Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 28 March, 2026
____________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK GOEL
ACJM-02-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
____________________________________________________
CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
Case No. : CC No. CBI/299/2019
FIR/RC No. : SID-2005-E0004
U/s : 120B r/w Section 465, 471
IPC and Section 25(2) r/w
14(3) and 5 of the
Antiquities and Art
Treasurers Act, 1972.
Name of Branch : EOU-VIII/CBI/New Delhi
CNR No. : DLCT120009052019
Name of the Complainant : Insp. N. M. Sehrawat,
CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi
Name, parentage & address : (i) Satish Kumar Gupta
of the accused persons S/o Sh. Tara Chand Goel,
R/o H. No. 37, 2nd Floor,
Masjid Road, Bhogal, New
Delhi-110014.
(ii) Subhash Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Prahalad Arya
R/o H. No. 313-43/G,
Inderlok, Delhi -110035.
(iii) Karan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. R. S. Mimroth
R/o Flat No. 60, Pocket-B,
Phase-II, Sector-13,
Dwarka, New Delhi
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 1 of 87
RC-SID-2005-E0004
Digitally signed
CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:47:51 +0530
The plea of the accused persons: Not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 22.03.2006
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2026
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Saurabh Singh, Ld. PP for the CBI.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Shandilya and Sh. Adit Srivastava, Ld. counsels
for accused Satish Kumar Gupta.
Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Karan Kumar and
Subhash Kumar.
JUDGMENT
INDEX S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Brief facts of the case 3 2. Charge 4 3. Evidence 4 Details of witness examined 4 Prosecution witnesses 6 List of documents exhibited 44 Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. 49 5. Final Arguments 49 Prosecution submission 49 Defence submission 63 6. Analysis and findings 76 7. Conclusion 86 8. Final Order - Acquittal 87__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 2 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:48:01 +0530
1. In the present case, CBI has filed the chargesheet against accused Satish Kumar Gupta (A-1) and accused Subhash Kumar (A-2) for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w Section 465 and 471 of IPC. CBI has also filed complaint under Section 25(2) r/w Section 14(3) and section 5 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 against A-1, A-2 and accused Karan Kumar (A-3). However, vide order dated 21.07.2009, Ld. Predecessor of this Court had clubbed the chargesheet and the complaint case on the application filed by the CBI u/s 210 Cr.P.C. and the present case has been proceeded as on chargesheet.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of Insp. N. M. Sehrawat, CBI, New Delhi that A-1, Prop. Of M/s India Arts Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi, was in illegal possession of registrable antiquities suspected to be stolen from various places from historical places etc. without getting them registered. The team was constituted including independent witnesses to conduct joint surprise check at the abovementioned shop of A-1 and 27 articles were seized, which were prima facie opined as registrable antiquities by Sh. B. S. Negi, Dy. Superintendent, ASI.
3. It is further alleged that 27 seized articles were examined by the authorized nominee of DG, ASI and 6 artifacts were declared registrable antiquities. None of these artifacts was found registered in the name of the accused persons. No license has been ever __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 3 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:48:08 +0530
issued in favour of accused persons for carrying on the business of antiquities.
4. It is further alleged that the two ante dated purchase vouchers dated 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004 were prepared by Rajkumar, an employee of A-1 on the instructions of A-1. A-3 signed these vouchers on the instructions of A-1. During investigation, none of the seized articles was found to be stolen from anywhere. The report of the CFSL confirmed that 2 ante dated bills were prepared by Rajkumar and signed by A-3.
5. After completion of the investigation, CBI had filed the present chargesheet and complaint, which have been clubbed and joint trial held.
CHARGE
6. Vide order dated 26.04.2010, charges were framed against all the accused A-1, A-2 & A-3 i.e. under Section 120B r/w 465 and 471 IPC against A-1 and A-2, under section u/s 25(2) r/w Section 14(3) and section 5 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 against A-1 and u/s 25(2) r/w section 5 of the Antiqui- ties and Art Treasures Act, 1972 against A-3.
EVIDENCE
7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined thirteen (13) witnesses which are as follows: -
Details, Name and Description/ Role of witness Designation PW1-Sh. Mehar Chand, He is independent witness who __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 4 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:48:16 +0530
Assistant, NBCC Bhawan, joined the search and other
New Delhi proceedings of this case with
CBI.
PW2-Sh. G. T. Shendey, He prepared report regarding
Director (Antiquity), ASI the six antiquities out of 27
articles seized.
PW3-Sh. J. K. Malhotra He handed over document
D-16 and D-17 to CBI.
PW4-Sh. Pradeep Kumar He is independent witness who
Grover, Assistant, NBCC joined the search and other
Bhawan, New Delhi proceedings of this case with
CBI.
PW5-Sh. Gagan Singh, He is son of owner of shop M/s
Gagan Brass Palace
PW6-Sh. Gian Singh Lodhi He is owner of shop M/s Gagan
Brass Palace.
PW7-Sh. J. M. Thapar, He provided information that
Registering Officer, ASI. 27 seized articles were not
registered as antiquity.
PW8-Sh. A. H. Ganvir, Photo He took photographs during Division, CFSL. the search proceedings.
PW9-Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, He provided information Director (Archeology), ASI. regarding the license to deal with Arts and Antiquities.
PW10- Insp. N. M. Sehrawat, He is complainant of the CBI, Delhi. present case.
PW11- Sh. Suresh Chandra. He is seller of sculptures to accused Karan Kumar.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 5 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:48:24 +0530 PW12-Insp. Dharamvir Singh, He is an investigating officer CBI, Delhi. (IO) of the present case.
PW13-Sh. S. R. Singh, He forwarded the report of Director, CFSL, CBI. Expert witness who analyzed the specimen handwritings and signatures of accused Subhash and witness Rajkumar.
a) PW1 Mehar Chand deposed that he was working as office Assistant Grade-1, NBCC Bhawan, New Delhi, during the year 2005 and he was deputed by his senior officer Sh. S.L. Jain to report the CBI office on 30.06.2005 to assist in a particular case vide letter Ex.PW1/A. He had reported the CBI office at block No.3 and met Insp. N. M. Sehrawat, who briefed him that they have to go for conducting the search. The team comprising one B.S. Negi of ASI and one photographer of CFSL and other members including Sh. P. K. Grover of his office as a public witness reached to the spot located in Sunder Nagar i.e. shop of accused S. K. Gupta at 11.00 A.M. At that time, accused S. K. Gupta was not at his shop and came around 11.30 A.M. and thereafter, the search was started. The total 27 objects were recorded in search, which seems to be antiquities. After that, the photographs of the objects were taken by the CFSL photographer and paper slips and measurement of the objects were also done at the spot. After that, an inquiry about the report of 27 objects were made to the accused S K Gupta but he fails to produce any documents relating to the purchase of 27 objects. After that the whole proceedings of the search were recorded in the recovery __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 6 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:50:34 +0530
memo Ex. PW1/B which was at the spot. He identified his signatures on the case properties i.e. one metallic object having a paper slip mentioning the Sl. no.26 is affixed on the metallic object Ex.P-1, Eight paintings Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-9, Five stones objects Ex.
P-10 to Ex.P-14, One wooden object Ex.P-15, One terracota head Ex.P-16, Other 11 objects Ex.P-17 to Ex.P-27. The said search was completed at 05.45 P.M. The production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW1/C dated 24.08.2005 was prepared in his presence. He correctly identified his signatures on the voucher dated 27.04.2004, 19.05.2004, 07.06.2005 Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/G, and deposed that these vouchers were handed over by Satish Kumar Gupta in the CBI office in his presence. There is a photocopy of one object and the same is marked A. He also correctly identified his signatures on Identification of seized objects memo Ex.PW1/H and Ex. PW1/I dated 24.08.2005 which were made in his presence. He also correctly identified his signatures on Identification of seized object memo Ex.PW1/J dated 08.09.2005 which was also formed in his presence. The specimen signature of accused Subhash Kumar was taken in his presence and also in presence of Sh. P.K. Grover. He also correctly identified his signatures on the specimen signature/handwritings from S-36 to S-59 Ex.PW1/J-1 to Ex.PW1/J-25. The specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Rajkumar was taken in his presence. He also correctly identified his signatures on specimen signatures/handwriting of Sh. Raj Kumar from S.60 to S.79 Ex.PW1/K-1 to Ex.PW1/K-20. The said specimen signature was taken on 24.08.2005. On inquiry about the vouchers handed over by the accused S.K. Gupta, one voucher shows that metallic brass statue was sold by one Gian Singh. The __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 7 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:50:41 +0530 said Gian Singh was called for investigation and in his presence, he disclosed that he had not sold this metallic brass statue to the accused S.K. Gupta.
PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused S K Gupta and not by other accused persons. He deposed that he reached the office of CBI at 09.30 AM. At 10.30 AM, he left CBI office to Sunder Nagar. He was informed by N. M Sehrawat that he had to go for a search. The premises was open when they reached the spot and again said the premises was opened in their presence when they reached the spot, the premises was locked. He went alongwith N. M. Sehrawat in his vehicle. On the way from CBI office to the spot there was no discussion. The CBI team has told the person who was opening the shop at that time about the search. It is correct that immediately he entered the premises with CBI team. It is correct that the shops of that market near the spot/shop were opened when they reached the spot. Though the market was not over crowded but some public persons were there. No request was made to any public persons to join the raid. The raid was conducted on the ground floor of the shop. He cannot say whether CBI people visited the first floor of the shop or not. He did not visit the first floor of the shop, he was stationed in the ground floor. He cannot say how many objects were in the shop. 27 objects were lifted by Mr. N. M. Sehrawat and Dharamvir from the shop as mentioned in the list Ex.PW1/B. At the around 12.00 P.M., the lifting of the objects was started. They entered the shop alongwith CBI team at 11.30 AM. Between 11.30 AM to 12.00 PM, they informed the person in the shop about the identity of the CBI officials and after introduction, then impending raid __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 8 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:50:48 +0530
which was to be conducted in the shop. He visited CBI office thrice for the aforesaid matter including 30.06.2005 and 24.08.2005. They were 7-8 persons in the raiding team. He was sitting in the ground floor, CBI team went to the first floor. The goods/ items were taken randomly by CBI officer from ground floor. The goods were measured and he was not involved in the measuring. He left the spot at around 5.30 P.M. The contents of Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E are not in his handwriting but Ex. PW1/D bears his signature. He had no personal knowledge about the contents of Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. Production-cum- seizure memo dated 24.08.2005 was in the handwriting of Sh. Dharamvir. The items taken from the first floor were not documented on the first floor. Ex. PW1/J was prepared by Sh. Dharamvir in the CB1 office. Ex. PW1/I was also prepared in the CBI office. No photocopy was made in his presence either of the article or of the documents. From the spot, he went to CBI office with the raiding party. He was in CBI office up to 7-8 PM on 30.06.2005. The printout of the photographs was not prepared on same day in his presence. On 24.08.2005, the negatives were shown to him by Dharamvir, Inspector, CBI. He had signed on those negatives. Photographs were also shown to him on 24.08.2005, however, he cannot say whether I had put his signatures on those photographs or not. The photographs were shown to him in presence of Sh. N.M. Sehrawat and Sh. P.K. Grover, his colleagues. He reached CBI office at around 11-11:30 AM and remained there till evening about 4-4:30 PM. He did not remember whether there was any other CBI officer except N. M Sehrawat and Dharamvir were present there or not. On __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 9 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:50:56 +0530 08.09.2005, he visited the CBI office on third occasion. The specimen handwriting Ex. PW1/K20 were taken in his presence. Inspector Dharamvir Singh was also present when the specimen handwriting was taken, who also put his signature on Ex. PW1/K20. Mr. Grover also put his signature on same document. His statement was recorded by CBI on 30.06.2005 at around 09:30/10:00 AM by Mr. N.M. Sehrawat. It was over within 10/15 minutes and he left CBI office thereafter. He had never gone to the CBI office after 24.08.2005. He did not remember the time when he went to the CBI office, however he remained there almost 4/5 hours. He met there with Inspector Dharamvir. His statement was not recorded on 24.08.2005. The search was conducted on 30.06.2005. They reached CBI office after the search alongwith the objects at around 5:30 PM. He remained there till 08:00 PM. Seizure memo was prepared at the spot. Carbon copy was also made at the spot. Seizure memo was prepared by Inspector Dharamvir in his handwriting while present at the ground floor. It is correct that some CBI officials were also present on the first floor. It is further correct that some objects were also lifted from the first floor. The seizure memo was prepared in between 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM. Objects were deposited in the Malkhana of CBI in between 05:30 PM to 08:00 PM. He did not remember whether the memo was prepared by the CBI officials while depositing the objects in the Malkhana. He did not know the name of the official who received the goods in the Malkhana. He was again called by the CBI through notice addressed to his senior officer for 24.08.2005.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 10 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:51:03 +0530
b) PW2 Dr. G.T Shendey deposed that he is MA in Archaeology & Phd. He started his carrier as a Curator Red Fort New Delhi. After that he was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent Archaeology by UPSC and was posted at Gauhati. Thereafter, he was again appointed as a Superintending Archaeology by the UPSC and was posted to Baroda branch of Archaeological Survey of India. He had a wide experience about the examination of antiquity object and in Archaeology. On the request of S.P., CBI, EOU-VIII, he had written a letter (D-18) Ex. PW2/A to the S.P., CBI, EOU-VIII, New Delhi about the Appeal Committee Meeting which had been fixed for examination of objects on 09.08.05. Accordingly, Appeal Committee held a meeting on 09.08.05 in the office of DG, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi and on examination of 27 objects/material it was found six were registrable antiquities Ex. P1 to P6. He prepared the report(D-21) Ex PW2/B. The photographs of all 27 objects were also sent by the CBI to them alongwith the objects. He correctly identified his signatures and official rubber stamp on the back side of each photograph. Photographs are Ex. PW2/1 to PW2/27. On the back side of the photographs, the opinion regarding the antiquities of the object is also mentioned by a stamp regarding the same.
PW2 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and deposed that it is correct that the objects Ex P1 to P6 are six out of 27 objects which were examined by the Committee during the relevant time. Only these six objects were found to be antiquities by the Committee. It is correct that report Ex PW2/B is silent about the names of the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 11 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:51:12 +0530 members of the Committee. It is also correct that the report prepared by Committee is also not available on the judicial record. Report of the Committee is not handed over to the investigating agency as per the provision contained in Section 24 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972. He had signed on photographs Ex PW2/1 to PW2/27 as convener and authorized nominee of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India. It is correct that there is no document showing that he was authorized nominee of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, available on judicial record. He did not hand over copy of any such authorization in his favour, to the investigating agency. It is wrong to suggest that I was not the authorized nominee to examine the object sent by the CBI as per provisions u/s 24 AAT Act 1972.
c) PW3 J.K Malhotra deposed that on 20.07.05, he produced documents D-16 and D-17 as mentioned in the production cum seizure memo Ex. PW3/A dt. 20.07.05 and handed over the same to Sh. Dharamvir Singh Inspector CBI. The document D-16 is Mark X. The document D-17 is Ex PW3/B. PW3 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and he deposed that he simply handed over the documents and never dealt with the same.
d) PW 4 Pradeep Kumar Grover deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted as Office Assistant Grade-1 in NBCC, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. In reference of CBI letter 275/SIR/Misc./2002 dated 29.06.2005, he was directed by Addl. G.M. (Personal) to appear before CBI. Accordingly, on 30.06.2005 at about 09:30 AM, he __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 12 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:51:19 +0530 along with Mr. Mehar Chand reached the CBI office where Insp. Sehrawat along with other staff member including Shri B.S Negi, DYSA/ASI, New Delhi and one photographer of CFSL met him. Thereafter, Insp. Sehrawat introduced to each other and shared the secret information that accused Satish Kumar Gupta, proprietor, M/s India Art Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi is in illegal possession of registrable antiquities which were suspected to be stolen from various historical places. Thereafter, at about 11 AM, he, Mehar Chand along with team members reached at M/s India Art Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi i.e. shop of accused Satish Kumar Gupta. The accused Satish Kumar Gupta was not present there. Insp. Sehrawat had informed the team that accused Satish Kumar Gupta will come after about 30 minutes and he asked them to wait. After about 30 minutes, accused Satish Kumar Gupta came at his shop and they entered in his shop on the directions of Insp. Sehrawat. Thereafter, Insp Sehrawat disclosed their identity to accused Satish Kumar Gupta and informed about the purpose of their visit. Thereafter, in the presence of accused, the search was conducted by the CBI team members and 27 objects were found suspected by Shri B.S Negi. Thereafter, photographs of these objects were taken by the photographer. Insp Sehrawat had asked the accused Satish Kumar Gupta regarding source of acquisition and purchase voucher. Accused Satish Kumar Gupta could not give satisfactory reply and voucher. Thereafter, the suspected items were taken in police possession and in this regard the seizure memo were prepared and signed by him and other team members. The search had been concluded at about 05:45 PM. White paper slips were also pasted on each object and he along __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 13 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:51:29 +0530 with other team member signed the same before taking the photographs. The surprise check cum seizure memo dated 30.06.2005 Ex.PW1/B was prepared at the time of seizure of 27 objects from the shop of accused on 30.06.2005. He correctly identified his signature as well as signatures of Sh. Mehar Chand on all four pages of Ex.PW1/B. On 24.08.2005, accused Satish Kumar Gupta had produced four purchase vouchers bills to the IO and the same were seized by IO vide identification of seized objects memo dated 24.08.2005 Ex.PW1/H. He correctly identified his signature as well as signatures of Sh. Mehar Chand on the details of the vouchers mentioned in Ex.PW1/H. Ex.PW1/H and also on the bills/vouchers Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/F. He did not remember whether IO obtained signatures of all the accused in his presence. He correctly identified his signatures on all the pages of document D-43 i.e. the specimen signatures and handwriting sheets of all the accused persons Ex.PW4/A (colly.) running in 79 pages. Thereafter, they returned back to their office. He correctly identified his signatures on the document D-30 i.e. production cum seizure memo dated 29.08.2005 Ex.PW4/B vide which the bill book was seized. The witness identified the metal object bearing serial no.26 Ex. P1 and correctly identified his signatures on the slip, eight paintings on the canvas bears the serial number 1 to 8 Ex. P2 to P9 and correctly identified his signatures on the slip. The remaining case property is Ex. P10 to P27.
PW4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and he deposed that he was called in the office of CBI on 29.06.2005. He had been called to join the investigation by the CBI on six to seven occasions. Before going to CBI office, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 14 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:51:37 +0530 he did not know accused Satish Kumar Gupta. On the day of search, they reached at the shop of Satish Kumar Gupta at Sunder Nagar at about 11.00 in the morning. Mehar Chand was his office colleague. No secret information was shared by Inspector Sehrawat with him. Some official of CFSL also joined them. He did not remember the name of those CFSL officials. He did not remember whether any photographer was present on the spot or not. The purpose of search was informed to him by the CBI official on the spot. No obstruction was made by any person during the search. Accused Satish Kumar Gupta had provided all the documents asked by the CBI. It is correct that he did not have any personal knowledge of the expertise regarding the antiques. Some photographs of the spot were taken in his presence. He did not remember who took the photographs. He did not remember the name of the raiding team except Inspector Sehrawat and Mehar Chand. There were around four to five members in the raiding team besides him and Mehar Chand. The name of the shop was some Art Palace. He did not remember the exact name of the shop. It is correct that they entered the shop after reaching there and remained there till the conclusion of the raid. Satish Kumar Gupta came to the shop after about 30 minutes they reached there. Inspector Sehrawat made some inquiries from Satish Kumar Gupta in his presence. The search continued from 12.00 noon till 05.30 pm. He did not remember the number of floors of the shop.
It is correct that the shop was comprised of only ground floor. He could not tell the covered area of the shop. He did not remember whether there was any specialized or expert in the field of antiques. Apart from 29.06.2005, he was called on 24.08.2005 at CBI office. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 15 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:51:46 +0530 PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI and he deposed that it is correct that the metal artifacts and the paintings on the canvas were the same which were seized on the raiding day. He correctly identified the case property.
PW4 was further cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused S K Gupta and he deposed that he could not tell the details of the paintings seized by the CBI. He could say that the paintings are the same which were seized on the basis of the signatures on the slips affixed on those paintings. Apart from his signatures on the slip, he did not have any other basis to identify the paintings.
e) PW5 Sh. Gagan Singh deposed that Gagan Brass Palace is a shop of Brass statues situated at 500, Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-06. His father Sh. Gyan Singh Lodhi running the shop for 35 years. He also assists his father for the last 15-16 years. Ex. PW1/G is the bill by which he sold 37 pieces of "Assorted Brass God's Figure's and Artifacts Dancing English Lady Figure in various sizes 15" to 30 approximate" to Indian Art Place, Sunder Nagar on 16.05.2005 an amount of Rs. 15,686/- @ 185/-per kg. The figures and Artifacts were made of Brass. The bill Ex. PW1/G is in his own handwriting and also bears his signature. The idol Ex. P1 bearing Malkhana No. M-328/05 was never sold by him to the accused persons. He had sold the small and different types of idol as Ex. Pl.
PW5 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and deposed that the shop in question belonged to his father. When he joined the shop of his father, he was 20 years of age. He was not aware of the antiques __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 16 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:51:54 +0530
or non-antiques articles at that time. The idol produced today is around 26-27 inches in height. Only Brass idols used to be sold at their shop. He cannot say if the idol shown to him today is made of Brass or any other metal. He is into this business for about 17 years.
f) PW-6 Sh. Gian Singh Lodhi deposed that he is having business of brass items in the name of M/s Gagan Brass Palace at the ground floor of above premises. His both sons are assisting him in his business. The document D-27 Ex PW-1/G i.e. bill dt. 16.05.05 of M/s Gagan Brass Palace in favour of Indian Art Palace, Sunder Nagar which is owned by Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta who is known by the name of Lala, for sale of 37 brass items, belongs to his above proprietorship firm and the same was prepared by his elder son Gagan Singh having his handwriting. He was examined by CBI officials regarding the above bill. He had told to the CBI that the items were supplied by his firm with the said bill to Indian Art Palace. He was also shown some brass idols in CBI Malkhana and he told CBI that the said Idol was not supplied by his firm to Indian Art Palace. He handed over the original of the above bill. He correctly identified his signatures on the identification memo Ex. PW-1/l dt. 24.08.05 prepared at CBI office. Some CBI officials were also present at that time and signed the said memo. One brass idol tied having MR No. 328/5 Ex. P-1 is not sold by him to Indian Art Palace.
PW6 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and deposed that he is into brass business since 1985. He is the proprietor of M/s Gagan Brass __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 17 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:52:02 +0530 Palace. They do not manufacture the idols kept at his shop and they purchase it from Manufactures in Aligarh. All items are prepared on their orders on the basis of catalogs available with the manufacturer. All items were purchased against proper bills. The bills given by the manufacturer at Aligarh are given on the basis of weight. Most of the items are sold on the basis of weight. It is correct to say that the 37 items sold to M/s Indian Art Palace was sold on the basis of weight of the items. They did not mark the idols to identify in order to show that those idols belong to their shop. He can identify the items sold by him if shown to him in recent time. It is correct that he cannot identify the items if shown to him after lapse of some time. It is correct to say that the idols purchased by them from Aligarh are not unique and are easily available in Aligarh as they are manufactured in hundreds. On the basis of polish put on the idols, he can distinguish the idols sold by him. He uses Plato polish upon idols. It is correct that many sellers use Plato polish on idols. In the absence of any marking, he cannot distinguish the idols sold if they are hundreds in number. He places the orders with Aligarh manufactures on the basis of requirement which varies from 10 kilo to 100 kilo. It is correct that he sold the items on the basis of weight. The bills usually prepared on the basis of weight only but at times the items are mentioned. He needs to check the bill by which he had purchased the item from Aligarh which was sold to M/s. Indian Art Palace. The original bill/invoice in respect of the purchase of articles is handed over to the purchaser by them. The CBI officials shown him the original bill of Indian Art Gallery in the CBI office which was in their custody. He had stated that the idol was not from their shop __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 18 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:52:09 +0530 as he identified the same on the basis of frame/die used by their worker for making the said item. The idol shown to him in the CBI office was in big size as compared to the one sold by him. Although, he had idol which are same as well as more than the size of the case property. The design of the idol of the case property was not available in his shop. He produced one original bill Ex. PW6/D-1 dated 15.05.2005 of Jai Ambe Brass Art Emporium, Aligarh whereby Gagan Brass Palace has purchased mix brass items for Rs. 32,837/- including the CST amount. He is having mobile no. 9999923748 for the last 5-7 years. They have been using landline number 011-23280661 in their firm. His son used to use his mobile, the number of which was 9891500438. There was no other number besides this as far as he recalls. He did not recall whether they were using the mobile no. 7490113353. This number is probably the TIN number of their firm. It is correct that the said TIN number is issued prior to the year 2005. He cannot identify whether the idol is antique or not even if such articles is sold to him by the manufacturer. They have never purchased the antique items as he used to purchase only the fresh die products. It is correct that in the items purchased by them usually there is joint which is welded. He cannot comment whether the antique idol does not have a joint. It is correct that on bare perusal of the case property it cannot be established that the same is having joint or not. The same cannot be identified without breaking the same. The items purchased by them have prominent markings showing the joints due to the effect of polish. The case property has been shown to him is unpolished and, therefore, he cannot identify the joint marks. He cannot distinguish between the antiquity brass idol and __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 19 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:52:17 +0530 a copy-cat.
g) PW7 Sh. J.M. Thapar deposed that in year 2005, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist, Delhi Circle, ASI. His duties as Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist were to supervise the monuments, inspection of monuments, assisting superintending archaeologist in day-to-day work of Delhi Circle and to inspect the site museums of Delhi Circle and he was also given the charge of registering officer of Delhi. The present case pertains to some objects which were given by CBI to us to verify as to whether the same are registered or not. After verifying from his records, he found that the objects which were put forth by the CBI were not registered in their antiquity register and he had informed the CBI accordingly. The document D-19 Ex. PW7/A i.e. letter dated 04.08.2005 is written by him to SP, CBI and bears his signature. CBI had asked from them as to whether 27 objects are registered or not and in response to that letter, he had replied to CBI vide letter dated 04.08.2005 i.e. Ex. PW7/A that these 27 objects are not registered in the name of Satish Kumar Gupta or in the name of any member in the family. The document D-39 Ex.PW7/B i.e. letter dated 26.09.2005 is written by him to SP, CBI and bears his signature. CBI had asked from them to whether 27 objects are registered or not and in response to that letter, he had replied to CBI vide letter dated 26.09.2005 i.e. Ex. PW7/B that these 27 objects are not registered in the name of Karan Kumar and Subhash Kumar or in the name of any member in the family.
PW7 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and deposed that he had __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 20 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 MAYANK by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:52:25 +0530 obtained degree in M.A(History) and diploma in Archaeology. Any object which is more than 100 years old that has to be registered under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972. It has been defined under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 as to what are the objects which are to be registered or not. He was not shown any object by the CBI to verify as to whether the same are registered or not. They had only sent a list of the objects to us and asking for verifying the same as to whether the same are registered or not. There is no scientific method to assess as to whether an object is an antique object or not. Whether an object is an antique object or not is decided by an Expert Committee under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 and the Expert Committee is the final authority. He could not tell as to what are the parameters on which the Expert Committee decide or declare as to whether an object is an antique object or not. ASI must be having the list of all the antiques available in India and which are registered. There is no process by which the age of the brass and bronze statue can be ascertained. They can assess the age of a statue by looking at its aesthetics and formation etc. It is correct that generally the copies of antiques/statutes/objects are available for sale at the Art Galleries and Museums. It is correct that a layman can form an opinion as to the originality on a copy of antique being represented to him as an original one. It is correct hat the process of manufacturing brass or bronze objects were different in the period 100 or more years ago as compared to the present times. He did not go with the search team of CBI at India Arts Palace, Sunder Nagar. He was never called at the CBI office in the present case. However, his statement was recorded by the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 21 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:52:33 +0530 CBI in the present case.
h) PW8 Sh. A.H. Ganvir deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted as Scientific Assistant, Photo Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. A letter was marked to him by HOD, Photo directing him to join the search proceedings being conducted by the CBI. After receipt of the letter on 30.06.2005, he went to the CBI Office and met Inspector Sehrawat. Some witnesses were already present at the CBI office and some of them were from ASI office. He alongwith all of them went to 33, India Craft Center, Krishna Nagar Market, Delhi. There a search was conducted by the CBI team and they found 27 antique objects and he was directed by Inspector Sehrawat to take photographs of those 27 antique objects. He took photographs of 27 antique objects at the shop Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/27. Inspector Dharamvir Singh took the black and white photographs on 06.07.2005 and color photographs on 07.07.2005 from him. He correctly identified his signatures on the document D-3 i.e. joint surprise cheque seizure memo dated 30.06.2005 Ex.PW1/B, the document D-7 i.e. letter no.
274/SIR/2005-EOU-VIII dated 29.06.2005 addressed to Director, CFSL, New Delhi Ex. PW8/A and the document D-8 i.e. letter no. 3242/RC SID 2005 E-004-EOU-VIII dated 06.07.2005 addressed to Director, CFSL, New Delhi Ex. PW8/B. PW8 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and deposed that he was working in CFSL since the year 1997 when he joined as Scientific Assistant. On reaching the shop/ India Craft Center he saw the idols in the shop. He took all the photographs on a single floor. He __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 22 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:52:41 +0530 did not remember whether the shop was situated on more than one floor. He reached at the shop at about 11:30 AM. He did not remember as to who all were present in the shop when they reached there. There were about 1-2 persons present at the shop when they reached there. On reaching the shop search team members had conversations with the persons present at the shop and after a while search proceedings had started. He had taken total 64 photographs on a camera roll. The color camera roll was processed and developed at Fab Colour Lab, Khan Market, New Delhi whereas the black and white camera roll was processed and developed at Photo Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. He did not remember as to how many were the black and white photograph out of total 64 photographs. There were 48 color photographs out of total 64 photographs. A bill was received from the Fab Colour Lab for developing and processing of photographs. As of now, he is not having the same with him. He took photographs at the instance of Inspector Sehrawat. The articles/ objects the photographs of which were to be taken were segregated and kept aside by Inspector Sehrawat.
i) PW-9 Ashok Kumar Sinha deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted as Superintending Archaeologist at Delhi Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Safdarjung Tomb, New Delhi. In the year 2005, he had received a correspondence from the CBI vide which they had asked whether any license had been issued to deal with arts and antiquities. He exactly did not remember the names of the persons. However, they might be Subhash Kumar and Karan Kumar. He correctly identified his signatures on the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 23 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:52:50 +0530 document D-20 i.e. letter no. F No. DLH-13/Ant/2005/3415 dated 25.07.2005 Ex.PW9/A and D-38 i.e. letter no. F No. DLH-/Ant/7/2005-M-454 dated 20.09.2005 Ex.PW9/B. Ex.PW9/A was addressed by him to CBI in response to document D-11 which he had received from the CBI. Ex.PW9/B was addressed by him to CBI in response to document D-37 which he had received from the CBI.
PW9 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
j) PW10 N.M Sherawat deposed that during relevant period, he was posted as Inspector at ECU-VIII, CBI. New Delhi. They had received information that a shop in Sunder Nagar of Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta was storing stolen antiquities in his shop i.e. India Art, 33, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. Consequently, a surprise checking team was formed with the officers of CBI and the services of one officer i.e. Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist of ASI Sh. B.S. Negi were requisitioned alongwith the services of two independent witnesses from NBCC, Delhi and two persons namely Sh. P.K. Grover and Sh. Mehar Chand were deputed for the same. On 30.06.2005, the team members assembled in CBI office at CGO Complex and all the team members were briefed about the surprise checking. The team proceeded to the spot at 9.30 hrs. and reached Sunder Nagar at 11.00 hrs. Accused Satish Kumar Gupta was not present in the shop so, they waited for his arrival and Satish Kumar Gupta arrived at 11.30 hrs. When Satish Kumar Gupta reached the shop, they disclosed their identities and the purposes of their visit. The surprise checking started at 12.00 hrs. and 27 items which __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 24 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:52:58 +0530 were described as registrable antiquities by Sh. B.S. Negi, were taken into police possession after being signed by B.S. Negi. These included paintings, terracotta, stone sculptures etc. These items were taken into police possession after being signed by the two independent witnesses and accused Satish Kumar. These items were photographed by Sh. A.H. Ganvir, photographer of CFSL, who had accompanied them. The surprise checking continued up to 5.45 pm. When asked about the items, accused Satish Kumar Gupta could not give a satisfactorily reply about the acquisition of these items nor could he provide any supporting vouchers about these items. Since these items were registrable antiquities, they were taken into police custody. He correctly identified the accused Satish Kumar Gupta in the court. He correctly identified his signatures on document D-2 i.e complaint dated 01.07.2005 Ex. PW10/A (colly) and document D-3 i.e. joint surprise check cum seizure memo dated 30.06.2005 Ex. PW1/B. PW10 is duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the S K Gupta and not by other accused persons and deposed that he had received the oral information about stolen antiquities in the shop of accused Satish Gupta from a source, but he cannot disclose the name/identity of the source. The information was received by him only from the source and not by any other official of the CBI. It is correct that the source had informed that there were stolen antiquities kept in the shop of accused Satish Kumar Gupta. He did not find out as to from where the antiquities in question were stolen. He had not found out as to whether the antiquities in question were actually stolen or not. The two independent witnesses were requisitioned one day prior i.e. on 29.06.2005 for __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 25 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:53:07 +0530 their appearance on 30.06.2005 and they had appeared on 30.06.2005. He had never gone to M/s India Arts Palace prior to 30.06.2005. He never went to M/s India Arts Palace after 30.06.2005, CBI does not have the data as to from where the antiquities in question were/have been stolen. There were about 7- 8 members in the joint surprise check team. He had informed all the members of the joint surprise check team for joining/participating in the joint surprise check. His SP had informed all the members of the joint surprise check except Sh. P.K. Grover and Sh. Mehar Chand. A search report was prepared. Though, he did not remember exactly, but it may have been prepared by Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Inspector. He did not recollect as to whether Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Inspector was present during the search proceedings held on 30.06.2005. He had seen the search report and it is available on record. Ex. PW1/B was prepared at the shop itself of accused Satish Kumar Gupta on 30.06.2005.
k) PW-11 Suresh Chandra deposed that he had given his statement to the CBI in the year 2005. After completing his education, he used to do the work of art and craftsman and after some time, he started working as conductor in the DTC. He had learned the craftsman work from Shastri Nagar. He used to make the Buddha's Head, Shivling and other articles as and when ordered by someone. He used to keep these sculptures in his house. He knows Karan Kumar as his father namely Ram Swaroop also used to do the same work. Karan Kumar used to sell the sculptures. He did not know from where he used to purchase those sculptures. Karan Kumar used to come to his house since very long. Karan __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 26 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:53:15 +0530 Kumar used to purchase Shivling from him in the year 2005. Thereafter, he had taken one bill / voucher in respect of sculpture sold by him to Karan and its dimension was 14 x 10 inches. He correctly identified his handwriting and signatures on the document D-32 i.e. purchase voucher dated 14.05.2005 at page no. 1 of the Ramit Voucher Pad (M-363/05) Ex.PW11/A. Ex.PW11/A was prepared on the instructions of Karan Kumar and date therein was also filled on his instructions. When he had gone to the CBI office, he was shown a Shivling and after seeing that he had told the CBI officials that it has not been made by him and during that time two persons other than him were also present there. He had seen the Shivling which was shown to him by the CBI official, for the first time at the CBI Office. He was told by Inspector Dharamvir that the said Shivling has been seized from Satish Kumar Gupta. He correctly identified his signatures on document D-34 i.e. identification of seized object memo dated 08.09.2005 Ex.PW1/J. Ex.P12 dated 24.12.2010 i.e. a Stone Shivling is the same sculpture which was shown to him by the CBI and he told the CBI officials that he has not made Ex. P12. Ex. P12 is not the same sculpture which was sold by him to Karan Kumar vide Ex.PW11/A. PW11 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons deposed that he had learnt to make stone sculptures after the year 1980. No certificate was issued since he had learnt this art from my neighbors. He had learnt this art from one Mr. Rishi Kumar. He continued to do this work intermittently and even today he continues to do this work. He used to identify/ differentiate the sculptures made by him from the one not made by __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 27 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:53:23 +0530 him on the basis of their size. He used to make big and small sculptures (of all sizes). He never used to put his signatures on the sculptures made by him. It is possible that these sculptures made by him can be copied by someone else also. He remembers the sculpture made by him and that is the reason he can identify the same from the one not made by him. The exact replica of the sculpture made by him cannot be made by any other person. He is selling the sculptures to Karan Kumar for the last 15-20 years. Again said, he had sold the last sculpture to him 15 years back. He is expert in making stone sculptures. He makes sculpture on the basis of design available in the books. He had never made a sculpture on the basis of a fact that I had seen the same and liked it. In the year 1985, he was employed with DTC as conductor and he used to get Thursday off every week. When he was working in the DTC, he used to make sculptures. When he was called by the CBI, at that time he was working in the DTC. He was called twice in the CBI office and his statement was got recorded on one day. His statement was recorded at the CBI office on his first day of the visit. He had gone to the CBI office on both the days in the pre- lunch session and there was no occasion for him taking leave as his duty started with the DTC in the post lunch session. On the second day of his visit to the CBI office, the Shivling Ex. P12 was shown to him. On the first day of his visit to the CBI office nothing was shown to him by the CBI official. In my entire lifetime, he might have made 15-20 sculptures. CBI official had obtained his signature on his statement. Ex.PW11/A is his receipt from his receipt book. He never used to issue receipt on the sale of sculpture by him. The voucher was brought by the Karan Kumar to him as __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 28 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:53:30 +0530 he had told him that Karan Kumar intends to sell the sculpture which has been purchased by Karan from him vide Ex.PW11/A. He knows Ram Swaroop, the father of Karan Kumar as they used to come to Shastri Nagar. Ram Swaroop also used to get the sculptures made from other artisans at Shastri Nagar. Ram Swaroop had also purchased sculpture (i.e. Buddha Head) from him once. Karan Kumar had purchased 8-10 sculptures from him. Other than Karan Kumar and Ram Swaroop, he had sold his sculptures to 2-3 persons also. His statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by CBI dated 08.09.2005 is Mark X. He did not know Satish Kumar Gupta.
l) PW-12 Dharamvir Singh deposed that he was posted at EOU-VIII, CBI, New Delhi from 2000 to 2008 as Inspector and RC-4E/2005 of EOU-VIII was entrusted to him for investigation. The instant case was registered on the complaint of Sh. N.M. Sehrawat, the then Insp. of CBI, EOU-VIII dated 01.07.2005 against Satish Kumar Gupta. Sh. N.M. Sehrawat had conducted a joint surprise check on the information received from a reliable source to the effect that Satish Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s India Art Palace, 33 Sunder Nagar market, New Delhi was having illegal possession of registrable antiquities, suspected to be stolen without getting them registered with Registry Office. Joint surprise check was conducted on 30.06.2005 along with Sh. B.S. Negi, Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, 2 independent witnesses namely Sh. P.K. Grover and Mehar Chand, both Office Assistant, Grade-I, NBCC, New Delhi, Sh. A.H. Ganvir, photographer/Scientific Assistant. During __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 29 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:53:38 +0530 surprise check, Satish Kumar Gupta was also present at the aforesaid premises. During surprise check, Sh. B.S. Negi inspected the large number of artifacts stored/displayed in the aforesaid premises and out of them, 27 artifacts were declared as suspected antiquities which were registrable. Regarding acquisition of the 27 artifacts, Satish Kumar Gupta was asked to furnish the bills/vouchers and source of acquisition, etc. Satish Kumar Gupta could not reply satisfactorily and Satish Kumar Gupta had not produced any bill/voucher regarding acquisition and registration certificate which gave a suspicion that these artifacts are to be stolen. All the artifacts were photographed on the spot by Sh. A.H. Ganvir. A paper slip bearing serial no. and signatures of Sh. B.S. Negi, independent witnesses and Sh. A.H. Ganvir were also placed along side of the artifacts. After that, all the 27 objects/artifacts were taken into police possession. During investigation, various letters were written to Archaeological Survey of India for examination of seized items, for ascertaining their registration and for ascertaining whether the suspects were having any license for carrying on the business of the antiquities. Sh. A.K. Sinha, Superintendent Archaeologist, ASI replied that none of the accused was having any license for carrying on the business for selling and offering to sell the antiquities. Sh. J.M. Thapar, Registering Officer, Delhi Circle had also replied that none of the seized object was registered with Registering Officer. Sh. G.T. Shendey, Director (Antiquity) had also replied that 6 objects were declared as registrable antiquities out of 27 objects mentioning at serial no. 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 26 of joint surprise check-cum- seizure memo. During investigation, VAT Officer also confirmed __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 30 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:53:46 +0530 that firm M/s India Art Palace was also registered with VAT and Satish Kumar Gupta was the proprietor of the firm since 1994. During investigation, Satish Kumar Gupta was asked to produce the bills regarding acquisition of the seized antiquities. Satish Kumar Gupta produced 2 bills regarding purchase of 4 antiquities from Subhash Kumar. Regarding these bills, one employee of Satish Kumar Gupta, namely Rajkumar had stated that these bills were prepared by him in his own handwriting after one week of the seizure of the antiquities and these bills are ante-dated bills. Sh. Subhash Kumar was also examined before independent witnesses and identification memo was also prepared. During identification, Sh. Subhash Kumar identified only 1 item mentioned at serial no.13 to have been sold to Satish Kumar Gupta and denied selling other 3 items to Satish Kumar Gupta. Signatures of accused Subhash Kumar and handwriting of Rajkumar on the bills have been proved by handwriting experts. Accused Satish Kumar Gupta also produced bill of M/s Gagan Brass Place regarding purchase of item mentioned at serial no.26. Sh. Gyan Singh, proprietor of M/s Gagan Brass Place had also denied selling the said item to Satish Kumar Gupta. Accused Satish Kumar Gupta also produced 1 bill regarding purchase of item mentioned at serial no.15 of Sh. Karan Kumar. Karan Kumar had also confirmed that the said item was sold by him to Satish Kumar Gupta. Karan Kumar had also claimed that the said item was got prepared by him through one Suresh Chand but Suresh Chand had denied this fact. During investigation, Satish Kumar Gupta was found having registrable antiquities without getting them registered and displayed the same in the shop for offering to sell without any __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 31 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:53:54 +0530 license for selling and offering to sell the antiquities and committed the offence u/s 25(2) and 14(3) and Sec. 5 of Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, 1972 along with Sh. Subhash Kumar. By submitting the ante-dated bill, Satish Kumar Gupta and Subhash Kumar also committed the offence u/s 120B r/w 465 and 471 IPC. During investigation, various letters had been sent to various departments and replies had been received. He correctly identified the accused Satish Kumar Gupta in the court by pointing out. He correctly identified the 27 antiquities/articles seized during joint surprise check on 30.06.2005, out of which 6 items have been declared as registrable antiquity u/s 24 of AAT Act, 1972. The description of which is as follows:
1. Stone object depicting Jata Mukha head Ex. P-10 as mentioned at serial no.1 of the list annexed as Annexure A of the charge- sheet.
2. Stone object depicting female in sitting pose Ex. P-11 as mentioned at serial no.2 of the list annexed as Annexure A of the charge-sheet.
3. Stone object depicting Jata Mukha head (Ek Mukha Shiv Linga) Ex. P-12 as mentioned at serial no.3 of the list annexed as Annexure A of the charge-sheet.
4. Stone object depicting male head with parted hair Ex. P-13 as mentioned at serial no.4 of the list annexed as Annexure A of the charge-sheet.
5. Stone object depicting terracotta male head Ex. P-16 as mentioned at serial no.5 of the list annexed as Annexure A of the charge-sheet.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 32 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:54:02 +0530
6. Stone object depicting dancing females Ex. P-1 as mentioned at serial no.6 of the list annexed as Annexure A of the charge-sheet.
He correctly identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Hargava, the then SP on document D-1 i.e. FIR No. RC-SID-2005-E004 dated 01.07.2005 (09 pages) Ex. PW12/A (colly)(09 pages). He correctly identified the signatures of N.M. Sherawat on the document D-2 i.e. complaint of N.M. Sherawat dated 01.07.2005 (03 pages) Ex. PW10/A and document D-3 i.e. joint surprise check-cum-seizure memo dated 30.06.2005 (04 pages) Ex. PW1/B. During investigation, he has received the document D-4 i.e. letter no. NBCC/CBI/2005-ESTT dated 29.06.2005 of Sh. S.L. Jain, AGM (Pers) addressed to SP, CBI, SIU-XII, New Delhi vide which independent witnesses were deputed to CBI to perform the secret duty Ex. PW1/A; document D-5 i.e. letter no. 275/SIR/Misc./2002 dated 29.06.2005 Ex. PW12/B addressed to GM (Pers.), NBCC, New Delhi for deputing 02 officials as witnesses; document D-6 i.e. letter no. 273/SIR/2005-EOU-VIII dated 29.06.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII addressed to Director (Admn) ASI, Janpath, New Delhi Ex. PW12/C; document D-7 i.e. letter no. 274/SIR/2005-EOU-VIII dated 29.06.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII addressed to Director CFSL, New Delhi Ex. PW8/A; document D-8 i.e. letter no. 3242/RC SID E004-EOU- VIII dated 06.07.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII addressed to Director CFSL, New Delhi Ex. PW8/B; document D-9 i.e. letter no. 292/RC SID 2005-EOU-VIII dated 08.07.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU- VIII addressed to DG/ASI, Janpath, New Delhi Ex. PW12/D; document D-10 i.e. letter no. 3336/RC SID 2005 E004 dated 08.07.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi addressed to RO, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 33 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:54:10 +0530 ASI Safdarjung Tomb, Madarsa, New Delhi Ex. PW12/E; document D-11 i.e. letter no. 3337/RC SID 2005 E004-EOU-VIII dated 08.07.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi addressed to SA/ASI, New Delhi Ex. PW12/F; document D-12 i.e. letter no. 3338/RC SID 2005 E004-EOU-VIII dated 08.07.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi addressed to DG/ASI, Janpath, New Delhi Ex. PW12/G; document D-13 i.e. letter no. 3339/RC SID 2005 E004-EOU-VIII dated 08.07.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU- VIII/New Delhi addressed to DG/ASI, Janpath, New Delhi Ex. PW12/H (colly)(02 pages) and document D-14 i.e. carbon copy of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. dated 15.07.2005 issued to Sale Tax Officer, Ward No. 85, Bikrikar Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Ex. PW12/I. He correctly identified his signatures on document D-15 i.e. production-cum-seizure memo dated 20.07.2005 PW3/A. Vide Ex. PW3/A, he seized the copy of registration certificate of M/s India Arts Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi in the name of proprietor/accused Satish Kumar Gupta, S/o Sh. Tara Chand Gupta. He also seized certified copy of tax payer identification number (TIN) of M/s India Arts Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi from Sh. J.K. Malhotra, AVATO, Sale Tax Office, IP Estate, Bikarikar Bhawan, New Delhi. The document D-16 is the certified copy of registration certificate local and central of M/s India Arts Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi (02 pages) Mark-X and document D-17 i.e. certified copy of tax payer identification number (TIN) of M/s India Arts Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi Ex. PW3/B were received by him vide Ex. PW3/A. During investigation, he also received document D-18 i.e. letter no. F.10-14/2005-Ant-24 dated __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 34 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:54:17 +0530 02.08.2005 of Dr. G.T. Shendey, Director (Antiquities), ASI, Janpath, New Delhi addressed to SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi Ex. PW2/A vide which CBI office was communicated the date 09.08.2005 for examination of objects in the office of DG, ASI, New Delhi. The document D-19 i.e. F.No. RO-7/CB-TC/DHL-1/2003-3876 dated 04.08.2005 addressed to SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi by Sh. J.M. Thapar, RO, New Delhi Ex. PW7/A; document D-20 i.e. letter no. F.No. DLH-13/Ant/2005/3415 dated 25.07.2005 of Sh. A.K. Sinha, SA/ASI/Delhi Circle, New Delhi addressed to SP/CBI/EOU- VIII/New Delhi Ex. PW9/A; document D-21 i.e. letter no. F.10- 14/2005-Ant dated 23.08.2005 (03 pages) of Dr. G.T. Shendey addressed to SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi along with 27 photographs duly authenticated by Dr. G.T. Shendey (8 colored and 19 black and white photographs) Ex. PW2/B), 27 photographs Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/27 annexed with the Ex. PW2/B were marked by the then SP to him. He correctly identified his signatures on document D-22 Ex. PW12/J i.e. carbon copy of notice u/s 91 CrPC dated 24.08.2005 served on accused Satish Kumar Gupta on 24.08.2005 to produce the original purchase vouchers for 6 objects declared as antiquities. The document D-23 Ex. PW1/C is production-cum-receipt memo in RC. SID 2005 E004 dated 24.08.2005, vide which, he had seized purchase voucher dated 27.04.2004 for Rs. 6,300/- and purchase voucher dated 19.05.2004 for Rs. 5,850/- in the name of accused Subhash Kumar. Bill/purchase voucher No. 015 of Heritage India dated 07.06.2005 for Rs. 6,700/- along with photocopy of Siva head signed by witnesses. He had also seized Bill No. 003 of Gagan __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 35 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:54:26 +0530 Brass Palace dated 16.05.2005 for Rs. 15,686/- duly signed by the witnesses. The document D-24 Ex. PW1/D i.e. original purchase voucher dated 27.04.2004 for Rs. 6,300/- in the name of Subhash Kumar s/o late Sh. Prahlad Arya; document D-25 Ex. PW1/E i.e. original purchase voucher dated 19.05.2004 for Rs. 5,850/- in the name of Subhash Kumar; document D-26 Ex. PW1/F i.e. original bill bearing no. 15 dated 07.06.2005 of M/s Heritage India issued in favour of M/s India Arts Palace, 33 Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi for Rs. 6,700/- along with photocopy of photograph of Shiva head; document D-27 Ex. PW1/G i.e. original bill no. 003 dated 16.05.2005 of M/s Gagan Brass Palace for Rs. 15,686/-. duly signed by witness was seized by him vide Ex. PW1/C. He correctly identified his signatures as well as signatures of Subhash Kumar on document D-28 Ex. PW1/H i.e. identification of seized objects memo dated 24.08.2005. He also correctly identified his signatures on document D-29 Ex. PW1/I i.e. identification memo dated 24.08.2005. He correctly identified his signatures as well as signatures of Karan Kumar on document D-30 Ex. PW4/B i.e. production-cum-seizure memo in RC SID 2005 E004 dated 29.08.2005. Vide this seizure memo, he had seized the documents mentioned therein from Sh. Karan Kumar. He had seized the document D-31 Ex. PW4/B i.e. bill book front page missing started from sl. no. 2 to sl. no. 99, written bill nos. 2, 3, 4 and bill no.5 blank, written bill no.6, bill no.7 missing aforesaid bills have been issued without date and without name of purchaser, Bill no.8 to 17 written bills issued in favor of M/s India Arts Palace only, carbon copy of bill no.15 relevant bill in question vide which Karan Kumar has shown one object sold to Satish Kumar Gupta __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 36 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:54:48 +0530 vide Ex. PW4/B. The bill book bears the initials of Pardeep Kumar Grover. He had also seized the document D-32 Ex. PW11/A i.e. purchase voucher book containing pages from 1 to 70. written pages 1 to 4 and on page no.1 revenue stamp has been affixed on the signature of purchase voucher dated 14.05.2005, vide Ex. PW4/B. He correctly identified his signatures on document D-33 Ex. PW12/K i.e. carbon copy of the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. dated 29.08.2005 served on Sh. Karan Kumar for producing the bill book and purchase voucher for purchase of object which has been sold to Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta vide bill no.15 dated 07.06.2005. The document D-34 Ex. PW1/J is the identification of seized object memo dated 08.09.2005 which was prepared by him in his own handwriting. Vide this memo, witness Sh. Suresh Chand inform that Suresh Chand did not sell to Karan Kumar shivlinga object mentioned at Sr. no. 15 of joint surprise check cum seizure memo as claimed by Karan Kumar. He correctly identified the signatures of Sh. A. K. Hargava, the then SP on document D-35 Ex. PW12/L i.e. letter no. 379/RC SID 2005 E004-EOU-VIII dated 08.09.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII addressed to the Director CFSL/CBI/New Delhi; document D-36 Ex. PW12/M i.e. letter no. 4454/RC SID 2005 E004-EOU-VIII dated 08.09.2005 of SP/CBI/EOU-VIII addressed to the Registering Officer, Department of Archaeological Survey of India; document D-37 Ex. PW12/N. The document D-38 Ex. PW9/B is the letter no. FE. No. DLH/Ant/7/2005-M-454 dated 20.09.2005 of Sh. A.K. Sinha, SA/ASI/Janpath, New Delhi, addressed to SP/CBI FOU-VIII/New Delhi which was marked to him for investigation purpose. He received the same vide which licensing officer informed that no __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 37 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:54:55 +0530 license has been issued in favour of Sh. Subhash Kumar and Karan Kumar for carrying on the business of selling and offering to sell the antiquities. The document D-39 Ex. PW7/B is the letter no. F. No. RO-7/CB/TC/DHL-1/2003-7522 dated 26.09.2005 of Sh. J.M. Thapar, RO, addressed to SP/CBI/EOU-VIII/New Delhi which was received by him for the purpose of investigation vide which it was informed that out of 27 objects, no object was registered in the name of Karan Kumar and Subhash Kumar as per record. The document D-40 Ex. PW12/0 (one page) is the forwarding letter no. CFSL-2005/D-0646/906 dated 22.02.2006 (page 53) alongwith report bearing no. CFSL 2005/D-0640 dated 17.02.2006 (page no. 54 to 61) by Sh. N.K. Aggarwal, SSO, Grade-1. The report alongwith the covering letter was marked to him by the then SP Sh. A.K. Hargava vide which handwriting of Raj Kumar, Karan Kumar and Subhash Kumar confirmed on ante-
dated bills submitted by Subhash Gupta. The report bearing no. CFSL-2005/D/0646 dated 17.02.2006 is Mark 'X'. The document D-41 Ex. PW12/P is the letter no. 1766/RC SID 2005 E004-FOU- VIII dated 07.03.2006. The said letter was addressed to Director (Antiquity), ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), New Delhi vide which request was made for issuing authorization for prosecution of Satish Kumar Gupta and Subhash Kumar for offences under Section 120B r/w 465, 471 of IPC r/w Section 25 (2) r/w Section 14 (3), Section 5 of AAT Act, 1972 and substantive offences thereof and prosecution of accused Karan Kumar for committing offences under Section 25 (2) r/w Section 5 of AAT Act, 1972. The document D-42 Ex. PW12/Q (one page) is the letter no. F.10-14/2005-Ant dated 10.03.2006, page no. 106 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 38 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:55:03 +0530 alongwith authorization which was marked to him for the purpose of investigation by the then SP A.K. Hargava. The authorization no. F.10-14/2005-Ant dated 10.03.2006 is Mark 'Y', Vide this authorization, he had been authorized to file complaint against Satish Kumar Gupta, Subhash Kumar under Section 25 (2) r/w Section 14 (3) and Section 5 of AAT Act, 1972 and against accused Karan Kumar under Section 5 r/w Section 25(2) of AAT Act, 1972. The document D-43 Ex. PW12/R (one page) is the letter no. 2037/RC SID 2005-E004-EOU-VIII dated 24.03.2006 at page 109 of Sh. A.K. Hargava, SP, EOU- VIII addressed to Director signatures/ handwritings of Sh. Karan Kumar from S-1 to S-35. (CFSL) authorizing him for collecting the CFSL report and specimen signatures/handwritings of Subhash Kumar from S-36 to S-59 and specimen signatures/handwritings of Raj Kumar from S. 60 to S-79. The specimen handwritings and signatures of Karan Kumar, Subhash Kumar and Raj Kumar are Ex. PW4/B (colly) (79 pages). He correctly identified all the accused persons in the court. The document D42 that is letter no. F.10-14/2005-Ant dated 10.03.2006 along with authorization is Ex.PW12/Q. The original authorization is Ex.PW12/S (two pages). The letter Ex.PW12/Q was marked to him by the then SP AK Hargava. Vide this authorization, Ex.PW12/S, he was authorized to file the complaint against Satish Kumar Gupta, Subhash Kumar and Karan Kumar for the offences of AAT Act 1972. The chargesheet is Ex.PW12/T (colly 12 pages). The complaint dated 21.03.2006 is Ex.PW12/U (colly 8 pages).
PW12 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and he deposed that he was entrusted with the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 39 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:55:10 +0530 investigation of this case on 01.07.2005. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. N. M. Sehrawat, the then Inspector, EOU-VIII, CBI, New Delhi. He was the first IO in this case. During investigation, he collected photographs of the seized articles from Sh. A. H. Ganvir, Photographer of CFSL. He also sent Look out Notices to various DGPs to connect the photographs/articles with any stolen articles. Thereafter, he examined witnesses and requested DG, ASI to fix a date for the examination of the seized articles. The DG, ASI constituted a committee to ascertain as to whether the seized articles were antique or not. He had received the responses of DGPs of the Look Out Circulars as per which the seized articles could not be connected with any theft. The said fact is not mentioned in the chargesheet, however, chargesheet was not filed u/s 411 IPC. It is correct that for an article to be termed as antique, it should be 100 years or so old. He tried to ascertain the source of these articles and sent Look Out Circulars to various agencies, however, no positive response was received to the Look Out Circulars issued by him and the source of these articles could not be established.
The accused persons had given antedated bills. The entities from which the seized articles were purportedly purchased also refused having sold the said articles. He did not remember whether he had visited the India Art Palace during investigation. He had not visited the residence of any of the accused in the present case. The report from the DG, ASI was received before filing the chargesheet, however, he did not remember the exact date. He cannot recall the exact figure of the cases of this nature which have been handled by him during his entire service on posting at the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 40 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:55:18 +0530 CBI but approximately 15-20 cases were handled by him during his posting at the CBI at EOU-VIII Branch of CBI. It is not correct that he visited M/s India Arts Palace almost 6-7 times prior to surprise check conducted at this shop. He had secretly visited one- two times nearby area of the shop. He had never visited M/s India Arts Palace around 6-7 times for purchase of any artifacts. It is incorrect that he had visited M/s India Arts Palace lastly along with Mr. N.M Sherawat and demanded some artifacts to be given to him free of cost, which was denied by accused Satish Gupta. I never visited for demanding any artifacts from accused Satish Kumar Gupta. It is incorrect that since accused Satish Kumar Gupta did not obliged him with free artifacts, therefore, he and Mr. N.M Sherawat had threatened accused Satish Kumar Gupta of dire consequences and maliciously made out a case against accused Satish Kumar Gupta. He cannot recollect the exact date when he received the committee report from ASI but during investigation after physically examination of the seized object by the committee of ASI, he received examination report from Dr. G.T. Shendey, Director Antiquity, authorized nominee of DG/ASI. He checked and received the authorization letter of DG/ASI nominating Dr. G.T. Shendey, Director Antiquity. He had placed on record the report of the committee of ASI and the authorization letter granted to Dr. G.T Shendey by DG/ASI. The relevance of the authorization letter given by DG/ASI to Dr. G.T. Shendey, Director Antiquity was that Dr. G.T. Shendey, Director Antiquity was the authorized nominee of DG/ASI as per the provision of The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. It is correct that report of Committee of ASI with respect of anti-nature of the seized objects is an __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 41 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 MAYANK by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:55:26 +0530 important aspect of the case. However, the letter of authorization is their internal matter and it is also mentioned under the provision of AAT Act, also mentioned in Committee Report. However, it is not important. It is correct that in absence of Committee Report of ASI, the offences alleged under AAT Act would not stand. Ex.PW2/B being letter no. F.10-14/2005-Ant. dt. 23.08.2005 is the Committee Report along with photographs. Name of the Committee members was not communicated by ASI but report was communicated vide Ex.PW2/B being letter no. F.10-14/2005- Ant. dt. 23.08.2005. Name of the Committee members is the internal record of ASI and they never communicate the names of the Committee Members. Ex.PW2/B is the Committee Report of ASI communicated by authorized nominee of DG/ASI as per provisions of AAT Act. It is incorrect that Ex.PW2/B is not the Committee Report of ASI. Ex.PW2/B is the original report of ASI with respect to antique nature of objects. It is incorrect that he did not place on record the Committee Report of ASI despite obtaining the same from the ASI. He had filed all the documents including the Committee Report of ASI in the Hon'ble Court along with charge-sheet. The authorization letter given to Mr. G.T. Shendey, Director, Antiquity by the DG/ASI is not on court record. There is a provision under a particular Act which provides for authorization. There is provision u/s 24 of AAT Act in which it is mentioned that, it shall be referred to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India or to an Officer not below the rank of Director in the ASI authorized by Director General, ASI and the decision of the Director General, ASI or such Officer as the case may be, on such question shall be final. Report itself speaking that __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 42 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:55:33 +0530 examination of the object by the authorized nominee of the DG/ASI u/s 24 of AAT Act. It is incorrect that there was no separate authorization letter from DG/ASI to Mr. G.T. Shendey, Director, Antiquity nor was there any Committee Report of ASI and therefore, he did not place on record the same in the court file. The report itself mentioned the details of authorized nominee and Committee of ASI. It is incorrect that he along with Mr. N.M Sherawat, Inspector, CBI and Mr. G.T. Shendey maliciously framed the accused persons by preparing various forged documents. Case is filed on the basis of actual facts and circumstances and there is oral and documentary evidence to support the allegations. Mr. N.M Sherawat the then Inspector, CBI had filed the complaint on the basis of joint surprise check.
m) PW13 S.R. Singh deposed that in the year 2005-06, he was posted as Director, CFSL (CBI). MHA. New Delhi. He knows Sh. N.K. Aggarwal as he had worked in the CFSL (CBI) in various capacities under him. In the year 2006. Sh. N.K. Aggarwal was working in the capacity of Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-I (Documents). The document D-40 Ex. PW12/O is a forwarding letter under his signatures addressed to SP, CBI, EOU-VIII by which he had forwarded report no. CFSL-2005/D-0646 which was prepared by Sh. N.K. Aggarwal in respect of the questioned documents alongwith specimen writings/signatures, which were forwarded to their laboratory by the CBI for comparison and examination, pertaining to the present case. The report no. CFSL-2005/D-0646 forming part of D-40 is Ex. PW13/A (8 pages). He correctly identified the signatures of Sh. N.K. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 43 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:55:42 +0530 Aggarwal, S.S.O (Grade-I) (Document) from printed page no. 1 to 8 of this report at point 'A' and also identified the official stamp of Sh. N.K. Aggarwal at point 'B' of page no. 8 of this report. He had forwarded report no. CFSL-2005/D-0646 which was prepared by Sh. N.K. Aggarwal in respect of the questioned documents alongwith specimen writings/signatures, which were forwarded to their laboratory by the CBI for comparison and examination, pertaining to the present case.
PW13 was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Satish Kumar Gupta and duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Subhash Kumar and Karan Kumar and he deposed that the signatures on the documents Ex. PW13/A (8 pages) are signatures and not only initials. His contribution in preparation of this report was limited to the extent of ascertaining if all the questions put by the CBI have been responded to. He did not give any input in the scientific part of the report or with respect to the opinion formed by N.K. Aggarwal. It is correct that he had never seen any of the persons, whose signatures were sent for comparison, writing any document.
8. The list of the documents exhibited by the witnesses abovementioned and relied upon by the prosecution are as follows:-
Exhibit No. of Exhibited by Nature of document.
document which witness
Ex. PW1/A PW1 Letter with direction to
report at CBI office.
Ex. PW1/B PW1 Recovery Memo.
Ex. P1 to Ex. PW1 27 articles seized from the
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 44 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:55:49 +0530 P27 shop of accused Satish Kumar Gupta.
Ex. PW`1/C PW1 Production-cum-seizure
memo dated 24.08.2005
Ex. PW1/D to PW1 Purchase vouchers
Ex. PW1/G
Ex. PW1/H to PW1 Identification of seized
Ex. PW1/J objects memo
Ex. PW1/J-1 to PW1 Specimen signatures/
Ex. PW1/J-25 handwritings of accused
Subhash Kumar
Ex. PW1/K-1 to PW1 Specimen signatures/
Ex. PW1/K-20 handwritings of accused
Rajkumar
Ex. PW2/A PW2 Letter to CBI regarding the
fixation of Appeal
Committee Meeting for
examination of 27 seized
articles.
Ex. PW2/B PW2 Inspection report of 27
seized articles.
Ex. PW2/1 to PW2 Photographs of 27 seized
Ex. PW2/27 articles.
Ex. PW3/A PW3 Production-cum-seizure
memo.
Mark-X PW3 Document D-16
Ex. PW3/B PW3 Document D-17
Ex. PW4/A PW4 Specimen signatures and
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 45 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:55:56 +0530 (colly) handwritings of all the accused.
Ex. PW4/B PW4 Production-cum-seizure
(colly) memo dated 29.08.2005
Ex. PW6/D-1 PW6 Original Bill dated
15.05.2005
Ex.PW7/A PW7 Letter dated 04.08.2005
written by him to CBI.
Ex. PW7/B PW7 Letter dated 26.09.2005
written by him to CBI.
Ex. PW8/A PW8 Letter dated 29.06.2005
addressed to Director, CFSL,
New Delhi.
Ex. PW8/B PW8 Letter dated 06.07.2005
addressed to Director, CFSL,
New Delhi.
Ex. PW9/A PW9 Letter dated 25.07.2005
addressed to CBI.
Ex. PW9/B PW9 Letter dated 20.09.2005
addressed to CBI.
Ex. PW10/A PW10 Complaint dated
(colly) 01.07.2005.
Ex. PW11/A PW11 Purchase voucher dated
14.05.2005 at page no. 1 of
Ramit Voucher Pad
(M-363/05).
Ex. PW12/A PW12 FIR No. RC-SID-2005-E004
(colly) (9 pages) dated 01.07.2005
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 46 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:56:04 +0530 Ex. PW12/B PW12 Letter dated 29.06.2005 addressed to GM, NBCC for deputing two officials as witness.
Ex. PW12/C PW12 Letter dated 29.06.2005
addressed to Director
(Admin), ASI, New Delhi.
Ex. PW12/D PW12 Letter dated 08.07.2005
addressed to DG, ASI.
Ex. PW12/E PW12 Letter dated 08.07.2005
addressed to RO, ASI.
Ex. PW12/F PW12 Letter dated 08.07.2005
addressed to SA, ASI.
Ex. PW12/G PW12 Letter dated 08.07.2005
addressed to DG, ASI.
Ex. PW12/H PW12 Letter dated 08.07.2005
(colly) (2 pages) addressed to DG, ASI.
Ex. PW12/I PW12 Carbon copy of notice u/s 91
Cr.P.C. dated 15.07.2005
issued to Sales Tax Officer,
New Delhi.
Ex. PW12/J PW12 Carbon copy of notice u/s 91
(colly) Cr.P.C. dated 24.08.2005
issued to accused Satish
Kumar Gupta.
Ex. PW12/K PW12 Carbon copy of notice u/s 91
Cr.P.C. dated 29.08.2005
issued to accused Karan
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 47 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:56:11 +0530 Kumar.
Ex. PW12/L PW12 Letter dated 08.09.2005
addressed to CFSL, CBI,
New Delhi.
Ex. PW12/M PW12 Letter dated 08.09.2005
addressed to Registering
Officer, ASI.
Ex. PW12/N PW12 Letter dated 08.09.2005
addressed to Superintending
Archaeologist, ASI.
Ex. PW12/O PW12 Covering letter marking
CFSL report to IO.
Ex. PW12/P PW12 Letter dated 07.03.2006
addressed to Director
(Antiquity), ASI for
authorization for
prosecution.
Ex. PW12/Q PW12 Letter dated 10.03.2006
alongwith authorization.
Ex. PW12/R PW12 Letter dated 24.03.2006
addressed to Director
(CFSL), ASI.
Ex. PW12/S PW12 Letter dated 10.03.2006
alongwith authorization.
Ex. PW12/T PW12 Chargesheet.
(colly) (12
pages)
Ex. PW12/U PW12 Complaint dated 21.03.2006.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 48 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:56:18 +0530 (colly) (8 pages) Ex. PW13/A (8 PW13 CFSL report.
pages) STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC
9. After examination of the witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Ld. PP on 15.11.2025. Statement of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.01.2026 wherein they denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case. They submitted that they do not want to lead DE and DE was closed on the same day and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
10. I have heard the Ld. PP for CBI and Ld. counsels for the accused persons.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
11. Ld. PP for the CBI argued that the present case arises from CBI Case RC-SID/2005/E-004/CBI/EOU-VIII, registered on the complaint dated 01.07.2005 filed by Sh. N.M. Sehrawat, Inspector, EOU-VIII, CBI, New Delhi, and subsequently investigated by Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Inspector, CBI, EOU-VIII, New Delhi.
12. It has been further argued that the investigation revealed that accused Satish Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s India Arts Palace, 33, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi, was found in possession, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 49 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:56:26 +0530 ownership and control of registrable antiquities that were neither registered under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (hereinafter 'the AAT Act') nor covered by any licence permitting him to deal in or offer antiquities for sale.
13. It has been further argued that upon being confronted by the CBI, the accused conspired with accused Subhash Kumar to fabricate and use ante-dated purchase vouchers to create a false paper trail of lawful acquisition.
14. It has been further argued that accused Karan Kumar is separately charged with selling a registrable antiquity without a licence.
15. It has been further argued that thirteen witnesses (PW-1 to PW-13) were examined and numerous documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. It has been further argued that two fold defence arguments that have emerged over the course of this trial are that, firstly, the non-production of the formal written authorization order in favour of PW-2 Dr. G.T. Shendey as authorized nominee of the Director General, ASI under Section 24 of the AAT Act and secondly, the death of Sh. N.K. Aggarwal (the CFSL document examiner who authored the handwriting report) before his examination in the Court.
16. It has been further argued that the Joint surprise check was done on 30.06.2005 and 27 objects were recovered from the shop of the accused Satish Kumar Gupta. That PW-10, Sh. N.M. Sehrawat (Inspector, CBI, EOU-VIII), deposed during his __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 50 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:56:33 +0530 examination that upon credible information from a source that accused Satish Kumar Gupta was storing stolen/unregistered registrable antiquities at M/s India Arts Palace, a joint surprise check team was constituted comprising himself, Sh. B.S. Negi (Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist, ASI), two independent witnesses from NBCC i.e. Sh. P.K. Grover (PW-4) and Sh. Mehar Chand (PW-1) and Sh. A.H. Ganvir (Scientific Assistant/ Photographer, CFSL, CBI, PW-8). PW10 further deposed that the team assembled at CGO Complex on 30.06.2005 at 09:30 hrs and reached M/s India Arts Palace at 11:00 hrs. He further deposed that since the accused was not present, they waited and the accused arrived at 11:30 hrs. He further deposed that the surprise check commenced at 12:00 hrs., Sh. B.S. Negi inspected the artifacts and identified 27 as registrable antiquities. He further deposed that when asked about the source of acquisition and purchase vouchers, the accused could not give a satisfactory reply and could not produce any documents or registration certificates, therefore, all 27 objects were taken into police custody after being photographed.
17. It has been further argued that PW-1 (Sh. Mehar Chand) and PW-4 (Sh. Pradeep Kumar Grover), the two independent witnesses from NBCC, corroborated the above evidence in its entirety. Both identified the joint surprise check-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and the case property i.e. 27 objects (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-27).
18. It has been further argued that PW-8 (Sh. A.H. Ganvir) confirmed that he photographed all 27 objects at the shop and __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 51 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:56:41 +0530 identified his signatures on photographs Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/27 and identified the joint surprise check-cum-seizure memo.
19. It has been further argued that PW-12 (Sh. Dharamvir Singh, IO) provided a comprehensive account of the investigation, confirming the chargesheet (Ex.PW12/T) and complaint (Ex.PW12/U) filed on 21.03.2006.
20. It has been further argued that PW-7, Sh. J.M. Thapar (Registering Officer, Delhi Circle, ASI), confirmed through letters Ex.PW7/A (dated 04.08.2005) and Ex.PW7/B (dated 26.09.2005) that none of the 27 objects were registered in the names of accused Satish Kumar Gupta, Karan Kumar or Subhash Kumar, or any member of their families, however, Section 14(3) of the AAT Act mandates registration of antiquities, therefore, the breach of mandate is therefore proved.
21. It has been further argued that PW-9, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sinha (Superintending Archaeologist / Licensing Officer, Delhi Circle, ASI), confirmed through letters Ex.PW9/A (dated 25.07.2005) and Ex.PW9/B (dated 20.09.2005) that no licence under Section 5 of the AAT Act, 1972 had been issued in favour of any of the accused persons for the business of selling or offering to sell antiquities. Therefore, the breach of Section 5 is thus formally established.
22. It has been further argued that the most significant evidentiary challenge in this case, raised by the defence, concerns the expert determination of 6 objects as registrable antiquities. The __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 52 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:56:48 +0530 authorization of PW-2 Dr. G.T. Shendey as the authorized nominee of the Director General, ASI was contained in Authorization Order No. 9/Ant/2005 dated 11.07.2005. This order was issued internally by the office of the DG, ASI. Critically, this specific order was not included as a relied-upon document in the chargesheet filed by the prosecution. As a consequence, the said authorization order was not on the judicial record of this case at the time of the examination of PW-2.
23. It has been further argued that during his cross-examination, Dr. G.T. Shendey was confronted by the defence counsel with the absence of any document on judicial record showing his authorization as the DG's nominee under Section 24 of the AAT Act. In response, Dr. Shendey stated before the court that he would produce the said document if directed. The cross-examination was accordingly deferred on this issue, with Dr. Shendey being directed to produce the relevant authorization order on the next date of hearing.
24. It has been further argued that on the next date of cross- examination of PW2/ Dr. G. T. Shendey on 12.08.2013, PW-2 was present in court and brought with him a photocopy of a note-sheets from the ASI office records. The said note-sheets made a reference to Authorization Order No. 9/Ant/2005 dated 11.07.2005 but was not the authorization order itself. The photocopy of the note-sheets was taken on record by the Learned Court. However, the note- sheets was not formally exhibited, as it was never put to PW-2 during his further cross-examination, nor was it proved through him in accordance with the requirements of the Evidence Act. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 53 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:56:56 +0530
PW-2 was also not further cross-examined on 12.08.2013 on the contents of the note-sheets. On subsequent dates when PW-2 was cross-examined further, the note-sheets was again not put to him by the defence.
25. It has been further argued that the net legal position on record is two folds. Firstly, Authorization Order No. 9/Ant/2005 dated 11.07.2005 authorizing Dr. G.T. Shendey as the DG's nominee under Section 24 of the AAT Act is not on the judicial record. Secondly, the note-sheets referred that order was brought on record but was not exhibited and was not put to PW-2 in cross- examination, and therefore has no evidentiary value as an exhibit.
26. It has been further argued that even though the expert determination under section 24 of AAT Act remains valid and must be accepted.
27. It has been further argued that a careful reading of Section 24 reveals two conditions for the alternative authority: the officer must be (a) not below the rank of a Director in ASI; and (b) authorized by the Director General, ASI. The authorization is therefore a condition precedent to the exercise of the power. The question before this Court is whether the prosecution has sufficiently established this condition.
28. It has been further argued that the oral testimony of PW2 satisfies the condition of authorization. PW-2, Dr. G.T. Shendey, in his cross-examination, deposed that he had signed on photographs Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/27 as convener and authorized __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 54 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:57:04 +0530 nominee of the Director General, ASI. In further cross- examination, he categorically and emphatically denied the suggestion that he was not the authorized nominee, stating: 'It is wrong to suggest that I was not the authorized nominee to examine the object sent by the CBI as per provisions u/s 24 AAT Act 1972.' He further stated in cross-examination: 'At the relevant time I was the Director (Antiquity).' These statements have not been contradicted or rebutted by any defence evidence. The testimony of a sworn witness as to his own official capacity is itself evidence on record. The failure of the defence to produce any evidence to the contrary whether from the office of the DG, ASI or otherwise means that the unchallenged testimony of PW-2 as to his status as the authorized nominee stands unrebutted.
29. It has been further argued that Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the Court 'may presume' that 'judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.' This presumption applies not merely to the mechanics of how an official act was performed, but extends to whether all antecedent conditions for the performance of that act including the conferment of the requisite authority were duly satisfied.
30. It has been further argued that in the present case, the following established facts collectively invite the operation of this presumption with full force. Firstly, the referral of the 27 objects to the ASI was made at the instance of the CBI itself i.e. a statutory investigating agency of the Union Government. Secondly, the objects were sent to the DG, ASI for examination under Section 24 of the AAT Act. Thirdly, the report (Ex.PW2/B) was issued __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 55 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:57:13 +0530 under his signature as an officer of ASI and was acted upon by the CBI in the course of its investigation. In these circumstances, it is entirely within the ordinary and expected course of official business that the DG, ASI having received a formal referral from the CBI would have authorized the Director (Antiquity) by formal order before constituting the Expert Committee. The existence of Authorization Order No. 9/Ant/2005 dated 11.07.2005 itself which is mentioned in the note-sheets on record, though not exhibited provides further factual support for the presumption that the requisite authorization was duly granted.
31. It has been further argued that the Court is therefore entitled and indeed may be expected to draw the presumption under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act that the official act of constituting the Expert Committee was regularly performed, which includes the prior grant of authorization by the DG, ASI to Dr. G.T. Shendey. The defence has produced no evidence to rebut this presumption. The burden of rebutting a presumption under Section 114 lies on the party seeking to displace it, and the defence has adduced nothing to discharge that burden.
32. It has been further argued that although the note-sheets brought by PW-2 on 12.08.2013 could not be formally exhibited (as it was not put to PW-2 in cross-examination and therefore could not be adopted as a proved document), it was nonetheless taken on record by this learned Court. The note-sheet mentions Authorization Order No. 9/Ant/2005 dated 11.07.2005. This document, even in its unexhibited form, constitutes the factual substratum upon which this Court may legitimately rest its __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 56 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:57:21 +0530 inference that the authorization order did exist and was duly issued. The note-sheet's reference to the authorization order by number and date is a significant circumstance that lends concrete support to the presumption of regularity. The defence, having itself occasioned the production of this document by pressing for it, cannot now argue that its contents should be entirely ignored in the factual assessment of the case.
33. It has been further argued that a document that has been taken on record by the Court, even if not formally exhibited as an exhibit, may still be considered as part of the surrounding circumstances of the case and as the factual basis for drawing reasonable inferences under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The rule against using unexhibited documents as substantive evidence goes to the inadmissibility of the document as proof of the truth of its contents in itself and it does not go so far as to require the Court to act as if the document had never been brought before it. The Court is entitled to take into account, as part of the overall factual matrix, the existence and contents of the note-sheet in assessing whether the presumption of official regularity is invited.
34. It has been further argued that Section 24 of the AAT Act does not prescribe any particular form in which the authorization from the Director General must be communicated. It does not require a separate public notification, a gazette notification, or any other external form. An internal administrative order such as Authorization Order No. 9/Ant/2005 fully satisfies the requirements of Section 24. The absence of such an order on the judicial record of a criminal proceeding, while an evidentiary gap, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 57 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:57:28 +0530 does not go to the legal validity of the underlying authorization itself. The expert determination, once made by an officer of the requisite rank acting in the course of his official duty, carries the finality mandated by Section 24 of the Act.
35. It has been further argued that Section 24 of the AAT Act provides that the decision of the DG or the authorized officer 'on such question shall be final.' The word 'final' in a statutory provision of this nature has been consistently understood by the courts to foreclose collateral challenges to the determination in proceedings other than those specifically authorized by law. In the present criminal proceedings, the question of whether the 6 objects are registrable antiquities which is a necessary ingredient of the charges under Section 25(2) r/w Section 14(3) of the AAT Act stands conclusively determined by the Expert Committee of ASI. The finality clause precludes this Court from reopening that question on the basis of a collateral challenge to the procedural authority of the determining officer, particularly when the authority of that officer has been established by his own sworn testimony and is supported by the presumption of official regularity.
36. It has been further argued that the principle was affirmed in the context of this Act by the Karnataka High Court in S.R. Kiran vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore [1999 Cri LJ 3079 (Kar)], where the Court accepted the finding of the ASI expert team regarding the age and nature of the objects as registrable antiquities, and proceeded to hold non-registration as an offence under Section 25(2) of the Act. In that case also, the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 58 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:57:36 +0530
court accepted the expert opinion of the ASI committee as the conclusive and final determination under Section 24.
37. It has been further argued that the second leg of defence argument is regarding the death of CFSL expert Sh. N. K. Aggarwal before his deposition in the court. The CFSL handwriting examination report No. CFSL-2005/D-0646 was prepared by Sh. N.K. Aggarwal, Senior Scientific Officer (Grade- I, Documents), CFSL, CBI, in respect of the questioned documents specifically, the ante-dated purchase vouchers forwarded by the CBI for comparison with specimen writings. Sh. N.K. Aggarwal died during the pendency of this trial before his examination in the Court. The defence has taken this as a ground to argue that the CFSL report not proved.
38. It has been further argued that the report of Sh. N. K. Aggarwal id admissible under section 293 Cr.P.C. as Section 293(4)(e) specifically includes, within the definition of a 'Government scientific expert', the 'Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory' and Sh. N.K. Aggarwal was a Senior Scientific Officer (Grade-I, Documents) in the CFSL, CBI a Central Forensic Science Laboratory who prepared the report in the course of the CBI investigation, a proceeding under the Cr.P.C.
39. It has been further argued that the settled legal position under Section 293 Cr.P.C. is that a Government scientific expert's report is per se admissible as evidence without the author being required to appear as a witness. The report does not cease to be __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 59 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:57:45 +0530 admissible merely because the author has died. The underlying policy of Section 293 is precisely to spare the court and the parties from requiring Government scientific experts to depose in every case, given the volume of forensic work they handle.
40. It has been further argued that the report was formally tendered through PW-13, Sh. S.R. Singh, the then Director, CFSL, CBI, who forwarded the report to SP, CBI EOU-VIII under his own covering letter (Ex.PW12/O), and who identified Sh. N.K. Aggarwal's signatures and official stamp on the report (Ex.PW13/A, 8 pages). The report was properly brought on record through an authorized senior officer of the same institution.
41. It has been further argued that the death of the maker of a Government scientific expert's report during the trial does not render the report inadmissible. Section 293(1) creates a stand- alone ground of admissibility that operates independently of the usual requirements for proving documents through their authors. Having said that, this Court is also entitled under Section 293(2) to summon the author for cross-examination 'if it thinks fit.' But, the expert unfortunately died before examination and the report has been proved by PW13, the then Director, CFSL, CBI who had forwarded the said report.
42. It has been further argued the CFSL report is also corroborated by the independent oral testimony. Even if one were to approach the CFSL report with additional caution on account of the expert's death which, as submitted above, is legally unwarranted, the evidentiary value of the report is strongly __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 60 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
14:57:53 +0530
fortified by independent oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. The IO, PW-12 (Sh. Dharamvir Singh), deposed that he had recorded the statement of Rajkumar, an employee of M/s India Arts Palace. Rajkumar stated that the purchase vouchers were prepared by him in his own handwriting during the first week of July 2005, at the instance and dictation of accused Satish Kumar Gupta, after the accused had reviewed the joint surprise check- cum-seizure memo dated 30.06.2005. The content and description of goods in the vouchers were dictated by the accused from the seizure memo and the vouchers were deliberately dated prior to the date of seizure.
43. It has been further argued that the CFSL report independently confirmed through scientific document examination that the questioned vouchers were in the handwriting of Rajkumar and were signed by accused Subhash Kumar. These two streams of evidence i.e. the oral testimony incorporated through PW-12 and the scientific finding of the CFSL report are entirely consistent with and mutually corroborative of each other.
44. It has been further argued that the strength of the case on the charge of forgery does not depend exclusively on the CFSL report. Even without the report, the oral evidence of PW-12 (incorporating Rajkumar's statement), combined with the denial by Subhash Kumar of three out of four alleged purchases, establishes the fabrication beyond reasonable doubt.
45. It has been further argued that it is significant that the defence did not, during the cross-examination of PW-12, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 61 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:01 +0530 challenge the fact that Rajkumar had made such a statement, or suggest that PW-12 was falsely deposing as to the contents of Rajkumar's statement. The authenticity of Rajkumar's disclosure as spoken to by the IO in his deposition stands unshaken. This further reinforces the prosecution's case on the forgery charges, independently of the CFSL report.
46. It has been further argued that PW-4 (Sh. P.K. Grover) and PW-1 (Sh. Mehar Chand) both deposed that on 24.08.2005, accused Satish Kumar Gupta produced four purchase vouchers/bills in the CBI office in their presence. These were seized vide identification memo Ex.PW1/H and exhibited as Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/F. The vouchers purported to show purchase of antiquities at serial nos. 11, 13, 16 and 19 from accused Subhash Kumar, vide vouchers dated 27.04.2004 and 19.05.2004.
47. It has been further argued that PW-12 further deposed that accused Subhash Kumar, when examined before independent witnesses, identified only the item at serial no. 13 as having been sold to Satish Kumar Gupta, and denied selling the other three items (serial nos. 11, 16 and 19). PW-12 also deposed that Subhash Kumar had signed the ante-dated vouchers as receiver of payment at the instance of accused Satish Kumar Gupta, without physically verifying the articles.
48. It has been further argued that PW-12 (IO) deposed that accused Satish Kumar Gupta produced a bill (bill no. 15 dated 07.06.2005 for Rs. 1,200/-) regarding the purchase of the item at __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 62 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:08 +0530 serial no. 15 (Ek Mukha Shivling) from accused Karan Kumar. Karan Kumar himself confirmed during investigation that he had sold the said item to Satish Kumar Gupta. The CFSL report (Ex.PW13/A) confirmed the bill was in the handwriting of Karan Kumar.
49. It has been further argued that Karan Kumar claimed the Shivling was prepared by Sh. Suresh Chandra. However, PW-11 (Sh. Suresh Chandra) categorically denied making Ex. P-12 (the Stone Shivling), and stated that the article he sold to Karan Kumar vide Ex.PW11/A was a different article. PW-9 confirmed no licence under Section 5 of the AAT Act was issued in favour of Karan Kumar.
50. It has been further argued that accused Satish Kumar Gupta sought to explain his possession of the metallic antiquity at serial no. 26 (Ex. P-1) by producing a bill from M/s Gagan Brass Palace, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. PW-5 (Sh. Gagan Singh, the son who prepared the bill) and PW-6 (Sh. Gian Singh Lodhi, the proprietor) both categorically denied that Ex. P-1 was sold by their firm to the accused. PW-6 identified the case property as not matching the design available at his shop. PW-12 (IO) further stated that employee Rajkumar confirmed the 'dancing ladies' figure at serial no. 26 was purchased from an unknown person 4-5 months before the seizure, not from Gagan Brass Palace.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
51. Ld. defence counsels, on the other hand, submitted that the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 63 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:15 +0530 present FIR Exhibit PW-12/A(Colly) was registered by CBI for offences u/s 411 IPC and 25(2) r/w 14(3) of the Antiquities and Arts Treasures Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "AAT Act") on the basis of complaint dated 01.07.2005 against accused No. 1 Satish Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s India Arts Palace on the basis of source information that accused No. 1 was allegedly in illegal possession of registrable antiquities suspected to be stolen from various places of historical importance.
52. It has been further argued that a joint surprise check was conducted by Inspector N.M. Sherawat (PW-10) in association with Sri B.S. Negi, Deputy Superintendent Archeologist, ASI, New Delhi and 2 independent witnesses namely, Sri P.K. Grover (PW-4) and Sri Mehar Chand (PW-1), both from NBCC. That during surprise check, 27 items were seized which according to the prosecution prima facie opined to be of antique nature.
53. It has been further argued that after due investigation, inquiries, reports, etc., a charge-sheet was filed for offences u/s 25(2) r/w 14(3) r/w 5 of the AAT, Act against Satish Kumar Gupta(A1), Subhash Kumar (A2) and Karan Kumar (A3).
54. It has been further argued that as per the Chargesheet all 27 artifacts were produced before the authorized nominee of DG, ASI, Sri G.T. Shendey, Director (Antiquity), for examination u/s 24 of AAT Act and allegedly 6 objects (out of 27 seized objects) were declared as registrable antiquities.
55. It has been further argued that in para 14 of the Charge-
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 64 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:22 +0530 sheet, it has been mentioned that during investigation, Lookout Notices with photocopies of the photographs of the seized objects had been sent to DG, NCRB and DG, ASI and GGPs of different states of the country to find out whether the objects in question were reported to be stolen/missing from the temple, art galleries, museum, monuments or site of excavation, but since no positive reply was received from the authorities, the charges u/s 411 IPC were dropped.
56. It has been further argued that A1 has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was no information from any source regarding A-1 possessing/selling antiquities but it was due to personal vengeance of the two inspectors viz. N.M. Sherawat and Dharamvir Singh who wanted some items from the shop of A-1, free of cost. This was denied by A-1 resulting in this prosecution. That these two CBI officials in connivance with Mr. G.T. Shinde along with other unknown persons, doctored a plot to incriminate the accused person in a completely false and fabricated case.
57. It has been further argued that the surprise check is conducted on the alleged source information regarding alleged illegal possession of registrable antiquities suspected to be stolen from various places of historical importance but no inquiries were made by Mr. N.M. Sherawat, to ensure any theft or missing article from any of the places of historical importance.
58. It has been further argued that the punishment prescribed u/s 25(2) is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 65 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:30 +0530 or fine or both and was not cognizable. In order to make the offence cognizable a false allegation u/s 411 IPC was doctored and included. That not even a single document has been placed on record regarding inquiry made by CBI from various authorities regarding the alleged theft of any artifact. That if the source had disclosed regarding theft of antiquities, it was the easiest thing as to what antiquities and from where has such antiquities been stolen.
59. It has been further argued that the offence u/s 411 IPC was included for the purpose of CBI registering an FIR, the offence being cognizable and later on conveniently, it was dropped.
60. It has been further argued that the only question or the charge to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court has boiled down to, whether the 6 objects seized by the prosecution are antiquities as alleged or otherwise. That the main dispute according to the accused persons is that whether the 6 objects alleged to be antiquities, compulsorily registrable u/s 14 of the AAT Act, are actually the antiquities. That the prosecution in order to examine and establish the seized goods were antiquities, allegedly sent it to ASI.
61. It has been further argued that the prosecution has examined Dr. G.T. Shendey as PW-2, wherein he proved a letter dated 02.08.2005 written by himself to CBI regarding examination u/s 24 of the AAT Act of the 27 objects seized from the possession of A1 wherein he has mentioned that an appeal committee meeting has been fixed for examination of the objects on 09.08.2005 at __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 66 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:37 +0530 11:00 am at the office of DG, ASI. PW2 has further proved a letter dated 23.08.2005 again written by himself addressed to SP, CBI informing about the meeting of the appeal committee held on 09.08.2005 wherein allegedly 6 items were held to be antiquities.
Besides the above, PW2 has proved photographs of each of the 27 objects and the 6 alleged antiquities as per alleged examination of the committee.
62. It has been further argued that in his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that the alleged report Ex. PW-2/B was silent about the names of the members of the committee. PW2 further admitted that report prepared by the Committee is not available on the judicial record. PW2 further stated that report of the committee was not handed over to the investigating agency as per the provision contained u/s 24 AAT Act. PW2 has deposed that he signed the photographs Exhibit PW-2/1 to PW-2/27 as conveyor and authorized nominee of the DG, ASI. It has been further argued that when PW2 was asked to show the document in support of he being the nominee of the DG, ASI, he deposed that it is not available on the judicial record. That PW2 volunteered to produce these documents and at the request of defence counsel, PW-2 was directed to produce the relevant authorization letter/order in his favor. However, PW2 failed to produce the same.
63. It has been further argued that Ex. PW-2/B, on the face of it is a letter and not a report, which has been admitted by PW-2 in his cross examination.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 67 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:58:45 +0530
64. It has been further argued that as per section 24 of AAT Act, the process to determine whether or not an artifact is antiquity or art treasure vests with the DG, ASI or an official not below the rank of Director, ASI, authorized by DG, ASI. That in absence of any letter by DG, ASI, authorizing PW-2, any letter or communication by PW-2 is invalid and non-est in the eyes of law.
65. It has been further argued that the prosecution has not proved any letter issued by the DG, ASI, in any respect, not even in response to the alleged request vide letter dated 29.06.2005 (Ex. PW-12/C) like a letter by NBCC being PW-1/A, for a detainment officer of ASI to assist the CBI for the surprise check on 30.06.2005. Therefore, whether even Sri B.S. Negi was authorized to accompany the joint search party is also doubtful.
66. It has been further argued that the Investigating Officer, Dharamvir Singh PW-12, in his cross-examination deposed that approximately 15-20 cases were handled by him of this nature, therefore, it was not that he did not know the procedure to be adopted and how an object was supposed to be declared as antiquity. PW12 has deposed that he received examination report from Dr. G.T. Shinde (PW-2) and also that he checked the authorization letter. That these depositions are completely contradictory to the depositions of PW-2. That on being asked whether PW12 had placed on record the authorization letter granted to Dr. G.T. Shendey, PW12 deposed that it was placed along with the committee report of ASI.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 68 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:58:53 +0530
67. It has been further argued that IO/PW-12 has deposed Ex. PW-2/B as the report of the committee, which again is contradictory to the statement of PW-2 who admitted in his cross- examination that the report of the committee is also not available on judicial record and not handed over to the IO as per the provision contained in section 24 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972.
68. It has been further argued that PW2 admitted in his cross- examination that there was no document to show that PW-2 was the authorized nominee of DG, ASI. PW-2 was directed to produce the said records, if available, on the next date of hearing at the request of the defence counsel, which he failed.
69. It has been further argued that Section 24 of the AAT Act does not provide that the report of the committee cannot be handed over to the investigating agency as stated by PW-2. That if this would have been the position, the PW-12 who according to him had conducted 14-15 cases, would have at least deposed that this was the practice adopted by ASI in all cases but PW-12 deposed that he had collected the committee report from ASI.
70. It has been further argued that the star witnesses of the prosecution on the question whether the 6 objects being antiquity or not, have contradicted each other.
71. It has been further argued that the plain reading of Ex. PW-2/B signed by PW-2, are incomplete and inconclusive as they do not reveal the scientific basis on which the 6 objects have been __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 69 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:59:01 +0530 declared as antique. That the only reason which finds in this letter, Ex. PW-2/B, is that the objects at Serial No. 11, 13, 15 & 16, belonging to medieval period based on the style and feature. The entire reason mentioned in Ex. PW2/B, clearly demonstrate that it is only on the basis of appearance, the artifacts have been illegally declared as antique.
72. Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Banne Singh @ Pahalwan vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Criminal Appeal No. 1254/2008, decided on 15.01.2014) reported in 2014 SCC Online Raj 169, while dealing with the issue of statues being antique or not, held that declaration of sculptures being antique cannot be on the basis of appearance but on the basis of scientific evidence. It has been further argued that in this case the alleged report by Sh. G. T. Shendey, does not give any scientific reason/study to prove the items to be antiquities falling under the AAT Act.
73. It has been further argued that the prosecution has not examined any other witness or document to prove that the 6 objects allegedly declared antique, were in fact antique.
74. It has been further argued that in view of the fact that Dr. G. T. Shendey was not authorized by the DG, ASI in term of Section 24 of the AAT Act and in absence any report of the Committee on the 27 objects on their being antique or not and further that the letter dated 23rd August 2005, not being report of the Committee, as admitted by Dr. G. T. Shendey himself, not disclosing any __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 70 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:59:09 +0530 scientific reason for declaring the 6 objects as antique; the prosecution has miserably failed to demonstrate and prove that the alleged 6 objects were antique and as such, the charges u/s 25(2) r/w s. 14(3) and 5 of the AAT Act, is not made out.
75. It has been further argued that the charges under section 120B r/w Section 465 and 471 IPC were framed against A1 and A2 for alleged criminal conspiracy and dishonestly/fraudulently preparing false, fabricated and ante-dated purchase vouchers dated 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004 for Rs. 5850/- and Rs. 6300/-
respectively regarding the sale of antique objects mentioned at Sr. NO. 13, 16 & 19.
76. It has been further argued that in order to prove these two vouchers, the prosecution had named PW Raj Kumar S/o Sri Makhan Lal, who had allegedly prepared these purchase vouchers, however, PW Raj Kumar, unfortunately expired before he could be examined.
77. It has been further argued that it is the case of the prosecution that the handwriting samples of the A-2, Subhash Kumar and witness, Raj Kumar, were allegedly taken and allegedly examined by PW N.K. Agarwal, who also unfortunately expired and the contents of his alleged report No. CFSL 2005/D-0646 dated 17.02.2006, could not be proved.
78. It has been further argued that the prosecution examined PW-13 S.R. Singh, who had served as Director, CFSL (CBI), MHA, New Delhi and Late N.K. Agarwal had worked under him.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 71 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:59:17 +0530 He proved the signature of Late N.K. Agarwal on the alleged report No. CFSL 2005/D-0646. PW-13, in his cross-examination, deposed that he did not give any input in the scientific part of the report or with respect to the opinion formed by N.K. Agarwal. PW13 further deposed that he had never seen any of the persons whose signatures were sent for comparison, writing any document.
79. Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon para mo. 14 of the judgment of Banne Singh (supra), wherein it has been held:
".....According to Hari Manjhi (P.W. 69), while he has identified the signatures of G.C. Chawley on these lists/reports, he is not in a position to tell the court about the truthfulness or the falsehood of these reports. Mere identification of a signature does not prove the contents of a report. Since these lists/reports (Ex. P.222, 223, 225 and 227) do not fall under Section 293 Cr.P.C., they were required to be proved by the prosecution like any other documentary evidence. However, as the prosecution has failed to prove these lists/reports, they are inadmissible in evidence."
80. It has been further argued that in view of the said findings, it is crystal clear that the alleged report No. CFSL 2005/D-0646 remains unproved.
81. It has been further argued that the prosecution also fails to prove whether the specimen taken were that of the accused no. 2 Subhash Kumar and witness Raj Kumar.
82. It has been further argued that no question under section 313 Cr.P.C. was put to accused no. 2, Subhash Kumar, regarding him signing the two vouchers in question. That there is nothing on record that these two vouchers were prepared ante-dated or __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 72 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:59:26 +0530 whether there was any involvement of accused no. 1 in the preparation of these two vouchers.
83. It has been further argued that in the questions put u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to the accused no. 1, Satish Kumar Gupta, there is no question regarding the fact of instructions by A-1 to either Raj Kumar or Subhash Kumar, for preparing the two vouchers dated 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004, which shows that no doubt has been raised by the prosecution on the preparation of two vouchers 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004.
84. It has been further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the purchase vouchers dated 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004 were prepared ante-dated by Raj Kumar at the instance of accused no. 1, Satish Kumar Gupta and signed ante-dated by the accused no. 2, Subhash Kumar.
85. It has been further argued that Section 463 IPC defines "Forgery", according to which whoever makes any false document or false document or false electronic record or part of the document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, commits forgery.
86. It has been further argued that making of false document, used in section 463 IPC, finds an explanation u/s 464 IPC according to which a person who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document,
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record, (c) affixes any electronic signature on any __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 73 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 by MAYANK CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:59:34 +0530 electronic record and (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed such document was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed, would be the person said to "make a false document".
87. It has been further argued that the charge against the accused no. 1 Satish Kumar Gupta, is that at his instance the two vouchers were prepared by Late Raj Kumar but besides this there is no involvement alleged against the accused no. 1 Satish Kumar Gupta. That accused no. 1 cannot be a person making a false document as defined u/s 464 IPC and therefore, cannot be said to have committed forgery u/s 463 IPC. Therefore, the charge u/s 465 IPC is not made out against the accused no. 1.
88. It has been further argued that to prove the offence u/s. 120B IPC, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:
i) The accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act.
ii) Such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means.
iii) Some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement.
89. It has been further argued that the gist of the offence is agreement to conspire. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for resorting illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 74 of 87 Digitally signed RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:59:41 +0530 The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both.
90. It has been further argued that in Halsbury's Laws of England (vide 4th Ed. Vol. 11, page 44, page 58), the English Law as to conspiracy has been stated thus:
"Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law, the punishment for which is imprisonment or fine or both in the discretion of the Court -The essence of the offence of conspiracy in the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or however, it may be. The act rules in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to affect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with every other."
91. It has been further argued that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish any such agreement involving the accused.
92. It has been further argued that section 471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use. That in order to establish offence u/s 471 IPC, a forged __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 75 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 14:59:49 +0530 document is required to exist. In the present case, as detailed herein above, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two vouchers dated 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004, were forged. That the ingredients for making out offence u/s 471 IPC, are absent in the present case. In any event, to substantiate these charges, malicious intention on the part of the accused, is mandatory, which has not been proved.
93. It has been further argued that it is admitted fact that no scientific test or examination of the 6 statues has been done to conclude that the statues are antiques.
94. It has been further argued that no charges are made out against the accused persons and the articles/objects seized by the CBI/prosecution should be released to the accused no. 1.
95. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the written submissions and judgments filed on record by the Ld. counsels for the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
96. At the outset, it may be noted that the case of the prosecu- tion as against the accused persons are that 06 (six) registrable antiquities at serial no. 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 26 were recovered from the shop of A-1 Satish Kumar Gupta on joint surprise check which were put to the sale by A-1. Secondly, the antiquity at Sr. No. 15 is sold by A-3 Karan Kumar to A-2 Subhash Kumar. Thirdly, A-1 and A-2 in criminal conspiracy with each other got __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 76 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 14:59:58 +0530 prepared the false, fabricated and ante dated purchase vouchers dated 19.05.2004 and 27.04.2004 regarding the sale of antique objects mentioned at sr. no. 11, 13, 16 and 19.
97. The first point of determination in the present case is whether the alleged 06 (six) registrable antiquities seized from the shop of accused A-1 are antiquities or not.
98. The present case pertains to the seizure of 06 (six) registra- ble antiquities from the shop of A-1 which were meant for sale and preparation of false and ante-dated bills for four registrable antiq- uities.
99. The primary and the only basis for the prosecution's alle- gation that 06 (six) registrable antiquities were seized from the shop of A-1, is the report of Appeal Committee, ASI Ex. PW2/B which give findings that out of 27 artifacts seized from the shop of A-1, 06 (six) artifacts are registrable antiquities. This conclusion was reached primarily on the basis of the report of Appeal Com- mittee Ex. PW2/B and sent to CBI by PW2 and as per section 24 of AAT Act, the report of Appeal committee shall be conclusive proof.
100. Section 24 of AAT Act is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"24. Power to determine whether or not an article, etc., is antiquity or art treasure --
If any question arises whether any article, object or thing or manuscript, record or other document is or is not an antiquity or is or is not an art treasure for the purposes of this Act, it shall be referred to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, or to an officer not below the rank of a Director in the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 77 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:00:06 +0530 Archaeological Survey of India authorized by the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India and the decision of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India or such officer, as the case may be, on such question shall be final."
101. As per Section 24 of AAT Act, the report of DG, ASI or the officer not below the rank of Director, ASI authorized by DG, ASI shall be final. However, in the present case, no authorization has been filed by the prosecution to show that PW2 has been autho- rized by DG, ASI to examine the 27 artifacts seized from the shop of A-1 and to give report.
102. PW2/Dr. G. T. Shendey during his cross-examination ad- mitted that the report Ex. PW2/B is silent about the names of the members of the Committee. PW2 further admitted during his cross-examination that the report prepared by the Committee is also not available on the judicial record. PW2 voluntarily deposed during his cross-examination that report of committee is not handed over to the IO in terms of Section 24 of AAT Act. PW2 further admitted during his cross-examination that there is no document showing that he was authorized nominee of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, available on the judi- cial record. PW2 further admitted during his cross-examination that he did not hand over any such authorization to the IO.
103. Here, PW2 himself admitted that his authorization and re- port of Appeal Committee are not on record. It is also pertinent to mention that the cross-examination of PW2 was deferred to bring on record the authorization, but PW2 failed to file any such au- thorization letter. This shows that the prosecution has failed to __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 78 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:00:13 +0530 prove that document Ex. PW2/B is the report of the Appeal Com- mittee and that PW2 has been authorized to examine the 27 arti- facts seized from A-1 and to give report. In absence of any autho- rization of PW2 to examine the 27 seized artifacts and to file re- port, the document Ex. PW2/B even if considered as Appeal Committee Report for the sake of arguments, cannot be deemed to be the final report in terms of Section 24 of AAT Act.
104. It has been argued by Ld. PP for CBI that certain statements of PW2 remain unchallenged and uncontroverted during cross- examination of PW2 as no suggestion had been put to PW2 re- garding the fact that he was Director (Antiquity). Further, it has been argued by Ld. PP for CBI that the accused persons failed to produce any evidence to the fact that PW2 was not the authorized nominee of DG, ASI despite the fact that PW2 has denied the suggestion that he was not the authorized nominee of DG, ASI. It has been further argued by Ld. PP for CBI that the presumption regarding the authority of PW2 to examine and to file the report of registrable artifacts shall be raised under Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
105. In the present case, the Appeal Committee was formed to examine all the 27 artifacts seized from the shop of A-1, however, no document has been filed or exhibited by the prosecution to show as to who all are the member of the Appeal Committee to examine the 27 artifacts and whether they have been authorized by DG, ASI as per section 24 of AAT Act. Ld. Counsel for accused A-1 had put specific question to PW2 regarding the authority let- ter or authorization of PW2 by DG, ASI. However, he failed to __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 79 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.28
15:00:20 +0530
produce the same despite the fact that his cross-examination was deferred for that authorization. It has been argued by Ld. PP for CBI that PW2 had brought the internal departmental notesheets mentioning his authorization on the deferred date of cross-exami- nation but the same has not been exhibited by the Ld. Counsel for A-1. Here, it is the duty of the prosecution to get these documents produce before the court as well as to get them exhibited.
106. It is a settled law that the prosecution cannot rely upon the documents which have not been exhibited by him during the prosecution evidence and to the contrary, the defence always has right to refer even the unexhibited documents if in favor of the accused.
107. In the present case, it is the duty of the prosecution to place on record the authorization of PW2 by DG, ASI and in case of failure of prosecution to produce the authorization before the court despite specific suggestion by Ld. Defence Counsel, no presump- tion under Section 114(e) shall be taken regarding that authoriza- tion or on the basis of unexhibited notesheets, considering the fact that prosecution always have opportunity to place them on record and exhibit them as per law.
108. PW12/IO deposed totally contradictory to PW2 regarding the authorization of PW2 and regarding the report of Appeal Committee. PW12 during his cross-examination deposed that he had received the report from DG, ASI before filing the chargesheet, however, PW2 deposed that no report has been given to IO. Moreover, no such report is on court record. PW12 during __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 80 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:00:28 +0530 his cross-examination also deposed that he had received the copy of authorization letter of DG, ASI nominating PW2 and he had placed on record the same, however, PW2 deposed that no such authorization letter is on court record.
109. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Banne Singh @ Pa- halwan Vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Criminal Appeal No. 1254/2008 decided on 15.01.2014) has dealt with report of ASI declaring the artifacts as registrable antiquities on the basis of ap- pearance and held that :-
"15. Moreover, these lists/reports are incomplete and inconclusive, for they do not reveal the scien- tific basis on the basis of which the sculptures have been declared as antique. According to Dr. G. T. Shine (P.W. 78), the sculptures were classified as 'antique' or 'non-antiques' on the basis of their 'ap- pearance'. However, 'appearance' can be misleading. For the endeavour of an artist who creates as fake copy is to make the fake appear as good as the origi- nal and as 'old as the original. Moreover, the lists/ reports do not reveal 'the stylistic basis on which the sculptures have been declared as 'antiques'. For, these lists/reports do not reveal the period, the style, the school, the dynasty to which these sculptures be- long to. Since Hari Manjhi (P.W. 69) clearly admits that fake copies of antique sculptures are readily available in the market, it was essential for the pros- ecution to rule out the possibility that these sculp- tures, allegedly recovered from the appellant, were not fakes. However, the prosecution has failed to do so. Therefore, the court has no basis for concluding that the sculptures recovered from the appellant's possession were, indeed 'antique'. Hence, his con- viction under Section 14/25(2) of the AAT Act is clearly unjustified"
110. Now even if for the sake of arguments, the court consider the document Ex. PW2/B as report of Appeal Committee and also consider that PW2 has been authorized by DG, ASI, Ex. PW2/B, then also Ex. PW2/B is incomplete and inconclusive in terms of __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 81 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:00:36 +0530 judgment of Banne Singh (supra) as they do not reveal the scien- tific basis on which the 06 (six) artifacts have been declared as antique. As per Ex. PW2/B, the artifacts were classified as 'an- tique' or 'non-antiques' on the basis of their appearance. However, appearance can be misleading. For the endeavor of an artist who creates a fake copy is to make the fake appear as good as the original and as 'old as the original'. Therefore, the court has no basis for concluding that the artifacts recovered from the shop of A-1 were indeed 'antique'.
111. Ld. PP for CBI argued that the judgment of Banne Singh (supra) has not attained finality and Crl. Appeal No. 2186 of 2014 against the said judgment is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further argued by Ld. PP that the facts of judgment of Banne Singh (Supra) is different from the facts of the present case as in the judgment of Banne Singh (supra), there was confusion about the exact sculptures recovered from the ap- pellant and the report does not reveal the period, the style and the dynasty to which these sculptures belong to. However, in the present case, the period, style and dynasty are duly mentioned in the report of ASI.
112. Though, in the report filed by ASI under the signature of PW2, the period, style and dynasty of the alleged six registrable antiquities is mentioned but after perusal of the said report, it is clear that the said report is totally based on the appearance of the artifacts and completely silent about any scientific method used to come to the conclusion that these alleged six registrable antiquities are actually antiquities.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 82 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:00:43 +0530
113. Ld. PP relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10866/10867 of 2010 in M. Siddiq (D) Thru LRs vs. Mahant Suresh Dass & Ors. (Ram Janambhumi Case) and stated that in the present case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has accepted the ASI report despite the fact that no carbon dating on the structure was done.
114. The facts of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of In- dia in Ram Janambhumi Case is different from the fact of the present case as in that case, there was pre-existing structure which was underlying beneath and revealed after excavation, which is not the situation in the present case.
115. Now, it is imperative to examine the second limb of the charge i.e. the preparation of false and ante-dated bills.
116. The prosecution's case regarding forgery rests only on the CFSL report Ex. PW13/A (colly) (8 pages) as the witness Rajku- mar who is alleged to prepare these bills has expired and never entered in the witness box. Furthermore, the expert witness who examined the signatures and handwritings of Rajkumar and A-2 also expired before entering the witness box and could not be ex- amined before the court.
117. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that without examining the expert witness of signature and handwriting, the expert report cannot be read in evidence and relied upon the judgment of Banne Singh (supra). However, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Para no. 14 of Banne Singh (supra) is dealing with the report regarding __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 83 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 Digitally signed CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 15:00:51 +0530 the fact whether the sculptures are antique or not and not regard- ing the signature and handwriting expert. The report of signature and handwriting expert duly falls under section 293 of Cr.P.C. and as per section 293 of Cr.P.C., the expert witness need not to be examined for proving the expert report and is admissible without examination of expert before the court.
118. It is settled law that the report of the handwriting and sig- nature expert is the weakest form of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and cannot be acted upon as the substantive piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis of con- viction without substantive evidences on record.
119. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to examine any witness who could depose that these two bills were prepared by Rajkumar and signed by A-2 on the instructions of A-1 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. There is no substantive evi- dence on record to show that these documents have been prepared by Rajkumar and signed by A-2 on the instructions of A-1 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2.
120. Ld. PP for CBI argued that PW12/IO categorically deposed that he had recorded the statement of Rajkumar who is an em- ployee of A-1 and Rajkumar stated that purchase vouchers were prepared by him on the instructions of A-1 and Ld. Defence Counsel fails to cross-examine PW12 on this aspect. However, as abovestated, Rajkumar never entered into witness box due to his demise. The evidence of PW12 regarding the statement of PW12 is therefore hearsay evidence and hearsay evidence is inadmissible __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 84 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:01:00 +0530 as per law. The statement of Rajkumar recorded by PW12/IO during investigation is per se inadmissible in law.
121. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose state- ment is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and un- trustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, it they exist, by the test of cross-examination. The phrase "hearsay evidence" is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is the fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written, made otherwise than a witness in giving evidence and a statement contained or recorded in any book, document or record, whatever, proof of which is not admitted on other grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted. That his species of evidence cannot be tested by cross- examination and that in many cases, it supposes some better testi- mony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. Its tendency to protract legal in- vestigations to an embarrassing and dangerous length, its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of a Judge about the existence of the fact, and the fraud which may be practiced with impunity, under its cover, combine support the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 85 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.28 15:01:08 +0530
122. The reason why hearsay evidence is not received as relevant evidence are:
a) The person giving such evidence does not feel any respon-
sibility. The law requires all evidence to be given under personal responsibility i.e. every witness must give his testimony, under such circumstance, as expose him to all the penalties of falsehood. If the person giving hearsay evidence is concerned, he has line of escape by saying "I do not know, but so and so told me".
b) Truth is diluted and diminished with each repetition.
c) If permitted, gives ample scope for playing fraud by saying "someone told me that......." It would be attaching importance to false rumor flying from one foul lip to another.
123. Thus, the deposition of the PW12/IO regarding the infor- mation provided by Rajkumar or based on information received from Rajkumar is inadmissible even without any cross-examina- tion by Ld. Defence counsel on that aspect, being hearsay.
124. In the present case, no incriminating material come on record during the recording of testimony of the witnesses exam- ined by the prosecution and the document exhibited by them to prove the conspiracy of A-1 and A-2 in forgery of any document and the use of the same by the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
125. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons namely Satish Ku- mar Gupta, Subhash Kumar and Karan Kumar beyond reasonable __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 86 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 15:01:24 +0530 doubt. Accordingly accused Satish Kumar Gupta, Subhash Kumar are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 465 and 471 IPC and accused Satish Kumar Gupta is also acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 25(2) r/w Section 14(3) and section 5 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and accused Karan Kumar is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 25(2) r/w sec- tion 5 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
126. Bailbonds of the accused Satish Kumar Gupta, Subhash Kumar and Karan Kumar on record are considered and hereby accepted u/s 437A Cr.P.C./481 BNSS.
127. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by MAYANKMAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.28 15:01:37 +0530 Announced in Open Court (MAYANK GOEL) on 28th March, 2026 ACJM-02-cum-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/299/2019 Page No. 87 of 87 RC-SID-2005-E0004 CBI vs. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.