Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cc No.: 283/19 Cbi vs . Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 1 Of 76 on 18 December, 2020

IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, SPECIAL JUDGE (P C ACT)
    (C B I)­11, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

CC No.: 283/19 (Old CC No.: 8556/16)
FIR No.: RC DAI 2012­A­0020. CBI/ACB/New Delhi dated 29.06.2012
U/s 120­B read with 420, 468, 471 read with 468, 477­A IPC &
U/s 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of PC Act.
CNR No.: DLCT11­001118­2019

      Central Bureau of Investigation

      Versus

   1. Ravinder Singh (Accused No.1)
      S/o Sh. Ameer Singh
      R/o Flat No.292, Sector­18B,
      Shree Awas Apartment (L&T Flat),
      Dwarka, New Delhi­110074

      Permanent address:­
      H. No.11/89, Nehru Park,
      Tehsil Rohtak Road,
      Bahadur Garh, Haryana

   2. Rajesh Kumar Jain (Accused No.2)
      S/o Sh. Prakash Chand Patni
      R/o BE­155, Tagore Garden,
      New Delhi

      Permanent address:­
      Akash Deep Building,
      Near Railway Gate No.2,
      PO&PS Guwahati in
      Kamrup District of Assam



CC No.: 283/19          CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs.   Page 1 of 76
    3. Raghu Raj Singh Gossain (Accused No.3)
      S/o Late Kripal Singh Gossain
      R/o Q­80, Mohan Garden,
      New Delhi­10056

      Permanent address:­
      Village­Biragana,
      P.O. Jiwai, Patt­Bangar Saiou,
      Distt­ Gharwal.

Date of FIR                      :     29.06.2012
Date of filing of charge­sheet   :     18.12.2015
Arguments concluded on           :     11.12.2020
Date of Judgment                 :     18.12.2020

Appearance
For Prosecution           : Sh. Dhan Kishore, Ld. Senior P.P. for CBI.
For accused persons       : Sh.Mohd. Qamar Ali, Ld.Counsel for accused
                          no.1 Ravinder Singh and Sh. Sudarshan Rajan,
                          Ld.Counsel for accused no.2 Rajesh Kumar
                          Jain and accused no.3 Raghu Raj Singh
                          Gossain.
JUDGMENT

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

1. All the accused persons namely Ravinder Singh (A­1) Junior Engineer (JE) (Civil), Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2) Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales and Raghu Raj Singh Gossain (A­3) Private person have been charge­sheeted by the CBI for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420, 468, 471, CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 2 of 76 477­A IPC & under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that :­

(a) A Contract Agreement (CA) No. 82/2008­09 vide work order no.104 dated 06.09.2008 was executed between Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Government through its Chief Executive Officer and Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2), Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales for re­boring of three tube­wells in Gali No.5, High Tension Road, Near Temple Gali No.1, Kapashera Village under Mahipalpur Constituency, New Delhi under South West­II and as per the Contract Agreement, Johnson Pipes were required to be used by Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2), Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales. The present case pertains to only one tube­well located at Kapashera Village between Gali No.5 and 6.

(b) The work regarding re­boring of the aforesaid tube­ well was looked after by Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A­

1) and also supervised by Zonal Engineer Bhupesh Chandra Patel @ B.C. Patel and Executive Engineer Radhey Shyam respectively.

(c) For re­boring the tube­well in question, Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2), Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales used copy of Invoice no. 5161 dated 20.09.2008 of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. bearing signatures of Ravinder Singh (A­1) and Zonal Engineer Bhupesh Chandra Patel @ B.C. Patel and total CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 3 of 76 amount of the aforesaid Contract Agreement was transferred by Delhi Jal Board through EFT No.66 dated 08.10.2008 in the name of M/s R.B. Sales maintained at Bank of Rajasthan whose authorized signatory is Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2). However, during investigation, the aforesaid invoice was found to be fictitious as Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. produced the office copy of the invoices issued on 02.09.2008 and stated that copy of invoice no.5161 is forged one because the format of the invoice is different neither bears his signature nor the signature of the Director of the company and the last invoice issued till date by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. is 2003 of dated 11.02.2012 to M/s Krishna Jala Borewells and further stated that the said invoice was not issued in favour of M/s R.B. Sales. Further CFSL expert has given positive opinion about specimen writing/signature of Raghu Raj Singh Gossain (A­3), a private person, the then employee of Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2) on the said invoice.

(d) As per the strata chart, 50 m Johnson pipe was to start after 102 meters to 150 meters in the tube­well in question and entry regarding the execution of the work of the said tube­well was mentioned in Measurement Book (MB) No. 18096 from page no.36 to 39. However, during investigation, the aforesaid tube­well was inspected by Expert from NGRI CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 4 of 76 through Bore­hole Camera who could scan upto 117.3 meters against the recorded depth of tube­well of 157.5 meters and as per the Expert's Report, top 90 meters is blank pipe followed by MS slotted pipe upto 102.8 meters; Well reduction from 200 mm to 150 mm seen at 102.8 meters. From 102.8 meters to 117.3 meters, MS Slotted casing seen; Present well depth is only 3/4th of the claimed depth and thus, the Report is conclusive regarding non­use of Johnson pipe.

(e) Executive Engineer Sh. Radhey Shyam and Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel in their respective checking have done only 10% and 50% of the checking which does not include lowering/installation of Johnson Pipes which is subject matter in the present case whereas Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A­1) has done 100% checking of the work which includes checking of Johnson Pipes and installation of the assembly of the tube­well and hence the culpability lies solely on Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A­1).

(f) Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A­1) entered into criminal conspiracy with contractor Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2) and his employee Raghuraj Singh Gossain (A­3) during the year 2008­2009 with the object of facilitating Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2) in obtaining the wrongful pecuniary advantage and to cheat Delhi Jal Board. In this particular bore­well, CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 5 of 76 Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A­1) conducted 100% checking of work at the time of installation of tube­well and fraudulently and dishonestly made false entries in the official records viz Measurement Book, Completion Report, Final Bill etc. and showed that the required Johnson Pipes, as per the strata chart, had been used.

(g) In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, Contractor Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2) and his employee Raghuraj Singh Gossain (A­3) submitted fake and forged invoice showing the purported purchase of Johnson Pipes for the release of the payments and Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A­1) knowingly falsified the accounts and on the basis of false entries made by him in the official records viz Measurement Book, Completion Report, Final Bill etc., payments were released to the contractor (A­2) causing wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.2,41,081/­ approximately and corresponding gain to the accused persons.

2. After completion of the investigation in the present case, charge­ sheet for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420,468,471,477­A IPC & under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused persons was filed before the court and vide order dated 11.04.2016, the court took cognizance of the offences against all the accused CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 6 of 76 persons.

CHARGE

3. Vide order dated 18.11.2016, a charge for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420, 468, 471 read with 468,477­A IPC and section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act against all the accused persons and further for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC against all the accused person, for the offence punishable under section 468 IPC against A­3 Raghu Raj Singh, for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC read with 468 IPC against A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain and A­3 Raghu Raj Singh, for the offences punishable under section 477­A IPC, under section 13(1)(d) and under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A­1 Ravinder Singh was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. To connect the arraigned accused persons with the offences charged, the prosecution in total has examined sixteen witnesses viz Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board as PW­1, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Revenue) in Delhi Jal Board (DJB), New Delhi as PW­2, Sh. Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as PW­3, Sh. M.C. Joshi, Draftsman (Grade­II), in the office of Executive Engineer (E&M), W&S, South­I, Greater Kailash­1, CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 7 of 76 New Delhi as PW­4, Sh. Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Sr. Accounts Officer, in the office of Superintendent Engineer (Project), Water­ II, Varunalaya Phase­I, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as PW­5, Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar, Scientist, Central Ground Water Board, 18/11, Jam Nagar House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi as PW­6, Sh. D.V. Reddy, Chief Scientist (Retired), National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI), (M.Sc. in Geology and Ph.D in Hydro­Geology) as PW­7, Smt. Veer Jyoti, Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi as PW­8, Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director M/s Ambica Enginering Pvt. Ltd. as PW­9, Sh. D.S. Reddy, in the year 2008 Proprietor of M/s Krishna Jala Borewells, Kalkaji, New Delhi as PW­10, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer, Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Delhi as PW­11, Sh. Tikam Chand Jain worked with Sarawgi & Sons and R.B. Sales (India) as PW­12, Sh. Harchand Hirwani, Regional Head (Business Loans), ICICI Bank, 43 Naraina Community Centre, Delhi as PW­13, Sh. Prem Chand posted as UDC in the year 2013 with DDA, Vikas Sadan, DDA Office, New Delhi as PW­14, Investigating Officer Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, ACB/CBI, Delhi as PW­15 and Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific Officer­cum­Assistant Chemical Examineer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi as PW­16.

5. After examining the aforesaid witnesses, on the request of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the prosecution evidence was closed by the court on 22.10.2018.

STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS

6. Thereafter, statements of all the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence on record were put to them to which they pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons namely Ravinder Singh (A­1) and Rajesh Kumar Jain (A­2) opted not to lead any evidence in their defence. Initially accused Raghu Raj Singh Gossain (A­3) opted to lead evidence in his defence however, on 08.04.2019 ld.counsel for A­3 submitted that A­3 does not wish to lead any evidence and the court vide order dated 08.04.2019 closed the defence evidence.

ARGUMENTS

7. I have heard the arguments as advanced by learned Senior Public Prosecutors for CBI and as advanced by Sh. Mohd. Qamar Ali, learned counsel for A­1 and Sh. Sudershan Rajan, learned counsel for A­2 and A­3. I have also perused the record including the evidence and also given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the written submissions dated 04.11.2019 filed by learned Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI.

8. Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that by documentary evidence and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons. He further argued that A­1 was the public servant being CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 9 of 76 Junior Engineer with Delhi Jal Board and a valid sanction has been accorded against A­1 by competent authority with due application of mind. He further argued that it was the sole responsibility of A­ 1 to check the execution of the work of re­boring of the bore­well in question awarded to A­2 but he has failed to discharge his duties and he had made false entries in the official records i.e. Measurement Book and the completion report in conspiracy with A­2 and A­3 in order to facilitate them to claim the payment on account of using Johnson Pipes whereas no Johnson Pipes have been used by A­2 while executing the work order and this fact has been duly corroborated by the testimony of PW­7 Sh. D.V. Reddy who being Scientific Expert, had physically inspected the work order of the bore­well in question by inserting the borehole camera and came to the conclusion that no Johnson Pipes were found installed therein. He further argued that A­1 had helped A­2 in procuring forged bill for payment. He further argued that the invoice/bill showing the purchase of the Johnson Pipes by A­2 from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted by A­2 with Delhi Jal Board for release of payment of the aforesaid work order, is a forged one and this fact has been proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses. He further argued that forged bill was in the handwriting of A­3 and this fact has been proved on record by the prosecution by examining PW­16 Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific Officer­cum­Assistant Chemical CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 10 of 76 Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi who proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW16/A. He further argued that the conduct of A­1 has resulted in wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the government. On these premise, he argued that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts and prayed for the conviction of the accused persons as per the charges framed against them. In support of his arguments, ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for CBI has filed written submissions and citations.

9. On the other hand, ld.counsels for both the accused persons argued that on the basis of evidence on record, the charge framed against the accused persons is not substantiated by the prosecution even by the degree of preponderance of probability though the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10.Ld. counsel for A­1 argued that PW­1 Keshva Chandra was not competent to accord sanction against A­1 as he was not the appointing authority to JE in Delhi Jal Board and the sanction was granted mechanically against A­1 without application of mind. He further argued that requisite Johnson Pipes were installed in the borewell in question as per the contract agreement, work of which was duly supervised by Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer but PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy has falsely prepared the report Ex. PW7/A after consultation and dictation of CBI as the recording conducted by him was not shown to anyone on the spot and the DVD prepared by him is of no value since as per CFSL, no opinion CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 11 of 76 could be offered as the DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination. He further argued that the entire work was executed as per the contract awarded and the work order and the bill was processed by the officials of DJB, specially the account department, after receiving the completion report. He further argued that it was the sole responsibility of the account department of DJB to verify the genuineness of the bill/purchase voucher of Johnson Pipes submitted by contractor A­2 which was forwarded to the accounts department with the completion report and test check report and thus, A­1 cannot be held guilty of committing any offence much less the offences for which he has been charged with. On these premise, he prayed that A­1 be acquitted in the present case.

11.In addition to the arguments advanced by ld.counsel for A­1, ld.counsel for A­2 and A­3 also supplemented in his arguments that the work has been properly executed as per the work order and Bill of Quantity which was duly checked by A­1 and satisfaction thereof was recorded by various officers of Delhi Jal Board. He further argued that A­2 has submitted genuine invoice/bill with respect to the purchase of Johnson Pipes with Delhi Jal Board and the bill was processed by the account department and Executive Engineer who were fully satisfied with the documents as well as the execution of work qua the use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­ well in question and only thereafter, the payment was released by CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 12 of 76 the account department to A­2. He further argued that the borewell is still functioning and there was no complaint from any corner and this fact clearly shows that the work of re­boring of bore­well in question has been done as per the work order and the contract agreement. He further argued that as per the contract agreement, there was a defect liability for a period of six months for which a security deposit was made and after the expiry of the same, the security deposit was released to A­2 without any complaint and thus, no liability can be fasten on A­2 and also A­3 has no concern with A­2 as he was not the employee of A­2. Moreover, no handwriting of A­3 was ever taken by the CBI and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Thus, A­2 and A­3 are not liable to be held guilty and they be acquitted for the charged offences in the present case.

APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS AND ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS THEREUPON

12.The present case pertains to the re­boring of tube­well situated at Kapashera Village between Gali No.5 and 6 under Mahipalpur Constituency under South­West­II, Delhi. Before adverting further, it is pertinent to understand the procedure adopted by Delhi Jal Board for grant of work and subsequently for the release of the payment thereof. On completion of procedural formalities, Bill of Quantity is ascertained and tender is floated. The Bill of Quantity CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 13 of 76 contains requirement of using and providing Johnson Screen Pipes. The work is awarded through contract and the contractor is required to execute the work at the site under the supervision of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. The re­boring of the tube­well involves re­boring on the ground upto the specified depth as provided in Strata Chart in loose soil as well as rocky strata. On completion of re­boring, tube­well pipe assembly is lowered in accordance with the Strata Chart to facilitate the inflow of water from underground to above level of ground water. The pipes of different kinds are joined as per Strata Chart i.e. actual diagram of site. During execution of the work, physical test check is to be done by Junior Engineer, Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer in proportionate of 100% by Junior Engineer, 50% by Assistant Engineer and 10% by Executive Engineer. The measurements are noted in the Measurement Book signed by A­1, Zonal Engineer B.C. Patel and Executive Engineer Radhey Shyam and based on the quantity noted therein, the completion report is prepared by the Junior Engineer and signed by Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. The contractor is required to submit purchase voucher and also the Strata Chart and certificates etc. and on scrutiny of all the documents including the purchase voucher/bill, the payment is approved by the accounts department.

13.The case of the prosecution is primarily based on two aspects, CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 14 of 76 firstly, whether the work has not been executed as per the work order and Bill of Quantity and requisite Johnson Pipes were not used at the site and secondly, whether the invoice/bill submitted by the contractor A­2, on the basis of which the payment was released to A­2, was a forged one.

14.The core question that needs to be seen is as to whether there is sufficient legal evidence on record for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the arraigned accused persons for the charged offences.

15.It is settled law that in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the story of the prosecution must stand on its own two feet. The onus of proof cannot be shifted on the accused persons.

16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as R.K. Dey Vs. State of Orrisa AIR 1977 SC 170 has held that:­ "Three cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence are well settled namely:

(i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defense version while proving this case;

(ii) that in the criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and

(iii) that onus of prosecution never shifts."

17.From the abovesaid case law, it is clear that it is not at all obligatory on the accused persons to produce evidence in support CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 15 of 76 of their defence and that for the purpose of proving their versions, they can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down.

18.Before dealing with the aforesaid two aspect, the court shall deal with the contention raised by Ld.counsel for A­1 whether PW­1 Keshva Chandra was not competent to accord sanction against A­1 Ravinder Singh as he was not the appointing authority to JE in Delhi Jal Board and that whether the sanction for prosecution of A­1 Ravinder Singh has been accorded without application of mind.

19.PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board was the witness who accorded sanction for prosecution against A­1 Ravinder Singh and he, in his deposition before the court, deposed that he is higher officer to the Member (Administration), Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi who was competent authority to remove A­1 Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board from service and being higher officer to the Member (Administration), he was also competent to remove said officer from service during 2015.

20.From the deposition of PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board and the material on record, it is CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 16 of 76 evident that besides Member (Administration), PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, being higher officer to the Member (Administration), was also competent in Delhi Jal Board to remove A­1 Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer from his services. Nothing contrary in the shape of documentary evidence has been placed on record by A­1 during cross examination of PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board to prove and demolish the testimony of PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board that this witness was not competent to remove A­1 from the service. Thus, PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against A­1 Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board.

21.The next question is whether the sanction for prosecution of A­1 Ravinder Singh has been accorded without application of mind.

22.The law relating to accord of sanction is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, 2013 Crl.L.J 3092, wherein it has been held that:­ "13. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:­

(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.

(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.

(d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.

(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.

(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.

(g) The order of sanction is a pre­requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper­technical approach to test its validity".

23.PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board categorically deposed in his deposition before the court that he accorded sanction for prosecution of A­1 Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A after going through CBI report, photocopy of statements of CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 18 of 76 witnesses and photocopy of documents which were received from CBI through their Vigilance Department.

24.PW­2 Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Revenue), Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi was the witness who had forwarded the sanction order already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A to CBI through his letter dated 23.11.2015 exhibited as Ex. PW2/A.

25.In the facts of the matter and from the testimony of the sanctioning authority PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, it is culled out that only after being satisfied that a case for sanction was made out, PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board has accorded the elicited sanction for prosecution vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A against A­ 1 Ravinder Singh and the same is also apparent from the bare reading of the sanction order Ex. PW1/A that the sanctioning authority PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the record by going through the statement of witnesses, documents and other material placed before him. During cross examination of PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board deposed that the officials of the Vigilance Department had gone through the file and the office file was moved along with opinion of the officials of the Vigilance Department and before according sanction, he had studied the opinion of the officials of the Vigilance Department.

26.The sanction order, on its face, indicates that all relevant material were placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of according of sanction. It is discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority had perused all the material and prima facie reached to the conclusion. In terms of the law laid in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), it is proved on record that the Sanctioning Authority prima facie reached to the satisfaction that the relevant facts constituted the offences in question. Hence, it is proved on record that the sanction order Ex. PW1/A vide which sanction for prosecution was accorded against A­1 Ravinder Singh, was valid.

27.Now, the court shall deal with the first aspect i.e. whether the work has not been executed as per the work order as requisite Johnson Pipes were not used at the site. In order to prove that requisite Johnson Pipes were not installed by contractor A­2 at the aforesaid site as per the work order, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the Report of Scientific Expert Dr. D.V. Reddy who has been examined before the court as PW­7.

28.The main objective of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy in the present case was to find out the depth of the bore­well situated at Kapashera Village between Gali No.5 and 6 under Mahipalpur Constituency under South­West­II, Delhi and the type of pipes used therein, more particularly whether Johnson Pipes were used or not. PW­7 CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 20 of 76 Dr. D.V. Reddy had inspected the bore­well in question on the direction of Director, National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) to whom CBI had requested as he was an Expert in this field. For ascertaining the same, he has used the bore­hole simple under water camera for the same.

29.Ld.counsels for the accused persons have disputed the very expertise of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy. The profile of this witness as mentioned in his testimony before the court as PW­7 clearly shows that he has retired as Chief Scientist from National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) having degree of M.Sc. in Geology and Ph.D in Hydro­Geology and at the relevant period i.e. in the year 2013­14, he was posted as Sr. Principal Scientist in NGRI. The testimony of this witness further shows that in this case, CBI had written a letter to Director, NGRI to investigate the bore­wells drilled by Delhi Jal Board at different places in Delhi and as this witness had 'expertise' in the said field, the Director, NGRI deputed him for investigation. The facts mentioned in the report Ex. PW7/A (colly) also shows his expertise. During cross examination of this witness, it has come on record that he has undergone one year's advance training course in hydro­geology and engineering geology (well construction) in Germany. From the testimony of PW­7 Dr.D.V. Reddy, qualification as well as the expertise, procedure and experiment of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy as detailed in the report Ex. PW7/A, it is crystal clear that this witness CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 21 of 76 was expert in this field and thus, there is no substance in the arguments of the ld.counsels for the accused persons in this regard.

30.To ascertain whether Johnson Pipes were used in the bore­well situated at Kapashera Village between Gali No.5 and 6 under Mahipalpur Constituency under South­West­II, Delhi, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy deposed before the court that he visited the sites of bore­wells along with CBI Officer as well as officials from Delhi Jal Board. This witness had visited the site in the present case on 20.09.2013 and he was having the material like Strata Chart and related documents with him and the other officials of the inspection team namely PW3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, Sh. B.C. Patel, Zonal Engineer and PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma, Investigating officer including scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar, Sr. Hydrogeologist, Central Ground Water Board, 18/11, Jam Nagar House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi were also present. He further deposed that in this case, he thoroughly inspected the bore­well situated at Kapashera Village between Gali No.5 and 6 under Mahipalpur Constituency under South­West­II, Delhi by inserting the bore­hole camera which was lowered in the bore­hole with the help of a cable connected with the camera and the videography was monitored as well as recorded simultaneously in the palmtop for viewing the entire length of the bore­hole. He proved the Site CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 22 of 76 Inspection Memo dated 20.09.2013 and rough site plan (D­9) exhibited as Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F respectively bearing his signature at points E.

31.He further deposed that the recorded video from the palmtop was then transferred by him to laptop and after going through the video/pictures, he compared the same with the original strata chart supplied by CBI and thereafter, report was prepared by him and the same was forwarded to CBI and he also prepared two CDs from the laptop containing the videos of respective boreholes inspected by him. He further deposed that one CD was sealed and other was left open for official purpose. He proved his report dated 24.02.2014 as Ex. PW7/A (Colly) along with forwarding letter and certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act. He also proved the envelope as Ex. PW7/B in which the CD Ex. PW7/C was kept in sealed condition and deposed that this is the same CD in which he had transferred the videography of bore­hole. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

32.In his report, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy has mentioned in tabular form the difference about the casing details between the strata chart supplied to him and his observations thereupon as per the video footage which is as under:­ Casing details as Lengths Casing details Depth Video Time per diagram observed slot 200 mm Blank ~90 m Blank pipe 0­90.2 m 0­3:55 min pipe CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 23 of 76 200 mm MS ~12 m MS Slotted 90.2­102.8 m 3:55­6:07 min slotted (?) pipe 150 mm ~50 m MS Slotted 102.8­117.4 m 6:07­ Johnson's Pipe (?) pipe 150 mm blank ~7 pipe (?)

33.In his report, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy has mentioned that as per the strata chart given by R.B. Sales (India), the bore well was drilled and completed upto depth of 157.5 m in two sizes. Exact lengths of different pipes used are not indicated in the figure. However, based on the scale shown in the figure, it shows that top ~102 m as 200 mm dia pipes (~90 m blank pie and ~12 slotted pipe) and bottom 57 m is with 150 mm pipes (~50 m Johnson type pipe? and ~7 blank pipe) with some overlap at 200 mm bore size. It has not mentioned the type of screen used in the well.

34.After inspecting the bore­well in question, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy made following observations in the report :­ "The well was scanned using borehole camera on 20.09.2013 and measured the present depth as 117.3 m bgl. Top 90 m blank pipe followed by MS Slotted pipe up to 102.8 m is seen. Well reduction from 200 mm to 150 mm seen at 102.8. 102.8 to 117.3 m MS slotted casing seen. Present well depth is only ¾ of the claimed depth."

35.It is settled law that an expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 24 of 76 the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific expert's evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.

36.As per the observation made by Dr. D.V. Reddy in his report Ex. PW7/A, he could measure the depth of present bore­well by scanning it through his bore­hole camera and found its present depth as 117.4 m on seeing the video images on his palmtop however, this witness did not make any specific observation or comment about the non­use of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question in the present case in his report Ex.PW7/A for which he was engaged for. Though Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation has pointed out that in the report Ex. PW7/A, it has been mentioned that under present RC 20(A)/2012, Dr. D.V. Reddy had inspected total fourteen wells in two time schedules i.e. between February 2013 and September 2013 and no Johnson type screen was seen in any of the borewells upto the investigated depth however this argument of the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation is not tenable for the reason that it appears to be a general observation made by Dr. CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 25 of 76 D.V. Reddy inasmuch as in his report Ex. PW7/A while mentioning in tabular form the difference about the casing details between the strata chart supplied to him and his observations thereupon as per the video footage qua the borewell in question in the present case, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not specifically make any observation that no Johnson Pipe was found in the borewell in question in the present case and the same is completely silent in this regard and also there is no explanation offered for the same. Even at the time of inspection of the borewell in question, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not reveal or discuss his observations to any person accompanying him more particularly with the other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli, Sr. Hydrogeologist, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), 18/11, Jam Nagar House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi who had accompanied PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy on the instruction of the then Chairman, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and this fact has been admitted by PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy during his cross examination by categorically admitting that during recording, he had not mentioned or told anybody that Johnson Pipes were not found in the bore­hole which also finds support from the cross examination of PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department of Delhi Jal Board who deposed that during the recording/inspection, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not tell them about absence of Johnson pipes and PW­11 Radhey Shyam who deposed that Dr. Reddy did not CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 26 of 76 disclose during inspection that there was no Johnson Pipes found in the borewell. The cross examination of PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli reflects that Dr. D.V. Reddy did not seek any opinion from this witness either at the time of inspection or after the inspection or even at the time of preparation of report or analyzing the data and also that Dr. D.V. Reddy did not tell that Johnson Pipe was not there. Even during cross examination, it has been admitted by PW­ 7 Dr. D.V. Reddy that he did not take any opinion from any official of CGWB during inspection or thereafter at the time of preparing his report Ex. PW7/A. IO PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma has also not taken any separate opinion from Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli regarding the absence of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question nor he asked for a separate opinion from Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. PW7 Dr.D.V. Reddy should have made comments about the existence of pipes or strata or their nature at the spot itself while he was noticing the same but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case. The report Ex. PW7/A and the deposition of Dr. D.V. Reddy before the court as PW­7 reflect that in the Inspection Team, he acted as one man army and took all the decisions of his own without taking any opinion, worth the name, from other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli who was accompanying him at the time of inspection of the bore­well in question thereby defeating the very purpose of including Sh. N. CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 27 of 76 Jyothi Kumar Nalli in the Inspection Team and made him not less than a mute spectator.

37.Neither PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy nor any of the prosecution witnesses in their respective deposition before the court gave any particular characteristics or specification of Johnson Pipes nor they disclosed how the Johnson Pipes are different from slotted, plain or any other pipes. PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy did not anywhere state that he was aware about the characteristics and specifications of Johnson Pipe or that before inspecting the site, he ever tried to know about the same from the Johnson Company and this witness admitted during cross examination that neither he visited Johnson Company nor he met with any of their officials. Some competent officers from Johnson Pipes Company should have been asked by the Investigating Officer to join the inspection team at the time of inspecting the present bore­well to throw light on the characteristics and specifications of Johnson Pipes but no such person was made to join the Inspection Team and this fact has been admitted by Investigating officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination that he did not call any person from manufacturer of Johnson Pipes during investigation which has been duly supported by the cross examination of PW 7 Dr. D.V. Reddy who deposed that nobody from Johnson Pipes was present at the inspection site during inspection conducted by him. The report of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy nowhere clearly spelt out that no Johnson CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 28 of 76 Pipes were used in the present bore­well and in his report, Dr. D.V. Reddy failed to support and substantiate his findings with due reasons.

38.It is interesting fact that Dr. D.V. Reddy has conducted the inspection after a lapse of five years after the completion of the work order. PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that Johnson Pipes are metallic pipes and that the metallic pipes are subject to faster corrosion as compared to PVC Pipes. It has come in the cross examination of this witness that metals buried underground are subject to corrosion due to soil, water and metal and it also depends upon solidity of water, acidity of water and the pollution of the soil but in the present case, he had not tested the quality of water in the area. He admitted during cross examination that he has not done any course in study of metals buried underground and none of his publications are in the field of metals buried underground. Other scientific expert PW6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli during cross examination deposed that after about one year, the pipes are likely to be deposited with rust, dust, corrosion and corresion (chemical reaction), mud etc. on the inner surface and if the quality of the pipes is bad, the corrosion will be faster but if the quality of the pipes is good then it may last longer however, in both the case, the dust etc. would enter through the mesh and get deposited on the pipes due to which it is not possible to ascertain the make of the pipes and that this problem can be CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 29 of 76 overcome by cleaning the sides of the pipes by using compressor but in the present case, no compressor was used to clean the pipes after removal of assembly. The other witness PW­11 Radhey Shyam also deposed during cross examination that he got installed many borewells during his tenure in Delhi Jal Board and further deposed that Johnson Pipe is metallic pipe and the water in South Delhi is hard water. He categorically admitted during cross examination that there is faster moss formation and corrosion in hard water in metallic pipes due to the same including chemical reaction and other deposits etc., the shape and the holes in the Johnson Pipes would also be changed and blocked and after such change, the nature and make of the Johnson Pipe cannot be ascertained. Dr.D.V. Reddy did not state either in his report or in his testimony before the court that due to rust, dust, corrosion or mud etc. he could not ascertain the make of the pipes which were found by him in the bore­well in question during inspection or that there was no equipment to clean the said pipes in order to ascertain their makes. The Investigating Officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma also admitted during cross examination that they had not tried to remove the pipes to ascertain the nature of the pipes in the borewell and also did not try to clean the pipes in borehole by using compressor. Also there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary proof to show what is the minimum and maximum life span of buried underground Johnson Pipes when they got CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 30 of 76 disposed off during the course of time in worse to worse conditions as well as in normal conditions. The cross examination of PW­11 Radhey Shyam reflects that he got installed many borewells during his tenure in Delhi Jal Board and the life of borewell in South­West Delhi is normally 4­5 years. There is no clause either in the agreement or in the work order to show as to till what time period contractor/A­2 was liable for the work done in the bore­well in question as the agreement and the work order are silent in this regard. In these circumstances, without there being any proof of non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question, no liability can be fasten upon the contractor/A­2 who had executed the work order in question more particularly in view of the report and testimony of scientific expert PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy which are completely silent about the make of the pipes which were found by him in the bore­well in question during inspection.

39.PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy during cross examination did not recollect as to what was the status of the site when they reached the site whether the pumping assembly was being removed by the officials present there or the same was already removed immediately before they reached the spot. In this regard, the other prosecution witness PW­2 Vikas Rathi, who was one of the members of the Inspection Team, has given different versions in his deposition before the court inasmuch as in his examination in chief, he deposed that on 20.09.2013 they visited the site of borewell in question which was CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 31 of 76 opened and pumping assembly was taken out with the help of electrical and mechanical staff of Delhi Jal Board but in his cross examination, he admitted that pumping assembly was already taken out before they reached the site. During cross examination, Investigating Officer has admitted that on the date of inspection i.e. 20.09.2013, the borewell was in working condition and further that when he reached the site, thereafter, the inspection had started and he had not taken statement of the persons who was taking out the borewell assembly at the site. Perusal of the record shows that during inspection of the borewell in question, a site inspection memo dated 20.09.2013 Ex. PW3/E was also prepared. I have perused the site inspection memo dated 20.09.2013 Ex. PW3/E. Perusal of the same shows that at the time of inspection, the bore­ well in question was opened and pumping assembly was taken out with the help of E&M staff of Delhi Jal Board and the proceedings were concluded. Thus, it is evident from the site inspection memo Ex. PW3/E that the work of opening and removing the pumping assembly in the borewell in question was started in the presence of Inspection Team after their reaching at the spot which also finds support from the cross examination of the Investigating Officer.

40.In site inspection memo dated 20.09.2013 Ex. PW3/E, the time of inspection of the borewell in question has been mentioned as 13:30 PM but the space qua the time of conclusion of the proceedings is blank in site inspection memo Ex. PW3/E. The cross examination CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 32 of 76 of the Investigating Officer also reflects that he did not mention the closing time of inspection in Ex. PW3/E. PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that he had carried out the inspection at 2­3 places on the said day and normally it took them 20­30 minutes at every spot. The cross examination of other witness PW­6 N. Jyothi Kumar also reflects that on the day of inspection of the borewell in question i.e. 20.09.2013, they had also visited four more places with Dr. D.V. Reddy for inspection and that the inspection of the bore­well in question took about 30 to 45 minutes. From the cross examinations of these witnesses, it is clear that in any case maximum of about 45 minutes were taken for the inspection of the borewell in question.

41.PW­7 Dr. D. V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that upon removal of pumping assembly, there is a lot of suspended solids in the water inside the bore­hole and it takes time for suspended solids to settle down. PW11 Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that when the borewell assembly is removed, mud falls into the holes and water inside would get dirty. However, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not specify how much time the suspended solids took to settle down. The cross examination of other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar has clarified the picture who admitted that when a borewell's pumping assembly is removed, there is a lot of turbidity in the water inside the bore­well which takes approximately at least CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 33 of 76 six hours for turbidity to settle down and further it is obvious that if there is turbidity in the water, then the recording may not be clear. He further admitted during cross examination that the borewell camera can view upto the depth which is obstructionless and without mud and further the strata of the borewell in question was alluvial. PW­7 Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that when the borewell assembly is removed, mud falls into the holes and water inside would get dirty. Sh. D.V. Reddy had started the inspection immediately after removal of the pumping assembly as has been deposed by IO PW15 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination. In his report Ex. PW7/A, Dr. D.V. Reddy has given the video time slot till 102.8 m as 0­6:07 min but thereafter, he did not give the video time slot for the remaining depth which he allegedly found till 117.4 m. In his cross examination also, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy has admitted that he did not mention the total duration of the recording in his report and only starting point is mentioned and not the ending point. Why the same has been left out, the prosecution has not been able to explain the reason for the same. The cross examination of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy and PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli reflect that there was suspended solids and turbidity inside the bore­well in question at the time of its inspection which took approximately six hours to settle down as per the cross examination of PW­6 Sh. N.Jyothi Kumar Nalli and keeping in CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 34 of 76 view that 20­30 minutes were taken by Dr. D. V. Reddy in inspecting the bore­well in question as admitted by him in his cross examination or there was maximum time of 45 minutes as observed by the court, it is quite possible that since the suspended solids inside the bore­well could not be settled down during inspection and also there was turbidity inside the bore­well in question, the same may be the reason that Dr. D.V. Reddy had not mentioned the make of any of the pipes used in the bore­well in question and that is why his report as well as deposition is silent in this regard.

42.Moreover, for the inspection of the borewell in question, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy has used the bore­hole simple under water camera. The camera of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy does not have the capacity to measure the thickness and dia of the pipe inside the borewell as has been admitted by him during cross examination. Other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar during cross examination deposed that it is only on the basis of pattern of the inner portions of the pipes that the type of the pipe can be ascertain. PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy during cross examination admitted that Johnson Pipe is a metallic pipe and there are many methods of identifying metals buried underground like geo­physical methods which includes ground penetrating radar method, electro­magnetic conductivity etc. but in the present case, none of the above methods were used by him. There is also nothing on record to shows which method CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 35 of 76 was more appropriate than that which has been adopted in the present case by Dr. D.V. Reddy. Even during cross examination, Investigating Officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma deposed that no suggestion was taken from anybody from Delhi Jal Board in respect of the methods available to detect presence or absence of Johnson Pipes in the borewell.

43.As per the deposition of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy, after lowering the bore­hole camera in the bore­well in question, videography was monitored as well as recorded simultaneously in a handheld monitor in order to view the entire length of the bore­hole and thereafter the video from the handheld monitor was transferred by him to his laptop and from laptop, he prepared two video CDs of the respective boreholes inspected by him. The video CD has been exhibited as Ex. PW7/C which has been accompanied with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

44.Ld.counsel for the accused persons raised objection with respect to the non­compliance of the requirement in the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy and cross examined him in this regard. During cross examination, this witness admitted that his signatures on certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are not his official signatures and voluntarily deposed that he had not signed the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act but the name appearing above the stamp, is in his handwriting. He further CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 36 of 76 deposed that pages 1 and 3 of his report Ex.PW7/A (colly) are on his letter head, therefore, his stamp is not used however since page 6 i.e. certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is part of his report Ex. PW7/A (colly), is not in his letter head therefore, his stamp is used as the same is in continuation of his report. This witness denied the suggestion that the said certificate was not issued by him. Though during cross examination an issue has been raised with respect to the signature of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy on the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act however, looking into the overall language of the certificate and more particularly once the witness appeared before the court in person and has categorically deposed in his cross examination that his name on the same is in his handwriting which also bearing his stamp and further denied the suggestion of the ld.counsel for the accused persons that the said certificate was not issued by him, the court is of the opinion that the requirement of certificate under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act stands complied with. Thus, the contention of the ld.counsels for the accused persons is without any base and the same does not hold water.

45.Perusal of the record shows that during investigation, the CBI has sent CD Ex. PW7/C to Computer Forensic Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for video CD examination regarding whether the CD has been tampered with or not however, CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 37 of 76 as per report no. CFSL­2015/G­345 dated 30.12.2015 regarding result of examination, the opinion could not be offered by Scientific Expert as the DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination in the existing system available with the laboratory at that time. Since Dr. D.V. Reddy did not make any specific observation or comment in his report Ex. PW7/A about non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question and the make of the other pipes used therein, the DVD was the best evidence before the court which could have rendered some help to facilitate the court to view as to what was the nature of pipes installed in the bore­hole in question but even the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion in this regard, for the reasons stated above. The conduct of the Investigating Officer clearly reflects his lackadaisical and callous approach in investigating the present matter as there is nothing on record to shows that he ever tried to get the DVD examined from other government laboratory when CFSL failed to give any opinion on the DVD on the ground that DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination in the existing system available with the laboratory at that time. The cross examination of Dr. D.V. Reddy also reflects that the CD was not prepared at the spot who also deposed that he did not replay the recording to show that the same was properly recorded at the spot. PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board who was the member of the Inspecting Team also CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 38 of 76 admitted during cross examination that after inspection, the device was not displayed nor the recording was shown to show as to the recorded material or that it was properly saved. Though it has come in the cross examination of PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli that except the last leg of the recording which was of about less than a minute, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not play the whole recording after completion of inspection but this witness did not say what he has seen therein. It is pertinent to mention that even the prosecution did not bother to play the CD so placed on record by the CBI, before the court during the deposition of PW­7 Dr.D.V. Reddy who was the best witness being author of the CD who could throw light on the contents of the CD. The cross examination of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy reflects that he saved the files in Mp4 format and was aware that the name of the file can be changed. Despite the same, he prepared the CD in his office at NGRI, Hyderabad as admitted by him during cross examination and not at the spot. The bore­well in question was inspected by Dr. D.V. Reddy on 20.09.2013 however, he prepared his report Ex. PW7/A on 24.02.2014. There is no explanation offered by Dr. D.V. Reddy why he took such a long time in preparing the report. Even the Investigating Officer did not bother for six months to enquire about the report from Dr. D.V. Reddy in this regard. The conduct of PW­7 Dr.D.V. Reddy shows that he conducted the inspection of the bore­well in question and prepared his report in a very casual manner.

46.The palmtop was also not seized by the Investigating Officer and this fact has been admitted by PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy in his deposition before the court. PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, member of the Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that Investigating Officer did not seize any device from Dr. D.V. Reddy.The cross examination of the Investigating Officer also reflects that they did not seize any camera, palmtop, wires and other equipment used by Dr. D.V. Reddy at the time of inspection of the borewell. Even the said palmtop was not produced before the court by Dr. D.V. Reddy during his deposition. Also there is nothing on record to show that till the deposition of Dr. D.V. Reddy before the court, he kept the recording in his palmtop as the palmtop was the original source. Thus, the testimony of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy regarding non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question does not find support from his own equipments which he used at the time of inspection of the bore­well in question and also from the testimony of any other prosecution witnesses who were accompanying him at the time of inspection of the bore­well in question. Moreover, since the original source i.e. palmtop was not seized by the Investigating officer, the report made on the basis of it as well as the DVD prepared thereof on which no opinion could be offered by CFSL, do not have any sanctity in the eyes of law as the same have lost their significance without their contents CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 40 of 76 available in the original source. All necessary precautions were neither taken at the end of the investigating officer nor made vivid in his deposition in the court thereby bringing the authenticity/genuineness/accuracy of the contents of the data recorded by Dr. D.V. Reddy in his palmtop under the cloud of doubt. In this fact of the case, the tainted video recording in the palmtop which was subsequently allegedly transferred to laptop and from laptop, DVDs were prepared, cannot be looked into.

47.Moreover, in the report Ex. PW7/A, PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy has given the depth of the borewell in question in meters. The said report was prepared by him by seeing the video as admitted by him during his deposition before the court. This witness also admitted during cross examination that he had recorded his voice in respect of the depth in feet but in his report, the depth is given in meters as when he prepared the report, everything was converted to meters as a standard format. Whether Dr. D.V. Reddy had correctly and exactly converted the depth of the borewell in question from feet to meter could have been ascertained by the court by listening the voice of Dr. D.V. Reddy qua depth of the borewell in question as recorded in the DVD but no such DVD was played before the court during the deposition of Dr. D.V. Reddy in the present case and as discussed above, even the said DVD was of poor video quality and therefore the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion on the same. Even when the CD was played before the court during the cross CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 41 of 76 examination of Investigating Officer Shitanshu Sharma, he admitted that in the CD, Dr. D.V. Reddy nowhere had spoken about the non­availability of Johnson Pipes in the present borewell. Dr. D.V. Reddy did not explain as to what was the need for him to convert the depth of the borewell in question from feet to meter and why he did not mention the depth of the borewell in question in feet. Even the conduct of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy also reflects that though the CBI had provided the strata chart in the form of figure but he had mentioned the same as diagram in his report and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination, without explaining the reasons for mentioning so in this regard.

48.Cumulative effect of elicited aforesaid facts bring into fore that the procedure adopted by PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy during inspection of the bore­well in question and his findings on it, cannot be terms as conclusive and clinching evidence. Thus, it would not be safe to absolutely rely upon his report.

49.It is pertinent to mention that work of the bore­well in question was completed on 07.10.2008 as per the Strata Chart and the completion report. The inspection of the bore­well in question was got carried out during investigation through Scientific Expert Dr. D.V. Reddy on 20.09.2013. In between, there was a considerable gap of around five years. PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer from Delhi Jal Board who was also having responsibility of 10% in checking the proper execution of work order in the CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 42 of 76 present case, admitted during cross examination that after the installation of bore­well in complete and the bore­well is functional, the site is handed over to the E&M (Electrical and Mechanical) Wing of Delhi Jal Board and once the bore­well is handed over to the E&M Wing, the Zonal Engineer and the Junior Engineer do not have any control over the bore­well. During cross examination, he further deposed that he does not know if any repair was carried out by the E&M Department including replacement of pipes in the bore­well after handing over the same to the E&M department. He further admitted during cross examination that it is the responsibility of E&M department for day to day maintenance and repairs of the bore­well.

50.From the above, it is clear that it was E&M department who was looking after the day to day maintenance and repair of the borewell in question during that period of around five years. However, witness from E&M department of Delhi Jal Board has neither been cited nor produced nor examined by the prosecution and also no record has been produced before this court to show that after handing over the bore­well in question to E&M Department, no maintenance or repair work was carried out by E&M Department in the bore­well in question. The investigating officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma admitted during cross examination that he did not enquire or record statement of any official of Delhi Jal Board with regard to the taking out of any pipe/any repair work from the CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 43 of 76 said borewell after taking the possession of the site/borewell and till the date of inspection and also did not seize any register from E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board. The witness from E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board could have facilitated the court in adjudicating the matter in this regard. It is not the case of the prosecution that witness from E&M Department was not traceable or could not be find out. By not citing, producing and examining the witness from E&M Department, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused persons. In these circumstances, since the bore­well in question was under the care of E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board for such a long period of time and also there is nothing on record to show that no repair or maintenance work was done in the bore­well in question, therefore, no responsibility can be fastened upon Ravinder Singh A­1. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that Johnson Pipes were not used in the bore­well in question.

51.Now coming to the second aspect whether invoice/bill Mark PW9/Y submitted by contractor A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, on the basis of which the payment was released to A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, was a forged one.

52.In order to prove forgery, the prosecution has examined PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, owner/authorized signatory of M/s Ambica CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 44 of 76 Engineering Pvt. Ltd. who deposed that vide production­cum­ receipt memo dated 16.04.2013 Ex. PW9/A, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI including invoice no.469 dated 01.09.2008 Ex. PW9/B. He further deposed that vide production­cum­receipt memo already Ex. PW8/A­1, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI including ledger account of R.B. Sales (India) for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 Ex. PW9/C. He further deposed that tax invoice no.5161 dated 20.09.2008 mentioning the name of his company and issued in favour of M/s R.B. Sales (India) marked as Mark PW9/Y, was not issued by his Firm to M/s R.B. Sales (India) at any time. He further deposed that though invoice Mark PW9/Y is in the name of Ambica Engineering P. Ltd. and in the same format but several columns are not printed in the above invoice i.e. book number, invoice number, address of registered office and the name of the printer. He further deposed that the invoice Mark PW9/Y does not bear his signature or the writing or the signature and writing of any of his employees and appears to be forged invoice. He further deposed that he never dealt with the business in respect of Johnson Pipes. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

53.The prosecution also examined Sh. D.S. Reddy, Proprietor of Krishna Jala Borewells who deposed that in the year 2008, he got contract to install borewell and rain water harvesting from DMRC CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 45 of 76 and his firm used to purchase the steel pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering whose proprietor was Sh. Tilak Raj Magon. He further deposed that through production­cum­seizure memo dated 29.04.2013 Ex. PW10/A, he had handed over tax invoice no. 469 dated 01.09.2008 Ex. PW10/B issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to his firm M/s Krishna Jala Borewells and deposed that it is the same bill which was handed over by him to the CBI. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

54.Before adverting further, the investigation in the present matter has not been up to the mark. From every act of investigating agency what the Court expects is the fairness. Fairness of investigation in this case is not apparent from the face of record. It was all the more necessary for the investigating officer to observe all necessary care, caution and collect all possible material pieces of evidence to nail the arraigned accused persons for the charged offences. Of course, officers of CBI, the premier investigating agency, at the outset, cannot be said to be untrustworthy but when in a serious case of alleged misconduct by the public servant, what is expected by the court from the officers of the investigating agency, is to collect the best possible incriminating evidence at the first instance against such suspects/accused persons to lead credence and to avoid criticism. In the present case, the investigation, as carried out by the Investigating Officer, as discussed above, shows his lackadaisical and casual approach in investigating the present CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 46 of 76 matter.

55.The issue before this court is whether invoice Mark PW9/Y submitted by contractor/A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain is a forged and fabricated document or not. In the present case, Ex. PW10/B is stated to be original and Ex. PW9/B is stated to be carbon copy thereof bearing invoice no.469 dated 01.09.2008 from book no.10 allegedly issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Krishna Jala Borewells whereas Mark PW9/Y i.e. invoice no.5161 dated 20.09.2008 from book no. Nil allegedly issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s R.B. Sales (India) is stated to be forged document. It is pertinent to mention that work order no.104 between Delhi Jal Board and M/s R.B. Sales (India) for the borewell in question was executed on 06.09.2008 and the work of which was completed by M/s R.B. Sales (India) on 07.10.2008. In case M/s R.B. Sales (India) has allegedly purchased Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., if any, the same ought to have been purchased after the execution of work order dated 06.09.2008. However, the CBI has relied upon documents Ex. PW10/B and Ex.PW9/B bearing invoice no.469 from book no.10 which pertain to dated 01.09.2008 and vide this invoice, the CBI has alleged that the same was issued to M/s Krishna Jala Borewells and not to M/s R.B. Sales (India) and thus, no Johnson pipes were sold to M/s R.B. Sales (India) by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vide aforesaid invoices Ex.

PW10/B and Ex. PW9/B. Instead of relying upon invoices Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW9/B bearing no.469 pertaining to dated 01.09.2008, the CBI ought to have based its case on the invoice pertaining to period after dated 06.09.2008, the date on which work order qua the borewell in question was executed and work of which was completed on 07.10.2008. It is not understandable why the CBI has relied upon the invoices Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW9/B which pertain to dated 01.09.2008 as on the said date the work order qua the borewell in question was not executed and there is no explanation put forth by the CBI in this regard. I have perused both documents Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW9/B and perusal of the same shows that though all the particulars on both the documents are same but the invoice number 469 on the alleged original invoice Ex. PW10/B is below a line whereas invoice no.469 on Ex. PW9/B i.e. alleged carbon copy of Ex. PW10/B is on a line. How this difference has come on these documents, there is no explanation put forth by the CBI. It seems that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. got the invoices printed from the printers without printing of Book Number and Invoice Numbers thereupon which is apparent from the bare perusal of Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW9/B as Book Number and Invoice Number seem to have been separately stamped upon them lateron. Similarly, alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y is also without printing of Book Number and Invoice Number thereupon. Though no Book Number is written on Mark CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 48 of 76 PW9/Y but the invoice number is written as 5161 dated 20.09.2008. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not issue Invoice No.5161 dated 20.09.2008 to any person during the relevant financial years 2008­2009 but the entire investigation is completely silent in this regard and also witness PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not utter even a single word in his entire deposition before the court that Invoice No.5161 dated 20.09.2008 was not in existence or that they never issued any invoice bearing Invoice No.5161 during the financial years 2008­2009. There is also nothing on record to show how many Bill Books were used by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant financial years 2008­2009 when the work of the borewell in question was executed. Perusal of Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW9/B show that the name and address of Printer i.e. Anam Creations, 203, Risal Complex, Shiva Market, Delhi­34 is mentioned therein from where M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to get the Bill Books printed and when this document was seized by the CBI, the name and address of the said Printer had come in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer however, the cross examination of Investigating Officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma reflects that he did not inquire as to how many invoices Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. got printed in the name of CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 49 of 76 M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in a year and the name of the Printer from where M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to print the purchase vouchers and also he did not make witness to any Printer. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not issue Invoice No.5161 dated 20.09.2008 during the financial years 2008­2009, which gave a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution and hence, without there being any documentary proof contrary to the same, invoice No.5161 Mark PW9/Y alleged to have been issued to M/s R.B. Sales (India) by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., cannot be said to be a forged or fabricated document, as alleged by the CBI.

56.The base of PW­9 Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. alleging that invoice Mark PW9/Y appears to be forged document, has been stated by this witness during his deposition before the court by deposing that though Mark PW9/Y is in the name of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and is on the same format but several columns in the invoice Mark PW9/Y viz book number, invoice number, address of registered office and name of the printer are not there and the same does not bear his signature or writing or signature and writing of any of his employee. This part of deposition of PW­9 Tilak Raj Magon has lost its significance in view of the fact that alleged original/genuine invoice Ex. PW10/B was issued on 01.09.2008 i.e. prior to the execution of work order dated 06.09.2008 as well as completion of CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 50 of 76 work order of the borewell in question in the present case dated 07.10.2008 and more particularly when alleged original/genuine invoice Ex. PW10/B has been issued from Book No.10 whereas no Book number has been mentioned on alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y and thus, it is quite obvious that alleged original/genuine invoice Ex. PW10/B is a different bill and cannot bear the same contents as mentioned in alleged original/genuine invoice Ex. PW10/B.

57.So far as the writing as well as signature on alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the same bears the handwriting and signature of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain who is alleged to be one of the conspirators in the present case. During investigation, the Investigating Officer Inspector Shitanshu Sharma had obtained the specimen signatures and writings of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain in the presence of one independent witness Sh. Prem Chand who has been examined before the court as PW­14 and the questioned documents along with specimen writings and signatures were sent by the Investigating Officer to CFSL, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for scientific examination which were examined by Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific Officer­cum­Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi vide his report Ex.PW16/A who has been examined before the court as PW­16.

58.In order to connect A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain for the CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 51 of 76 commission of offences in the present case, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove on the record the nexus between A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain and A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossian, capacity and status of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain and his interest for the commission of offences in the present case. However, except the bald averments of the prosecution that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, there is nothing on record, worth the name, in the shape of documentary evidence to prove on record that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain. Even there is nothing on record to infer as to how the prosecution has come to the conclusion that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales (India). No document has been placed on record to prove as to in what capacity A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was working under A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales (India) and what was his status in the said Firm. The interest of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain for the commission of the offences in the present case has also not been proved on record and also it is not proved on record as to what he wrongfully gained by committing the alleged offences in the present case. The lackadaisical approach of the Investigating Officer in investigating the present case is apparent from his cross examination wherein he has admitted that he did not seize any register/salary slip, appointment letter or any other CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 52 of 76 document from R.B. Sales India to ascertain as to who was the employee of the said company at the relevant time. During the course of arguments, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI stated that though there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary evidence to show that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain but his name and role has been specifically mentioned in the charge­sheet which clearly shows that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was one of the conspirators in the commission of offences in the present case. During the course of arguments, the court also raised query from the prosecution to show even from the police file as to how the Investigating Officer has ascertained that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain or how Investigating Officer has taken his handwriting and in what capacity, to which Investigating Officer of the present case replied that as per his police file, he had given notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain and pursuant to the same statement of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was recorded by him and on the basis of the same, it can be inferred that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain. This submission of the prosecution is without any base as none of the same is a part of the charge­sheet.

59.On the other hand, PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. deposed in his examination­in­chief before the court that alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y was CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 53 of 76 neither written as well as signed by him nor any of his employees. No record of the employees working with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2008 has been placed on record by PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon and even the cross examination of this witness reflects that the Investigating Officer did not ask any list of his employees and no investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer to any employee. The cross examination of the Investigating Officer also reflects that he did not take the list of employees working with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. from Tilak Raj Magon. Even, the answers of Sh. Tilak Raj Magon during cross examination that he does not remember exactly how many employees were employed by him in his company in the year 2008­2009 whether there were 50 or 100 employees or that ESI and PF of any of his company's employee was not deducted by him, do not seem to be satisfactory nor inspired confidence when it is his admitted case during cross examination that his company is registered under the Company's Act. The fact that invoice Mark PW9/Y was neither signed by PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon nor any other Director/Employee or his company, has come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma during investigation which is apparent from the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Tilak Raj Magon and in that eventuality, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to obtain the specimen handwritings and signatures of the employees/authorized CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 54 of 76 signatories of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to prove on record that invoice Mark PW9/Y does not bear the signature of the employees/authorized signatories of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. but the Investigating Officer did not take any list of employees from PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon who were working with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also did not obtain the specimen signature of any of the employees of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and this fact has been admitted by Investigating Officer PW­ 15 Sh. Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination which has been duly corroborated by PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon Director M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during cross examination who deposed that the Investigating Officer did not take the sample handwriting or signatures of the Directors or employees of the company or his at any point of time. PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon admitted during cross examination that he cannot identify the signatures or handwriting of his all employees but in his deposition itself he has given different version before the court wherein it has come on record that Mark PW9/Y does not bear his handwriting as well as signature nor any of his employee which reflects that this witness could identify the handwriting and the signatures of his employees. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish on record that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales India at the relevant time as there is no evidence and documentary CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 55 of 76 proof come to record to ascertain the employment of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain at the relevant time and with whom he was employed.

60.Though the prosecution has examined PW­16 Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific Officer­cum­Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi to prove on record that alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y was in the handwriting of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain but once the prosecution has failed to prove on record that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales India at the relevant time, the report Ex. PW16/A on the alleged handwriting of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain has lost its significance and resultantly the deposition of this witness before the court is of no help to the case of the prosecution.

61.Even otherwise, independent witness Sh. Prem Chand, in whose presence it is alleged by the prosecution that the specimen handwritings and proceedings of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain were taken by the Investigating Officer during investigation, when examined before the court as PW­14, did not utter even a single word that in his presence, the specimen handwritings of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain were taken by the Investigating Officer. He deposed that he was made to sit in the CBI office for full day and some papers were prepared and signed by him in the evening and admitted his signatures at point A on documents Ex. PW16/C CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 56 of 76 (Colly) (D­15) i.e. the alleged specimen handwritings of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain. The cross examination of this witness clearly reflects that no proceedings were conducted by the CBI Officer in his presence regarding D­15 and he was asked to sign on some documents prepared by them. The evidence of this witness clearly proved on record that the specimen handwritings of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain were not taken in his presence. Interestingly, the prosecution did not declare this witness either hostile or sought permission for his re­examination. The tenor of the deposition of this witness clearly shows that no proceedings much less handwriting proceedings as alleged by the prosecution were conducted in his presence. The cross examination of the Investigating Officer also reflects that he did not seek any permission from the Court for obtaining sample handwriting of any person during investigation in the present case.

62.Perusal of alleged specimen handwritings of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain Ex. PW16/C (colly) and the cross examination of the Investigating Officer shows that A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain has given his specimen handwritings voluntarily. It is highly unbelievable that a person who knows fully well that he uses to forge the documents by way of his handwritings on them, is voluntarily agreed to give his specimen handwritings to any person but to say to the police officials. In the present case, the voluntariness of Raghu Raj Singh Gossain, being accused A­3, in CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 57 of 76 giving his specimen handwritings to the Investigating Officer does not seem to be probable more particularly when it has not been established on record that he was the employee of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s R.B. Sales.

63.As regards the fact that alleged though the format forged invoice Mark PW9/Y is same as that of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt.Ltd. but several columns are not printed on the same viz book number, invoice number, address of the registered office and name of the printer as mentioned in alleged original invoice Ex. PW10/B, the court has already observed that Ex. PW10/B was issued on 01.09.2008 i.e. prior to the execution of work order dated 06.09.2008 as well as completion of work order of the borewell in question in the present case dated 07.10.2008. The court has also already observed that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. got printed the invoices not only from Anam Creations, 203, Risal Complex, Shiva Market, Delhi­34 but also from M/s Malik Press, 1­B, Gopal Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi­33. Besides the same, there is nothing on record to prove that in the year 2008 M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used same format and print style of the invoices as that of the format and print style of the alleged original bill Ex. PW10/B which was allegedly being used by them in the year 2008. The prosecution in order to prove that invoice Mark PW9/Y is forged one, ought to have produced before the court in evidence any such invoice/bill of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt.

Ltd. which had been used by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2008 and then only comparison could have been made between the invoice Mark PW9/Y and such invoice/bill of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. but no such invoice has been produced before the court for comparison. Though it has come in the cross examination of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon that he has retained the copies of all the bills used by his company and handed over to the Investigating Officer but no such bills have been placed on record by the Investigating Officer. Instead of oral testimony of PW­9 Tilak Raj Magon, the base of saying that invoice Mark PW9/Y is forged/fake one could have been substantiated by this witness by showing to the court any documentary evidence i.e. invoices which were used by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2008­2009 but no such invoice has been produced before the court and as admitted, even during cross examination also PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon did not bring the copies of bills and he deposed on the basis of the records which were shown to him. The Investigating Officer admitted during cross examination that he obtained/seized invoices/bills of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to ascertain the genuineness of statement given by Tilak Raj Magon but no such record has been placed on record by the CBI. It is a cardinal rule of evidence that where documentary evidence exists, the same shall be produced as being the best evidence and the oral proof/testimony cannot be substituted for the CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 59 of 76 documentary evidence. Moreover, the source of making alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y not found out by the Investigating Officer nor any effort has been made to seize any incriminating material by conducting search in the office of A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain or by subjecting A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain to interrogation.

64.Ld.counsel for A­2 and A­3 argued that A­2 used to buy Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in cash as in cash purchases, they used to get more rebate on the material purchased from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. He further argued that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to issue different invoices for cash purchase and cheque purchase and in order to evade sales tax M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. does not reflect the cash dealings.

65.On the other hand, it has come in the deposition of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. before the court that they never dealt with Johnson Pipes.

66.Firstly, the court shall deal with issue whether M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ever dealt with Johnson pipes or not. Perusal of the record shows that the factum of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. being never dealt with Johnson Pipes, has come in the knowledge of Investigating officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma during investigation of the case which is apparent from the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 60 of 76 Engineering Pvt. Ltd., however, despite the same, the Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation in this regard. Even the Investigating Officer did not visit or conduct any search of godown of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to check whether they deal with Johnson Pipes or not and this fact has been admitted by Investigating Officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination which also finds support from the cross examination of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has come on record that the Investigating Officer had not visited godown and registered office of the company and no raid was conducted either in the office or in the godown.

67.It is pertinent to mention that deposition of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. that his Firm never dealt with the business of Johnson Pipe does not find support from the cross examination of other prosecution witness Sh. Tikam Chand Jain examined by the prosecution as PW­12 which reflects that prior to 2007, this witness had worked with A­2 M/s R.B. Sales (India) as well as M/s Sarawgi & Sons and used to go to purchase material on behalf of A­2 M/s R.B. Sales (India). Further cross examination of this witness also reflects that he used to purchase Johnson Pipes from M/s Bharti Waters, M/s Bharti Waters Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sumer Chand & Co. and M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Even this witness has gone to the extent by CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 61 of 76 deposing that whenever M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not have the required material including Johnson Pipes, they used to arrange the same and he had told CBI official that he used to purchase Johnson Pipe from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Though this witness was re­examined by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI but during his re­examination also this witness has categorically deposed that the CBI did not ask him for any document in order to show that he had purchased Johnson Pipes from M/s Bharti Waters, M/s Bharti Waters Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sumer Chand & Co. and M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. It has also come in the further re­examination of this witness that the bill used to be placed in office file and he cannot produce the said bills, as partnership firm was dissolved and the business was separated ten years ago, however, despite the same, no request was made on behalf of the prosecution to call such records in order to falsify the testimony of this witness. From the testimony of prosecution witness itself PW­12 Sh. Tikam Chand Jain, it is clear that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to deal with Johnson Pipes and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. never dealt with Johnson Pipes.

68.So far as the cash dealings are concerned, though, the cross examination of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reflects that no cash dealing used to take place in his company, however, except his bald statement, CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 62 of 76 there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary evidence to prove that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not use to do business dealings in cash. Even the subsequent cross examination of PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon also reflects that he has maintained cash book. Further cross examination of PW­9 Tilak Raj Magon also reflects that he had dealings with Sh. Tikam Chand Jain of M/s Sarawgi & Sons to whom he had sold various items pertaining to borewell. Sh. Tikam Chand Jain who has been examined by the prosecution as PW­12 before the court has categorically admitted during cross examination that in case of payment by cash, some discount used to be given by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The other prosecution witness PW­10 Sh. D.S. Reddy, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Jala Borewells with whom admittedly PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. has business dealing has also categorically admitted during cross examination that his Firm has been dealing with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd since 2004 and usually he used to buy articles by cheque but sometimes he used to pay in cash as whenever he used to buy in cash, he used to get some discount.

69.Moreover, perusal of the alleged original/genuine invoice no.469 dated 01.09.2008 Ex. PW10/B alleged to have been issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Krishna Jala Borewell shows that this document is silent about the mode of payment alleged to have been made by M/s Krishna Jala to M/s CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 63 of 76 Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Nothing is mentioned in Ex. PW10/B whether the mode of payment was in cash, cheque, draft, online etc. or there was any other manner. PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. also admitted during cross examination that in the bills issued by the company, there is no mention as to whether the payments were made by cash or by cheque. From the above, it is clear that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to do business dealing in cash as well.

70.Perusal of the record shows that neither the ledger account of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. nor of M/s Krishna Jala Borewells have been seized by the Investigating Officer. The deposition of PW­8 Inspector Veer Jyoti reflects that vide production­cum­ receipt memo Ex. PW8/B PW­15 Investigating Officer Shitanshu Sharma had received a Certificate regarding no ledger accounts in respect of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., besides other documents from PW­8 SI Mrs Veer Jyoti. However, perusal of the record shows that no such Certificate has been placed on record by the CBI and even nothing about the whereabouts of the same has been averred by the Investigating Officer during his deposition before the court. There is no explanation why the CBI has withheld the said Certificate. If the ledger account maintained by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. of M/s Krishna Jala Borewells and the ledger account maintained by M/s Krishna Jala Borewells of CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 64 of 76 M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were placed on record by the CBI, the court could have the opportunity to make comparison of the same with each other to ascertain whether M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to do business transaction in cash or not or that whether they are tallying with each other or not but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case. Even there is also nothing on record to show that Investigating Officer PW­15 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma has made any effort to seize the ledger accounts of either M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. or of M/s Krishna Jala Borewells. Though the deposition of PW­9 Tilak Raj Magon reflects that vide production­cum­receipt memo Ex. PW8/A­1, he had supplied to the CBI the ledger account maintained by them of A­2 R.B. Sales (India) for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 exhibited as Ex. PW9/C however perusal of the same shows that Ex. PW9/C is not accompanied with relevant certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and this fact has been categorically admitted by PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon during cross examination who deposed that he had not given certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act along with print out of Ex. PW9/C to the Investigating Officer and also the Investigating Officer had neither inspected nor seized the computer or the hard disc of his computer from where the print out was taken. Thus, the ledger account Ex. PW9/C cannot be looked into as the same is not admissible in evidence.

71.PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. admitted during cross examination that they follow all the accounting standards in the company and used to maintain the cash book, ledger, journal, stock register and all other relevant books of accounts and they also used to keep the old account books and register/ledgers in their record. Though it has also come in the cross examination of this witness that during investigation, all the statements of accounts, ledger, journal, stock register and all other relevant books of accounts of the parties concerned in this case, were supplied to the Investigating officer however, perusal of the record also shows that except the documents as mentioned in production­cum­receipt memos Ex.PW9/A and Ex. PW8/A­1, no other records have been seized by the investigating officer during investigation nor the same were produced before this court during the deposition of this witness. PW­9 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon also did not depose by which other production­cum­receipt memo he had handed over the said documents to the Investigating Officer. Even no such memo is on record to shows that Sh. Tilak Raj Magon has handed over any other documents besides the documents as mentioned in Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW8/A­1 to the Investigating Officer during investigation. On the other hand, the Investigating officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma categorically admitted during cross examination that he did not seize any sale, purchase register, purchase book, cash book, general account of M/s Ambica CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 66 of 76 Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also not seize any computer or hard disc of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. He further admitted during cross examination that he did not obtain the list of customers who dealt with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. from Tilak Raj Magon and investigate on the basis of invoices and information provided by Sh. Tilak Raj Magon. The said record ought to have been seized and produced before the court in order to help the court to find out the truth but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case.

72.Ld.Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI contended that the onus is upon A­2 to satisfy the court that he had purchased Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as the said fact was within the special knowledge of A­2.

73.Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act provides as under :­ "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."

74.However, section 106 Indian Evidence Act comes into play only after the prosecution has been able to prove prima facie case which the prosecution has failed in the present case.

75.From the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove on record by convincing and cogent evidence that invoice Mark PW9/Y is a forged bill/invoice.

76.The prosecution has alleged conspiracy of A­1 Ravinder Singh in showing favour to A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain and A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain in the installation of Johnson pipes in the bore­well in question as well as in submission of the forged invoice Mark PW9/Y. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express or partly implied. Even Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the co­conspirators.

77.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (4) Crimes 191 (SC) has held that:­ "To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means was primary condition and mere knowledge, even discussion, of plan by an accused would not per­se constitute conspiracy. It was also held that although, the agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication, the inference can only be drawn on the parameters in the manner of proved facts, in the nature of circumstantial evidence and whatever be the incriminating circumstance, it must be clearly established by reliable evidence and they must form the full chain whereby a conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn.

78.As regards the alleged conspiracy in the installation of the Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question, the court has already discussed above that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that Johnson Pipes had not been installed in the bore­well in question.

79.As far as the alleged conspiracy qua the forged invoice Mark PW9/Y, the said invoice Mark PW9/Y bears the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer (A­1) at point A and Sh. B.C. Patel, Zonal Engineer at point B but the main responsibility lies with contractor/A­2 to submit the same. PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer in his cross examination before the court admitted that it is not the duty of the Zonal Engineer/Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer to check the genuineness of the purchase voucher. This CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 69 of 76 witness further admitted during cross examination that it was the duty of the accounts department to check the genuineness of the purchase voucher and if any discrepancy is found by the account department in the file and the final bill with annexures, the accounts department sent the same with objection to him but in the present case, the account department put the file before him without any objection. He further admitted that the accounts department used to verify the purchase vouchers from its vendors telephonically and in case the telephone number is not mentioned in the purchase voucher, the accounts department can verify the same by sending a person to the vendor and thereafter only, the payment to be made to the contractor and that there is no role of the Junior Engineer in release of the payments.

80.PW­5 Vinay Kumar Tyagi who was Junior Accountant in the year 2008 from Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that in case any discrepancy is noted, the correction is made by accounts department and therefore, the documents along with final bill is sent to Executive Engineer however, in the present case, no objection was raised by the accounts department before sending the file for pay order and further the papers and the calculations etc. were in proper order.

81.From the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that Ravinder Singh A­1 who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time, was not required to personally verify the correctness and CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 70 of 76 genuineness of the bill submitted by A­2/contractor. There is no material evidence on record to suggest that A­1 Ravinder Singh contributed to the submission of forged bill or he verified or certified the same as genuine in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. Moreover, there is nothing on record which suggests that Junior Engineer is duty bound to verify the genuineness of the invoices/bills. Therefore, for the submission of the bill Mark PW9/Y, no liability can be fastened upon Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh A­1.

82.Moreover, PW­11 Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer admitted during cross examination that instructional order dated 06.09.2000 Ex. PW3/DA issued by Binay Kumar Jha, Director (F&A) is applicable to the accounts department. The other witness of Delhi Jal Board PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil) Vigilance Department has also admitted in his cross examination that circular Ex. PW3/DA was circulated in their office and the payment is released to the contractor only after properly checking is done by Executive Engineer and Accounts Department. PW­4 Sh.M.C. Joshi, Draftman (Grade­II), Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that the responsibility to release the payments was on EE and Accounts Department. The cross examination of Investigating Officer PW­15 Shitanshu Sharma also reflects that the fact of there being an instructional order Ex. PW3/DA, has come into his knowledge during investigation at the CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 71 of 76 time of recording of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam but despite the same, he did not inquire about Ex. PW3/DA from any other officials of Delhi Jal Board and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. He also admitted during cross examination that he also did not inquire from the Account Department of Delhi Jal Board whether they have verified the purchase voucher from its vendor before releasing the payment to the contractor. PW­5 Sh. Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Junior Accountant in the year 2008 with Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that circular Ex. PW3/DA was issued for Accounts Department but he did not follow the same in view of subsequent circular dated 02.11.2004 Ex. PW5/DB which was brought by this witness himself. In his further cross examination, this witness categorically admitted that subsequent circular does not replace the earlier circular as no such thing is mentioned, but in practice, they follow the subsequent circular Ex. PW5/DB.

83.Perusal of Ex. PW3/DA shows that vide this instructional order, it was imperative for Finance Officers to ensure that Contractor's bills submitted to them for clearance are duly and properly verified, including the verification of procurement bills regarding material such as pipes, cement, steel and valves etc., in original and field books and no contractor's bills shall be passed or payments made without the necessary compliance.

84.Subsequent instructional order Ex. PW5/DB also shows that it was CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 72 of 76 the duty of the Executive Engineers to obtain original procurement voucher from the contractor having CA No. and consumption noted thereon and then attested copy be enclosed with the bill with further directions to obtain along with the bill the test certificate and guarantee issued by the manufacturer from the contractor. All Accountants and All Junior Accountants also mentioned on Ex. PW5/DB and copy of this instructional order was sent to the concerned departments containing one of the instructions to all ACAs to ensure the compliance before releasing the payment.

85.Perusal of alleged forged invoice Mark PW9/Y shows that no CA Number is mentioned on it which was the requirement of Ex. PW5/DB and also there is no noting/initials of the officials of accounts department on Mark PW9/Y. During cross examination PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer from Delhi Jal Board admitted that there is no mention of any purchase voucher on the final bill on page no.1.

86.In the present case, payment was released to contractor/A­2 and the Finance Officers of Delhi Jal Board were bound to follow the instructions contained in the above instructional orders Ex. PW3/DA and Ex. PW5/DB but the same have not been followed in the present case. Moreover, PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer from Delhi Jal Board who after seeing the records including measurement book, strata chart, completion report, final bill along with its annexures admitted that the entries CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 73 of 76 in these documents correctly record the work, which was actually done and further after going through the official noting dated 07.10.2008 on Ex. PW4/E, he admitted that as per the said noting, bearing his signature at point B, the work was completed satisfactorily.

87.Perusal of measurement book Ex. PW3/D shows that work has been done as per work order. During cross examination, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer from Delhi Jal Board has deposed that certificate Ex.PW11/DA was issued in respect of the present case which is at page no.40 of measurement book Ex. PW3/D bearing his signatures at point A and that of Sh. B.C. Patel, Zonal Engineer at point B wherein it has been mentioned from point A to A1 that 'Work has been done as per work order'. The Investigating Officer PW­15 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma has also deposed same facts about the same in his cross examination.

88.From the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the opinion that since it was the duty of the Finance Department of Delhi Jal Board to verify the genuineness of invoice Mark PW9/Y, A­1 Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer who has personally supervised the material and work as well as issued the satisfaction certificate qua installation of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question which has also been signed, checked and cross checked by the officers of Delhi Jal Board, cannot be held criminally liable for the commission of alleged act of criminal conspiracy in the present CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 74 of 76 case.

89.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge of forgery as well as conspiracy against all the accused persons.

90.There is no fact proved by legally admissible evidence, oral or documentary, direct or circumstantial in nature, independent of sources which are likely to be tainted, of the arraigned accused persons having any meeting of minds for doing any illegal act or an act by illegal means or any amongst them having taken any active part in the commission of any conspiratorial acts in the present case. The report of Dr.D.V. Reddy is not conclusive piece of evidence and the same cannot be used as corroborative piece of evidence, as per discussion above. Also, as discussed above, the prosecution failed to establish the nexus of A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain with other accused persons in the commission of offences in the present case.

91.In view of my discussion hereinabove, it is apparent that no substantive evidence has come on the record to show that the accused persons have committed the charged offences. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against all the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts.

I accordingly, acquit all the accused persons for the offences CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 75 of 76 punishable under Sections 120­B read with 420, 468, 471 read with 468, 477­A IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act.

I also accordingly acquit all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

I also accordingly, acquit A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.

I also accordingly, acquit A­2 Rajesh Kumar Jain and A­3 Raghu Raj Singh Gossain for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC read with Section 468 IPC.

I also accordingly, acquit A­1 Ravinder Singh for the offences punishable under Section 477­A IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) and under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

92.In compliance of the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C. and on the direction of this court, all the accused persons have submitted their respective personal bond and surety bond which have been accepted.

93.Ahlmad/Junior Judicial Assistant is directed to page and book­ mark the file so as to enable digitization of the entire record.

94.File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. (Announced in the open court today i.e. 18.12.2020) (ANURAG SAIN) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)­11, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi CC No.: 283/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anrs. Page 76 of 76