नई दिल्‍ली/शिमला। मुख्‍यमंत्री वीरभद्र सिंह व उनकी बीवी व पूर्व सांसद प्रतिभा सिंह के आय से अधिक संपति जुटाने के मामले में दिल्‍ली के सीबीआई कोर्ट ने वीरभद्र ,उनकी पत्‍नी व बाकी आरोपियों के खिलाफ दायर चालान की  छंटनी की। अब तीन अप्रैल, सोमवार सीबीआई कोर्ट में इस मामले को लेकर संज्ञान लिया जाना है या नहीं इस पहलू पर सुनवाई होगी व नोटिस जारी किए जा सकते हैं। बहरहाल वीरभद्र सिंह,उनकी पत्‍नी प्रतिभा सिंह के खिलाफ आय से अधिक संपति जुटाने के मामले में ट्रायल की प्रक्रिया शुरू हो गई हैं।

गौर हो कि  सीबीआई ने दिल्‍ली हाईकोर्ट की ओर से मुख्‍यमंत्री वीरभद्र सिंह की याचिका के खारिज करने के तुरंत बाद सीबीआई अदालत में चालान पेश कर बड़ा दांव खेला हैं,जिसमें मुख्‍यमंत्री पूरी तरह से शिकंजे में फंस चुके हैं। बेशक प्रदेश के पूर्व मुख्‍यमंत्री प्रेम कुमार धूमल समेत भाजपा के साथ उनकी मिलीभगत हो चुकी है बावजूद इसके उन पर मुख्‍यमंत्री के पद से इस्‍तीफा देने का दबाव बढ़ गया हैं। भाजपा विधायक सुरेश भारद्वाज ने उनसे इस्‍तीफा मांग दिया हैं। उधर, वीरभद्र सिंह ने एक बार फिर मोदी केबिनेट में मंत्री अरुण जेटली,पूर्व मुख्‍यमंत्री प्रेमकुमार धूमल और उनके पुत्र व भाजपा सांसद अनुराग ठाकुर को इस पूरे कांड का सूत्रधार बताया हैं। वीरभद्र ने हमीरपुर में कहा’सत्‍यमेव जयते’

चुनावी साल व भोरंज उप चुनाव से ऐन पहले सीबीआई की ओर से अदालत में दायर की चार्जशीट से कांग्रेस को उप चुनाव में कमजोर स्थिति में ला दिया हैं।भोरंज विधानसभा उप चुनाव के लिए 9 अप्रैल को मतदान होना हैं ।

दिल्‍ली हाईकोर्ट  के जस्टिस विपिन सांघी ने आय से अधिक संपति मामले में सीबीआई की ओर से दर्ज एफआईआर को निरस्‍त करने की मुख्‍यमंत्री वीरभद्र सिंह व उनकी पत्‍नी प्रतिभा सिंह  की याचिका पर 15 दिसंबर 2016 को जजमेंट रिजर्व किया था। जस्टिस सांघी ने करीब सवा तीन महीने के बाद 31 मार्च 2017 को अपना फैसला सुनाया और वीरभद्र सिंह की याचिका को खारिज कर दिया । दिल्‍ली हाईकोर्ट में याचिका नंबर W.P.(CRL)  2757/2015  and  CRL.M.A.  17536-17538/2015,3396/2016 & 3806/2016 को निपटाते हुए जस्टिस सांघी ने हिमाचल प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट की ओर से लगाई सारी बंदिशों को भी समाप्‍त कर दिया।

मुख्‍यमंत्री ने अदालत में दलीलें दी थी  सीबीआई को चूंकि किसी सरकार व अदालत ने उनके खिलाफ जांच करने के आदेश नहीं दिए थे ऐसे में ये एफआईआर निरस्‍त होनी चाहिए। लेकिन जस्टिस सांघी ने इन तमाम दलीलों को नकार दिया और अपने 133 पन्‍नों की जजमेंट में बहुत कुछ जिक्र किया हैं। जस्टिस सांघी ने अपने फैसले में मामले की पृष्‍ठभूमि का जिक्र किया हैं,जो निम्‍न हैं-:

 

Background:

  1. In November 2010,  the  Income  Tax  Authorities  conducted  raids  at several offices of ISPAT Industries Ltd. (M/s IIL), wherein documents were allegedly seized in relation to cash transactions allegedly undertaken by the said company.  Apparently, these documents revealed that members of M/s IIL  had illegally paid  amounts  to  officials  of  State  Trading  Corporation (STC). On receiving information from the Income Tax Authorities, the first PE was  registered  by  the  CBI  on  19.10.2012  against  unknown  officials  of State Trading Corporation and M/s IIL to enquire into the matters revealed from the discovery of documents seized during the aforesaid raids conducted by the Income Tax (Intelligence)-I, New Delhi on 30.11.2010.The first PE, in its material part, read as follows:

“INFORMATION

A source information has been received that Income Tax (Intelligence) – I,  New  Delhi,  conducted  a  raid  on  the  official premises of M/s Ispat Industries Limited and Group Companies (M/s  IIL),  room  No.  312-317,  Ashoka  Hotel,  Chanakya  Puri, New  Delhi  on  30.11.2010.  On  the  basis  of  documents  seized from the office of M/s IIL it is alleged that the following illegal payments  were  shown  made  against  the  names  of  Shri C.M.Kalra,  STC  and  Mr.  Abhishek,  STC  by  M/s  IIL  to  the officials of State Trading Corporation:-

Sl. No.  Date  Particulars   Payment (In Rs.)

1  17.09.2009  Amt. paid to Mr. (K) at STC  30,000,00

2  28.04.2009  Amt. paid to CM Kalra STC  50,000,00

3  29.04.2009  Amt. paid to CM Kalra STC  41,75,000

4  30.04.2009  Amt. paid to Mr. Abhishek of STC 60,000

5  24.03.2009  Amt.  paid  to  Mr.  Abhishek STC 50,000

6  04.06.2010  Amt.  paid  to  Mr.  Abhishek STC 75,000

It is alleged that the business transactions relating to M/s IIL  were  being  handled  by  Hydrocarbon  Division  in  the  State Trading  Corporation  of  India  Ltd.    Shri  C.M.Kalra  was working as Chief Manager in the Hydrocarbon Division during the relevant period and Shri Abhishek was working as Assistant Manager in the said Division.

It  is  also  informed  by  the  reliable  sources  that  M/s  IIL has  been  merged  with  JSW  Ispat  Steel  Ltd.  w.e.f.  05.04.2011, Branch  Office  located  at  Bhikaji  Kama  Place,  New  Delhi  and Head  Office  at  Grade  Palladium,  6th  Floor,  175,  CST  Rd., Kalina Santacruz (East), Mumbai.

The above information revealed misconduct on the part of  unknown  officials  of  STC  and  unknown  officials  of  M/s Ispat  Industries  Limited  (now  JSW  Ispat  Steel  Ltd.).  Therefore, a Preliminary Enquiry is registered to enquire into this matter and entrusted to Shri Ram Singh, Dy. SP/CBI/AC-II(Attached with AC-1), New Delhi.” (emphasis supplied)

  1. The petitioners’ names did not figure in the said First PE  in  any context whatsoever.
  2. A complaint  dated  11.01.2013 regarding  illegal  payments  made  to officers  of  STC  and  other  influential  persons by  M/s  IIL was  filed  by  Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, with the CBI as well as the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).    In  this  complaint, he sought  to  link  up  the entries shown  in  the excel  sheet  seized  by  the Income Tax Authorities (from M/s IIL) – which showed payment  of  Rs.  2.77  crore to one ‘VBS’, with the petitioner no.1 Shri Vir Bhadra Singh.
  3. A similar complaint was also filed by the NGO “Common Cause” on 16.08.2013 with the CBI and the CVC making the same allegations as Mr. Prashant Bhushan,  Advocate.   It  was also alleged  that  the petitioner no.  1 while serving as the Union Minster of Steel during 2009-2011 had invested his ill-gotten  income  through  one  Anand  Chauhan  –  an  agent  of  Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) in purchasing LIC policies in his name and in the name  of  his  family  members,  and attempted  to legitamise his ill-gotten income as agricultural income by filing revised income tax returns.
  4. A Public Interest  Litigation  (PIL), titled, ‘Common Cause Vs. UOI and others’, vide WP(C) No. 7240 of 2013 (‘Common Cause PIL’) was filed before  this  Court, seeking  a  Writ  of  Mandamus  directing  the  CBI  and  the Director  General  of  Income  Tax  to  initiate  an  investigation  under  the supervision of this Court into the charges of money laundering, corruption, possession  of  disproportionate  assets,  criminal misconduct  etc.  against  the petitioner no. 1.  In the said writ petition filed by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, he relied  upon  his  allegations contained in  his  complaint  dated  11.01.2013 to the  CBI  and  CVC.  He  also urged  that  in  order to explain his unaccounted wealth,  petitioner  no.  1  filed  revised  income  tax  returns  for the  assessmentyears  2009-10,  2010-11  and  2011-12  showing  an  increase  of agricultural income which was 30-fold, 18-fold and 6-fold respectively in the three years in question.
  5. In the aforesaid PIL, on 27.11.2013, learned counsel representing CBI submitted that  an  inquiry  is  being  conducted  in  a  similar  matter.    The  CBI was  directed  to  file  a  status  report  within  six  weeks.    On  12.03.2014,  the Division Bench took note of the fact that a status report had been filed by the CBI  in  a  sealed  cover.    On  02.04.2014,  the  status  report  filed  in  a  sealed cover was opened by the Court and perused.  Apparently, the said report is dated 07.02.2014.  The Court in its order, inter alia, recorded:

“The  report  in  sealed  cover,  which  was  furnished  by  the learned counsel for the CBI, has been seen.  It is a report dated 07.02.2014.  According  to  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for the CBI, several other steps have been taken in the preliminary enquiry which do not form part of the said report.  He submits that  a  further  upto  date  status  report  shall  be  filed  before  the next date of hearing.”

  1. The Court also directed the CBI that the preliminary inquiry be sped up, and be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously.
  2. On 06.08.2014,  the  CBI  sought  six  weeks  time  to  complete  the preliminary  enquiry.    However,  the  court  declined  the  said  request.    The matter was directed to be listed on 20.08.2014.  The Income Tax Department was directed to place before the court the entire record, including the report of the  investigation held  against the  respondent no.5/petitioner no.1 herein. The report put up by the CBI in sealed covers were directed to be placed in the safe custody of the Deputy Registrar (Writs) for perusal of the Court.
  3. On 01.09.2014, the CBI filed the final status report in a sealed cover, which was taken on record. It appears that on 10.09.2014, the status reports filed by  the  CBI  and  the  investigation  report submitted  by  the Income  Tax Department  were  perused  by  the  Court  and  again  placed  in  sealed  covers.  They  were  directed  to  be  kept  with  the  Deputy  Registrar  (Writs)  for  safe custody.
  4. Evidently, respondent no.  5 in  the  Common  Cause  PIL  i.e.  the petitioner no.1 herein challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition as a PIL on the ground that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, bore personal animosity  towards  him.    On  29.01.2015,  the  Court,  without  going  into  the issue  of bona  fides of  the petitioner Common  Cause,  or  of  Mr.  Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, discharged the petitioner therein and instead, appointed two  learned  counsels  as  Amicus  Curiae  to  assist  the  Court  in  the  matter.

Thereafter,  the  matter  was  adjourned  on  three  occasions  i.e.  14.05.2015, 28.07.2015, and 06.08.2015.  It appears that, in the meantime, the second PE came  to  be  registered  on  17.06.2015. This  second  PE  dated  17.06.2015, pertained  to  fixing of an  appropriate  check  period  and  accounting  for  the incomes, assets and expenditure of Shri Vir Bhadra Singh – petitioner no.1, and to examine whether, or not, a viable disproportionate assets (DA) case is made out against him during the period when he was a Union Minister in the Government of India.

  1. The Second PE  narrates  that  the  First  PE  was  registered  on 19.10.2012  on  the  complaint  of  CVO,  State  Trading  Corporation  (STC) against the unknown officials of STC and M/s IIL and others.  It records that the  CVO,  STC  made  the  complaint  in  the  light  of  report  of Income Tax Authorities regarding recovery of computer print out from the office of M/s IIL,  mentioning  about  alleged  payments to different  individuals  including, STC  officials.    The Second  PE  also  narrates  the  filing  of  the  complaint by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, against petitioner no.1 herein, which was also made part of the enquiry.  The Second PE, inter alia, records:

“………..The  allegations  raised  in  this  complaint  were  the acronym “VBS” to whom payment has been shown in the computer  printout  referred  to  Shri  Vir  Bhadra  Singh,  the  then Union  Minister  of  Steel.      The  complaint  further  alleged  that Shri Vir Bhadra Singh while serving as Union Minister of Steel during  2009-2011  had  invested  his  ill-gotten  income  through Shri Anand Chauhan, an agent of LIC, in LIC policies.  In his own  name,  that  of  his  wife  Smt.  Pratibha  Singh,  son  Shri Vikramaditya  Singh  and  daughter Ms.  Aparajita  Kumari  by showing  the  same  as  agricultural  income.    This  was  done  by entering  into  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  dated 15.06.2008  with  Anand  Chauhan  for  a  period  of  three  years.

Shri Anand Chauhan deposited roughly Rs. 5 crores cash in his PNB account in Shimla and debited the same through cheques for  purchasing  various  LIC  policies  in  the  names  of  Shri  Vir Bhadra  Singh,  Mrs.  Pratibha  Singh  (w/o  Shri  Vir  Bhadra Singh);  son  Shri  Vikramaditya  Singh  and  daughter  Ms. Aparajita  Kumari.    It  was  further  alleged  that  later  Shri  Vir Bhadra  Singh  attempted  to  legitimize  his  ill-gotten  money  as agriculture income by filing revised ITRs in the year 2012.

Enquiry in this regard revealed that

  1. That Shri  Vir  Bhadra  Singh  entered  into  an  agreement with Shri Anand Chauhan on 15.06.2008 with respect to management of  his  apple  orchard,  named  Srikhand Orchard  located  at  Damrali,  Tehsil  Rampur,  Shimla.

This  agreement,  which  was  valid  for  3  years  (with extension clause), provided that proceeds of income from this orchard will be invested by Shri  Anand  Chauhan  in various  government  securities  and  LIC  policies  @  2% commission of the total income.

  1. That for  the  same  apple  orchard,  one  Shri  Bishamber Das  also  entered  into  an  agreement  with  Shri  Thakur Ram  Asre,  Advocate in  the  year  2008.  Payment  from sale  proceeds  @  Rs.  10.50  lacs  for  this  orchard  was allegedly  made  by  Shri  Bishambhar  Das  to  Shri  Vir Bhadra Singh in cash.  In respect of this agreement too, apart from photocopy of the agreement, no other details regarding expenditure,  sale  and  payments  etc.  could  be made available by the individuals concerned.
  2. That Shri Anand Chauhan claimed to have sold apples of this orchard  mainly  to  M/s  Universal  Apple  Associate (UAA),  Parwanoo,  Himachal  Pradesh.   According  to him,  he  collected  payments  from  M/s  UAA  in  cash  and then deposited the same in his bank accounts at PNB and HDFC.  During the period 2009-10, this money was used by  him  to  purchase  LIC  policies  in  the  names  of  Shri Virbhadra Singh, his wife and son, in 2011-12, however, the sale proceeds were used for construction of house of Shri  Vir  Bhadra  Singh  at  Rampur.    No  documentary evidence  in  support  of  the  sale  proceeds  of  the  year 2011-12  could  be  made  available  by  Shri  Anand Chauhan or anyone else.
  3. Details of  accounts  of  Srikhand  orchard  submitted  by Shri Anand Chauhan for the period 2008-11 reflect a net profit  of  Rs.  6,09,92,500/-  from  sale  of  apples  to  M/s Universal  Apple  Associates,  Parwanoo,  but  Shri  Anand Chauhan could not produce bills, vouchers or any otherevidence  or  expenditure  incurred  by  him,  in  respect  of purchase  of  pesticides  and  insecticides  towards maintenance  of  Srikhand  Orchard,  Damrali  between 2008-11.
  4. Huge cash  deposits  have  been  shown  by  Shri  Anand Chauhan  in  his  bank  account  at  PNB  on  such  dates, which do not tally with the dates on which M/s Universal Apple  Associates  has  allegedly  made  the  cash  payments to  him,  for  purchase  of  apples.    Shri  Chauhan  was  not able to logically explain this issue. Further, on their part, M/s  Universal  Apple  Associates,  Parwanoo  have  paid such huge amounts in the form of cash, against the spirit of the business market, which creates suspicion about the veracity of these transactions.
  5. There are  three  credit  entries  dated  17.08.2008  in  the book of account of M/s UAA totalling Rs. 93 lakhs in the name  of  Srikhand  Orchard  recording  payment  to  Shri Anand  Chauhan.  No  other  detail  in  respect  of  his transaction apart from the amount has been mentioned in the  said  credit  entry.    Thus,  within  a  period  of  two months  of  agreement  between  Shri  Anand  Chauhan  and Shri  Virbhadra  Singh,  the  sale  proceeds  of  said  apple orchard  reached  approximately  Rs.  93  lakhs.    No justification  could  be  provided,  either  by  Shri  Anand Chauhan or M/s UAA, in respect of this highly suspicious circumstance.
  6. Registration numbers  of  some  of  the  vehicles  mentioned in  the  record  of  M/s  Universal  Apple  Associates, Parwanoo,  which  allegedly  transported  apples  from Srikhand Orchard to their premises, either do not exist or are light motor vehicles like cars or two wheelers.
  7. The documents  made  available  by  Shri  Anand  Chauhan relating  to  transportation  of  apples  from  Srikhand Orchard,  Damrali  to  M/s  UAA,  Parwanoo  between  the years  2008  to  2010-11,  are  in  the  form  of  affidavits submitted  by  the  transporters.    One of  the  transporters admitted  having  made  available  his  vehicle,  as  well  as those of his two acquaintances to Shri Anand Chauhan.
  8. Entries of the register maintained at Excise and Taxation Department Check Post at Koti, Shimla-Parwanoo Road, during the  period  of  2010-12  revealed  that  the  vehicles mentioned  in  the  record  of  M/s  Universal  Apple Associates  (UAA)  in  which  apples  were  allegedly transported  to  Parwanoo  from  Srikhand  Orchard,  had not  crossed  through  this  check  post  during  the  relevant period.
  9. The bills  provided  by  M/s  Universal  Apple  Associates and  those  submitted  by  Shri  Anand  Chauhan  pertainingto  Srikhand  Orchard  for  the  period  2019,  prima  facie appear  to  be  different  as  the  former  do  not  contain  any reference  of  the vehicle  numbers.    Further,  both  these bills are printed on different types of printers (dot matrix and laser jet respectively).  This, in turn, points towards fabrication  of  records  in  order  to  prepare  a  defence  by the suspect.
  10. As per  APMC  Act,  M/s  Universal  Apple  Associates informed  the  sale  details  and  its  price  to  the  concerned Mandi  Samiti.    This  data  is  not  in  consonance  with  that provided by M/s Universal Apple Associates to CBI.  This again points to fabrication of records.
  11. Data collected from Department of Horticulture, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, in regard to the production of apples in Rampur  Tehsil  of  Distt.  Shimla  (where  Srikhand Orchard,  Damrall  is  located)  does  not  reflect improved/increased  production  of  apples  in  that  region in the year 2008-09 to 2010-11.
  12. That Sri Virbhadra Singh has filed his ITRs regularly for the Assessment  Years  2006-07  to  2012-13,  but  for  the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, he has also  filed  revised  Income  Tax  Returns.    In  the  revised ITRs, huge illegible in agricultural income was shown (it is  important  to  note  that  he  was  also  Union  Steel Minister  from  May,  2009  to  January,  2011.    Details  of agriculture  income  mentioned  in  original  and  revised

ITRs of Shri Virbhadra Singh are as under:

Ass. Year  Original ITRs  Revised ITRs (Rs. )

  1. 2006-07 12,05,000  NIL
  2. 2007-08 16,00,000  NIL
  3. 2009-10 7,35,000  2,21,35,000
  4. 2010-11 15,00,000  2,80,92,000
  5. 2011-12 25,00,000  1,55,00,000
  6. 2012-13 85,00,000  NIL
  7. 2013-14 92,00,000  NIL

 

That submission  of  revised  ITRs  by  Shri  Virbhadra  Singh  for the A.Y.2009-10 to 2011-12, various discrepancies and latches observed  in  the  explanation/documents/records  submitted  by Shri  Anand  Chauhan  and  M/s  Universal  Apple  Associates, point towards an effort on the part of Shri Vir Bhadra Singh to camouflage these cash deposits as income from apple orchards.

These  discrepancies  create  huge  suspicions  about  the genuineness of these efforts, and as a result, this income of Shri Vir  Bhadra  Singh  has  remained  unexplained  during  the enquiry.  The ultimate beneficiary of such acts was none other than  Shri  Vir  Bhadra  Singh  himself,  his  wife  Smt.  Pratibha Singh, son Vikramaditya Singh, daughter M/s Aparajita Kumari and  Shri  Anand  Chauhan  who  was  also  an  instrument  in the above-mentioned act.

That such an “unexplained income” gives rise to a strong suspicion  of  the  same  being  ill-gotten  wealth/assets, disproportionate  to  the  known  sources  of  income  of  Shri  Vir Bhadra Singh acquired during the period 2009-11 when he was the Union Minister of Steel.

It  is,  therefore,  requested  that  Preliminary  Enquiry  may please  be  registered  for  fixing  an  appropriate  check  period and  accounting  for  the  incomes,  assets  and  expenditure  of Shri  Virbhadra  Singh  to  examine  whether  or  not  a  viableDisproportionate assets (DA) made out against him during the period when he was Union Minister in GOI.

Sd/-

(Vijay Bahadur)

Inspector of Police

CBI, AC-1, New Delhi.

इसके बाद जस्टिस सांघी ने अपनी जजमेंट  में केस  से  संबंधित  ये  भी  जिक्र किया हैं-:

Instant  enquiry  is  therefore  registered  for  fixing  an appropriate check period and counting for the incomes, assets and  expenditure  of  Shri  Vir  Bhadra  Singh,  to  examine whether  or  not  a  viable  Disproportionate  Assets  (DA)  case  is made  out  against  him  during  the  period  when  he  was  Union Minister of GOI.” (emphasis supplied)

  1. When the PIL was taken up by the Division Bench on 10.12.2015, it was informed that  the  tax  matters  concerning  respondent no.5  had  been taken up for assessment and re-assessment.  So far as the action to be taken by the CBI was concerned, it was informed to the Court that a Regular Case had been registered and investigation was continuing, which would be taken to  its  logical  conclusion  in  accordance  with  law.   Consequently,  the  writ petition/  PIL  was  disposed  of.    As  it  transpires,  the  Regular  Case  was registered on 23.09.2015.
  2. The Regular  Case  RC  2015  A0004  dated  23.09.2015  was  registered against  the two  petitioners,  Sh.  Anand  Chauhan,  Sh.  Chunni  Lal  Chauhan and unknown others, under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and Section 109 of the IPC on the complaint of Sh. R.L Yadav, Dy. SP, CBI, AC-1,  New  Delhi. In  his  complaint,  he  states that  during  the conduct  of enquiry  in the First  PE documents/statements were received  from  Income Tax Department, Faridabad, with regard to the purchase of a farm house by the son of petitioner no. 1 at Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, New Delhi.  The ITRs of  petitioner no.  1  and  his  family  members;  affidavits/declarations  w.r.t.movable/immovable assets filed by the petitioner no. 1 while contesting Lok Sabha  elections  2009 and  Vidhan  Sabha  elections  2012;  bank  statements; details of LIC policies and details of agricultural and non-agricultural land/ property  in  the  name  of  the  petitioner no.  1 and  his  family  members, were scrutinized. The same revealed that the petitioner no. 1 while functioning as the  Union  Minister,  in  the  Government  of  India  during  the  period  of 28.05.2009  and  26.06.2012  acquired  assets  disproportionate  to  his  known sources of income to the tune of 6,03,70,782 and tried to justify the same in the form of agricultural income. The RC records:

“3.  Shri  Vir  Bhadra  Singh  while  serving  as  Union  Minister, Govt.  of  India,  invested  huge  amount  in  purchasing  LIC policies in his own name and his family members through Shri Anand Chauhan an LIC agent.  This was done by entering into Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MoU)  dated  15.06.2008  with Shri Anand Chauhan for Mangement of his apple orchard Shri Anand Chauhan claimed to hve sold apple produce of Srikhand Orchard  to  Shri  Chunni  Lal  Chauhan  of  M/s  Universal  Apple Associates (UAA), Parwanoo.  Shri Anand Chauhan has shown large cash deposits in his bank accounts which were later used for  purchasing  LIC  Policies  for Shri Vir  Bhadra  Singh  &  his family members. The enquiry revealed the unaccounted cash of Sh. Vir Bhadra Singh has been brought back into regular books of  accounts  and  for  buying  assets  by  filing  revised  ITRs  in connivance  with  Shri  Anand  Chauhan  and  Shri  Chunni  Lal Chauhan.”

  1. The consolidated disproportionate  assets  of  the  petitioner  no.  1  and his HUF were found to be as follows:
  2. Assets at  the  end  of  check period(statement B) 281,080,327
  3. Assets at  the  beginning  of  the  Check period (Statement-A) 216,699,108
  4. Assets acquired  during  the  check period(B-A) 64,381,219
  5. Expends during  the  check  period (Statement D) 59,741,147

5  Total  Assets  acquired  and  expenses during the check period (B-A+D) 124,122,366

6  Income  during  the  check  period (statement C) 63,751,584

7  Extent  to  which  assets  and expenses(pecuniary  resource)  are disproportionate  to  Income(B-A+D)-(C)  60,370,782

8  Percentage of D.A.(DA*100)/C  94.70% The RC records that the aforesaid, prima facie, disclosed commission of offences under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act r/w Section 109 of IPC on part of the petitioners and other persons named above.

Post Views: 627