Maltidevi, with no source of income, had allegedly received Rs 75 lakh in forward dealings in commodities like gold and silver. Her foray into forward trading in 2007, the court felt, needed investigation. Her assets show that she invested Rs 1.17 crore in this trade. “The entire amount is prima facie wholly suspect,” the court said.

Maltidevi owned five immovable properties in her native place. No evidence was produced to show how she acquired them. However, the woman who gave Rs 39 lakh to her son and Rs 27 lakh to two other relatives, had an empty savings account. “What is intriguing is she if amassed so much wealth legitimately, how come her savings bank accounts shows a balance of Rs 00.00?” the court said. “Hers is a gross case to be charged and tried as an abettor of (Singh) since the figures of her income as well as assets as also the made-up expenses show at least prima facie case of ill-gotten wealth.”

Kumar, who trained to be a pilot in the USA, showed the salary earned from Jet Airways as his only source of income. However, the court noted, he had allegedly secured huge loans from banks amounting to, separately, Rs 15 crore, Rs 8 crore, Rs 7.5 crore, Rs 2 crore, Rs 60 lakh, Rs 43 lakh and Rs 22 lakh. Receipts of Rs 38 crore from private firms and individuals were shown as well.

“With such dealings his bank accounts show credit balance of not more than a few thousand rupees with one bank account having the distinction of the credit balance of Rs 00.00,” the court noted.

“Those amounts would, therefore, have to be prima facie presumed to emanate from... dealings of (Singh) alone who as a public servant and who would be able to generate such funds albeit only by illegal means and which (Kumar) as a pilot would be wholly unable to generate, prima facie showing him to be abettor in the criminal prosecution against (Singh),” it added.

The “tardy accounts” of Singh’s daughter-in-law Ankita would also suffice to interrogate her as an abettor, the court said.

Sunita, a housewife, has a bank account with Rs 13 lakh in it; two have zero balance, and another Rs 72. Her household income is shown to be Rs 10 lakh. “Since investments in as many as five immovable properties and forward trading account is shown for an individual who is otherwise a housewife, her income prima facie cannot be taken to be satisfactorily explained.” the judges said.