Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Bhupinder Singh on 17 December, 2018

   IN THE COURT OF MS. ASHA MENON : DISTRICT &
   SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH) :  SAKET  :  NEW DELHI

CIS - SC­ 366­2017
CNR­DLST 01­005244­2017

State 

Vs.

State Vs. Bhupinder Singh
S/o late Shri Hoshiar Singh,
R/o L­117A/93, Street No.3, 
Mahipal Pur.

FIR No.89/2004
PS Vasant Kunj (EOW)
U/s 420/338/120B IPC &
U/s 63/65/68A Copy Right Act

Instituted on: 09.09.2004 / 12.07.2017
Judgment reserved on: 16.11.2018
Judgment pronounced on: 17.12.2018

                           JUDGMENT

The FIR No.89/2004 dated 04.02.2004 was registered at the PS Vasant Kunj for the offences U/s 420/338/120B IPC and U/s 63/65/68A of the Copy Right Act, Rule 3, Sub Rule 3 of Gas Cylinder Rule 1981, under Indian Explosives Act 1984 and Rule 7 of the LPG Order 2000, Section 33 of Bureau Indian Standard Act 1986.  A total of 14 accused were named in the FIR.  The accused Sumit   Kumar   has   been   declared   proclaimed   offender   since CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...1 of 57 03.05.2007.     Twelve   accused   pleaded   guilty   after   entering   plea bargains.

The accused Rang Nath Kumar pleaded guilty and was convicted  for   the   offence   U/s   420/338/120B   IPC   and   U/s 63/65/68A of the Copy Right Act  vide order dated 20.04.2017 and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him in JC for 73 days and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/­.  

Accused Pappu Sharma,  Ranjan Kumar, Anil Sharma, Sanjeev   Kumar,   Ramanuj   Sharma   and   Deepak   Kumar   were convicted   for   the   offences   U/s   420/338/120B   IPC   and   U/s 63/65/68A of the Copy Right Act on the basis of plea bargaining vide   order   dated   02.06.2012   and   were   sentenced   to   pay   fine   of Rs.5,000/­ each to be paid to the Bureau of Indian Standards, as compensation.  

The accused Gulshan Banga, Manohar Lal and Vijay Sharma were convicted for the offences   U/s 420/338/120B IPC and U/s 63/65/68A of the Copy Right Act through plea bargaining vide   order   dated   01.06.2013   and   were   sentenced   to   pay   fine   of Rs.5,000/­   to   be   paid   to   the   Bureau   of   Indian   Standards   as compensation.  

The   accused   Anand   Tayal   and   Ajay   Katyal   were convicted through plea bargaining for the  U/s 420/338/120B IPC and   U/s   63/65/68A   of   the   Copy   Right   Act   vide   order   dated 01.11.2013   and   were   sentenced   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.5,000/­   each. Thus, the accused who has faced trial is Bhupinder Singh.  

CIS - SC­ 366­2017                                                  Page ...2 of 57
                               CHARGESHEET

As   per   the   charge­sheet,   Insp.   R.S.   Chauhan   had received secret information that duplicate spurious gas regulators of   famous   brands   were   being   manufacture,   stored   and   sold unauthorizedly at a compound located in gali no.K­6, Mahipal Pur by the Bhupinder Singh.   It was decided to conduct a raid on the premises and the raiding party was constituted consisting of   SI Anil Kumar, SI Ranjay Atrishya, SI Vinod Gandhi, Ct. Suraj Pal, Ct. Raj Singh, Ct. Karambir, Ct. Rajinder Kumar and HC Khem Pal.   As   per   the   charge­sheet,   Rakesh   Kumar   son   of   Sh.   Vimal Kishore resident of village Vasant Gaon, New Delhi volunteered to become the decoy customer and joined the raiding party.  Ct. Raj Singh was assigned to act as a shadow witness. Five currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/­   were handed over to the decoy customer for purchasing 50 pieces of spurious gas regulators as the information   was   that   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   was   selling regulators at the rate of  Rs.40/­ to Rs.45/­ per piece.  The shadow witness   was   instructed   to   keep   a   vigil   near   the   decoy   customer from a distance and to hear the dialogue that was likely to take place   between   the   decoy   customer   and   the   accused   Bhupinder Singh. 

The raiding party along with source assembled at 10 am, near Mahipal Pur, Sr. Secondary School and thereafter, after being properly briefed again, the entire raiding contingent reached gali no. K­6, near Khajan PCO Booth in Mahipal Pur around 10.45 am  on    04.02.2004.    The  decoy  customer   went  inside  the  open CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...3 of 57 compound having partly built up structure, through the iron gate and his movement was visible to the shadow witness.  The decoy customer after short enquiry from the inmates met the owner  of the compound Sh. Bhupender Singh and expressed desire to purchase 50 Indane gas regulators.  The accused Bhupender Singh told that such regulators were ready to be sold @ Rs.45/­ per piece.   The charge­sheet further records that the accused Bhupinder Singh then showed the decoy customer a packet from a gunny bag carrying 50 pieces of Indane gas regulators.  After satisfying about the stuff i.e. the Indane Gas regulators of red colour, carrying Indane Logo and description   "property   of   Indian   Oil   Corporation   Ltd." and ISI mark together with the number asked for i.e. 50 pieces, the decoy   customer   handed   over   the   marked   currency   notes   of Rs.2000/­ and received 50 Indane gas regulators from the accused Bhupinder Singh.  As soon as the decoy customer nodded his head, the shadow witness moved his right hand over his head to complete the fixed signal.   Immediately, the other members of the raiding party   who   had   spread   around   the   compound   rushed   inside   the compound.  On personal search of  the accused Bhupinder Singh, four   currency   notes   of   the   denomination   of   Rs.500/­   each   were recovered and taken into possession.  The decoy customer returned the fifth unused currency note also.   Several boxes contained in nineteen gunny bags were recovered with spurious gas regulators. Another public witness Sh. Anil Kumar also joined the proceedings and placed his signatures on all the seizure memos.

It is stated in the charge­sheet that the owner of the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...4 of 57 unit   Bhupinder   Singh,   manager   Deepak   Kumar   and   employees namely Anil Sharma, Rang Nath Kumar, Pappu Sharma, Ramanuj Sharma, Sanjveev Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Ranjan Kumar who were   working   in   the   unit   were   interrogated.     They   were   also arrested and produced before the Court and thousands of finished / semi­finished   gas   regulators   of   different   brand   names,   drilling machine, lathe machine, grinders, electric motors and other tools used   for   assembling   and   packaging   of   gas   regulators   were   also recovered.   Thereafter, at the instance of the accused Bhupinder Singh, premises no.B­112B, gali no.8, old Rang Puri road, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi was also raided and again dye casting machines for manufacturing of body of duplicate gas regulators, generator   set,   grinding   /   drilling   machines,   dyes   used   for preparation of duplicate gas regulators bearing impression mark of Indian   Oil   Corporation,   Bharat   Petroleum,   Hindustan   Petroleum and other were recovered.   It is recorded in the charge­sheet that the accused Bhupinder Singh could not produce any licence for the production of gas regulators from any of the petroleum companies whose marks were found on the spurious gas regulators namely Hindustan Petroleum, Indane, Bharat Petroleum, etc..  

Thereafter, on the disclosure of the accused Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar, search of the premises of Narang Bartan Bhandar, shop no.11/12, DDA Market, Hastal Road, Shani bazar road,   Uttam   Nagar,   Delhi   was   conducted   and   141   spurious   gas regulators of different brand names were recovered and the owner of the shop namely Gulshan Banga was arrested.  Gulshan Banga CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...5 of 57 further   disclosed   that   he   used   to   purchase   the   spurious   gas regulators of reputed brands from the accused Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar and sell the same at good margin.  Thereafter, at the instance of the accused Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar, raids were conducted at Vishal Gas Stove, Tulsi Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi and Prem Kumar Store, Tri Nagar, Delhi which were disclosed to be the suppliers of spurious gas regulators to the other parts of the country.   Anand Tayal, the owner of the Vishal Gas Stove, Tulsi Nagar,   Tri   Nagar,   Delhi   was   actively   engaged   in   the   supply   of spurious gas regulators in North­Eastern areas of India including to Ajay Katyal of Guwhati.  A diary was also recovered with details of  despatch of pressure regulators to Ajay Katyal.  

Thus,   Anand   Katyal   was   also   arrested.     He   also disclosed that there was high demand for regulators in the market and   good   margin   used   to   be   made   by   selling   spurious   gas regulators, supplied and manufactured by the accused Bhupinder Singh.     Thereafter,   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   and   Deepak Kumar made further disclosure that they used to supply spurious gas regulators to one Manohar Lal son of Sh. Tulja Ram, resident of D­1/12, Ganga Triveni Apartment, Sector­9, Rohini, Delhi, C/o Prem Kumar Store, Tri Nagar, Delhi and used to send the spurious gas regulators to Coimbatore and other parts of the country.   He was also interrogated during which it came to notice that he used to receive payments from parties in respect of these transactions in the accounts of some other individuals including one Smt. Anupama Gupta wife of Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta.   He disclosed that he had CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...6 of 57 supplied the gas lighters to Manohar Lal and in lieu Sh. Manohar Lal used to direct his clients outside Delhi to transfer amount in the account of his wife for income tax liabilities.  

Sh. Manohar Lal was also arrested and while in police custody,   he   further   disclosed   that   he   had   supplied   spurious   gas regulators   at   Coimbatore   to   one   Vikram,   through   Sachdeva Transport, Lion Transport and other transport agencies.   Most of the transactions in the account of Smt. Anupama Gupta which were received from Banglore, Nagpur, Jaipur,  Hyderabad and Guwahati were not satisfactorily explained by Sh. Manohar Lal.  Thereafter, the accused Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar further disclosed that the dyes used to manufacture the spurious gas regulators were prepared   by   one   Vijay   Sharma   son   of   late   Sh.   Madan   Sharma, resident of I­148, Shivram Park, Nangloi, Delhi who was running a 'kharad' shop at L­2/78, Shastri Park, Delhi.   The accused Vijay Sharma disclosed that the said dyes containing marking of Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum, Hindustan Petroleum and ISI  Mark were prepared by him at the instance of the accused Bhupinder Singh and he received a sum of Rs.40,000/­ for the same and he used to receive instructions from the accused Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar.  

It   is   further   stated   that   during   investigations   the relevant consignment notes sent by the accused Anand Tayal to Ajay Katyal through Arunachal Transport Company were seized and it was confirmed by Sunil Aggarwal that the consignment in question was collected by the accused Ajay Katyal c/o Pinglaksho CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...7 of 57 Gas   Appliances,   Bharalu   Mukh,   Guwahati.     The   Investigating Officer   obtained   confirmation   from   the   Indian   Oil,   Bharat Petroleum,   Hindustan   Petroleum   regarding   the   seized   gas regulators   and   the   concerned   parties   confirmed   that   what   was recovered   were   spurious   and   unsafe   for   use   as   they   were   not meeting any quality standards.  No licence / certificate / permission for manufacturing gas regulators in the name of   IOCL had been granted to the accused Bhupinder Singh.  Thus, provisions of Rule 7 of LPG Order 2000 was also attracted in the case.  Letters were also   sent   to   the   Bureau   of   Indian   Standards   and   Joint   Chief Controller of Explosive, Faridabad, Haryana who informed that no BIS   certificate   /   permission   /   licence   had   been   granted   to   the accused Bhupinder Singh son of   Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, resident of 93, village Mahipal Pur, Delhi for manufacture of and marking of low   pressure   regulators   to   be   used   with   the   LPG.     It   was   also informed that vide Section 11 of the BIS Act, 1986, no person was entitled   to   use   any   such   mark   except   under   licence.     Thus   the provisions of Sections 33 & 34 of the BIS Act, 1986 were also attracted to this case.   The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Faridabad,   Haryana   also   confirmed   that   no   approval   had   been granted   to   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   for   manufacturing   of cooking gas regulator and that Rule 3, Sub Rule 3 of Gas Cylinder Rule 1981 had been violated in this case and thus, these violations were also included in the charge­sheet.

CHARGE The accused Bhupinder Singh was charged for having CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...8 of 57 committed   the   offences   U/s   420/120B   IPC,   Section   33   of   the Bureau   of   Indian   Standards   Act   and   under   Liquefied   Petroleum Gas   (Regulations   of   Supply   Distribution)   Order   2000   read   with Section   3(2)(a)   read   with   Section   7(1)(a)(ii)   of   the   Essential Commodities Act, 1955, U/s 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999   and   U/s   9(B)   of   the   Indian   Explosives   Act,   1984.     The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.  

Thereafter, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE PW.1  is W/ASI Pavitra Devi, who had registered the FIR no. 89/2004 U/s 420 IPC and U/s 63/65 Copy Right Act being Ex.PW.1/B and her endorsement Ex.PW.1/B. PW.2  is Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta, who was examined in respect of the remittances into the bank account of his wife, by Sh.  Manohar   Lal.   This  witness  is  not related  with the  accused Bhupinder   Singh   as   the   accused   Manohar   Lal   has   already   been convicted on his plea.

PW.3  is Sh. Anil Kumar, who was examined by the prosecution as a witness to the recovery.  This witness has deposed that on 04.02.2004 he had gone to Mahipal Pur on some personal work and he saw large number of policemen and people collected at the plot.   He stated that he also stopped by to see what was happening. He further stated that the police asked him to join the proceedings and he agreed and he saw that from the plot a person was bringing a sackful of gas regulators.  He further stated that the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...9 of 57 police caught hold of that person and that person's name was stated to be probably Rakesh. He further stated that enquiries were made from Rakesh in his presence and he responded that the regulators were spurious but bore the name of the Indian Oil Company and on further   enquiry   by   the   police   Rakesh   revealed   that   he   had purchased the regulators from one person by name Bhupinder and he had paid Rs.2000 for the regulators. He further stated that the police went into the plot and apprehended Bhupinder and on his search found four notes of the denomination of Rs.500/­ each on his   person   i.e.   from   the   pocket   of   Bhupinder.     The   witness identified the accused Bhupinder who was present in the Court.  He further deposed that few other regulators were also recovered from other gunny bags. He further deposed that thereafter they had gone to another plot in the same area and large quantity of regulators were recovered from there.  He further stated that the police sealed the   recovered   regulators   and   documents   were   prepared   in   this regard which he had signed. He further deposed that the police also seized the four notes recovered from the accused Bhupinder and he had  signed those documents as well.  He identified his signatures on   the   various   seizure   memos   being   Ex.PW.3/A,   Ex.PW.3/B, Ex.PW.3/C and Ex.PW.3/D.   He deposed to the recovery of the case property   and identified the same being two gunny bags as Ex.PW3/P1 (colly), two pieces of zinc slab as Ex.PW3/P2 (colly), several   wrappers   as   Ex.PW3/P3   (colly),   drill   machine   as Ex.PW3/P4,  two open white gunny bags containing gas regulators as Ex.PW3/P5 and remaining case property as Ex.PW3/P6 (colly). 

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...10 of 57 During his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he deposed that he was a driver by profession. He further deposed that in the  year 2004 he used to take care of his cows and buffaloes. He further stated that he had studied upto class 5 and he could not read or write English. He further deposed that he did not remember for what work he had gone to Mahipal Pur and he could only assert that he had gone for some work.  He confirmed that he had known how to drive in the year 2004 but denied that he had driven the vehicle in which the accused  Bhupinder   was  taken  to  the  Police  Station.    He  further stated that he had no knowledge about the accused Bhupinder prior to 04.02.2004.  He further stated that he had identified the currency notes produced in the Court as they had been handed over by Anil who was a police officer to Rakesh.  He further stated that he had already reached there by the time the notes were handed over to Rakesh and Rakesh had been handed over five notes.   He further stated   that   four   notes   were   recovered   from   the   possession   of accused Bhupinder Singh and one note was returned by him to the police. 

He was not able to state where he had met the police before entering the plot but it was 100 yards before reaching the plot. He further stated that there were about 10­15 policemen at the spot.  He further stated that till the person Rakesh was caught hold of, he had not entered the plot and till then, he could not see what was happening inside the plot.  He could not recall whether the plot was visible from Khajan PCO which was about 50 paces from the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...11 of 57 plot and where he was standing with the police.  He stated that he had remained with the police at Mahipal Pur from 12.30 pm to 5.15 pm  as he had reached there at 12.30 pm.   He stated that he had not informed  his family that he was held up by the police. He claimed that he had only to go to Mahipal Pur but did not recall to whose house he had to go. He denied the suggestion that he was a  police informer.  He denied the suggestion that he had been called to the Police Station in the evening to sign some papers.  He denied that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the police officials.

PW.4 is Sh. Yadvender Singh Shrivastav, who was Chief General   Manager, LPG, Indian Oil Corporation, Lucknow. He   affirmed   that   he   had   signed   the   letters   Ex.PW.4/A   and Ex.PW.4/B   and   had   made   categoric   statement   that   the   accused Bhupinder Singh had not been granted any licence / certificate / permission   for   manufacturing   of   gas   regulators   in   the   name   of IOCL and had also clarified that manufacturing of gas regulators without   licence   /   certificate   /   permission   was     in   violation   of provisions of gas control order and also being without ISI approval.

During his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he admitted as correct that he had mentioned the name  of Bhupinder Singh in Ex.PW4/B as   the   police   had   questioned   qua   Bhupinder   Singh.     He   further stated   that   he   had   no   personal   knowledge   or   knowledge   on   the basis   of   office   records   that   the   person   present   in   court   as   the accused was the person who was manufacturing the gas regulators.

                PW.5   is   Sh.   Rajender   Sharma  who   was     the

CIS - SC­ 366­2017                                                    Page ...12 of 57

transporter.  He deposed that he had been  employed with Sachdeva transport in the year 2004.  He identified the builties Ex.PW.5/1 to Ex.PW.5/9 which were in his handwriting. He also identified the bills / builties Ex.PW.1/P10 to Ex.PW.1/P15.  He further stated that one Deepak had come to book the consignments  and mostly of Bangalore and Coimbatore.   Upon a leading question by the Ld. Additional   Public   Prosecutor   for   the   State,   he   admitted   that sometimes the builty was made in the name of Prem Steel from Tri Nagar.   This witness had nothing to depose against the accused Bhupinder Singh.

PW.6     is   Insp.   Anil   Kumar.   He   deposed   that   on 04.02.04,   he   was   posted   as   Sub   Inspector   in   EOW   Qutub Institutional Area.   He deposed to the constitution of the raiding party under the supervision of Insp. Raj Singh Chauhan who had received   information   that   fake   gas   regulators   of   leading   gas companies were being manufactured in Mahipal Pur. He deposed to  having asked  the persons  from the  public  to  join  the raiding party from the crowd and one Rakesh had voluntarily agreed to join the raiding party. He further deposed that he handed over five notes   in   the   denomination   of   Rs.   500/­   each   to   Rakesh   and instructed Rakesh to purchase 50 gas regulators which were being sold at the rate of Rs. 40 to 45, after negotiating the price.   He further   deposed   that   he   prepared   the   handing   over   memo Ex.PW6/A of the currency notes.  He further deposed that Ct. Raj Singh was asked to be the shadow witness to the entire negotiation and purchase of the gas regulators between Rakesh and the person CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...13 of 57 selling the fake gas regulators and   the witness had directed the shadow witness to signal by running his hand over his head when the   deal   was   concluded.   He   further   stated   that   the   other   team members were also briefed to follow him together once the signal was received till which time  the rest of the team was stationed at the corner. 

He further deposed that thereafter the public witness Sh.   Rakesh   Kumar   alongwith   Shadow   witness   Ct.   Raj   Singh entered the compound adjacent to the plot no. MHP4389, opposite Khajan   PCO   booth.     He   further   deposed   that   on   receipt   of   the signal from Ct. Raj Singh that the deal had been concluded, all of them entered the premises. He further deposed that as soon as they entered, Sh. Rakesh Kumar told him that he had purchased 50 gas regulators from the accused Bhupinder Singh for Rs. 2000/­ and that he had handed over the same to the accused Bhupinder Singh. He further deposed that as they were getting into the compound, another  public witness Sh. Anil Kumar also entered the compound. He   further   deposed   that   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   was questioned   and   Rs.   2000/­   were   recovered   from   right   side   pant pocket which tallied with the currency note numbers recorded in Ex.PW.6/A.  He deposed to the seizure of the various articles.  

He prepared the rukka Ex.PW.6/B on which the FIR was registered  and thereafter the investigations were handed over to  SI Ved Prakash who had reached by then to the spot.He further deposed that SI Ved Prakash interrogated the accused Bhupinder Singh and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW.6/C and personal CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...14 of 57 search of the accused Bhupinder Singh was conducted vide memo Ex.PW.6/D and  his  disclosure  statement  was  also  recorded  vide disclosure   memo   Ex.PW.6/E.     He   further   deposed   that   during interrogation, the accused Bhupinder Singh disclosed that he was running another factory at gali no.K­8, at premises 112B, Mahipal Pur where also gas regulators were being manufactured.  He further deposed   that   the   accused   led   the   police   party   to   that   place   and pointed out the place from where the said factory was running vide memo   Ex.PW.6/F.     He   further   deposed   that   on   entering   the premises they found large quantity of dyes used for manufacturing, generator,   gas   cylinders,   drill   machines,   grinders,   dye   cutting machine, zinc plate and dyes of the oil companies, large quantity of unfinished products and other articles which were all seized vide memos   Ex.PW.3/D   and   Ex.PW.6/G.   He   further   deposed   that Videographer was also called to the spot and the recovered articles were videographed. He further stated that the articles were placed in a room in the premises and the entire premises were locked & sealed with the seal of VP.   He further deposed that the key was also   seized   by   the   Investigating   Officer   vide   seizure   memo Ex.PW.6/H.   He further deposed that a Manager and 7 employees found at both these premises were also interrogated and arrested. He further deposed that SI Ved Prakash also seized the bill books, builties   and   other   invoices   from   the   first   premises   vide   seizure memo   Ex.PW.6/I.     He   further   deposed   that   accused   Bhupinder Singh and his Manager while in police custody took them to Tri CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...15 of 57 Nagar to the shop of one of their suppliers by name Anand Tayal where several articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/J and the accused Anand Tayal was also arrested.  He further stated that   thereafter,   accused   persons   led   the   police   party   to   Shastri Nagar where one Vijay met them and the said Vijay was arrested for supplying fake regulators. He further stated that the accused Bhupinder Singh also led the police party to Shastri Nagar and had identified the place from where he used to procure the dyes.   He further stated that during police remand, on search of the house of the accused Bhupinder Singh, nothing was recovered.  The witness also identified the case property.

During the cross­examination by  Sh. Bharat Bhushan Kaushik, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he deposed that he had conducted all the proceedings including search and seizure prior   to   the   sending   of   the   rukka.   He   claimed   that   he   was competent to enter, search and seize and he did not require any authorization from any superior officer to do so.  He  claimed that Rs. 2500/­ in the denomination of Rs.500/­ each had been handed over to him by Insp. RS Chauhan and were not his personal notes and no handing over memo was prepared in this regard.  He denied the suggestion that Rakesh had accompanied them from the office. He further stated that Insp. R.S. Chauhan was a supervisory officer who had received and developed the information and it was under

his supervision that the team had gone to the spot for raid.  

He denied the suggestion that Insp. R.S. Chauhan was not a member of the raiding party or that he had not come to the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...16 of 57 spot.  He claimed that he had conducted all the proceedings on the directions of Insp. R.S. Chauhan which were orally given to him. He further stated that he had not consulted the supervisory officer before mentioning the provisions of law in the rukka. He further stated that  Insp. R.S. Chauhan was not the Officer Incharge of the EOW Cell at that time, though, he was the senior most Inspector and   he   was   not   aware   whether   Insp.   R.S.   Chauhan   had   written permission of any superior officer for the entry, search and seizure. 

He   further   stated   that   he   had   not   verified   the information passed on to him by Insp. R.S. Chauhan on the date of the   raid   and   that   he   had   taken   oral   permission   from   Insp.   R.S. Chauhan before the raid.   He further stated that in the departure entry made by Insp. R.S. Chauhan, the reason for immediate raid was mentioned but admitted that no such document had been filed with the chargesheet.   He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused Bhupinder Singh in this case on account of his personal vendetta.   He denied the suggestion that the accused Bhupinder Singh had come to the spot being owner of the plot and on account of some hot words exchanged between them, he had implicated the accused in this case falsely.   

He   denied   the   suggestion   that   no   raid   had   been conducted in the manner deposed to by him or that no recovery of currency   notes   was   effected   from   the   person   of   the     accused Bhupinder Singh.   He further stated that the decoy customer had met  them  at  the Senior  Secondary school when  he had met the decoy customer for the first time. He further stated that they had CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...17 of 57 walked by the Senior Secondary school to join the proceedings and except for Rakesh, no one had agreed.  He further deposed that he had not prepared any site plan to show the position of the shadow witness and the decoy customer and the rest of the raiding team. He further stated that since Insp. R.S. Chauhan was the senior most officer, he was not required to conduct any proceedings himself as he  was  supervising   the  rest.    He  denied   the   suggestion   that  the signatures of   Insp. R.S. Chauhan were not taken on any of the memos regarding arrest, search or seizure in the raid because Insp. R.S. Chauhan was not personally present  at the plot for the raid.  

He further stated that PW3 Anil Kumar also entered the premises when the raiding party had entered. He denied the suggestion that he had made accused Bhupinder as scape goat and was personally aware at the time of raid that the factory was being run by some other persons who were arrested in this case and not by   accused   Bhupinder   Singh.     He   further   stated   that   he   had conducted raid only on this one property but   he had not verified the ownership.  He denied the suggestion that upon verification he had learnt that the premises that he had raided belonged to the wife of the accused Bhupinder Singh and he had willfully not collected the said document.  He denied that he was deposing falsely.

PW.7  is Sh. Rupender Kumar who had retired  from Bureau of Indian Standards.  He deposed that on 01.04.04, he was posted with the Bureau of Indian Standards as Joint Director and on the request made by the police, he had issued letter Ex.PW7/A to the effect that as per the records available at the office, no such CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...18 of 57 licence for manufacturing LPG regulators had  been issued to Sh. Bhupinder at premises at Mahipal Pur.  

In   his  cross­examination   by  Sh.   Bharat   Bhushan Kaushik, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of this case and apart from issuing the letter Ex.PW7/A on the request of the police, he had not been involved in the investigations.

PW.8     is   ASI   Shyam   Lal  who   was   posted   in   PS Vasant Kunj as MHCM on 04.02.2004 and deposed to the various entries in the Malkhana register brought on record as  Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and  Ex.PW8/C. PW.9   is Sh. V.D. Sharma,  Senior Officer from the ICICI Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi who deposed to the account  number  issued to Ms. Anupama Gupta but is not a witness relevant to the accused Bhupinder Singh.

PW.10   is ASI Raj Singh.   He deposed that he was posted in EOW Crime Branch as a Constable on 04.02.04 and was part   of   the   raiding   party   organized   by   Insp.   R.S.   Chauhan.   He deposed   to   all   the   facts   regarding   the   setting   up   of   the   decoy customer and he being designated as shadow witness.  He deposed that SI Anil Kumar had taken the cursory search of public witness Rakesh   and     had   given   five   currency   notes   of   denomination   of Rs.500/­ each to Rakesh and had directed him to go to premises no.K­6 Mahipal Pur and to purchase 50 gas regulators. He further deposed that handing  memo of the currency notes Ex.PW.6/A was prepared which he had also signed.  He further deposed to  having CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...19 of 57 been instructed by SI Anil Kumar (PW.6) to go along with Rakesh Kumar   and   see   how   the   deal   of   purchase   of   gas   regulators progressed and was further directed to give a signal by placing   his hand on his head when the deal was concluded.  

He further deposed that inside the premises, Rakesh spoke   to   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   whom   he   correctly identified.   He further deposed that the accused Bhupinder Singh kept   asking   Rs.50/­   per   regulator   but   the   deal   was   finalised   for Rs.40/­ per regulator after which the accused Bhupinder gave one sack full of regulators red in colour to Rakesh and Rakesh paid Rs. 2000/­ to the accused Bhupinder Singh.   He further deposed that thereafter he placed his hand on his head as the agreed signal and the remaining staff entered the premises.  

He further deposed that SI Anil Kumar made enquiries from   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   regarding   the   regulators   and asked   him   to   show   the   licence   for   selling   /   manufacturing   the regulators but the accused could not show any document or licence or  permit  to  sell   or   manufacture  the  gas  regulators.     He further deposed   that   on   further   interrogation,   19   other   sack   full   of   gas regulators   were   recovered   from   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh containing   regulators   of   various   gas   companies.     He   further deposed that SI Anil Kumar took search of the accused and from the right side pocket Rs.2000/­ were recovered which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A which he had signed.  He deposed to the currency notes being kept in a pullanda and being sealed with the seal of RA.   He also deposed to the seizure of the rest of the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...20 of 57 case property.   He identified the case property in the Court.

  In   his  cross­examination   by  Sh.   Bharat   Bhushan Kaushik, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he admitted as correct that Insp. R.S. Chauhan had briefed him about the sale and manufacture   of   spurious   gas   regulators   before   they   had   reached Mahipal Pur  and had done so at 10 am.   He further stated that Rakesh was also made a member of the raiding party formed by Insp.   R.S.   Chauhan.   He   further   stated   that   he   was   informed   at Mahipal Pur as to what was his role. He further stated that  he had met the other members of raiding party before the raid at the EOW office. He further stated that Rakesh was not present at the EOW office   at   that   time   and   therefore,   he   was   not   handed   over   the currency notes.  

He further deposed that they had reached Mahipal Pur near K­6 but could not give the address though  he could point out the location.  He admitted that they had gathered in front of Khajan PCO but could not recall whether Khajan PCO was right opposite the house of the accused.   He further deposed that all had gone together in different vehicles for the raid and  the handing over the currency notes and the briefing of roles was conducted standing outside the fences.   He admitted that the handing over memo and the seizure memo were prepared at the spot and it took about 30 to 45 minutes to complete all the proceedings at the spot.  He further deposed that the vehicles were parked at some distance from the spot at a distance i.e. about 50 to 100 meter in the same gali.  He further deposed that there were several other houses in the gali no.

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...21 of 57 K­6  which was  at a distance of one and half Kms from the main road.   He admitted that gali no.K­6 was used by the residents or owners of the plots but not by the general public. 

He further stated that he was standing outside the gate when Rakesh had gone inside and the remaining members of the raiding party were standing at a little distance.  He further deposed that  the gate  was an  iron gate which was opened  when Rakesh knocked on the same. He further deposed that he was standing at a distance of 10­15 feet away from Rakesh at that time. He further stated that the gate had a small window which was left open though at the time Rakesh knocked at the gate, the entire gate was closed including the window.  The witness further rectified his answer to claim   that   Rakesh   had   entered   through   the   window   which   was opened and it was left open when he entered.  He further stated that the remaining team members had also entered the plot from the same gate facing the gali through which he had entered.  

He further deposed that he had watched and heard the proceedings from a distance about 10 to 12 feet.  He claimed that it was   very   quiet   when   the   conversation   between   Rakesh   and   the accused Bhupinder Singh took place but claimed that it was not possible for people inside the plot to have heard and watched the movement of the entire team from the place where the entire team was standing.   He denied that conversation between the   raiding team was also audible to the people inside the plot.   He further deposed that no crowd had gathered even after the raid and  people were passing by. He denied the suggestion that the door was closed CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...22 of 57 and therefore, he could not see what was taking place inside the plot     and   could   not   have   seen   the   persons   or   heard   the conversations between the persons inside the plot.  He denied  that the accused Bhupinder had been falsely implicated in this case or that he had not seen or heard him selling fake gas regulators to the decoy customer Rakesh. 

PW.11  is Dr.   Abhay   Pratap   Singh,  Deputy Controller   of   Petroleum   Explosive,   Safety   Organisation,   North Circle, Faridabad who brought on record  the report dated 05.04.04 of   Sh.   Vinod   Kumar,   the   then   Controller   of   Explosive   as Ex.PW.11/A.   He deposed that according to the report, approval was   given   by   the   Department   to   Sh.   Bhupinder   Singh   for manufacturing of cooking gas regulators.  

During his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he admitted that he had never  worked   with   Sh.   Vinod   Kumar   in   the   course   of   his employment and had not personally verified the records to affirm the correctness of the report Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that he could not identify the accused present in the court as the person in reference to whom the report Ex.PW11/A was prepared.  

PW.12 is Sh. Vijender Singh. He deposed that he was the   owner   of   plot   no.112   and   113   gali   no.8,   Rang   Pur   road, Mahipal Pur Extension, Delhi.   He claimed to know the accused Bhupinder Singh as their children were schoolmates.  He deposed that he had given this plot in the year 2004 on rent to the accused. He further deposed that he had made no enquiry from the accused CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...23 of 57 as   to   the   purpose   for   which   the   accused   had   taken   on   rent   his property. He denied having learnt anything about any event that had  taken  place  on 04.02.04  at the  said  plot.    The  witness  was asked a leading question by the ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, Sh. Salim Khan for the State when he stated that he had not told the police   during   enquiries   that   he   had   been   told   by   the   accused Bhupinder that he would be using the plot for auto mobiles spare parts business. He further deposed that later on he came to know that accused was using his plot for manufacturing regulators. 

In  his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he admitted as correct that in his statement Ex.PW.12/DA he had told the police that he had no knowledge   that   the   accused   Bhupinder   was   manufacturing   gas regulators   at   the   plot.   He   further   admitted   that   during   the subsistence of the lease of the plot with the accused Bhupinder, he had   no  occasion   to  see   the  accused   Bhupinder   Singh   running   a factory of  any kind there.   He further  deposed that the accused Bhupinder Singh had not himself paid any rent to him in respect of this plot.  He further admitted as correct that the accused Bhupinder had not  paid any rent to him because he had leased out the plot at his instance to one Deepak.  

PW.13   is Inspector Ranjay Atrishya.   He deposed that on 04.02.2004, he was posted in EOW Crime Branch as Sub Inspector.  He deposed to the receipt of the secret information  in the office regarding manufacturing of fake gas regulators by one Bhupinder Singh at Mahipal Pur. He further deposed that on the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...24 of 57 directions of senior officers, a team was constituted consisting of Insp. R.S. Chauhan, SI Anil Kumar, SI Vinod Gandhi, himself and other police staff.   He further deposed that the information was shared  with  the members  of  the  team and  in the  meantime,  the public witness namely Sh.Rakesh voluntarily joined the team. 

He   further   deposed   that   at   about   10   am,   the   team reached near the senior secondary school, Mahipal Pur and after due deliberations the team reached Gali no.K­6, Mahipal Pur and five notes in the denomination of Rs.500/­ each were handed over by SI Anil Kumar through the decoy customer through handing over memo.  He further deposed that a shadow witness namely Ct. Raj Singh was also deputed alongwith the decoy customer to keep watch   and   a   pre   determined   signal   was   decided   and   the   decoy customer was told that once the deal was struck,  he had to give the signal to the raiding party.  

He further deposed that thereafter the decoy customer alongwith shadow witness reached in front of an open compound having some semi construction which was near Khajan PCO.  He further   deposed   that   the   decoy   customer   went   inside   while   the shadow witness remained outside and after  a while, the shadow witness gave the pre determined signal to the raiding party and the team went inside alongwith the shadow witness where the accused Bhupinder Singh was present who was given the identity of the raiding team and the purpose of the visit.  

He further deposed that the decoy customer produced 50   gas   regulators   and   informed   that   he   had   bought   these   gas CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...25 of 57 regulators from the accused Bhupinder Singh having the mark of Indane by paying him four notes of Rs.500/­ denomination each i.e. Rs.   2000/­.     He   further   deposed   that   these   four   notes   were recovered from Sh. Bhupinder Singh, the accused in the case, from the right side pocket of the pant worn by him.  He further deposed that on search of the godown, 19 gunny bags were recovered, each containing   50   gas   regulators   of   various   marks.   The   accused Bhupinder   Singh   was   asked   to   produced   authority   for manufacturing of the gas regulators but he could not produce any such authority. 

He further deposed that on further interrogation, the accused led to another godown nearby where other semi finished articles and machines used for manufacturing of these articles were installed.     He   claimed   to   have   signed   the   various   memos.     He further   deposed   that   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   had   given disclosure statement which he, the witness had signed and the same was brought on record as   Ex.PW13/A.   He further deposed that during the personal search of the accused, one mobile phone was also recovered which was seized vide memo Ex.PW.13/B which he had also signed.  He identified the accused Bhupinder Singh.

During his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he admitted  that in the statement   Ex.PW.13/DA,   it   was   recorded   that   on   04.02.04,   the information was developed and verified that morning and the same morning he was called to the office to join the raiding party.   He explained that he was present in the office and was asked to join CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...26 of 57 the   raiding   team.   He   further   stated   that   the   information   was developed   and   verified   by   the   Investigating   Officer   without   his knowledge.   He further deposed that he could not say how many hours it took to conclude the entire proceedings and for how long he had remained at the spot.   He admitted that the Investigating Officer   used   his   discretion   in   this   case   to   obtain   signatures   of various persons on various documents.  

According   to   the   witness,   the   decoy   customer   had joined the raiding team from the office. He further stated that he did not know the decoy customer  who was never his informer.  He was   not   able   to   state   whether   the   Investigating   Officer   had informed the officials of the Food and Civil Supplies Department and the gas companies before the raid.  He was not aware whether there was an authorisation to conduct the search of the premises as required under  the  Essential Commodities  Act as  it was for  the Investigating   Officer   to   obtain   such   authorisation.   He   further deposed that he was not even aware that the raid was in relation to the essential commodities. He denied the suggestion that he had not been party to the investigations or that he had signed the various memos later on at the instance of the Investigating officer.

PW.14   is   Sh.   Rajiv   Hagargi,   Deputy   General Manager   from   HPCL,   Mangalore   who   was   posted   as   Manager Product Development and Innovation at Head Office, Mumbai in the year 2004.   He deposed that in the month of March, he had received   the   communication   from   the   office   at   Delhi   about   the seizure   of   some   regulators.     He   further   deposed   that   since   they CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...27 of 57 were part of the Technical Audit Department, he was required to confirm whether the seized regulators were spurious or genuine and he had come to Delhi from Mumbai.   He further deposed that on 24.03.04,   he   had   gone   to   the   PS   Vasant   Vihar   from   where   he accompanied police officials to some premises in Mahipal Pur.  He further   deposed   that   he   found   the   premises   sealed   which   were unsealed by the police and he saw that it was a place where some manufacturing activities had been going on.   He further deposed that he also inspected the other place in the same area where also he   noticed   machinery   which   was   a   very   crude   method   of manufacturing regulators.   

He further deposed that due to lapse of 14 years ago, he could not state whether the accused present in the court was present in the premises though, in the report Ex.PW.14/A, it was mentioned   that   the   accused   was   present.     He   deposed   that thereafter,   they   went   to   Police   Station   where   he   was   shown sackfuls of regulators of all the oil companies namely Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum, HP etc., which were clearly spurious regulators and   not   as   per   the   standards   prescribed   by   the   BIS.   He   also identified  his   signatures   on  the   inspection   report  dated   02.06.04 prepared by Mr. A. Shrivastava, Manager LPG Sales, Ex.PW.14/B, on the basis of the report he had submitted to the Delhi Office.  He brought on record the report he had submitted to the Delhi Office as  Ex.PW14/C. During his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh, he deposed that at the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...28 of 57 time   of   inspection,   the   machines   were   not   in   operation.     He admitted as correct that all materials were kept in a room which was sealed and   was de­sealed before they entered the room.   He admitted as correct that it was the police who had told him that the accused   Bhupinder   Singh   was   manufacturing   the   spurious regulators.   He admitted as correct that he was not a part of the raiding team or investigation on 04.02.04 and that he had nothing to do with this case except for the reports. He further stated that he did not carry out any technical test to determine the genuineness of the recovered regulators as from visual inspection it was revealed that the recovered regulators were spurious.  He admitted as correct that there were major differences between a genuine regulator and those recovered from the premises which were evident to the naked eye.  

PW.15   is   ASI   Rajender   Kumar  who  on   04.02.04, was posted in EOW Cell as a Constable  and on that day Insp. R.S. Chauhan   had   received   a   secret   information   that   some   fake   / spurious   regulators   of   branded   companies   were   being   sold   in Mahipal Pur. He further deposed that Insp. R.S. Chauhan organised a   raiding   party   after   calling   them   at   Mahipal   Pur.     He   further deposed that raiding party was briefed about the said information and one  public  person  Rakesh also  joined the raiding party. He further deposed that Ct. Raj Singh became the shadow witness. He deposed   to   the   handing   over   of   the   currency   notes   to   Rakesh Kumar.  He further stated that the team was organised at 10 am and thereafter, the decoy customer and shadow witness entered the plot CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...29 of 57 at around 10.45 am.  He further deposed that at around 11 am, Ct. Raj   Singh   gave   a   signal   to   the   police   party   to   come   inside   the premises   and   thereafter,   they   entered   into   premises   no.   K­6, Mahipalpur. 

He further deposed that Rakesh Kumar told the raiding party that he had purchased 50 regulators of Indane company after giving Rs. 2000/­ to one Bhupinder Singh who was present in the premises and whom he correctly identified. He further stated that the police team made enquiries from the accused who was unable to give any satisfactory response.   He further stated the search of the accused was taken and from the right pant pocket, Rs.2000/­ were   recovered   and   one   currency   note   in   the   denomination   of Rs.500/­ was returned by Rakesh Kumar to SI Anil Kumar.   He deposed to the seizure of 50 gas regulators purchased by Rakesh Kumar and 19 other sacks of regulators with different marks of petroleum companies.  

He further deposed that he was sent by SI Anil Kumar for registration of the case and he reached the Police Station at about 1 pm and the FIR was registered from 1.20 pm onward. He further deposed that he returned to the spot around 2.30 pm with the original tehrir and the copy of the FIR which he handed to SI Ved Prakash and thereafter, he returned to the EOW Office.   He further stated that another raid was conducted in the night at Saini Bazar, Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar but the market was closed.  He further stated that on the next day, the accused Bhupinder Singh was produced in the Court and was taken on police remand and the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...30 of 57 accused Bhupinder led the police party to Tri Nagar, Sadar Bazar and Uttam Nagar in search of the recovery of the regulators where he had sold the said regulators.  

He further deposed that at Uttam Nagar gas regulators were recovered but he could not now give the details.  He further stated  that   on  06.02.04, the  police  party  went to  Tri Nagar   and Sadar Bazar and other places for recovery of the other spurious gas regulators and the accused was with them.   He further stated that on 08.02.04, the offices of the accused were searched but nothing was   recovered.     He   further   stated   that   on   24.03.04,   Sh.   Rajeev Hagargi   from   HP   came   to   the   office   (EOW)   and   thereafter   SI Vinod   Gandhi,   SI   Ved   Prakash   and   Sh.   Rajeev   Hagargi accompanied him to the two premises at K­6, gali no.6 and gali no.8,   Mahipal   Pur   where   Sh.   Rajeev   Hagargi   inspected   the machines,   tools   and   gas   regulators   that   were   found   in   both   the premises and the sacks etc. were resealed with the seal of VG and thereafter, the police team returned to the EOW office.

Some leading questions were put by Sh. Salim Khan, Ld.   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   for   the   State   during   which   he admitted as correct that 142 gas regulators of the brand Hindustan Petroleum, Indane, Bharat Petroleum were recovered from Shop No.11/12 DDA Market, Hastal Road, Saini Bazar, Uttam Nagar and similarly during the police raid at Tri Nagar and Sadar Bazar, there   was   huge   recovery   of   gas   regulators   effected   and   he   had signed   the   various   seizure   memos   including   Ex.PW.15/A   and Ex.PW.6/G. CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...31 of 57 In   his   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Bharat   Bhushan Kaushik, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh,  he deposed that it was  correct that when the police had gone to the various places to   conduct   the   raids,   many   persons   had   gathered.     He   further deposed that the Investigating Officer had requested persons and neighbours to sign the seizure memos but none agreed.  He further deposed   that   the   Investigating   Officer     did   not   take   any   steps against  the persons  who had refused to participate as  there was paucity of time.  He further deposed that when the shadow witness had signalled, the team was present at the spot, though they had spread themselves around. He further deposed that he was standing at a distance of 50 feet alongwith SI Anil and Insp. R.S. Chauhan and people were passing by the gali at that time. 

He further deposed that Khajan PCO was located in the adjacent gali behind K­6 and all members of the raiding party were in civil dress. He further deposed that he had reached the spot from his residence as directed by Insp. R.S. Chauhan and by the time he had reached the spot, the entire team had already reached there. He further deposed that the shadow witness Rakesh Kumar had also arrived before him.   He denied the suggestion that Insp. R.S. Chauhan was not present at the spot.   He admitted that the Insp. R.S. Chauhan had not signed any document in his presence. He   further   deposed   that   SI   Ved   Parkash   was   not   a   part   of   the raiding team.  He denied that he had not joined the investigation or that he had not witnessed the raid or recovery at various places or that he was a witness introduced by the Investigating Officer.

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...32 of 57 PW.16 is Inspector Ved Parkash  who had deposed that on 04.02.04, he was posted in PS EOW Crime Branch, as Sub Inspector.   He further stated that at about 1.30 pm when he was available in the EOW Cell, he got a telephonic call from Insp. R.S. Chauhan   to   visit   in   the   area   of   Mahipal   Pur   where   a   raid   was conducted by the team led by Insp. R.S. Chauhan.     He further deposed that he had reached at premises no.MHP4389, Gali no. K­ 6, Mahipal pur Delhi at around 2.15 pm where  Insp. RS Chauhan alongwith other staff of EOW including SI Anil Kumar, SI Ranjay, SI Vinod Gandhi and other Constables were present. He further deposed that the raid was conducted at the said premises where a factory was being run for making gas regulators of different brands including   Indane,   Hindustan   Petroleum,   Bharat,   Sony   etc.   He further deposed that SI Anil Kumar informed him about the facts of the   case   including   decoy   customer,   recovery   of   cash   from   the possession   of   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh,   19   bags   of   gas regulators   and   other   details   pertaining   to   the   raid.     He   further deposed that he also inspected the spot and in the meantime, Ct. Rajender   reached   the   spot   and   handed   over   to   him   the   original rukka as well as copy of the FIR as per the directions of the Insp. R.S. Chauhan and the further investigation of the case was taken over by him.  

He   further   deposed   that   during   the   course   of investigation, SI Anil Jindal handed over to him all the original memos, pullandas of recovered notes and articles seized including gas   regulators.   He   further   deposed   that   during   the   further CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...33 of 57 investigation, he also inspected the premises where the factory was being   run   to   manufacture   spurious   gas   regulators   for   different reputed brands. He further deposed that the private photographer namely Mr. Pintu Chauhan was called from the nearby shop and photography as well as videography of the premises was done by the   private   photographer.     31   photographs   alongwith   their negatives were brought on record as Ex.PW16/1 to Ex.PW16/31 and Ex.PW16/32 (colly) being  the negatives.  

He   further   stated   that   during   the   interrogation   the accused Bhupinder Singh disclosed that he was the owner of the said factory and he alongwith his manager Deepak Kumar and 7 other   employees   was   running   the   business   of   manufacturing   of spurious gas regulators at the said premises as well as premises no.112B, Gali no.8, Old Rang Puri Road, Mahipal pur, Delhi. He further deposed that he had verified from the accused Bhupinder Singh regarding any authority / licence / permission to manufacture these gas regulators but the accused could not give any satisfactory reply. He further deposed that the accused Bhupinder Singh as well as   his   manager   Deepak   Kumar   were   arrested   vide   arrest   memo Ex.PW6/C.     He   further   deposed   that   the   personal   search   of   the accused   was   conducted   out   vide   memo   Ex.PW6/D   and   his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo already Ex.PW6/E.   He   further   deposed   that   the   premises   no.4389,   gali no.6 was where gas regulators were being manufactured and he had prepared   the   detailed   inspection   memo   and   the   various   semi finished products, gas regulators, dying machines, lathe machines, CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...34 of 57 raw   material,   printing   material   and   other   material   used   for manufacturing of the gas regulators were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW6/G.  He further deposed that the detailed inventory memos from each of the rooms namely G1 to G3 on the ground floor and F1 on the first floor were also prepared.  

He further deposed that thereafter at the instance of the accused Bhupinder Singh, premises no.112B, gali no.8 was also inspected and various types of machinery as well as zinc slabs and other articles were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D.   He deposed to the recovery of bill book  through which it was noticed that the accused was running a firm in the name and style of Heat Line industry which he had seized vide memo Ex.PW.16/A.   He further deposed that thereafter the premises were sealed with the seal of PP and keys were kept in white cloth pullanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW.6/H.  He further deposed that the accused were interrogated and the statements of the witnesses were recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.  

He   further   stated   that   during   the   interrogation   the accused Bhupinder Singh disclosed that he was running a factory for manufacturing of spurious gas regulators and used to supply these   gas   regulators   in   various   areas   of   Delhi   including   Sadar Bazar,  Uttam   Nagar,  Shastri   Nagar,  Daya   Basti,   etc.  He   further deposed that thereafter, the raid was conducted at Shastri Nagar, Tri   Nagar   and   Uttam   Nagar   at   the   instance   of   the   accused Bhupinder   Singh   on   the   intervening   night   on   04/05.02.04   but nothing could be recovered.  

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...35 of 57 He   further   stated   that   on   05.02.04,   all   the   accused persons were produced before the Court and police custody remand of accused Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar was taken after which   the   raid   was   conducted     at   Shani   Bazar   Road,   Hasthsal Road,   Uttam   Nagar,   Delhi   at   Narang   Bartan   Bhandar   at   the instance of the accused Bhupinder Singh and 142 gas regulators of different brands including Indane, Bharat, HP were recovered and were   seized   vide   memo   Ex.PW.15/A.   He   further   deposed   that thereafter  they  all  had come back at the  office of  EOW, Crime Branch alongwith accused Bhupinder, Deepak Kumar and Gulshan Banga.  He further deposed that accused Gulshan Banga was also taken on police remand on 06.02.2004 and thereafter, raids were conducted at the instance of   the accused Bhupinder Singh at the shop of Mr. Anand Tayal who was also a supplier of gas regulators manufactured by the accused Bhupinder Singh.  He further deposed that during the search, a diary was recovered from the possession of Mr. Anand Tayal wherein details of supply of gas regulators in various   areas   were   mentioned   and   code   name   PR   (pressure regulator) was mentioned and the said diary was seized vide memo Ex.PW.6/J.   The diary and the said visiting card were brought on record as Ex.PW16/33 (colly).  The witness further stated that the PR is mentioned at pages no.64 and 65 of the diary.    

He further  stated that the accused Mr. Anand Tayal was   also   arrested   thereafter   on   the   disclosure   statement   of   the accused Bhupinder Singh and the accused Vijay Sharma was also arrested as the supplier of the dyes for manufacturing of spurious CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...36 of 57 gas regulators.   He further deposed that   the photographs of his shop were also taken which are Ex.PW16/34 to Ex.PW16/44 and the negatives being Ex.PW16/45 (colly).   He further stated that   representatives   of   Arunachal   Transport   Co.   were   examined   as name of one Mr. Ajay Katyal cropped up during the interrogation of the accused Anand Tayal, who used to supply the gas regulators to various shopkeepers in the area of Guwhati, Assam.  

He   further   deposed   that   in   the   intervening   night   of 6/7.02.04,   a   raid   was   also   conducted   at   the   residence   of   one Manohar   Lal   who   was   receiver   and   supplier   of   spurious   gas regulators manufactured by the accused Bhupinder Singh through one Sh. Vikram Kumar in the area of Coimbatore and other parts of the country.   He further deposed that representatives of Sachdeva Road   Lines,   Shri   Balaji   Road   Lines   were   also   examined   and documents   were   also   prepared   vide   seizure   memo   already Ex.PW5/A.    He  deposed   that  the  documents,   Ex.P1  to  P9  were collected from one Rajinder Sharma, c/o of Sachdeva Road Lines with regard to Heat Line Industries. He further deposed that it was also learnt that Manohar Lal used to get payments from various shopkeepers  in the  account  of   one  Balkishan  Agarwal  who was also arrested.  He further deposed that the documents were seized vide     memo   Ex.PW.2/A   and   the   said   Bal   Kishan   Agarwal   was interrogated   regarding   the   money   received   from   the   various customers in the account of Mrs. Anupama Gupta, his wife.   

The   witness   deposed   to   the   other   investigations conducted by him to verify from Sh. Rajiv Hagargi whether any CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...37 of 57 permission   /   licence   was   granted   to   accused   Bhupinder   to manufacture gas regulators and similar requests were made to the other oil companies.  He further stated that thereafter on the basis of   evidence   collected,   documents   placed   on   record   as   well   as statements of witnesses, he prepared the  chargesheet and filed the same in the Court on 18.08.04.   He further stated that during the trial proceedings, the accused Bhupinder Singh moved applications to get the premises no.MHP4389 vacated and on the application moved   by   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh,   the   case   property   was transferred from this premises to the Malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj. The witness identified the case property.

The   witness   was  cross­examined   by   Sh.   Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh at length.   He deposed that it was  correct that he had reached the spot after the raid   had   been   been   concluded   and   the   rukka   had   also   been dispatched to the Police Station.   He further stated that it was  on the basis of the documents provided to him by SI Anil Kumar and inspection of the crime team and interrogation of the Bhupinder Singh and his staff that he was satisfied that the accused Bhupinder Singh was the main person behind this racket of manufacturing of spurious   gas   regulators   and   that   was   why   he   had   arrested   the accused Bhupinder Singh in this case.   He further stated that the pointing out memo of the second premises i.e. 112B, Gali no.8 was prepared   after   the   premises   were   identified   by   the   accused Bhupinder Singh.  He further stated that detailed search of both the premises   was   done   by   him.     He   further   stated   that   from   the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...38 of 57 interrogation   of   the   accused   persons,   it   was   established   that  the accused Bhupinder Singh was the owner of the unit. He denied that he had gone by what was mentioned in the rukka and had not made any independent enquiries to determine the truth as to who was the owner.  

He admitted that the various columns on Ex.PW6/C were in different  inks  and handwriting and claimed  that he had asked   the   staff   of   EOW   to   fill   all   these   documents   under   his supervision.   He further stated that no site plan was prepared by him and he had only got the place photographed and videographed. He denied that the accused had not pointed out the various places to the raiding party or that the inconsistently placed signatures on the   various   documents   would   show   that   the   police   had   got   the signatures of the accused on various documents subsequently.  

He further stated that he had not seized any document regarding the authorization of a superior officer to SI Anil Kumar to conduct the raid on 04.02.04.  He admitted that he had not taken any notification on the record to show that Sub Inspector of Police could enter search, seizure and arrest in case of violation of the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution)   Order,   2000   and   stated   that   initially,   the   case   was registered under the provisions of IPC and the Copy Rights Act and later on  after getting the reply from the concerned gas companies, other   sections   were   added   and   chargesheet   was   prepared.   He denied that the raiding party and he, himself were aware that the case was one under the Essential Commodities Act but that they CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...39 of 57 intentionally did not mention the sections under that Act to cover up the illegal search, seizure and the arrest.   

He further stated that he was connecting the accused Bhupinder Singh with the crime on the basis of the statement of Sh. Anil Kumar as well as the owner of premises no.112B, Gali no.8 who had confirmed that the accused Bhupinder Singh had taken the plot   on   rent   and   the   disclosure   statements   of   the   other   accused arrested, the bill book recovered at the spot, arrest of the dye maker and   other   connected   link   evidence   which   was   connecting   the accused Bhupinder Singh to the offence. He admitted that he had not got the handwriting in the bill book tallied with the handwriting of   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh.     He   admitted   that   he   had   not seized any document from the spot which was in the handwriting of the accused Bhupinder Singh.   He admitted that the premises no.MHP­4389 belonged to the accused Bhupinder Singh and that the   first   raid   was   conducted   at   that   premises.     He   denied   the suggestion that when the police / raiding party had come to the premise no.MHP­4389, the accused had come to the spot and due to an altercation with the raiding party, they had made him appear to be the kingpin of the spurious manufacturing unit and he had merely carried forward what the raiding party had wrongly done.   

He   identified   the   photographs,   Ex.PW.16/1   to Ex.PW.16/31 as being the photographs of the premises no.4389 as well as premises no.112B where the factory was being run.   He further identified the photographs   Ex.PW16/1 and Ex.PW16/2 as being of the premises MHP­4389 and that these photographs reflect CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...40 of 57 the site as found at the time it was photographed and nothing had been changed at the site.  He further stated that there was another iron   gate   at   MHP   4389   other   than   what   was   reflected   in   these photographs   which was reflected in Ex.PW.16/3. He admitted as correct that the accused Bhupinder Singh was not residing at MHP­ 4389.  He admitted that he  had collected the ownership documents of   the   other   premises   that   he   had   raided.     He   denied   that   the accused Bhupinder who had wanted to give him the documents of premises no.MHP 4389 and he had refused to accept them in order to   carry   forward   the   desire   of   the   raiding   party   to   involve   the accused  which fact could not be brought on record that he was the landlord of the premises. He admitted as correct that he did not record the statement of  the accused Bhupinder Singh that he had let out the premises to one Deepak. He admitted that he had not prepared the site plan in consultation with the raiding party to mark the   position   of   the   decoy   customer,   shadow   witness   etc   and admitted that  no such  site plan  was handed  over  to him by the raiding party.  

He   had   brought   on   record   the   video   cassette Ex.PW16/46   and   also   identified   that   initially   there   is   the   voice conversation between him and the accused Bhupinder Singh where the address of the property was asked from the accused and he also admitted that the ownership of the articles recovered.  

In  his cross­examination by Sh. Bharat Bhushan, ld. counsel   for   accused   Bhupinder   Singh,   in   respect   of   the videography, he admitted that   in the group photo, 15 persons are CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...41 of 57 not visible though he had claimed that 8 or 9 persons were present at the time of videography along with other 7 or 8 police officials. He  denied  the suggestion  that    from  the videograph,  it was  not possible   to   conclude   that   the   premises   was   a   factory   and   not   a godown.     He   admitted   that   he   had   not   seen   any   manufacturing going on at the premises and nor was any machine in operation at that time.  The witness also pointed out to the three other accused describing   them   as   employees     but   was   unable   to   recall   their names.   He admitted that videography did not show the gril and from the outside, it showed the front gate and side gate. He further deposed that the front gate was locked and the side gate had been used and the main gate had also a smaller gate.   He admitted as correct that  from the main gate they immediately enter into a room where   several   articles   were   seen   lying   in   the   yard   which   were recovered.   He further stated that the smaller gate seen from the video cassette belonged to an adjacent plot and the  gate with the address recorded on the gate also belongs to somebody else.   He pointed pointed out to a black gate as being the side gate to this plot which while facing the plot was towards the right.     He also admitted that this black gate opens on to some other person's plot and there was a boundary wall to that plot with a gate towards the gali. He further deposed that the side gate was used for ingress and egress from the factory. 

This is the prosecution evidence that has come on the record.

CIS - SC­ 366­2017                                                   Page ...42 of 57
                        STATMENT OF THE ACCUSED

The statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC in which he claimed that this was a false case made out against him because he had a quarrel with the Investigating officer of this case.  According to him, he learnt of the raid on his property and   he   had   come   there.     When   asked   whether   the   property belonged to him, he had answered in the affirmative.   He denied that  the other  accused were his employees and that the accused Deepak Kumar was his manager.  He denied that he was the owner of the factory.  He denied knowing anyone by the names of Vijay Sharma,   Anand   Tayal,   Manohar   Lal,   Bal   Kishan   Gupta,   Vijay Katyal and others.   According to the accused,   he had merely let out the premises to the tenants and had nothing to do with any manufacturing activity that was going on there.  Thus, he claimed innocence.

ARGUMENTS I have heard the submissions of Sh. Salim Khan, Ld.  Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Bharat Bhushan  Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.

Ld.   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   for   the   State   has submitted   that   the   witnesses   examined   by   the   prosecution   had clearly proved the entire case of the prosecution as set out in the charge­sheet   that   on   the   basis   of   the   secret   information,   the premises of the accused Bhupinder Singh had been raided and huge recovery   had   been   effected   of   spurious   gas   regulators.     The CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...43 of 57 prosecution through its witnesses, according to the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, had connected all the links to show that   spurious   gas   regulators   so   manufactured   by   the   accused Bhupinder Singh used to be sold not only in Delhi but across the country   in   Coimbatore   and   Assam.     The   Ld.   Additional   Public Prosecutor   for   the   State   submitted   that   apart   from   the   police witnesses, the public witness PW.3 (Anil Kumar) fully supported the   raid   and   the   shadow   witness   PW.10   (ASI   Raj   Singh)   also corroborated the evidence that the decoy customer had negotiated the deal with the accused Bhupinder Singh and had handed over Rs.2,000/­ which were marked for the purpose of transaction by the Investigating   Officer   which   were   then   recovered   from   the possession   of   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh.   The   disclosure statement of the accused Bhupinder Singh would also establish his special knowledge as to who were his conduits for supplying the spurious   gas   regulators   to   innocent   customers.     Moreover,   the video also established that the accused Bhupinder Singh was the one who was running the factory.  The decoy customer Rakesh had expired and so, could not be examined.   Insp. R.S. Chauhan had also expired and therefore, could not be examined.  Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has also submitted that when the accused   Bhupinder   Singh   applied   for   vacation   of   the   premises no.MHP 4389, it was a clear admission that the articles were his and   he   had   asked   the   police   to   shift   the   case   property,   thus, showing his connection to the premises.  Thus, according to the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the accused Bhupinder CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...44 of 57 Singh was liable to be convicted for the offences he was charged with.

On the other hand, Sh. Bharat Bhusan Kaushik, Ld. Defence counsel for the accused submitted that the entire case was motivated against the accused Bhupinder Singh only because he had had a few hot words with the first Investigating Officer of the case, SI Anil Kumar, examined as PW.6.  It was submitted that the two plots were involved, one bearing no.MHP4389 and the other 112B.  The owner of the premises no.112B was made a witness by the   Investigating   Officer   and   examined   as   PW.12   (Sh.   Vijender Singh) and the owner of the other plot no.MHP4389   being the accused   Bhupinder   Singh   was   made   the   kingpin   of   the   entire operation for the manufacture and sale of spurious gas regulators. Ld.   Defence   counsel   submitted   that   the   roles   could   not   be differentiated in this manner without there being malafides against the accused.

Again, it was pointed out that the Investigating Officer did not make Smt. Anupama Gupta or her husband Sh. Bal Kishan Agarwal, examined as PW.2 as accused in this case though during the   course   of   investigations,   he   found   that   some   unexplained money had been transferred admittedly at the instance of accused Manohar   Lal   into   the   account   of   the   wife   of   PW2   Bal   Kishan Gupta.   It may be recalled that Manohar Lal stands convicted on his   plea   of   guilt.     This   also   would   show   that   the   Investigating Officer   had   booked   those   whom   he   wanted   to   involve   in   the present   case,   thus   casting   serious   doubt   on   the   veracity   of   the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...45 of 57 prosecution's case.

Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that whatever be the reason,   the   decoy   customer   was   not   available   for   cross­ examination.  The other public witness PW.3 Anil Kumar was not a credible witness and was most unreliable.   He claimed to have reached at 12.30 PM and seen the decoy customer coming out of the plot.   The sequence of events are placed differently by PW.3 and PW.10.  The shadow witness claimed that the proceedings had commenced at about 10.45 am and all proceedings were completed in   40   minutes.     Then,   there   were   contradictions   between   the members of the raiding party which cast doubt on the authenticity of the raid.

Moreover,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   pointed   out that   PW.10   claimed   to   have   seen   the   transaction   but   he   also deposed that the gate was closed and then claimed that it was open and he could see through that gate.  But this was the smaller gate. If the bigger gate was open, then there would have been no need for the smaller gate to have been open when according to PW.10, the decoy customer had knocked at the gate.   Ld. Counsel also pointed   out   to   the   photographs   Ex.PW.16/1   and   Ex.PW.16/2   to submit that there was a blue coloured chick around that gate and so even if, the gate had remained open, the shadow witness could not have been able to see what had happened inside.  There has been no site plan prepared of the position of the raiding team to reflect that   the   shadow   witness   could   have   seen     anything   that   was allegedly taking place in the plot.

CIS - SC­ 366­2017                                               Page ...46 of 57
                 With   regard   to   the   recovery   of   the   notes,     the   Ld.

Counsel pointed out that PW.3 when examined first gave a  version that was different from what he stated after the adjournment when he related the prosecution story parrot­like.  Initially, he has stated that the decoy customer had come outside the plot when he was accosted and questioned but in the subsequent continuation of the statement he said that they all had gone into the plot and on the search of  the  person  of   the accused,  Rs.2,000/­  were  recovered. However,   the   notes   do   not   seem   to   have   come   from   a   neutral source   and   seem   to   have   been   the   personal   wealth   of   SI   Anil Kumar (PW.6).  Moreover, there was no hand­wash to connect the accused to the receipt of Rs.2,000/­.

It is submitted no witness has testified to the accused having booked any goods personally nor was there any evidence that   the   other   accused   were   the   employees   of   the   accused Bhupinder   Singh.     There   has   been   no   effort   to   compare   the signatures   and   handwriting   of   the   accused   with   the   alleged   bill books   recovered   from   the   premises.     There   was   no   evidence, therefore,   to   connect   the   accused   with   the   manufacturing   or transportation   or   sale   of   spurious   gas   regulators.     Ld.   Counsel pointed out to the placement of the signatures of the accused on various documents to argue that it was apparent that the signatures of the accused Bhupinder Singh had been taken on several blank papers which had been used by the Investigating Officer to falsely involve the accused in the present case.   Thus, the Ld. Defence counsel prayed for the acquittal of the accused on these grounds.  

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...47 of 57 Ld. Counsel further submitted that under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply Distribution) Order 2000, the procedure for seizure and raid was clearly specified and the Sub Inspector who   conducted the raid was not authorized to do so. Moreover, the presence of the Insp. R.S. Chauhan was completely doubtful as except for the witnesses claim in the cross­examination that Insp. R.S. Chauhan was present, not a single document had been signed by him.  Thus, there was non­compliance of Rule 13 which   provides   that   it   was   only   on   special   or   general   order authorizing an officer not below the rank of Inspector entry, search or   seizure  could   be   conducted   under   the  Essential  Commodities Act.  Therefore, on this ground the accused had to be acquitted of the said offence.  

With   regard   to   the   offence   of   cheating,   the   Ld. Defence   counsel   relied   on   the   deposition   of   PW.14,     Sh.   Rajiv Hagargi to submit that the regulators were evidently spurious and therefore, the people who would have purchased the regulators did so knowing fully well what the quality was.  According to the Ld. Defence counsel, the existence of such a mark was on account of the fact of acute shortage of the gas regulators at that time.  Thus, there was no ingredient of cheating proved by the prosecution.

In any case it was not that it was the accused who had been involved in cheating and the plea of other accused persons who pleaded guilty and were convicted on the plea of guilt cannot be used to determine the guilt of  the accused  Bhupinder  Singh. Thus,   on   this   ground,   Ld.   Counsel   prayed   that   the   accused   be CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...48 of 57 acquitted.

In rebuttal, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State   contended   that   the   recovery   was   not   disputed;   that   the premises belong to the accused is not disputed by him; the answers given   by   the   accused   in   his   statement   u/s.   313   Cr.P.C   also established that the property belonged to the accused.   Therefore, the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applied and the burden of proof was squarely upon the accused to show that the business was of someone else.  Thus, there was sufficient grounds  to  convict  the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh  of  the  charges alleged against him.

ANALYSIS The   burden   lies   on   the   prosecution   to   prove   the charges against  the accused.   It is settled law, even where onus shifted,   the   initial   burden   of   establishing   incriminating circumstances and to prove all the ingredients of the offences lies squarely on the prosecution.   Even if the technical aspects of the offences is not considered at this juncture, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused and the accused alone who was involved in the manufacture and sale of spurious gas regulators.  The primary contention of the prosecution is that there is absolutely no doubt about the accused being the owner of the plot no. MHP 4389.  However, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel, if this was the only ground to attach culpability  on  the  accused,  then   the   PW.12  Sh.  Vijender  Singh, who was the owner of the Plot No. 112B was also in the same CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...49 of 57 position and ought to have been chargesheeted as an accused.

Therefore, it needs no emphasis that the prosecution had to prove other facts to connect the accused with the running of the factory manufacturing spurious gas regulators.  Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is right in contending that there is no doubt that spurious regulators were being manufactured in Plot No.112B where the machine for the purpose was found and large number of finished products were found in the Plot No.MHP 4389. It   needs   to   be   also   noted   that   out   of   14   people   who   were chargesheeted, 12 have pleaded guilty to their roles in the offences. The Investigating Officer PW.16 has explained that the basis for connecting   the   accused   to   the   offences   were   the   disclosure statements of the co­accused.   But such reliance is impermissible under law.  As regards, the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused Bhupinder Singh, it is not without significance that all the alleged disclosures attributed to the accused Bhupinder Singh have also been attributed to the accused Deepak who on his plea has   been   convicted.     So   a   doubt   would   arise   whether   the disclosures were made by accused Deepak alone. It was essential for   the   prosecution   to   prove   the   involvement   of   the   accused Bhupinder Singh beyond shadow of doubt.

PW12.   Vijender   Singh   when   examined   by   the prosecution  did not  support the case of  the prosecution that the accused Bhupinder Singh had taken the premises on rent on the plea that he would be manufacturing auto spare parts. However, during his cross­examination he admitted that at the instance of CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...50 of 57 accused Bhupinder Singh he had let out the property to the accused Deepak Kumar. The accused Bhupinder Singh has claimed that the accused Deepak was his own tenant in respect of the property no. MHP 4389.   PW16 Insp. Ved Parkash admitted that he had not taken   any   documents   from   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   to ascertain ownership.  Nor did he record the statement of Bhupinder Singh that Deepak was his tenant.  Yet he recorded all these facts qua   PW12   Vijender.     A   doubt   arises   that   investigations   were biased.

No adverse inference can be drawn, as sought by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, that as the accused had sought the removal of the case property from MHP 4389, it established his ownership.   The accused does not dispute the plot belongs to him. He sought the removal of the case property as its continued presence in his property was damaging his property. 

But the mere fact that the plot no. MHP 4389 belonged to the accused Bhupinder Singh would not suffice to saddle him with   the   criminal   liability.     The   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   has admitted that this property belonged to him and his case is that he had let it out to the accused Deepak Kumar and was not aware as to what   was   the   activity   being   carried   out   by   the   accused   Deepak Kumar   at   the   plot.     Therefore,   merely   because   the   accused Bhupinder   Singh   sought   directions   to   the   police   to   remove   the goods   from   his   property   can   by   no   stretch   tantamount   to incriminating   evidence   against   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   to prove him guilty of the offences of cheating and  Section 33 of the CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...51 of 57 Bureau   of   Indian   Standards   Act   and   under   Liquefied   Petroleum Gas   (Regulations   of   Supply   Distribution)   Order   2000   read   with Section   3(2)(a)   read   with   Section   7(1)(a)(ii)   of   the   Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  

It   is   claimed   by   the   prosecution   that   the   accused Deepak   Kumar   and   the   accused   Pappu   Sharma,   Ranjan   Kumar, Anil   Sharma,   Sanjeev   Kumar   and   Ramanuj   Sharma   were   the employees   of   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh.     It   was   repeatedly claimed that the accused Deepak Kumar was the Manager of the factory.   However, the prosecution has failed to bring a shred of evidence   to   prove   that   those   accused   who   have   already   been convicted were in fact employees of the accused Bhupinder Singh and that Deepak Kumar was his Manager.  Including the disclosure statements, there is no legally admissible evidence produced by the prosecution to connect the accused Bhupinder Singh to the accused Deepak   Kumar   and   others   described   as   employees   by   the Investigating Officer. The requirements of proof are not met by such labelling by the Investigating Officer.

What   is   important   to   note   is   that   in   the   disclosure statements which in any case cannot be used against the accused Bhupinder Singh, the other co­accused alleged to be employees, have   named   the   accused   Deepak   Kumar   as   the   one   who   had brought them  to the premises to work from their villages.   The accused Deepak Kumar has been named by the transporter PW5 Rajender Sharma as the one who took the consignment to Assam and Coimbatore.  He has not named the accused Bhupinder Singh CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...52 of 57 or identified him.  It is despite the so called disclosure statements that none of the other accused namely, Gulshan Banga, Manohar Lal, Vijay Sharma, Anand Tayal and Ajay Katyal have also been connected to the accused Bhupinder Singh.   All the accused have been  connected  through the  accused  Deepak  Kumar   who stands convicted on his admission that he had supplied all of them with spurious gas regulators after manufacturing them.

Prosecution has also failed to prove the transactions between   the   decoy   customer   and   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh. The decoy customer unfortunately could not be examined as he has expired.     The   testimony   of   PW10   ASI   Raj   Singh   become significant as he is the only witness who claims to have seen the deal being struck between the accused Bhupinder Singh and the decoy customer.   The Investigating Officer has failed to place on record the site plan depicting the place where the decoy customer was positioned and where the shadow witness was deployed and where the other members of the raiding party were standing during the raid.  The contradictions set out in the statement of PW10 ASI Raj   Singh   create   doubt   in   the   mind   whether   he   could   have witnessed what was happening inside the plot.  He claimed to have been   standing   outside   the   gate   when   the   decoy   customer   went inside.  The decoy customer Rakesh had knocked on the iron gate before entering inside.   PW10 ASI Raj Singh was standing 10­15 feet   away   from   Rakesh,   the   decoy   customer   at   that   time.     The witness alternatively claimed that the iron gate was closed and only the small window was open and that the main gate itself was open.

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...53 of 57 But   the   nail   on   the   coffin   are   the   photographs   Ex.PW16/1   and Ex.PW16/2.  The gate has blue chick (curtain)  which would have effectively prevented anyone from watching anything from outside. PW16 Insp. Ved Prakash  has confirmed that the photographs were taken   without   disturbing   anything.  There   is   a   side   gate   but   that comes through somebody's plot.  The Investigating Officer himself seems muddled as to the access to the plot in question as he refers to the main gate as well as the side gate.  In the absence of the site plan, therefore, even if the court was to accord some benefit due to time lapse and loss of memory of the witnesses, it is clear that there is a complete shadow of doubt on the possibility of the PW10 ASI Raj Singh having seen what was going on in the plot. 

According to PW10 ASI Raj Singh, it was very quiet and therefore, he could over hear the conversation between Rakesh, the decoy customer and the accused Bhupinder Singh.  At the same time, he claimed that discussion amongst the policemen before the raid was not audible to anyone inside the plot, which seems curious in itself.  However, even if it was accepted for the argument's sake that the PW10 ASI Raj Singh had over heard the deal being struck, there   is   no   explanation   as   to   how   PW10   ASI   Raj   Singh   and thereafter,   the   Investigating   Officer   zeroed   into   the   accused Bhupinder Singh as there is no evidence of identification of the voice  to establish  that  the  person  who was  negotiating with the decoy customer was in fact the accused Bhupinder Singh.

With regard to the alleged recovery of  the currency notes, the recovery is far from satisfactory.   The public witness CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...54 of 57 examined is PW3 Anil Kumar.  When Anil Kumar was examined on   04.01.18,   he   deposed   that   he   saw   a   large   number   of   police officials   collected  at   the   spot.     He   stopped   by  to   see   what   was happening.   The police asked him to join the proceedings and he agreed.   However, what he saw was the person namely, Rakesh coming   out   the   plot   with   spurious   gas   regulators.     The   police inquired from the said Rakesh who revealed that he had purchased the gas regulators from one Bhupinder Singh and had paid him Rs.2000/­.     Thereafter,   the   police   went   into   the   plot   and apprehended   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh.     It   is   not   even mentioned that the apprehension of the person Bhupinder  Singh was at the instance of said Rakesh who was the decoy customer.  

When the examination was deferred and the witness was further examined on 02.02.18, during his cross­examination by the   defence   he   related   the   story   of   the   prosecution   in   complete detail, fully as per the chargesheet.   The witness was not able to recall his own personal details as to how and why he had come to Mahipalpur and to whose house he was supposed to go and for what   work   but   strangely   enough,   he   was   able   to   recall   on   the second date of his examination facts of the case as recorded in the chargesheet.  The witness does not come forth as a witness of any sound   credibility.     He   appears   to   be   a   chance   witness   with   no reasonable   explanation   for   his   presence   in   the   vicinity   on   the alleged   date   of   raid.     Even   his   examination   in   chief   does   not connect to the accused Bhupinder Singh except through the hearsay of the decoy customer.

CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...55 of 57 In   this   background,   the   claim   that   the   money   was recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused Bhupinder   Singh   requires   some   more   corroboration   which unfortunately is not forth coming.  The handing over of the notes has not been established as it is not known when and by whom the money was entrusted at the office of EOW when raid was planned. It   is   not   improbable   that   the   notes   were   not   handed   over   and recovered   subsequently   to   show   recovery   from   the   accused Bhupinder Singh as claimed by the prosecution. 

Whatever   be   the   nature   of   the   offence   and   whether there   were   technical   flaws   in   the   prosecution's   case   would   be relevant only if the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused was involved in manufacturing and sale of spurious gas regulators.  The only evidence that the prosecution is relying on is that   the   plot   no.MHP   4389   belonged   to   the   accused   Bhupinder Singh.  Their attempt to show that the plot no. 112B at Mahipalpur was   in   the   custody   of   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   where   the actual manufacturing seems to have been going on, in view of the recovery of the machinery, zinc slabs, etc. from the plot belonging to PW12 Vijender Singh has failed, as the owner himself stated that the   plot   had   been   let   out   to   the   accused   Deepak   Kumar   at   the instance   of   the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   and   that   the   accused Bhupinder Singh had never paid him any rent.  The other evidence of the shadow witness having witnessed the transaction does not inspire belief in view of the observations made hereinabove. Thus, there is  no necessity to discuss whether  the offences  have been CIS - SC­ 366­2017 Page ...56 of 57 made out or not as argued by ld. Defence counsel. The fact that the Oil   Companies   and   the   BIS   had   not   licenced   the   accused Bhupinder   Singh  to   use   their   mark   will  lead   nowhere   until   and unless the prosecution was able to prove that it was the accused Bhupinder   Singh   who   was   actually   manufacturing   spurious   gas regulators.

The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the   accused   Bhupinder   Singh   beyond   shadow   of   doubt   and   the benefit of doubt is granted to the accused Bhupinder Singh.   

The accused Bhupinder Singh is accordingly acquitted of   all   the   charges   framed   against   him.     However,   under   the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., his personal bonds and surety bonds are extended for a period of six months after which in the absence of any order of any Appellate Court, his bail bonds will stand cancelled and his surety is discharged.

File be consigned to the Record Room. 

Announced in open Court                            (ASHA MENON )      
today on 17.12.2018                      District & Sessions Judge (South)
                                                    Saket/New Delhi. 

                               Digitally
                               signed by
                               ASHA MENON
                     ASHA      Date:
                     MENON     2018.12.20
                               11:48:01
                               +0530




CIS - SC­ 366­2017                                               Page ...57 of 57