear the date of execution. She was not concerned with the contents of the document. EXPW- NS is a unilateral document and this document is not accepted by any body. Special power of attorney Expw NS/1 has no identifying or marginal witness nor the name of the person who has scribed it. None of the above documents bear the name of the scribe. She was not concerned with the contents of the document. EXPW- NS is a unilateral document and this document is not accepted by any body. Special power of attorney Expw NS/1 has no identifying or marginal witness nor the name of the person who has scribed it. None of the above documents bear the name of the scribe. Expw NS/6 does not bear the date in Para 1, which is blank, nor is there any identifying witness. Expw NS/7 does not bear any date in verification para nor is the mention of the person who has drafted it. Rent agreement Expw NS/8 Para 1 and 3 are blank and the name of the executant is also blank. There is no signature of 2nd party nor has the date of execution and the name of the person who has drafted it. Agreement to sell and purchase Expw NS/9 contains five pages and page l, 4 are blank. In paragraph 5 page 2 there is mention of consideration but amount is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that on what basis the executant had obtained the flat. On page 2 with respect to the consideration, all the columns have been left blank nor this document has attesting or identifying witness or the name of the person who has drafted it. EXPW-NS/10 has no mention of the date in the verification clause nor is there any identifying witness. There is no mention of the amount in Receipt Expw NS/12. She has only made attestation of the signature. Expw NS/12 does not bear the signature of second party. Expw NS/13 mentions second party but there is no signature of such party. D.N. Mehra has not been identified by any witness. The acceptance of second party is not on the document. (26) Pw-31 Danish Singh has stated that In May 1997 he was supervisor in Pocket 7 Residential welfare association Vasant Kunj. Presently he is the accounts supervisor there. The association has its office in pocket 7. In 1997 the president of the association was G.P. Jodayja and during those days only Broker could tell the rates of the flats. He has no knowledge about this. He does not know the accused. The witness was declared hostile. On cross examination stated that he is M.A. Hindi of the year 1998. In 1997 the president of the association was G.P. Jodayja and during those days only Broker could tell the rates of the flats. He has no knowledge about this. He does not know the accused. The witness was declared hostile. On cross examination stated that he is M.A. Hindi of the year 1998. He had the subjects of Hindu, Geography and Sanskrit in B.A. After G.P. Jodeyja, Mr. B.D. Sharma was the president and presently E.N.K. Krishen is the president. He had worked under these persons. He works as per the direction of president and Secretary. The flat holders have also their own association for welfare. In the year 1997 Secretary was Dr. S.C. Sharma followed by R.K. Lakheer and presently it is Mr. Jain Retired Wing Commander. He does not know D.N. Mehra. It is true that all the flats belong to DDA. He does not know whether in 1997 or nowadays any Kashmiri family lived in any flat. He does not know C.L. Gupta. The mention in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that in the year 1997 G.I had rate of more than 40.00 lacs is wrong. He has not given such statement. He has not said in his statement under section 161 that the flat no 7158 pocket 7 is of some Kashmiri Lalgaroo. He does not go inside the flats. If he is called by anybody he remains outside the flat. Every class of citizens live in the colony. He does not know what is the rate of a flat presently in Vasant Kunj because he has nothing to do with it. It is correct to say that officers and high ups live in the colony. On cross examination by counsel for the accused deposed that he is Dinesh Singh and showed his identity card issued on 24.5.97 by the Welfare association. In the year 1997 VOK people came there and thereafter in 2005 and also in March 2008 they came to him. In March 2008 they asked him about the flats. (27) PW-32 Abdul Rehman Dar Advocate has stated that he is functioning as Notary public from the year 1975. The document which was shown to him in the Court is a photocopy and not the original one so he can not say anything about this. On the request of CPO his statement was deferred. (27) PW-32 Abdul Rehman Dar Advocate has stated that he is functioning as Notary public from the year 1975. The document which was shown to him in the Court is a photocopy and not the original one so he can not say anything about this. On the request of CPO his statement was deferred. On his re-examination by CPO he stated that on the last date he was shown copy of the affidavit so he could not identify the signature. He can identify the signature only when he is shown the original one. The letter which was shown to him today bears his signature. It is correct and exhibited as Expw ARD. On cross examination he has stated that he has not mentioned the name of the addressee or for what purpose same has been written. He can not say as to why had to whom the letter was written. The letter does not bear any date. He has not mentioned the document about which he has written the wording. "The seal is mine but signature is not mine. He has not been shown the document i.e., power of attorney relating to Ghulam Ahmed Lalgaroo. If the original document is shown to him then he could say whether there is his signature on it or not. He does not remember on whose saying he has written the letter. On the top of the letter the word 'annexure, written in blank mark pen is not in his hand. (28) PW 33 Ghulam Hassan Rather has stated that he was posted as Inspector in VOK in the year 1995. He was assigned the investigation of case FIR 2B/95. During investigation he obtained the property statements of accused from the Home Department (Vigilance) through SSP VOK. Thereafter the investigation was assigned to Inspector Bashir Ahmed. Property statements on the file are same and are marked as Mark A to H. On cross examination he has stated that he has not prepared the seizure memo of the statements though it was to be prepared. As the documents were received through a letter so he did not prepare the seizure memo. He has conducted investigation of more than hundred cases relating to corruption. In his view Inspector can conduct the investigation in vigilance case. It is not correct that only Dy. S.P and higher officers can investigate these cases. As the documents were received through a letter so he did not prepare the seizure memo. He has conducted investigation of more than hundred cases relating to corruption. In his view Inspector can conduct the investigation in vigilance case. It is not correct that only Dy. S.P and higher officers can investigate these cases. He has no knowledge about section 3 of P.C.Act. (29) PW 34 Bashir Ahmed Dar has deposed that in the year 1996 he was posted as Inspector VOK. The investigation of the present case was conducted by Ghulam Hassan Rather and on his transfer was assigned to him. On 2nd July 1996 he was transferred and thus could not complete the investigation and could not investigation in the matter. He had called 2/3 Patwaris in his office but they did not turn up. (30) PW 35 Ghulam Mohi din Andrabi Dy. S.P. has stated that he was posted as inspector in the year 1995 in VOK. Initially the case FIR 28 of 1995 was assigned to Inspector B.A. Dar and on his transfer it was assigned to him for investigation. To this effect written order was issued by SSp. He examined the accused as he was not examined before. The accused told that he has property jointly with his brothers. The property was divided and a partition deed was reduced in writing. Accused told that he has filed the property statements properly, however the witness did not ascertain as to whether the accused had filed the property statements or not. FIR was lodged by the Government wherein it was mentioned that the accused had not filed the property statements. He wrote a letter to Tehsildar Srinagar for direction to concerned patwari to bring the record in his office but patwaries did not turn up. Thereafter the case was withdrawn from his charge and assigned to Fayaz Hussain for further investigation. On cross examination he has stated that he has not seen the letter today in the Court whereby he was assigned the investigation of the case. He had not recorded statement of any of the state official on whose basis the accusation was leveled against the accused that he has not filed the property statement. ((1) PW 36 Fayaz Hussain Nengroo has stated that he knows the accused. He was assigned the investigation of case FIR 28 of 1995. He had not recorded statement of any of the state official on whose basis the accusation was leveled against the accused that he has not filed the property statement. ((1) PW 36 Fayaz Hussain Nengroo has stated that he knows the accused. He was assigned the investigation of case FIR 28 of 1995. He started the investigation from the year 1997. Before him Ghulam Hassan Rather and Andrab were the investigating officers of the case. He was assigned the investigation on 27.5.97. During investigation documents regarding the flat were recovered from the house of Anwar at Hyderpora. These documents were seized while search was conducted in the house of Anwar Mir in case FIR 19 of 1997. After perusal of these documents the higher officers decided to search the house of accused in this case. A team was constituted by the orders of superior officers and under his command, independent witness and the team went to the house of accused. After obtaining permission from the inmates they started search of the house. During search they prepared the list of domestic items and seizure memo was prepared. The witnesses were made to sign the seizure memos Expw MAL and Expw MAL/1. These seizure memos are in his hand and signed by him. After the search and seizure of the items these were put on superdnama to Mst Roshan Ara wife of accused. It was reduced in writing, exhibited as Expw GMB. It is in his hand and is correct. However whatever documents they obtained on spot, were taken by them for investigation. The seized items were got assessed through experts who furnished reports separately and are on the file. Expw GM relates to textile items, Expw AS13 relates to furniture. Expw IN and Expw IN/1 relates to electronic gadgets. The house of accused was got assessed and the assessment report Expw MSH is on the file containing three leaves. During investigation it was found that the accused had purchased two Kanals of land in his name and in the name of his wife for Rs.80,000/- as Bagh-e-Hyderpora Hyderpora. In this behalf photocopy of sale seed was seized and revenue documents were obtained. Photocopy seized is-marked as A-61. Statement of Patwari was recorded. Site plan and Intikhab which was obtained from Patwari is on the file and exhibited as Expw MA and Expw MA/1. In this behalf photocopy of sale seed was seized and revenue documents were obtained. Photocopy seized is-marked as A-61. Statement of Patwari was recorded. Site plan and Intikhab which was obtained from Patwari is on the file and exhibited as Expw MA and Expw MA/1. Receipts regarding flat no 7136 in Vasant Kunj Delhi and flat no 7258 Vasant Kunj were investigated and it was found that flat no 7136 was purchased by accused in the year 1994 from Anwar Mir and had sold it in the year 1997. Flat no. 7258 was purchased by accused in the year 1997 from D.N. Mehra for Rs.40.00 lacs. Statements of witnesses regarding sale and purchase were recorded. Beside a car (maruti) bearing no JK01-8241 which was purchased by accused in the year 1993 was found in his possession. The invoice was obtained from Ansari Morors and is on the file. The registration certificate of the car was already seized. During investigation after obtaining the information regarding the income, assessment of the goods, house, assets and the expenditure incurred by him it was found that the accused had assets worth Rs.66,73,520/- when his income from all sources came to Rs.21,75,396/-. The income includes the salary of accused and of his wife for which pay statements were obtained. As per the family settlement deed the income from the two shops was also taken into consideration and in this behalf more than 4.00 lac rupees were taken into consideration. In spite of all this, accused was found to have assets disproportionate in the sum of Rs.44,98,123/-. The expenditure on the education of children, telephone bills, and for living was taken into account. Thereafter questionnaire was furnished to the accused for his explanation. The questionnaire is on the C.D file. The reply of the accused is on the C.D file. in reply to the questionnaire the accused had enclosed power of attorney by virtue of which the accused disclosed that the flat in Delhi was purchased by his brother and mother. He furnished the copy of power of attorney. He did not furnish the original one though he was asked for its production. He perused the documents produced by the accused and wrote to Mr. A.R. Dar, Notary whether he has put the seal and signature on it. He furnished the copy of power of attorney. He did not furnish the original one though he was asked for its production. He perused the documents produced by the accused and wrote to Mr. A.R. Dar, Notary whether he has put the seal and signature on it. In reply the Advocate wrote that the seal on the documents is his one, however the signature is not his. In this regard authenticate copy of register documents was obtained from the Revenue records. This register no where mentioned the document power of attorney registered. The copy was obtained by him on 3.7.97 because the document had the same date. He recorded the statement of Record keeper in old secretariat. He enquired from the record as to whether on the date 3.7.97 any power of attorney was entered in the register of documents. He expressed, that as per record no such document is entered. The power of attorney is on the case diaries. During investigation it was found that the accused had opened three accounts in three different Banks at Delhi details of which was, obtained during investigation. As per the statements the accused had not obtained any money from his brothers because the accounts do not mention any such entry. He has seen the statement obtained from Oriental Bank of commerce's account no 4317, Allahabad Bank's B.O. Scindia House account no SB 111961, Grindlays Bank Delhi account no 01S8p0130000. These are already exhibited as Expw Rp, Expw RXC and on the third account it is marked as Mark X. From these accounts one cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and another cheque for Rs.1.50 lacs was given to D.N. Mehra by the accused against flat no 7258 in lieu of receipt. He has obtained photocopies of both the cheques from the Banks. He has seen the photocopy of the cheque bearing no 000301 on the file and a certificate is affixed on its back given by the concerned Manager of the Bank. It is marked as Mark Y. He has seen the photocopy of cheque no 406970 on the file, it is marked as Mark Z. Despite his efforts he could not obtain the original cheques however he obtained statement of accounts from OBC Bank wherein mention of one cheque for Rs.1.50 lacs is made. The accused purchased flat no 7258 in Vasant Kunj from D.N. Mehra. The accused purchased flat no 7258 in Vasant Kunj from D.N. Mehra. He looked for D.N. Mehra but could not trace him. He went to the address which was mentioned on the documents but found that his relative G.N. Mehra was putting up there. D.N. Mehra was not there. He has mentioned this thing in case diaries. During investigation of case FIR 19, I.O. recovered two receipts for payment against the purchase of flat no 7258 in Vasant Kunj for an amount of 40.55 lacs, from the house of Anwar Mir and seized them. By virtue of receipt Mark A/1 D.N. Mehra had received Rs.3.00 lacs from accused Mohammad Aslam on 4.2.97 against the above said flat on account of part payment and through second receipt dated 7.3,97 D.N. Mehra had received 1.00 lac rupees. He recorded the statement of Yogesh Chopra witness to the receipt. FIR was lodged in 1995 and the accused was knowing that VOK people were investigating the matter and can raid any time to recover the documents so he put the documents in the house of his nearest friend who lives in Hyderpora. The photocopies of the documents which the accused provided do not mention the cost of the flat. Thereafter when the statement of Anwar Mir and his wife was recorded they disclosed that the accused had purchased the flat for 5.50 lacs. From January 1997 to April 1997 the accused made transaction of more than 16.00 lacs in his accounts in Delhi. The invoice of the car costing Rs.1,58,609.30 purchased by the accused was obtained by him from Ansari Motors, it is marked as Mark X/1. The children of accused got education in Burn Hall school. He got the details regarding fee from the said school which is on the file. It is marked as X/2, X/3 and X/4. He did not record the statement of principal of the school namely Brother Jacob because he had left the school. One of the sons of accused was studying in Childrens Academy International Massori Dehradun and to this effect he obtained a certificate which is marked as. X/5 and X/6. Said certificate was received by him through post. The receipts were recovered from the house of the accused during search which are accordingly marked as x/7 to X 10. Whatever information was received from the school that is on the file. X/5 and X/6. Said certificate was received by him through post. The receipts were recovered from the house of the accused during search which are accordingly marked as x/7 to X 10. Whatever information was received from the school that is on the file. He received letter no 1186187 dated 10.6.97 from Executive Engineer Electric; it is marked as Y/1. He obtained the information from the concerned department regarding the payment of telephone bills installed in the house of accused; it is marked as Y/2. He obtained information about the account of the wife of the accused maintained by her in SBI. As per the account Rs.75,437.65 is at her credit and is marked as Y/3. He has seen statement EXTP-24 which was obtained by him during investigation. Possession letter marked as EXPW-NS/13 was recovered by I.O in his presence from the house of Anwar Mir. Receipt EXPW-NS/12 was shown in order to conceal the black money. As per his investigation it proved that the photocopy of the documents which the accused had enclosed along with his reply were not correct but were fabricated in order to show that he being only qualified in the family, the documents were therefore, executed in his favour. When during investigation it revealed that the four brothers of accused reside separately and one of the brothers was a retired Dy.SP. As per his investigation prima facie it proved that the accused had committed offence under section 5(2) of PC Act and under section 12 and 14 of Public Servant of Declaration of Assets Act. Thereafter after completing the investigation he obtained sanction for prosecution and presented the challan before the Court. On cross-examination deposed that it is correct that he has conducted the investigation of the present case. The case was registered in 1995 and the investigation was assigned to him in May 1997. During the intervening period whatever investigation was conducted he is well aware of that. As an I.O of the case he has given statement twice in examination in chief. Whatever he has stated in those statements he remembers that. During investigation whatever documents were recovered from the house of Anwar Mir were not seized by virtue of seizure memo but mention was made in CD file. FIR No. 19 is registered against Anwar Mir and it was I.O of the case who recovered documents and made seizure thereof. Whatever he has stated in those statements he remembers that. During investigation whatever documents were recovered from the house of Anwar Mir were not seized by virtue of seizure memo but mention was made in CD file. FIR No. 19 is registered against Anwar Mir and it was I.O of the case who recovered documents and made seizure thereof. In this case no document was recovered from the house of Anwar Mir. He was not present when the search of the house of Anwar Mir was made. He does not know what was seized during the search of the house of Anwar Mir, however he has seen the seizure in the year 1997. During the investigation of this case he obtained the documents those were recovered from the house of Anwar Mir and attached with the challan however he did not made seizure of them. Legally saying, if any document is obtained during investigation seizure thereof is to be made but when the document is already seized in another case in that event it is not required to be seized again. Under rules if seizure is made in another case then it is not necessary to make its seizure again. He has no personal knowledge about the case but during investigation whatever evidence came in his way he proceeded in the investigation as per that. Since case was registered in 1995 and from 1995 upto 1997 accused used to come for investigation. On that basis he said that he (witness) was conversant about the case and that he (accused) had concealed the documents regarding his property in the house of his friend as was disclosed by Anwar Mir and his wife. The photocopy of the documents which were furnished by the accused with the questionnaire were not seized by him. He has not recorded the statement of the brothers of accused or of his mother because they were nearest relations of accused and could have stated in his favour. The Photostat of the documents that accused furnished with his reply did not mention the name of the scribe, however statement of the incharge of Record room was recorded. He verbally asked the accused to furnish the original documents. After the accused furnished the reply he was told to produce the original documents but he did not produce the same. The Photostat of the documents that accused furnished with his reply did not mention the name of the scribe, however statement of the incharge of Record room was recorded. He verbally asked the accused to furnish the original documents. After the accused furnished the reply he was told to produce the original documents but he did not produce the same. The accused produced the reply alongwith the documents, in person, however, he did not prepare the seizure memo of the same. He does not know the name of the Stamp vendor whose register (conveyance) was deposited in the record room and from where the verified copy of the document was obtained. The petition writer is not available in the Court and on verification he found that he has left the Court, he does not know his name. He has not mentioned his name in the case diaries. On question: if during investigation the documents produced by the accused with his reply were proved correct, was then case made out against the accused? In Answer: the witness stated that if the documents were proved to be correct even then the investigation was to be carried because that was a part of the investigation. Besides this accused had other allegations i.e. other properties, land, car, Bank transaction which was under investigation. As per the accused he had sold flat no. 7136 located in Delhi to Talib Hussain, as per the documents produced by the accused. On question: what were the documents accused produced about this fact. In answer: witness stated that the accused has different sources of income which includes family deed and the, documents relating to the sale of flat to Talib Hussain. Accused had produced photocopy of the sale deed of flat no 7136 which was not shown to him today in the Court. He has recorded the statement of witnesses to Expw NS/13. After going through the case diaries he said that only the statement of Rajinder Kumar was recorded. He could not trace witness S.P. Gupta. Q. On what basis you say that witness S.P. Gupta could not be traced. Ans. He went to the given address the said witness but he was not there. Perhaps his servant told that Gupta was not In home. He did not record statement of the servant. Besides this he had no evidence about the presence of Gupta in the home. Ans. He went to the given address the said witness but he was not there. Perhaps his servant told that Gupta was not In home. He did not record statement of the servant. Besides this he had no evidence about the presence of Gupta in the home. Q. On what basis you say that the receipt Expw NS/12 was shown because black money is not mentioned In it. Ans. He had enquired from the Notary and computer section which frames the deeds and the broker, Delhi Development Authority. He came to know that there were so many brokers but he did not record their statements but only enquired from them. He recorded the statement of S.S. Arora who runs the computer section. He did not record the statement of D.N. Mehra from whom the accused had purchased the flat because D.N. Mehra was not traced so his statement could not be recorded. He went, to the address of D.N. Mehra i.e. 1/13 Safdar Jung Development Area. Sh. G.N. Mehra was there who is relative of D.N. Mehra. He has mentioned this thing in case diaries. G.N. Mehra declined to give the statement and said that D.N. Mehra is a fraud person. In this behalf he did not record statement of any neighbor. During investigation he went to flat no. 7258 in Delhi, accused was alone present in the flat. He (witness) did not record statement of any person to the effect that accused was present in the flat because he had not to make identification parade. In this regard he recorded the statement of Rajinder Kumar. There was nobody present in the flat except accused. He found the accused in the flat on 9.11.97. The certificate on the cheque Mark Y was affixed and signed by R.K. Wahi (A.M). He had asked for a certified copy which was furnished on 8.11.97. He does not know when this photocopy was made. R.K. Wahi was not enlisted as witness; however accounts operator, was listed as witness. Cheque Mark Z does not bear any certificate. I.O asked the bank for certified copy but they furnished Photostat of statement of accounts wherein is the mention of cheque. Statement of account Expw RP bears the seal of the Bank but bears no certificate. He told the Bank officials for a certified copy but they played dilly dally tactics. Cheque Mark Z does not bear any certificate. I.O asked the bank for certified copy but they furnished Photostat of statement of accounts wherein is the mention of cheque. Statement of account Expw RP bears the seal of the Bank but bears no certificate. He told the Bank officials for a certified copy but they played dilly dally tactics. He himself obtained the statement of accounts mark z, from the Bank. He was not permitted to check the ledger. He told both the Banks to handover the original cheques but those were not given. He went many times to the Bank for obtaining the original cheques despite that those were not given. He did not talk to the higher officers in this behalf. He did not record the statement of Head of accounts-Incharge because he did not think it was necessary. He did not try to obtain the account opening forms from the Banks. He did not need them because the information provided by the Banks was sufficient. He was aware that Bankers certificate should be affixed on the Bank's document. Q. Whether the entries in the documents marked as X/2, to X/4, X/5 to X/6, 1/2 to Y/3 and X/7 to X/10, were correct or not. Ans. Since he obtained the information during investigation so he has no personal knowledge whether it was correct; however he did not check the record, on the basis of which information was given. He did not enquired whether official telephone was installed at the residence of accused in his capacity as Director Estates, Dy. Director estates and Executive officer SMC. However, the information gathered from BSNL do not mention that it was official telephone. He recorded the statement of BSNL official with respect to details Mark Y/2. He did not record the statement of Burn hall and Massori International school. He did not enquire about the writing 'first wife of Mohammad Aslam in Mark Y, from the Bank. The family settlement deed was produce by the accused during investigation was treated to be correct. The income of the accused from family settlement was accounted for. The profit of Rs.35,000/- which the accused had earned, from Postal Life insurance was treated as his income. He has seen the letter dated 26.6.97 received from Assistant post Master General, it is marked as mark D. As per this letter policy no. The income of the accused from family settlement was accounted for. The profit of Rs.35,000/- which the accused had earned, from Postal Life insurance was treated as his income. He has seen the letter dated 26.6.97 received from Assistant post Master General, it is marked as mark D. As per this letter policy no. 289790-C had maturity value of Rs.76,214/- on 12.12.95. The interest amount of the above was treated as income. The G.P. Fund withdrawals by the accused was also treated as income. During investigation he found that the electronic items, furniture items and furnishing items were purchased by the accused occasionally and not at a time. The accused was asked to produce the bills of the items but he did not furnish it. Since the accused did not provide the bills of the items therefore the experts did not consider the depreciation at the time of assessment. He had gone to the house of accused alongwith Engineering expert and went to the attic of the house where timber was used, but he can not say the kind of timber. This can be said by the expert. He had not made market survey with any of the experts. He did not record the statements of the brothers of the accused regarding family settlement. He produced the challan of the case before the Court and prepared the list of witnesses himself. He submitted the whole record to the sanctioning authority that was obtained during investigation. Index was prepared and case was sent for sanction. That Index is not the part of challan so he can not see it in the Court. Q. On what basis you can say that index can not be made part of the challan. Ans. At the time of submitting the documents to the sanctioning authority an index is prepared for temporary arrangement, so it is not made part of the challan. On re-examination by CPO stated that FIR was lodged at the time when Mirza Hamid was SSP who has passed away. Because Mirza Hamid Iqbal has remained his SSP so he can identify his signature which is exhibited as EXT.P/I.O. On examination by counsel for the accused stated that he was posted in VOK in the year 1996. 11. This is the whole resume of the prosecution evidence in the main challan. Because Mirza Hamid Iqbal has remained his SSP so he can identify his signature which is exhibited as EXT.P/I.O. On examination by counsel for the accused stated that he was posted in VOK in the year 1996. 11. This is the whole resume of the prosecution evidence in the main challan. Apart from this, the six more witnesses out of nine listed witnesses produced in support of the supplementary challan reads as under : (1) PW-1 Satpaul Gupta has stated that he has been living in Narain Vihar Delhi for twenty years. He does not know the accused in Court nor has ever seen him. Possession letter Expw NS/8 which is shown to him is signed by him and it seems that it is his signature. He runs a factory in Delhi for forty years. A person namely Ravi Kumar used to come to him in connection with business so they became friends and it is on his saying that he signed the possession letter. He knows English. He is Graduate from Meerut College. He put his signature on the possession letter but there was no other signature on it at that time. CPO declared the witnesses hostile. On cross examination by CPO stated that he had issued blank cheques in good faith. He knows many people in his contact but depends on some of them. When he signed the possession letter he did not go through its contents. Ravi Kumar was his close friend, he came with these papers and he (witness) signed them because he was a competent person. Ravi Kumar told him that will get the signatures of other parties later. He has worked in Gandola Gulmarg in the year 1980. He has worked in this Government Project. He has also constructed a building for JK Bank in Jammu. For these works raw material used to come from Delhi. He does not know any Anwar Mir. He started his Factory in Delhi in the year 1973. He fabricates doors and windows of Aluminum. Ravi Kapoor was a salesman. He had given half of the factory premises to him on rent where he was fabricating garments for exports to Japan. He used to come there. He knows Ravi Kapoor from 1993. He signed because having faith in Ravi Kapoor but he did not ask as to in what capacity he is signing. Ravi Kapoor was a salesman. He had given half of the factory premises to him on rent where he was fabricating garments for exports to Japan. He used to come there. He knows Ravi Kapoor from 1993. He signed because having faith in Ravi Kapoor but he did not ask as to in what capacity he is signing. He does not know any Rajinder Kumar. Document Expw NS/4 and Expw NS/5 is signed by him. He has signed so many documents like these. On the objection raised by the counsel for defence, witness can not be shown the documents because there is no mention of these documents in the supplementary challan. Subject to final arguments on that point, the witness stated that on the saying of Ravi Kapoor he signed the papers. Presently also there was no signature on these documents. He did not think that those documents could be used against him. He worked in Gandola Project in the year 1990 and 2000. On cross examination he has deposed that on 20.11.2008 VOK people came to him which include Mr. Ganjoo and Mr. Drabu. They showed him a Photostat copy. On that day. it was marriage ceremony of his son and he had guests around. He told the VOK whatever they want to write, he will sign it. He does not remember whether the I.O. inquired about D.N. Mehra or not. In 1997 VOK people came to him from Jammu Kashmir. They inquired about this case. (2) PW-2 Mr. R.K. Wahi, has stated that he was not posted in Srinagar in any Bank. Standard Chartered Bank was previously known as ANZ Grindlays Bank. Its Branch was in Sheerwani Road, Amira Kadal. The Bank was known as ANZ Grindlays in the year 1995-96. It has a Delhi Branch at 10 Sansad Marg. He was posted as officiating Manager in this Bank in the year 1993. ANZ Grindlays Bank was taken over by Standard Chattered Bank in April 2000. All the ledgers and documents came into the possession of the Standard Chattered Bank. In April 2002 he was Manager Material services in Delhi and is presently in the same capacity. Their Bank was computerized from 1987. The details of the accounts of the depositors is computerized in ledger format. Manual ledger is not maintained but it is a computerized ledger. In April 2002 he was Manager Material services in Delhi and is presently in the same capacity. Their Bank was computerized from 1987. The details of the accounts of the depositors is computerized in ledger format. Manual ledger is not maintained but it is a computerized ledger. The details are fed in the account of a customer and its details are printed out. The cheques, deposits slips, cash deposit slips and cheques are fed in the account of a customer. VOK people came to their Bank in October. He has seen letter dated 16.10.2008. It is correct and is signed by him and bears the seal of the Bank. It is exhibited as EXTP.2. Normally the old record is weeded out after nine years. Cheque with respect to account no 01SBP1300000 has also been weeded out. The account is in the name of Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. VOK people came again there and demanded statement of account of this account. He furnished the statement of account to Mr. Bushan Kumar I.O with regard to the account of Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. The letter is correct and bears his signature and seal of the Bank. He has mentioned in the letter "as available in our records" which means that the copy is computerized print out. Letter is exhibited as EXT.P2. Statement of account is same that is furnished with the letter. He does not remember who was the official, who provided these details. As per this statement of account from 4.1.1997 to 31.3.1997 Rs.9,21,598.64 were deposited which include the Interest of Rs.1598.64. This statement of account pertains to account no 01SBP0130000 of Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. As per this statement of account on 7.2.1997 Rs.50,000/- were withdrawn vide cheque no 000301. He has given the statement to the I.O and has signed the same. The date i.e. 31.12.96 mentioned in the statement of account was put on it after obtaining the print out. The cut out date is given as was required. He gave the certificate on statement of account to I.O on 24.11.2008. On cross examination by counsel for accused stated that the record for the years 1997, 98, 99 was available in the Bank on the basis of which computer was given feedback. The details mentioned in statement marked as EXT.P 2/2 are based on deposit slips/deposit cheques concerned. He has not himself made any entry in computer regarding the statement. On cross examination by counsel for accused stated that the record for the years 1997, 98, 99 was available in the Bank on the basis of which computer was given feedback. The details mentioned in statement marked as EXT.P 2/2 are based on deposit slips/deposit cheques concerned. He has not himself made any entry in computer regarding the statement. He cannot say when the entries were fed in the computer, whether it was working properly or not. In the year 1999 the computer system was upgraded to CBS system from Bank Master System i.e. computer application system. The entries mentioned in statement of account EXT P2/2 are as per Bank Master Computer system. The statement EXT.P/2 was printed out in 1999 before the system was upgraded and the statement EXT P2/2 is the photocopy of the print out. I.O was furnished the copy of print out which was obtained in 1997. The print out obtained in 1997 from the computer does not bear any certificate as to whether the print out was correct or not because it is not mentioned there. He has seen digital signature but can not explain it. He can not say who obtained the print out in 1997 from the computer. It is correct that in every Bank there is a particular section for maintenance of the computer system. Credit means deposit. In statement EXT P2/2 all the deposits have been made through cheques. It can not be said from which account the cheque was debited however it had come through clearance. (3) PW-3 Satesh Kumar Parecha has stated that on 22.10.2008 he was posted as Branch Manager of OBC Branch Vasant Kunj. He has seen letter no nil dated 22.10.2008. It is signed by him and its contents are correct. As per this letter cheque no. 406970 dated 3.1.97 is not traceable from the Bank records. This reply is given with respect to cheque no. 406970 because he was asked only about this cheque. The letter is exhibited as EXT P3. He has received a fax from VOK wherein he was asked about account nos 4397 or 4937 which is in the name of some M. Aslam. On cross examination he has stated that he was posted in June 2008 in Vasant Kunj Branch. He is working as Branch Manager since 2002. Saving account is one's individual account. He has received a fax from VOK wherein he was asked about account nos 4397 or 4937 which is in the name of some M. Aslam. On cross examination he has stated that he was posted in June 2008 in Vasant Kunj Branch. He is working as Branch Manager since 2002. Saving account is one's individual account. It can be in one's name or in the name of more persons. If any customer has a balance of Rs.1000/- at his credit in saving account he cannot withdraw Rs.100/- from the said account. (4) PW-6, Uday Kumar, has stated that he was posted as A.G.M. in Vijay Bank Branch Delhi Cantt. VOK approached them and requested for a statement of account of an individual and same was furnished to VOK. Letter dated 6.12.2008 was shown to him and he has gone through the contents of letter and bears his signature. He furnished statement of account to the I.O by virtue of this letter. The letter is exhibited as EXPT/6. He has seen three page statement of account pertaining to A/c no. 6157, at that time operated by Davinder Mehra. The details of the account no 6157 could not be printed on one page that is why on second occasion the details of account were printed on two pages and, also because there was no space to put his certificate on first page. On 7.2.97, as per system generated statement a cheque no 406970 for Rs.1273303 1.50 lacs was deposited in clearing in the account of Mr. Mehra, means this cheque had been deposited in the account of Mr. Mehra and cleared. On the same date cheque bearing no 301 for Rs.50,000/- had been deposited and credited in the same account. As to why only three digits are mentioned in the cheque 301 whereas rest of the cheques are having more than three digits, the witness answered that either the cheque has only having three numbers or the digits on the left side of the cheque have no relevance or it may be a clerical error and numbers may not have been fed to the system. Normally cheques have 6 to 7. digits numbers and if those numbers are 000 same would not be counted or it may not be fed to the computer. It is not possible for me to give, the details of these two clearing cheques from the statement. Normally cheques have 6 to 7. digits numbers and if those numbers are 000 same would not be counted or it may not be fed to the computer. It is not possible for me to give, the details of these two clearing cheques from the statement. That can be verified from the records if the details of the clearance of the cheques are available in the Bank because it is an old record. I have put my certificate on the last page of statement as per practice in the Banks. Certificate bears my signature and seal of the Bank. Certificate is true, correct. Ledger accounts means the statement of account available in the system because there are no manual ledgers in the Bank. On cross examination by defence counsel stated that in his letter exhibited as EXT.P/6 he has mentioned letter dated 6.12.08 addressed to him by the I.O which was not shown to him in the Court. He was working in Delhi cantt Branch from Feb. 2008. He was not posted in the said branch when the information contained in statement EXT P. 6/1 were put to the system. The address of the account holder as per the statement of account is 274/303 No. 4/52 Gopi Nath Bazar Delhi Cantt. The parentage of account is not recorded in the statement. He can not give the exact date when Vijay Bank Delhi Cantt was computerized. On 7.12.97 the Bank was computerized. He says so because they had derived this statement from the system. There is no designated officer who looks after the computer system because every body knows the application of the system. There was no reason for him to believe whether on 7.2.1997 computer was not functioning properly or any other date. On a question as to what were the deposits in the account no 6157 between 24.1.96 to 11.4.1996. as per EXT.P6/1 the witness replied that there was no deposit between the above date as per the statement of account. On 24.1.96 the balance in the account has been shown Rs.22,351/- and on the same date Rs.10,000/- have been 'withdrawn and balance was shown Rs.12,351. On 9th of April 1996 Rs.13,900/- have been withdrawn and the balance shown Rs.4,10,026/-. From this it is possible that there was some error in the statement. On 24.1.96 the balance in the account has been shown Rs.22,351/- and on the same date Rs.10,000/- have been 'withdrawn and balance was shown Rs.12,351. On 9th of April 1996 Rs.13,900/- have been withdrawn and the balance shown Rs.4,10,026/-. From this it is possible that there was some error in the statement. (5) PW-7, Nazir Ahmed Latoo, has stated that he was assigned further investigation in this case by SSP SLK by way of a written order. In this connection he along with Inspector Aftab Ahmed went to Delhi. Since as per Initial investigation two cheques had gone to D.N. Mehra from accused Mohammad Aslam Wani so he requested in writing to Standard Chartered Bank, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg Branch and Oriental Bank of Commerce Vasant Kunj Branch to provide the original instruments for investigation. Both the Bank authorities showed inability to furnish the instruments because the record had been weeded out and in this behalf both the Banks gave in writing. The letters are on the file. Letter OBC is already exhibited as EXT P3 and letter dated 16.10.2008 issued by Standard and Chartered Bank is marked as NAL for identification. He investigated the matter to this extent and produced the letters before SSP VOK. On cross examination he has stated that he has been in the VOK for five years before investigating the matter in hand. He has participated in the Investigation of this case. He has not seen the written order today in the Court by virtue of which he was assigned further investigation. When he submitted the report he was told that the further investigation in the case has been assigned to some other I.O. He was not given any order in this regard. Inspector Aftab Ahmed was with him for assistance. He was also given orders by SSP for the said purpose. He has gone once to Delhi in connection with this case. When he was assigned further investigation he studied the case diaries and found that two cheques of accused were deposited in the account of D.N. Mehra. He has also gone through the previous investigation through CD file which was sought from CPO office. There were two C.D files which were provided to him. He prepared C.D regarding his Investigation. He cannot say the exact date when he left for Delhi. It is not mentioned in the C.D file also. He has also gone through the previous investigation through CD file which was sought from CPO office. There were two C.D files which were provided to him. He prepared C.D regarding his Investigation. He cannot say the exact date when he left for Delhi. It is not mentioned in the C.D file also. He has not C.D file with him. His statement was not recorded by another I.O. (6) PW-8, Bushan Kumar, has stated that he is posted as Inspector in VOJ. He has completed the further investigation of case FIR 28/95. After the approval of Commissioner Sahib, he was given permission by DIG for further investigation by way of order. He has made mention of the order in his CD. He has gone through CD file no. 1 where there is a mention of letter no. SVO/DIG/PA/1116-17 dated 19.11.2008 by virtue of which he was entrusted further investigation against in the case of Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. After the entrustment of the investigation to him he got the C.D file. He went through it and also the documents. Thereafter for investigation he went to. Delhi. He went to Satpaul Gupta who was residing in Narain Vihar and enquired from him about the possession slip regarding the purchase of flat by Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. He showed the possession slip to Satpaul who identified his signature. Perhaps it was Photostat copy of possession slip which was on main C.D. file. He has not put that possession slip on the supplementary challan. He has put the statement of Satpaul on the supplementary challan, it bears signature of Satpaul and he has also put his signature on it. A copy of the statement was furnished to Satpaul. Thereafter he went, to the Standard Chartered Bank where he met Manager Mr. R.K. Wahi. The accused had an account bearing no. 01SBP0130 000 there. The accused had made transactions through this account. He obtained Bank statement of this account. The accused had issued a cheque bearing no 000301 for Rs.50,000/- to D.N. Mehra on account of part payment in lieu of purchase of flat no. D/7258. After obtaining the statement of account he recorded the statement of Bank Manager. Statement of account is dated 24.11.2008, on the file and as per this statement of account various transactions were made. One transaction is for Rs.50,000/- regarding which he has told above. D/7258. After obtaining the statement of account he recorded the statement of Bank Manager. Statement of account is dated 24.11.2008, on the file and as per this statement of account various transactions were made. One transaction is for Rs.50,000/- regarding which he has told above. The statement of Bank Manager is on the file. Thereafter he went to Vijay Bank in Delhi Cantt where D.N. Mehra had an account in which two cheques for Rs.1.50 lacs and for Rs.50,000/- were deposited. These cheques were deposited from the personal account of Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. D.N. Mehra account no. SBA/C6157. Rs.1.50 lacs through cheque no. 406970 had come from the account no. 4317 of Mohammad Aslam in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Rs.50,000/- through cheque no. 301 were deposited in the account of D.N. Mehra. This payment was made against the purchase of flat. The Manager of Vijay Bank furnished statement of account vide his letter no. DCNT/F-OPR/1228/8 dated 6.1.2008. He has seen the letter which is marked as BKG. Statement of account contains three pages and on first page it mentions amounts of two cheques. Since the Manager had issued the statement of account under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act so his statement was not recorded. Thereafter he went to Delhi Development office where from he obtained some record with respect to the flat of Mr. Chopra because Mr. Chopra was one witness in the purchase of flat which was sold to Mohammad Aslam by D.N. Mehra. He obtained the documents of Chopra's flat in order to get the opinion from FSL for comparison with the signature of Chopra on possession slip. The documents are on the file which were seized and obtained through letter no. F-126(1250)84/ SFS/ VK-III/2407 dated nil, it is marked as BKG/1. Seizure memo on the file is correct and is exhibited as EXT.P8-I. He recorded the statements of witnesses which are on the file. As per his investigation offence under section 5 (1) d of P.C. Act is made out against the accused. During investigation it was proved that the accused had made payment to D.N. Mehra for purchase of flat in order to conceal money. The accused has not made this thing in his disclosure statement. Accused has purchased the flat in Vasant Kunj. During investigation it was proved that the accused had made payment to D.N. Mehra for purchase of flat in order to conceal money. The accused has not made this thing in his disclosure statement. Accused has purchased the flat in Vasant Kunj. Receipts dated 27.3.1997 and 4.2.1997 and possession slip do not bear the signature of accused (note: the witness has deposed this fact on going through the CD file). Again on seeing the CD file the witness has deposed that "the accused has purchased the flat for Rs.40.00 lacs then said Rs.40.50 lacs. On cross examination by defence counsel the witness has stated that he proceeded to Delhi on 18th November and reached there on 30th November. He stayed there with his nephew Deeraj Parihar. He had gone to Delhi twice. He came back on 25th November 2008. Perhaps in December he went again to Delhi i.e. on 5.12.2008. A case is not investigated in a twinkle of eye. It takes time so he went twice to Delhi. Firstly he obtained Bank statements and recorded statements of R.K. Wahi and Satpaul Gupta. In December he obtained documents from DDA and recorded their statements and went to many places in Delhi for investigation. He does not remember when he went to Oriental Bank of Commerce. He made investigation regarding the cheque no 406970 dated 3.1.97 of accused which he had issued from account no 4317 for Rs.1.50 lacs. In this regard he had addressed a letter to Bank Manager for issuance of original cheque. They replied vide letter dated 22.10.2008 marked as EXT.P3. This letter was issued by them before he visited the Bank. He does no remember whether he recorded statement of anybody there or not. Copy of the letter dated 24.11.2008 issued by Standard Chartered Bank wherein mention of notice dated 21.11.2008 is made, has not been put on the charge sheet because he issued the letter by hand. The print out of the account which the concerned Bank had issued was not prepared in his presence. He has gone through this statement. Copy of the letter dated 24.11.2008 issued by Standard Chartered Bank wherein mention of notice dated 21.11.2008 is made, has not been put on the charge sheet because he issued the letter by hand. The print out of the account which the concerned Bank had issued was not prepared in his presence. He has gone through this statement. The certificate on the statement of account reads as "Bankers Book of Evidence, it is a true copy of such entry that such entry is contained in one of the ordinary book of the Bank and was made in the use of in ordinary course of business." It is not mentioned in the certificate that it is computer print out. As per the letter, accounts statement from 1.1.96, to 31.12.97 of Vijay Bank Cantonment Branch Delhi, account no. 6179, is in the name of Davinder Nath Mehra, no. 4/52 Gopinath Bazar Delhi Cantt. Q. What was the evidence on which basis you say that this account was of D.N. Mehra whose name is mentioned in possession slip? Ans. Because the accused had made payment to D.N. Mehra and we verified that D.N. Mehra had the account. Q. From whom you verified that it was. D.N. Mehra's account. Ans. C.L. Gupta who had purchased the flat said that the account was of D.N. Mehra but he declined to give the statement. Q. What is the evidence that the accused had paid money to this account holder? Ans. There is clear indication from the cheques which were given by the accused to D.N. Mehra, were with regard to the flat. He has gone through the statement of account of Vijay Bank's account no. 6157. Statement of account was already fed to the computer and the print out was obtained after giving the command of account. After obtaining the statement of account he got the training of computer operation for three months. It is true whatever is feeded to the computer, it is saved. He did not find any error or omission in the statement. Q. Statement of account no 6157 of Davinder Mehra shows opening balance on 24.1.1996 as Rs.22,351 when on the same date Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn and balance was shown Rs.12,351/-. On 9.4.96 Rs.13,900 are shown as drawn and balance was shown Rs.4.10,026/-. He did not find any error or omission in the statement. Q. Statement of account no 6157 of Davinder Mehra shows opening balance on 24.1.1996 as Rs.22,351 when on the same date Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn and balance was shown Rs.12,351/-. On 9.4.96 Rs.13,900 are shown as drawn and balance was shown Rs.4.10,026/-. He had to verify whether and how much amount was deposited in it from the account of Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. He can not say how much amount was deposited in this account from 24.1.96 to 11.4.96. As per the statement both the account nos. 406970 and 301 of Mohammad Aslam Lalgaroo were deposited in the account by clearance. Q. You said Account no 406970 and account no 301 are of Mohamad Aslam Laigaroo when as per your investigation these are cheque numbers. Ans. It is true that these are cheque number and he was wrong in saying that these were account numbers. Q. On what basis you say, that the two cheques mention of which is made hereinabove had come from the account of accused, is any entry In the statement of account in this behalf? Ans. We came to know from the account of accused; however its mention is not made in the statement of account as to which Bank the cheques had gone for clearance. The account of accused was sought from Standard Chartered Bank and OBC Bank wherefrom these cheques had come. There is mention of cheque no.000301 in statement EXT.P/2 whereas in the account no 6157 there is mention of cheque no 301. Q. How can you say that cheque no 301 or cheque no. 000301 is the one and same cheque? Ans. As per the statement of the Vijay Bank 000 digits were not mentioned there. He did not enquire about this thing from the Manager of Vijay Bank. It is correct that on the last page of statement of account of account no. 6157 it is not mentioned that the statement is the computer print out. It is correct that letter Mark. BKG contains three pages and the details in page 1 and 2 are identical. It is correct that on the last page of statement of account of account no. 6157 it is not mentioned that the statement is the computer print out. It is correct that letter Mark. BKG contains three pages and the details in page 1 and 2 are identical. On the basis of Bank statement and other circumstantial evidence he has said that the accused has purchased the flat for Rs.40.00 lacs, and that on the basis of documents that the accused does not have any other flat in Delhi and that the accused has not any business dealings with any person. He did not investigate about the flat no. D-7/7258 as who makes payment of electric and water bill. He did not go to the concerned department. He went to C-1/13 Safdar Jung Developmen Apartments, the address of D.N. Mehra who had sold the flat to the accused where he met to the uncle of accused Rajinder Nath Mehra and asked for D.N. Mehra. Said uncle replied that D.N. Mehra has passed away 5/6 years before. He tried to record his statement. He was 80 years old and heart patient. He said that VOK team had come before, however D.N. Mehra was living there and he was not ready to give the statement. He enquited from so many persons but did not record their statements. He did not try to obtain the account opening form from Grindlays Bank, of the accused nor enquired about the cheques those were deposited in the said account. 12. The charge against the accused is that the accused during his tenure as public servant has acquired assets worth Rs.56,06,622 and incurred Rs.10,66,898 as expenditure as against his known sources of income of Rs.21,75,396. Therefore the assets and the expenditure of the accused exceed his income to the sum of Rs.44,98,123.94. While calculating the assets and income entire service period of the accused has been taken into account. Total disproportionate assets worked out in the charge sheet are Rs.44,98,123.94. The valuation of the residential house at Hyderpora was Rs.4,85,404/-, valuation of the Textile items was Rs.68,240/-, valuation of electronic Items was Rs.64,450/-, valuation of Furniture items was Rs.16,050/- and valuation of flat at Vasant Kunj, Delhi was Rs.40.55 lacs. 13. To substantiate a charge under section 5 (1) (e) of the Act the evidence adduced by the prosecution needs to be appreciated. 14. 13. To substantiate a charge under section 5 (1) (e) of the Act the evidence adduced by the prosecution needs to be appreciated. 14. It is the prosecution case that during the search operation of house of one Mohammad Anwar Mir in case FIR 19/97, few documents regarding the purchase of flat at Delhi by accused Mohammad Aslam were recovered and in view of the documents seized, house of the accused at Hyderpora was searched. In support, the prosecution has examined PW, Mohammad Anwar, and his wife Mst Shagufta. PW Mohammad Anwar has deposed that when his house was searched, he was not present but his wife was there. He does not know whether there was any document of accused in his house. PW Shagufta has not deposed a word regarding the recovery of any document of the flat of accused from her house. The file reveals that documents regarding the purchase of flat at Delhi by the accused were not seized by the police either in FIR no.19/97 or in this FIR. PW, Mohammad Amin Khan, stated that during the search operation of the house of Mohammad Anwar in FIR no.19/97, he seized few documents which were concerning Mohammad Aslam Laigaroo. PW, Mohammad Amin I.O., has not made seizure memo of the papers. Fayaz Hussain I.O also neither made seizure nor any Inventory. Therefore there is no evidence on the file to prove that the documents of the flat at Delhi were seized from the house of the Anwar Mir. 15. Prosecution has relied on documentary evidence. All the documents have been attested by Notary Delhi. Ms. Nira Public Notary DDA has been examined and admitted that general power of attorney executed by D.N. Mehra in favour of Mohammad Aslam Wani were in respect of Flat no.7258 A, Ground Floor, 111-SFS, situated at Sector-D Pocket 7 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110070. Expw NS and also Special Power of attorneys Expw NS/1, Expw NS/2 and Expw NS/3 regarding the same property had some blanks and from the contents of these documents it cannot be ascertained as to who is the executant and in whose favour these documents have been executed. The signatures of the person in whose favour the documents have been executed are not on the documents. These documents have not been accepted by the attorney holder. The signatures of the person in whose favour the documents have been executed are not on the documents. These documents have not been accepted by the attorney holder. There is no identifying witness, attesting witness or the names of the persons who have drafted these documents. Likewise in the Indemnity Bond, Expw NS/4, and agreement to appoint an arbitrator Expw NS/5, have been left blank at many places, documents are not dated and these documents have been signed by one party and second party i.e. Mohammad Aslam Wani’s signatures are not either on Indemnity Bond or on agreement. In this agreement no one has been named as arbitrator. The lines have been left blank. The witness, Ms. Nira Public Notary, has stated that she does not know D.N. Mehra or T.N. Mehra. In the same manner two special power of attorneys Expw NS/6, Expw NS/7 do not bear the date when these documents were executed. Expw. NS/7 has no attested witness. These two power of attorneys have not been accepted by the attorney holder as these do not bear the signature of attorney holder. Rent deed Expw NS/8 does not bear the date of execution and the signature of executant 2nd party. The document agreement to sell and purchase Expw NS/9 does not bear the date of execution. There is no mention of the consideration. The paras regarding the agreed amount of consideration and receiving the same have been left blank. There are no attesting witnesses to these documents also. D.N. Mehra who is alleged to be the executant, has not, been identified by any witness. The executant of these documents i.e. D.N. Mehra has not been examined by the prosecution. There is no attesting witness to the execution of these documents except in indemnity bond and agreement to appoint arbitrator and rent deed. Witness Rajinder Kumar has denied to have put his signatures on these documents. He has in categorical terms stated that although his name is written on these documents but he has not put any signature on these documents. Another witness S.P. Gupta was not examined to prove these documents. Therefore from the detailed scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it reveals that the documents Expw NS to Expw NS/11 have neither been proved nor it has been established that these documents were executed between D.N. Mehra and the accused Mohammad Aslam. 16. Another witness S.P. Gupta was not examined to prove these documents. Therefore from the detailed scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it reveals that the documents Expw NS to Expw NS/11 have neither been proved nor it has been established that these documents were executed between D.N. Mehra and the accused Mohammad Aslam. 16. The prosecution has also relied on Receipt Mark A/1 and examined witnesses to prove the transaction of flat no 7258 between D.N. Mehra and accused Aslam Wani. Receipt Mark A/I mentions that the executant D.N. Mehra received Rs.3.00 lacs. Rs.2.00 lacs through cheque and one lac rupee cash from Mohammad Aslam against the sale of flat no 7258 located in Section D-7/7258 Vasant Kunj New Delhi. D.N. Mehra was not examined at all. Witness Yogesh Chopra has denied to know accused or having knowledge about the purchase of flat no. 7258 by the accused. Witness has stated that he has not signed the receipt dated 4.2.1997 and 7.3.1997. He also denied to know D.N. Mehra. Pw Yogesh Chopra has stated that he does not know who resides in the flat no 7258. So from the evidence, the cost of the flat reflected in the receipt Mark A/1 was not proved at all. Possession letter dated 11.4.1997; Expw NS/13 is signed by D.N. Mehra. This document is not signed by accused Mohammad Aslam as taking over the possession. Two attesting witnesses to this document have been shown on this letter. Pw. Rajinder Kumar has denied to have signed this document. He stated that his name is written on the document but he has not put his signature on it. He has also stated that he does not know D.N. Mehra. Another witness Satpaul has admitted his signature on the document Expw NS/13 and stated that he signed on it on the saying of one Ravi Kumar. He also stated that when he signed Expw NS/13, there was no other signature on the letter. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined at length. During cross examination he explained that Ravi Kumar is his friend. Ravi Kumar brought him many papers and asked him to sign, so he signed the papers. He does not know Rajinder Kumar. Therefore, possession letter was also not proved either by the executant or the witnesses thereto. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined at length. During cross examination he explained that Ravi Kumar is his friend. Ravi Kumar brought him many papers and asked him to sign, so he signed the papers. He does not know Rajinder Kumar. Therefore, possession letter was also not proved either by the executant or the witnesses thereto. Therefore prosecution has not been able to prove the possession of flat no 7258 was handed over by D.N. Mehra and possession was taken over by accused Mohammad Aslam. 17. The prosecution has tried to connect the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- shown in the receipt Mark A/I to have been paid by cheques to D.N. Mehra by accused. Pw. Rajesh Puri officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vasant Kunj New Delhi has issued statement of account in the name of M. Aslam bearing account no 4317. Since this statement does not bear the certificate as envisaged under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act as such this statement Exp RP is not admissible in evidence. Pw. R.K. Chaudery, Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank has issued a copy of statement of accounts no. 111861 in the name of M. Aslam. This statement also does not bear the certificate under section 4 of Bankers Book of Evidence Act as such the statement is not admissible. To overcome this difficulty prosecution in supplementary charge sheet examined bank officials PW, R.K.Wahi, officiating Manager, Standard Chartered Bank (ANZ Grindlays Bank), who has issued statement of accounts of account no. 01SBP 0130000 in the name of accused. As per this statement EXT P 2/2 on 07.02.1997, one cheque no.000301 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was drawn. Pw Uday Kumar, AGM Vijay Bank, Cantonment Branch Delhi has issued statement of account no.6157 pertaining to Davinder Nath Mehra, no. 4152 Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt. As per this statement EXT. P6/1 a cheque no 406973 for Rs.1.50 lacs was deposited in clearing, in the account of Mr. Mehra on 7.2.1997. On the same date another cheques no 301 for Rs.50,000/- has been deposited in the same account. Learned CPO has very vehemently argued that these two cheques were drawn from the two accounts of the accused and paid to D.N. Mehra as part consideration for purchase of house. Mehra on 7.2.1997. On the same date another cheques no 301 for Rs.50,000/- has been deposited in the same account. Learned CPO has very vehemently argued that these two cheques were drawn from the two accounts of the accused and paid to D.N. Mehra as part consideration for purchase of house. Scrutiny of evidence reveals that prosecution has not succeeded to prove the same beyond shadow of doubt as copy of the statement of accounts no. 01SBP 0130000 in the name of accused in (Grindlays Bank) Standard Chartered Bank and also the statement of account no 6157 of Vijay Bank in the name of Davinder Mehra are print out of the accounts from the computer system. The statement of account O1SBP 0130000 EXT P 2/2 has been provided to I.O as photocopy of print out, obtained from computer in the year 1997. Likewise, statement EXT. P6/1 issued by Vijay Bank was also computerized in the year 1997. The certificates on the statement of accounts issued by ANZ Grindlays Bank, New Delhi and Vijay Bank, New Delhi did not provide certificate as is required under the Bankers Books Evidence Act. Perusal of these documents EXT P2 /2 and EXT P/1 read that both these statements are copy of print out. No certificate as envisaged under section 2-A (b) sub clause A to H has been given by the person incharge of Computer System. Another important certificate as provided under sub clause (C) of section 2 A by the person incharge of computer system that to the best of his knowledge and belief such computer system operated properly at the material time, he was provided with all the relevant data and print out in question represents correctly or is appropriately derived from the relevant date, is also not written on the statements EXT P/2 and EXT P 2/2. The argument of learned CPO that State's Bankers Book of Evidence Act has not been amended so far has no force, as the statement of accounts EXTP 6 and EXTP 2/2 have been provided by the Vijay Bank, Branch New Delhi and Standard Chartered Bank (Grindlays Bank) New Delhi. As such the certificates of entries on these two statements ought to have been as per the amended Bankers Books Evidence Act. As such the certificates of entries on these two statements ought to have been as per the amended Bankers Books Evidence Act. The certificate in terms of Section 2 A of Bankers Books Evidence Act regarding the correctness and computer system operated correctly, necessitated when an irregularity in the statement EXT P 6/1 was brought to the notice of Pw Uday Kumar, General Manager, Vijay Bank. Witness was confronted with the fact that on 24.1.96 balance in the account as shown Rs.22,351/- on the same date Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn and balance was shown Rs.12,351/- There were no deposits from 24.1.96 to 9.4.96. On 9.4.96 Rs.13,900/- were withdrawn and balance has been shown Rs.4,10,026/- The witness has admitted that there were some errors in the statement EXT P 6/I. Statement of accounts EXP-RP Issued by Oriental Bank of commerce wherefrom prosecution allege that cheque for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was drawn and deposited in the account of D.N. Mehra, does not bear any certificate at all. There is no evidence on the file that the account of M. Aslam was operated by the accused. Further more statement of accounts EXT P 6/1 issued by Vijay Bank New Delhi, shows the name of accounts holder Devinder Nath Mehra and his residence shown no 4/52 Gopinath Bazar,, New Delhi when the possession letter and receipt shows the name D.N. Mehra R/O DT 7258 Vasant Kunj and General Power of attorney, special power of attorney D.N. Mehra R/o 4/3 Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi 110016 and all other documents like agreement to sell, rent deed, the address has been shown C-1/13 Safdarjung New Delhi 110070. No attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove that account holder EXT P 6/1 is the same person who executed the documents. As already discussed said D.N. Mehra has not been arrayed as witness and no attempt has been made by the I.O to search him on the above mentioned addresses. I.O. has admitted that in the statement of account it is not mentioned that where the cheques have been send for clearance. It has also come in the evidence that cheque no 000301 has been mentioned in EXT P/2 statement of account, when cheque no 301 has been shown in the account no 6157. I.O. has admitted that in the statement of account it is not mentioned that where the cheques have been send for clearance. It has also come in the evidence that cheque no 000301 has been mentioned in EXT P/2 statement of account, when cheque no 301 has been shown in the account no 6157. In the same manner cheque no 970 has been shown in the document EXP RP and cheque no 506970 has been mentioned in the statement of account EXYT P 6/1. For the admissibility of Electronic record certificate under section 4 of Section 65-B of Evidence Act is mandatory. It is therefore, evident from examination of the evidence, that prosecution has not been able to prove that flat no.7258 at Vasant Kunj New Delhi was purchased by accused from D.N. Mehra for a consideration of Rs.40,00,500/-. 18. Prosecution witness No.3 is the witness who accompanied the raiding party to the house which was identified to him to be of accused. He has been witness to the seizures made in the house but he also makes it clear that some of the articles mention of which was made in the seizure memo were useless. Though cheque book was seized in his presence yet he was not shown the details mentioned therein nor has he been shown the same cheque book in the Court for identification. Pw. 9 as an expert was supposed to asses the items in the shape of electronic gadgets which were allegedly available in the house of the accused. Firstly he has not taken into consideration the owner of the item because he was not certain whether there was accused residing alone or there were his brothers also residing. At the first moment he has failed to see the rightful owner of the item. Secondly on the basis of model he has assessed the item. He has nowhere stated in his deposition that he has noted down the model and had a market survey in order to come to the right conclusion for the assessment of the price of the particular item. Simply saying on the basis of experience he has assessed the item makes his own deposition shaky because to have assessment of anything one has to see the market value and that too at the time of its purchase. Simply saying on the basis of experience he has assessed the item makes his own deposition shaky because to have assessment of anything one has to see the market value and that too at the time of its purchase. No such mention has been made by the witness regarding the date of purchase of a particular item. Thirdly he is not certain whether the items were functional or not. To make assessment of a non-functional item by an expert holding the post of Manager Electronics does not lie good to say that he has made assessment of the non-functional items also and is not certain as to how many items were non-functional. Thus, it is clear that the assessment made by the expert is not worth consideration at all. Pw. 11 has in clear terms stated that he prepared the valuation report on the basis of rates prevalent in the year 1997 i.e. the year he inspected the house and assessed the articles. Besides, the witness has stated that he was not expert to assess the cost of the furniture item nor was he able to make the furniture item himself. In both ways he was not competent to see and work out the actual cost of the article so assessed by him. Pw. No. 12 Mohammad Sultan Mir has not thrown light on the important aspect i.e. the date and year of construction. He has not obtained the building permission in order to ascertain the actual year of construction so that it could have given him help to assess the cost of construction in the actual year of its construction. The lapse on the part of the engineer by not ascertaining the actual year of construction and its assessment as per the market rate with regard to the construction material and labour component incurred on the said construction has not been given by the expert in black and white, which is an essential ingredient in this particular case in order to arrive to the just conclusion. There is no credibility in his statement in as much as the I.O has also been helpful to him in making the assessment report doubtful by not endeavoring to obtain the permission for construction of the house of accused from the competent authority. Pw. There is no credibility in his statement in as much as the I.O has also been helpful to him in making the assessment report doubtful by not endeavoring to obtain the permission for construction of the house of accused from the competent authority. Pw. 13 Manzoor Ahmed Mir being the revenue official and the patwar of the halqa concerned where the accused is alleged to have got the landed property through the illegal means. He has in categorical terms and depending upon the revenue record made it clear that accused has inherited the landed property from his father as being the co sharer of the total land measuring 4 Kanal and 15 Marlas and also a share from the land of one Kanal and two Marlas gifted away by his father amongst his sons including the accused, therefore the allegation that the accused has acquired the landed property at Bagat Barzulla through illegal means is not correct as per the prosecution witness and as per the revenue record proved by him. Pw. 22 Ghulam Hassan Khan being the Bank Manager has furnished information regarding the balance of the account as on 31.5.97, being maintained by the wife of the accused. He has not specially mentioned the deposits or the withdrawals from the account those were made by the account holder nor has he made any mention as to how much interest was gained by the account holder for her deposits upto 31.5.1997 on which date he gives the details of balance in the account. In order to authenticate his version before the Court he has not supported his evidence with the actual ledger of the Bank for comparison and perusal of the Court wherein all the information of withdrawals, deposits and the interest if any gained on the deposits, was available. He has not put any certificate underneath the information tendered by him to the I.O. with respect to the correctness of the balance as per the Banks Ledger required in terms of Bankers Book of Evidence Act. So, in my opinion this is incomplete rather insufficient statement. The statement of Pw. 28 Mohammad Maqbool Ahanger is quite clear on the basis of revenue record that the accused does not have any land in his name in Gulmarg where a hotel is constructed. So, in my opinion this is incomplete rather insufficient statement. The statement of Pw. 28 Mohammad Maqbool Ahanger is quite clear on the basis of revenue record that the accused does not have any land in his name in Gulmarg where a hotel is constructed. He is also further clear on the basis of record available on the file that the land in Gulmarg is a state land and is leased to the persons which include the name of the father of accused. Thus, the allegation that the accused occupies a hotel in Gulmarg is not correct on the basis of the record available on record and the evidence tendered by the above witness to testify the correctness of the said record. Pw. 35 Ghulam Mohi din Andrabi Dy S.P. has said that accused told him that he has filed the property statements properly, however the witness did not ascertain as to whether the accused had filed the property statements or not. His statement that FIR was lodged by the Government wherein it was mentioned that the accused had not filed the property statements. As already pointed that the witness has not taken pains to see whether the accused had actually filed the annual returns of the property to the competent authority or not. He has even not taken pains to obtain information from the Pw. 1 who has issued the show cause notice as to whether the accused had filed the required statement. The record on the file makes it clear that the accused had filed the property statement with the competent authority. He has also made its mention in his explanation to the show cause notice which has remained unattended. Therefore, taking. cognizance on an unsigned endorsement makes the case fishy against the accused. 19. The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced viewed that neither the quality of material produced nor their proper evaluation could be held sufficient to convince or satisfy the judicial conscience to record a verdict of guilt, on such slender evidence. The cumulative effect of the above proceedings is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt to the accused. The contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are material and go to the very root of the case and it will not be safe to base conviction of accused persons without any cogent evidence. 20. The cumulative effect of the above proceedings is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt to the accused. The contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are material and go to the very root of the case and it will not be safe to base conviction of accused persons without any cogent evidence. 20. The judicial precedence reported in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (1) SCC 10 , assumes significance on that count. There it has been held as follows:- “This court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in acquitting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphases on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record acquittal. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence...” 21. The law settled in the aforesaid judgement is that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, provided he is wholly reliable and there is no legal impediment in acquitting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness, but if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. It is not a number or quantity, but the quality that is material and time-honoured principle is that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. So, the test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. So, the test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. Thus, it is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record the acquittal and conversely it may acquit accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about quality of evidence. 22. Applying the ratio of the law laid down, as aforesaid, to the facts of the instant case, the statements of witnesses discussed above are not sufficient to convict the accused/respondents. There is infirmity in their statements that render them weak, fragile, incoherent or improbable. 23. The argument of the counsel for accused that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses is an argument when tested on the touchstone of the instant case shows that prosecution has failed in discharging its burden to prove that the accused has committed the crime imputed to him. There is no merit in this appeal. It entails dismissal and as a consequence of which the same is dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is maintained and upheld. 24. The record of the Trial Court be sent down along with a copy of this judgment.